Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 107

HIGHWAY TRUCKDRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 107 551 Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent and Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc. Case No. 4-CC-103. April 2, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On December 30, 1958, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged 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 Intermediate Re- port attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications. Relying on the credited testimony of Halmon, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent Union violated 8(b) (4) (A), in that James induced the employees of Weber to refuse to unload the trucks of Virginia-Carolina by telling them they were not to unload Virginia-Carolina trucks. In view of the above finding, we find it unnecessary to pass on the issue as to whether the picketing occurred sufficiently close to the location of the situs so as to be lawful under the criteria established in Moore Dry Dock., We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) relying on the credited testimony of Pratt that James came up to his truck inquiring if he did not know that Vir- ginia-Carolina Freight Lines were on strike, and saying, "If this kept up somebody might get hurt." Thus, we find on the basis of the entire record in this case that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by inducing or encouraging employees of David Weber Company to engage in. concerted refusals in the course of their employment to perform work or services for their employer, with an object thereof being to. 1 Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547. 123 NLRB No. 65. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD force or require Weber to cease doing business with Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc., and by threatening employees of Virginia- Carolina, thereby restraining and coercing them in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, In- dependent, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Inducing or encouraging employees of David Weber Company, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans- port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services for their employer, where an object thereof is to force or require David Weber Company or any other employer to cease doing business with Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc. (b) Restraining and coercing the employees of Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc., by threats of physical harm, or by like or related conduct restraining or coercing employees of other employers doing business with Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc., in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action : (a) Post at its business offices and at the meeting halls of Local 107 copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Local 107, be posted by the said Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60 days thereafter in con- spicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writ- ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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." HIGHWAY TRUCKDRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 107 APPENDIX 553 NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF HIGI-IWAY TRUCKDRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 107, INTERNATIONAL BROTIIERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT 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 : AVE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of David Weber Company, or any other employer to engage in a strike or a con- certed refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac- ture, process, transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform any serv- ices for their employer, where an object thereof is to force or re- quire David Weber Company, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc. VVE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Virginia- Carolina Freight Lines, Inc., by threats of physical harm or by like or related conduct restrain or coerce employees of other employers doing business with Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc., in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. HIGIIWAY TRUCKDRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 107, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Cr[AUFFEURS, WAREI--IOUSEMEN AND HEL1'ERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), was heard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Sep- tember 29, 30, and October 1, 1958, pursuant to due notice, with all parties repre- sented by counsel and participating in the hearing. The complaint issued on August 26, 1958, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board 1 and based on a charge duly filed and served, alleged in substance that the Respond- ent had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (4)(A) of the Act, by reason of the following: 1 The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as the General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. The Respond- ent is referred to as the Union and as Local 107, and the Charging Party as Virginia- Carolina. All events herein occurred in 1958. 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1) On or about July 15, and on other dates , the Union through its officers, agents, or representatives , including, among others, William "Goldie" James, threatened and coerced employees of Virginia -Carolina with violence to their per- son and trucks of Virginia-Carolina. (2) On or about July 15, the Union ordered , directed, instructed , and appealed to the employees of David Weber Company (herein called Weber ) not to unload the trucks of Virginia-Carolina, with an object of forcing or requiring Weber to cease doing business with Virginia-Carolina. In its answer the Union denied the allegations of unfair labor practices. It affirmatively averred that William "Goldie" James, herein called Goldie or James, respectively, was the Union's agent on July 15, for a very specific and limited purpose with only specific and limited authority. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF VIRGINIA -CAROLINA FREIGHT LINES, INC., THE CHARGING PARTY Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc., the Charging Party herein , is a Virginia corporation with its principal office at Martinsville , Virginia. During the year 1957, it provided hauling services between the States of Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania , Virginia, and the District of Columbia, valued in an amount exceed- ing $100,000 . I find that Virginia-Carolina is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, is a labor-,organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Events on July 15 and 16 Charles Echols , a truckdriver for Virginia-Carolina, testified that he arrived at Tioga and Richmond Streets , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , the location of the David Weber Co., at about 7 a.m. on July 15 to find three Virginia -Carolina trucks and two other trucks, which were identified as Eichelberger's, with merchandise con- signed to . Weber, waiting to be unloaded . Since the Weber receiving bay can accommodate only one truck, the usual procedure is for the platform man to check with the waiting truckdrivers, the order in which they are to be called. Sometime after 7 : 30 a.m. he calls to the driver of the first truck to back in to have his truck unloaded. As one truck is unloaded , Weber's platform man calls out to the driver of the next truck to back into the receiving bay for unloading.2 Echols parked his truck on Tioga Street, opposite the Weber receiving bay and directly in front of a Virginia -Carolina truck driven by Walter Branch, the third of the Virginia-Carolina trucks slated to be unloaded that morning. The first Virginia-Carolina truck had already been unloaded, and the second one was in the receiving bay practically unloaded shortly before 9 a .m.3 Echols was in he cab of his truck getting set to move it ahead a bit to allow Walter Branch suffi- cient space to get his truck into position for parking into the Weber receiving bay, when an automobile turned the corner from Richmond Street into Tioga Street and stopped in front of Echols' truck, thus preventing him from moving. The driver of the automobile was identified at the hearing as William "Goldie " James, an organizer for the Union. Goldie approached Echols, while the latter was still in the truck cab and asked what he was doing there with a load of paper . Goldie also inquired if Echols did not know "that the boys were on strike up there, and was [I ] trying to foul things up." Echols replied that he thought the strike had been settled . Goldie then asked Echols to verify his name and address which Goldie took from an identification card that was hanging on the ignition key. Goldie left Echols' truck and proceeded to the Virginia-Carolina truck which Branch was driving. Echols turned off his ignition and followed a short distance behind Goldie. 2It appears from the record that the Virginia-Carolina trucks should have been the first three trucks to be unloaded that morning. 3 This finding is based on the testimony of Leroy Ralmon , a Weber platform man, who unloaded trucks. HIGHWAY TRUCKDRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 107 555 Ralph Pratt, the helper on Branch 's truck testified that Goldie came up to his truck and asked if he did not know that Virginia -Carolina Freight Lines was on strike. Goldie also commented that "if this kept up somebody might get hurt." Goldie then asked his name and Pratt gave him the name "Edward Lemmon" a fictitious name. Walter Branch, employed by Virginia -Carolina as driver of the truck on which Pratt is a helper , testified that he was sleeping in the sleeper above the truck cab when he was awakened by an argument between Pratt and Goldie. Branch asked what was going on. Goldie inquired whether Branch did not know that Virginia-Carolina was on strike . Branch walked away to telephone his boss. Goldie walked across the street toward the Virginia -Carolina truck in the Weber receiving bay. James testified that he has been employed as an organizer for the Union since May 30, 1958 . On the morning of July 15, he "was sent to get Virginia-Carolina trucks" and was told there were several at the Weber plant . He arrived at the street where the plant is located between 8 a.m. and 9 a .m. and observed a Virginia-Carolina truck in the receiving bay and two Virginia-Carolina trailers on the other side of the street , parked up on the pavement . He testified further that he asked Echols if he did not know that Virginia-Carolina was on strike. Upon Echols' affirmative reply, followed by the comment that he had instructions to unload his truck, James stated he appealed to him as one union man to another. Echols told James he would have " to get in touch with his boss. James testified further that he then went back to the Virginia-Carolina truck and spoke to the driver, who told him his name was George Lemmons , and also appealed to him as a unionman to honor a picket line . According to James, he was told to mind his own "g- d business," that he, the driver , was out to make a living and nobody was going to stop him. James then crossed to the other side of the street. While the testimony of Echols, Pratt, and Branch is at variance in some minor detail, such as the arrival time of Goldie on Tioga Street , it was in the main consistent and mutually corroborative and I credit it over the conflicting testimony of James who did not impress me as a reliable witness. Echols testified that as Goldie crossed the street to the receiving bay, the Weber employees had finished unloading the second Virginia -Carolina truck driven by Jessie Mickles, and Mickles appeared to be ready to pull his truck out. Echols heard Goldie say to Mickles, "don't you know that you fellows are on strike up here?" Mickles replied that he thought the strike was settled . Goldie, according to Echols , then said to Mickles, "you fellows don't know nothing, do you?" Goldie asked Mickles if he was unloaded to which he received an affirmative reply. Goldie mentioned something about a picket line and Mickles said he did not see any pickets and that he was leaving, at which point Goldie said "well, we don't want the empty truck. We just want to tie up the freight. You can go ahead." 4 After Mickles drove his truck out of the receiving bay, Echols observed Goldie take a sign which he had in his hand with the legend "On strike, Virginia-Carolina" and place it on himself "such as strike placards are worn ," and pace back and forth in front of Weber's receiving and shipping doors and almost to the corner. Such picketing by Goldie continued for about a half hour , according to Echols. As previously noted, Weber employees John Green and Leroy Halmon were on the receiving bay platform unloading the Virginia-Carolina trucks on the morning of July 15. Green testified that he observed James that morning standing on the sidewalk in front of the platform carrying a picket sign which read , "On strike, Virginia-Carolina ." Green was unable to state how long James was out on the sidewalk.5 Halmon testified that he saw James that morning on the sidewalk carrying a piece of rolled up paper in his hand . Halmon describing the position of the truck 4 Mickles did not appear as a witness at the hearing . Echols testified that he did not hear the entire conversation between Goldie and Mickles. r At the hearing, Green was confronted with an affidavit which was prepared by a Board field examiner and signed by Green on July 28. Green repudiated most of the con- tents of the affidavit . Green did not impress me as a reliable witness. Other than the findings hereinabove made I do not consider his testimony reliable . Further, since Green was merely a Weber employee , appearing as a witness called by the General Counsel, and not as a party to the proceeding herein, his affidavit cannot be used as probative evidence, but may only serve the purpose of impeaching him. This is so even though Halmon adopted the contents of Green's affidavit in his own affidavit and testified that with the exception of one paragraph its contents were true. See Southern R. Co. v. Gray, 241 U.S. 333; U.S. v. Michener, 152 F. 2d 880 ( C.A. 3) ; N.L.R .B. v. Quest-Shop Mark Brassiere Co., Inc., 185 F. 2d 285 ( C.A. 2). 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the receiving bay stated that the engine of the truck extended almost to the sidewalk. A platform in the receiving bay is along the side of the truck about 6 feet from the rear of the truck. Halmon and Green had finished unloading the second Virginia-Carolina truck driven by Mickles shortly before 9 a.m. Halmon testified that he was standing halfway on the trailer and halfway on the receiving platform, about 25 feet from the cab of the truck, getting ready to send the driver out of the receiving bay, when James came up to the cab of the truck and said in a voice loud enough for Halmon to hear, "we wasn't [sic] supposed to unload the truck." Halmon could not state with certainty that this remark by James was addressed to him or to the truckdriver. In this regard, it is significant to note the following question to Green about his affidavit, referred to supra, and his answer: Q. But you say this man did not say that you weren't supposed to unload Virginia-Carolina? A. No, he didn't say it to us. He might have made the statement. I don't believe he did make the statement, but he didn't make it to me. He never said anything. He never addressed hisself [sic] to me at all. A. Maybe I might have said the man made the statement, but he never addressed me. No other Virginia-Carolina trucks were unloaded on July 15. James remained in the vicinity of the Weber plant the rest of the day. From time to time he walked up and down the street on both sides. Echols stated he had several general conversations with James during the day, while waiting to see what would happen. At about 4 p.m. a Virginia-Carolina truck driven by Jim Corum with helper Marshall Corum parked about a block away from Tioga and Richmond Streets. Echols testified that Jim Corum stopped to ask for directions to his destination. Goldie approached them and inquired what Corum was doing there. Corum mentioned he was going to Campbell's and proceeded to his truck, with Goldie following him. Echols testified further that he heard Marshall Corum and Goldie discussing the merits of the Virginia-Carolina drivers versus the Union and Goldie referred to the drivers as "scabs." There ensued some loud argument, and a crowd of some 10 to 15 people collected. Echols stated he recognized several in the crowd as men he saw standing around Tioga Street most of the morning and also observed some of them during the day in Goldie's company. Echols heard several people in the crowd shout "if they want to be rough, lets show them what rough is, lets fight." Echols testified that later that day, two men wearing dark glasses drove up in an automobile. They went over to Goldie and "seemed" to speak to him. Echols had not seen them earlier, nor was he able to recognize them. The two men then stood to the right of Echols' truck. As he approached them and inquired if things were settled, one of the men told Echols, "we could take our trucks and get the hell out of town and don't come back, but if you want to you may stay here tonight, but we cannot be held responsible for what may happen to you or your truck if you stay after dark." Echols testified also that after this conver- sation he asked Goldie who the two men were and he was told "they are from the hall." Echols drove his truck away from the vicinity of the Weber plant. He returned the following day. Neither of the Virginia-Carolina trucks driven by Echols or Branch was unloaded. James testified that he talked with Mickles the driver of the second Virginia- Carolina truck in the receiving bay, and only appealed to him as one union man to another. He stated he asked Mickles if the latter did not know that the Union was still on strike. Mickles answered "yes," but went on to say that he was going to make a living and no "g- d- Yankee" was going to stop him. James stated he told Mickles he was going to picket him, whereupon he put on his picket sign and was picketing for several minutes when he heard someone shout "allright, Virginia-Carolina you are unloaded take it away." With that, the driver pulled his truck out of the receiving bay and James stepped to the side and discontinued picketing. He stated that on July 15 and 16, when there were no Virginia-Carolina trucks in the receiving bay he was on the sidewalk, outside of the plant, at the corner. James denied any conversation with either Green or Halmon. He testified that he spoke to Weber's superintendent Sparacino on the sidewalk outside the plant, when the latter arrived there on July 15 shortly before 9 a.m. James stated he told him the Union had Virginia-Carolina on strike, and if any Virginia-Carolina HIGHWAY TRUCKDRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL 107 557 trucks back in to the receiving bay he would picket them, but so far as Eichelberger was concerned, he was not there for them and they could back in. Later on he was called up on the receiving platform by Sparacino. There he talked with Sparacino, Jericho, a business agent for Teamsters Local 470 which represents Weber's drivers, and an unidentified person. Jericho asked "how about our trucks?" James replied, "there's nothing I can do about any other trucks. I am only here for one reason, is for the Virginia-Carolina." James denied making any threats to any Virginia-Carolina employees. With regard to the two men who drove up at about 5 p.m. on July 15, he testified he did not know who they were. He further testified that with respect to the crowd that collected when he was talking to Corum they were either truckdrivers who hang out in a saloon on the corner of Richmond and Tioga Streets, or factory workers on their lunch break. I have heretofore found James to be an unreliable witness and do not credit his testimony set forth above. Conclusions The Union, while admitting in its answer that James was its agent for a specific and limited purpose, denied that he had general authority to speak for or act as its general agent. The record is clear from James' testimony, that on July 15, the Union sent him to the Weber plant "to get Virginia-Carolina trucks." It follows therefore, and I find that the Union is chargeable with James' activities and conduct within the scope of such authority. N.L.R.B. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 182, Utica, New York and vicinity, AFL (Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp.), 219 F. 2d 394 (C.A. 2), enfg. 108 NLRB 1323. Indeed, "A principal may be responsible for the act of his agent within the scope of the agent's general authority . . . even though the principal has not specifically authorized or indeed may have specifically forbidden the act in question." Sunset Line and Twine Company, 79 NLRB 1487, 1509. Section 8(b) (4) (a) of the Act, which the complaint alleges was violated by the Union in the insant matter, provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a union or its agents- to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities or to perform any services where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring . any employer or other per- son . . . to cease doing business with any other person; In the usual case, the situs of the picketing furnishes a reasonable index for distinguishing between primary and secondary activity. In the instant case however, Virginia-Carolina, the primary employer was doing business at the Weber premises, a neutral employer, where the activity complained about took place.6 In common situs situations the question for resolution is whether the Union intended directly to involve the neutral employer and his employees, or whether such involvement was merely an incidental result or ac- tivity aimed at the primary employer. This question is essentially an evidentiary one. To aid in resolving it, the Board in the Moore Dry Dock Company, case 92 NLRB 547, formulated a series of evidentiary guides for ascertaining whether picketing at a "common situs" has a legitimate primary, or an illegal secondary objective. Thus, for the picketing to qualify as primary, it must, at least, meet all of the following conditions: (a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises; (b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs; (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary em- ployer. O Since the General Counsel conceded at the hearing that the location of Virginia- Carolina facilities in places other than Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was not to be con- strued so as to limit the right of the Union to picket the Virginia-Carolina trucks in the Philadelphia area, I will not apply the rule laid down by the Board in Washington Coca Cola Bottling Company, 107 NLRB 229, enfd. 220 F. 2d 380 (C.A., D.C.). 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In its brief, the Union argues that it complied with the requirements set forth in Moore Drydock and therefore it did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(A). I do not accept this, for as found hereinabove, James picketed in front of both the receiving and shipping bays of Weber for a period of time after the Virginia-Caro- lina truck pulled out of the receiving bay. Even though I have reached the conclusion above, it is equally important to point out that the Moore Drydock criteria are not exclusive, for there may be other evidence in the record, as indeed there is in the instant case, which demon- strates that the Union had an illegal secondary objective. In such a situation, a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(A) may be found, notwithstanding compliance with the Moore Drydock criteria. See Truckdrivers Local Union 728, etc. (Campbell Coal Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 249 F. 2d 512, (C.A., D.C.) cert. denied 355 U.S. 958; N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America 250 F. 2d 184 (C.A. 1). I am convinced from Halmon's credited testimony that when Goldie declared in a voice sufficiently loud to be heard on the receiving platform that "we wasn't supposed to unload the [Virginia-Carolina] truck," that this was a command from Goldie to Halmon and any other Weber employee on the receiving plat- form 7 engaged in unloading Virginia-Carolina trucks, to cease performing this work, with the object of forcing Weber to cease doing business with Virginia- Carolina. The General Counsel also urged at the hearing and counsel for Virginia-Carolina contends in his brief, that the Union's picketing should have been limited to ap- peals to Virginia-Carolina employees. Therefore, they argue, that when the Virginia-Carolina truck left Weber's receiving bay, the situs of the dispute was across the street, where the other Virginia-Carolina trucks were parked. Can it be said that the picketing on the sidewalk across the street from the parked trucks was not a "place reasonably close to the location of the situs?" To draw so fine a line is virtually impossible . To do so, carries with it a dangerous poten- tial for interference with legitimate picketing even at a "common situs." 8 I believe it unnecessary to pass on the issue, especially where, as here, independent evidence of forbidden "inducement" has been found to exist. The Union also contends in its brief that Weber employees at no time ceased work or refused to perform any work, and that the two Virginia-Carolina trucks which were not unloaded were never ordered to be backed into the receiving bay. The Board with the approval of the Court of Appeals has held that, "To consti- tute inducement in the statutory sense, it is not necessary that the union's appeal succeed in producing a strike or concerted refusal to work, it is enough that the appeal was made for that purpose." General Millwork Corp., 113 NLRB 1084, enfd. 242 F. 2d 932 (C.A. 6). Upon the foregoing and the record as a whole I conclude and find that the Union in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(A) ordered, induced, and encouraged Weber employees not to unload the Virginia-Carolina trucks with an object of forcing or requiring Weber to cease doing business with Virginia-Carolina. With respect to the allegation in the complaint that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) in that its officers, agents, or representatives threatened and coerced employees of Virginia-Carolina with violence to their person and to the trucks of Virginia-Carolina, I will not base a finding of agency on Echols' testimony, regarding the two unidentified men who threatened him. The only evidence in the record adduced by the General Counsel in support of this allegation in the complaint was obtained from Pratt who testified that in the course of conversation with Goldie regarding the Virginia-Carolina strike, Goldie commented "if this kept up somebody might get hurt." The fair inference to be drawn from the remark, even though it did not contain specific reference to Pratt, or for that matter to any other Virginia-Carolina driver, is that it was a threat aimed at all Virginia-Carolina employees working on such trucks in the Philadelphia area, and I so find. It must be pointed out that threats by a union are not excused by the fact that they may not have achieved their purpose. As the Board stated in Ready Mixed Concrete Company, 117 NLRB 1266, 1267 footnote 1, "it is well settled that the Act does not require proof that coercive conduct had its desired effect." Ordinarily the Board will not issue a remedial order in those situations where there has been an isolated violation. However, in the circumstances of this case, after a careful study of the witnesses testimony and having observed them on the witness stand, and with a view toward preventing a repetition of threats, I am of T It will be recalled that Green was working with Halmon on the receiving platform. 8 Sections 7 and 13 of the Act protect legitimate primary activity. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION 559 the opinion that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to issue a remedial order, and I will so recommend hereinafter. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By inducing or encouraging employees of Weber to engage in concerted refusals in the course of their employment to perform work or services for their employer, with an object thereof being to force or require Weber to cease doing business with Virginia-Carolina, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) (A) of the Act. 3. By threatening employees of Virginia-Carolina, thereby restraining and coercing them in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act Respond- ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the operations of Virginia-Carolina, as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev- eral States and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in activities which violate Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (4)(A) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action, which I find necessary to remedy and remove the effect of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Pacific Maritime Association and A. T. Satchell International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 10, Independent; and International Longshoremen's and Ware- housemen's Union, Independent and A. T. Satchell. Cases Nos. 20-CA-1320 and 2O-CB-548. April °L, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On September 30, 1958, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Pacific Maritime Association and the Respondent International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 10, Independent, had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Independent, had not engaged in any unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint and, in effect, recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect to such party. Thereafter, the Respond- 123 NLRB No. 66.