United Wholesale & Warehouse Employees, Etc.

520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees , Local 261, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO [Perfec- tion Mattress & Spring Company] and Mark L. Taliaferro Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO and Mark L. Taliaferro. Cases Nos. 10-CC-390 and 10-CC-391. December 2, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed on November 10, 1958, by Mark L. Talia- ferro, an individual, against the Local Union and, separately, against the International Union, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued an order consolidating cases and complaint on November 21, 1958, against United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees, Local 261, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and against Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondents, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (A) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents and the Charging Parties. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that on and after October 31, 1958, the Respondents induced and encouraged the employees of certain retail furniture stores in the Birmingham, Alabama, area, and the employees of other employers, to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other- wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, with an object of forcing or requiring said employers to cease doing business with Perfection Mattress & Spring Company, herein called Perfection. On December 9, 1958, the Respondents filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. On January 7, 1959, all parties entered into a stipulation, which provides in pertinent part that the parties waive their rights to a hearing and to the issuance of a Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. In lieu thereof the parties stipulated that the entire record of this proceeding shall consist of the stipulation, the charges, the affidavits of service of said charges, the order consoli- dating cases, complaint and notice of hearing, the affidavit of service thereof, copy of the transcript of proceedings entitled "Rains, etc. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department. Store Union, et al., Civil Action 125 NLRB No. 50. UNITED WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, ETC. 521 No. 9258," in the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Alabama, Southern Division, and the answer of the Respond- ents to the complaint. The stipulation further provides that upon such stipulation, the record herein, and briefs to be filed by the parties, the Board may make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and may issue its Decision and Order as if the same facts had been adduced after hearing, Intermediate Report, exceptions, and oral argument before the Board. By an order issued on February 17, 1959, the Board approved the aforesaid stipulation, made it a part of the record herein, and trans- ferred the matter to, and continued it before, the Board. Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, and the entire record in the case, including the briefs filed by the Respondents, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Perfection Mattress & Spring Company is engaged at Birmingham, Alabama, in the manufacture and sale of mattresses, springs, furni- ture, and allied products. It annually sells and ships goods valued at more than $100,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama. We find that at all times material herein, Perfection has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.' We also find that at all times material herein Standard Furniture Company, Sidney Braswell Furniture Company, Braswell Furniture Company, Ross Black Furniture Company, F. G. Calder Furniture Company, Inc., Marks-Fitzgerald Furniture Company, and Wil- loughby Furniture Company, Incorporated, are each customers of Perfection, and are employers operating retail furniture stores in the Birmingham, Alabama, area. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and its affiliated local, United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees, Local 261, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE FACTS Following an impasse in bargaining, the Respondents engaged in a strike against Perfection on or about October 14, 1958. The dispute with .Perfection concerned its employees at Birmingham, and the ' Sieonons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (Member Jenkins concurring specially). 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondents picketed, at all times material herein, Perfection's premises in that city. When the pressure of the strike failed to pro- duce agreement or a contract between the parties, and apparently not being satisfied with the effectiveness of the picketing at Perfection, the Respondents, on or about November 7, 1958, by their agent, Romine, and others, began to follow Perfection trucks which were attempting to make deliveries to a number of retail furniture stores. These stores included Standard Furniture Company, Sidney Bras- well Furniture Company, Braswell Furniture Company, Ross Black Furniture Company, F. G. Calder Furniture Company, Inc., Marks- Fitzgerald Furniture Company, and Willoughby Furniture Company. The pattern of Respondents' conduct was to follow the Perfection trucks to the retail stores where mattresses were to be delivered and there to request the managers or others in charge to stop receiving or buying Perfection products until the strike was settled. When such request failed, the Respondents immediately placed pickets at the entrances of the stores. The testimony in the record in the injunction proceeding, which was stipulated by the parties as part of the record in the instant proceeding, makes this clear. Thus, Bibby, an employee of Willoughby Furniture Company, testified that Daniel, the Re- spondents' representative, told the employees at a union meeting that "we could picket the stores and try to stop the trucks that was coming in from Perfection," that they were going to picket all retail outlets, customers of Perfection, that did not stop handling Perfection goods. When Willoughby, Sr., said he would not refuse to take any more Perfection mattresses, two pickets appeared shortly thereafter and began to picket his store. An assistant to the Calder warehouse ship- ping clerk testified that Romine stood there a minute or two "and said he didn't have time to wait because he was following that truck," handed her a piece of paper to give to the manager for the latter to call him "because any mattresses that were left that day would be picketed." When Lowe, attorney for Sidney Braswell, asked Romine to call Daniel to straighten out a mistake in identity between that Company and the Braswell Furniture Company in the same city, the pickets were removed from Sidney Braswell to Braswell Furniture shortly after the call, and no attempt was made to picket Sidney Braswell further as, according to the testimony, it had not "violated the picket line." Similarly, at Standard, when its manager, Goodwin, told four persons who approached him on behalf of the Respondents that he was accepting Perfection merchandise, a picket appeared shortly thereafter with a picket sign in front of his store. The testimony shows that the pickets appeared at the various stores bearing a sign with the following legend : "Products made by Per- fection Mattress & Spring Company are made by non-union labor. UNITED WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, ETC. 523 As a consumer, please do not buy them. Local 261, AFL-CIO." They were, in all instances, stationed at or near the front entrances to the stores. While truck deliveries are made at the rear entrances to the stores, the evidence also indicated, however, that on a number of occasions deliveries of smaller packages, telegrams, and letters were made by way of the front door. At Ross Black all deliveries except truck deliveries were made through the front door. While for the most part the employees of the retail furniture stores arrived and left when the pickets were no longer there, it is clear from the record that the employees could, and did, see the pickets and the picket signs. Moreover, it was shown by the record that these employees use the front door to go to and from lunch and for coffee breaks. In virtually all instances, the front entrance is the common entrance used by the employees as well as the public. Moreover, it was testified that at Willoughby the employees go in and out of the. front door "all day long." Indeed, the record is uncontradicted that the employees of the retail furniture stores had to cross the lines when leaving the stores by the public entrances during the day. The picketing was enjoined by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on December 9, 1958. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the appeal of the Respondents from this order on April 30, 1959.2 Discussion The Respondents admit that an object of their picketing in front of the retail furniture stores of Perfection's customers was to force cessa- tion of business dealings between those store owners and Perfection. Counsel for the Respondents stated during the course of the injunction proceeding that : When we spoke to some of the managers of stores . . . and they said "we are not buying Perfection mattresses, we are not going to buy any more" we didn't even put any signs out there because that was our only purpose. [Emphasis supplied.] It is also uncontradicted that picketing was not confined to those times when Perfection employees were present with their trucks. The Respondents' attempt to exonerate their conduct on the basis that their picketing was intended only for the consuming public and was not addressed to neutral employees. An analysis of the entire record in this case indicates to us that the Respondents' contention is without merit. The Board has held, with court approval, that con- duct consisting of picketing- 2 Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO et al. (Perfection Mattress & Spring Co.) v. Rains, 266 F. 2d 503 (C.A. 5). 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD necessarily invites employees to make common cause with the strikers . . . irrespective of the literal appeal of the legends on the picket signs.' Its very purpose . . . is to exert influences, as the Supreme Court has recognized .4 And directing the printed appeal to the consumer, in our opinion, does not negate those influ- ences. It is sufficient that the necessary effect of the picketing is to induce employees to engage in a work stoppage.' The Board made clear its view of common entrance picketing in Southern Service Company, Ltd.,' where it held that such picketing violates Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by reason of the implicit appeal to the em- ployees of the retail stores who are employed by employers who are not parties to the labor dispute. In that case, the notice which was originally directed to "the public" was later changed to "Notice to Patrons." The foreseeable consequence, or stated differently, the nat- ural or probable result, of picketing at an entrance used in part by employees is to induce a strike. It is equally well settled that Section 8(b) (4) (A) requires only that an object of the union activities and not the sole object fall within its proscription.' Thus, in the Gotham case,8 the Second Circuit held that the evidence showed that at least one of the Union's objectives was to apply pressure on the employers, other than the one with whom they had the dispute, for the purpose of causing them, in turn, to threaten the employer with whom they had a dispute with loss of business unless it came to terms with the Union. The fact that picketing may not be successful in inducing a work stoppage is not controlling on the question of whether the picketing is violative of Section 8 ('b) (4) (A) of the Act. That a work stoppage did not occur does not in any way detract from the fact that the pick- eting activity had as its necessary effect the inducing and encouraging of employees to engage in a work stoppage in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A). Within this frame of reference, we note that an employee of Ross Black Furniture Company, one of the retail furniture stores that was being picketed, testified at the injunction hearing that on November 6, 1958, the pickets were walking back and forth in front of that store, and speaking in loud voices repeated several times, "I would never cross a picket line, even to pay a bill. It's a good excuse not to pay it." He testified further that the pickets were carrying the picket 'Laundry, Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers Local 928 et at. ( Southern Service Company, Ltd.), 118 NLRB 1435, 1437, enfd. 262 F. 2d 617 (C.A. 9). 4 Hughes, et at. v. Superior Court of California, etc., 339 U.S. 460. 5Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO (Asso- ciated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc.), 118 NLRB 1251, enfd. 264 F. 2d 642 (C.A. 5). 6 Supra. 7 N,L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al. ( Gould & Preisner ), 341 U. S. 675, 689. s Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802 , etc. (Gotham Broadcasting Corporation), 110 NLRB 2166, enfd. 226 F. 2d 900 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 351 U .S. 962. UNITED WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, ETC. 525 signs "low over their shoulders with the sign straight up" and that "if someone had wanted to stop and read it, they couldn't have read it." This clearly appears indicative of employee inducement rather than consumer appeal. On November 14, 1958, the testimony indi- cates, a picket in front of the Willoughby store talked "loud enough to the other picket that we could hear him back in the store with the door closed." The picket, according to the witness, said, "Look at this junk in the window that is made with scab labor," referring to a sofa bed made by Perfection. It seems evident from a careful reading of the record that this was intended for the employees in the store; in- deed, according to the testimony, there were no customers present in the vicinity of the store at the time. When Willoughby's president reproved the picket, the latter became "impudent," and the president's son, an employee at the store, stepped in and "had some words" with the picket. Our dissenting colleagues fall into the obvious error of mistaking a characterization for a fact. The evidence at the hearing in the in- junction proceedings when appraised with care negates completely their characterization of the picketing activities in this case as "con- sumer" picketing. As we have already indicated, the evidence is clear and convincing that the Respondents were bent on forcing a cessation of business between Perfection and the retail furniture stores with which it did business. The picketing as conducted here neces- sarily required the employees of the neutral employers to work behind the picket lines. The total circumstances were such that far from indicating to the retail store employees that their appeal was not addressed to these employees, the pickets actually and most affirma- tively made sure that the employees were made aware of their appeal. That the picketing was in front of the stores is consistent with em- ployee inducement as the store employees used the front door entrance "all day long," as the evidence indicates. While truck deliveries were made at the rear entrances, all other deliveries were made by the front door. And with respect to the hours of picketing, we direct the attention of our dissenting colleagues to the fact that employees of the retail stores were required to cross the picket lines, as the testi- mony clearly demonstrates, frequently during the course of the day. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the facts of this case fall squarely within the rule of the cases referred to by our colleagues in the text of their dissent and which they attempt, unsuc- cessfully, to distinguish 9 9 The reference in the dissent to Member Jenkins ' dissenting opinion (with Member Bean ) in the Roberts case ( 1.19 NLRB 962 ) evidently results from a misreading of that opinion . In that case , Member Jenkins pointed out that the respondent union, among other things, "affirmatively encouraged employees of the picketed employers and drivers from other companies to pass through its picket lines." Here, not only is this absent but it is abundantly clear that the picketing was directed at those very employees. 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We also take note of the fact that the stipulation in this proceeding concedes that the Respondents, in furtherance of their dispute with Perfection, on or about October 31 and November 5, 6, 8, 10 , 14, 15, and 17, and thereafter picketed at the retail stores of "Standard, Sidney, Braswell, Ross Black, Calder, Marks-Fitzgerald, and Willoughby," at entrances used in common by some employees and customers of said store. We note further that the record made before the United States district court-the only testimony stipulated by the parties to be used in the Decision of this case-stands uncontradicted, and that in the this posture the record made before the district court which granted the Section 10 (1) injunction is the record on which the present Decision of the Board is predicated. The Respondents hav- ing chosen to present no other or further evidence before this Board, we necessarily rely on that record and the stipulation of the parties. Under all the circumstances including the record in the injunction proceeding and stipulation now before us and for the reasons stated, we find that by picketing the retail furniture stores of the named employers at entrances commonly used by the employees of those stores and the public , from time to time during business hours, for the pur- pose of forcing the owners of the retail stores to cease doing business with Perfection , the Respondents have induced and encouraged the employees of the owners of the retail stores to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to work in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLusIONs OF LAW The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, concludes as follows : 1. Perfection Mattress & Spring Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondents United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees, Local 261, and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, with which the Local is affiliated , are labor . organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The activities of the Respondents , as set forth above, which have been found to constitute unfair labor practices , occurring in connec- tion with the operation of the companies involved herein , and their customers, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, UNITED WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, ETC. 527 traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 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 Respondents Retail, Whole- sale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, and its affiliated local United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees, Local 261, their officers, representatives, successors, assigns, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of Standard Furniture Company, Braswell Furniture Company, Ross Black Furniture Company, F. G. Calder Furni- ture Company, Inc., Marks-Fitzgerald Furniture Company, and Willoughby Furniture Company, retail furniture dealers in the Bir- mingham, Alabama, area, or of any employers except Perfection Mattress & Spring Company, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, proc- ess, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said retail furniture dealers in the Birmingham, Alabama, area, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with Perfection Mattress & Spring Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of the Respondents in Birmingham, Alabama, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix" for posting by Perfection Mattress & Spring Company and the said retail furni- ture stores referred to above, they being willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, 10 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." 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond- ents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBERS FANNING and BEAN, dissenting : The decision of the majority bans consumer picketing, thus enlarg- ing the scope of proscribed activity under Section 8(b) (4) (A) with- out reference to its recent amendment." Needless to say, the legality of the conduct in issue should be decided under the law existing when it occurred, in the fall of 1958. Shortly before, the Supreme Court had interpreted the Act as containing no "wholesale condemnation of secondary boycotts." 12 The Court also said : "A union is free to approach an employer to persuade him to engage in a boycott, so long as it refrains from the specifically prohibited means of coercion through inducement of employees." Yet our colleagues burden their decision with a detailed account of how this Union-the Respondent- approached the secondary employers involved, all of which Respond- ent admits. And they advert in some detail to cases concerning the objective of picketing," when the only problem at issue here is whether there was inducement of secondary employees. Our colleagues in effect find that any picketing during working hours necessarily affects the employees of the establishment picketed. They attach no significance to the wording of the picket signs, which were clearly addressed to consumers, asking them not to buy. They attach no significance to the fact that the picketing was limited to the public sidewalk in front of the stores-the obvious location for a direct consumer appeal. In fact, they make it appear that the selection of this location intentionally entailed frequent crossings by secondary employees, although this was not the case and all such employees could-if possessed of strong scruples against picket-line crossing- have used. the rear entrances when picketing was in progress. They maximize two insignificant incidents that occurred during picketing at seven separate locations but they gloss over the fact that Respond- ents engaged in no picketing at all during the early morning and later afternoon hours, when employees reported for and left work, the fact "On September 14, 1959, this section was amended by Sec. 704 of Public Law 86-257, 86th 'Cong., S. 1555. 13 See Local 1976, etc. v. N.L.R.B. (Sand Door d Plywood Co .) ( June 1958 ), 357 U.S. 93, 99, affirming 241 F. 2d 147, enfg. 113 NLRB 1210. 13 N.L .R.B. v. Denver Building d Construction Trades Council , supra, which involved an admitted strike and the problem was one of objective, in contrast with the instant case where Respondent concedes the fact that its objective was proscribed but contends that inducement of secondary employees was not intended, hence that the "strike or inducement" portion of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) is not met; also N.L.R.B. v . Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, etc. ( Gotham Broadcasting Corp.), supra, where the picket signs carried no consumer appeal, picketing was carried on at all-not just public-entrances , and some picketing was done while secondary employees were still arriving for work, from which the court there concluded that the Board was justified in finding that the picketing at the premises of secondary employers was "in part at least intended to influence employees." UNITED WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, ETC . 529 that no attempt whatever was made to interfere with deliveries, and the further fact that no pickets were placed at rear or service entrances where deliveries of merchandise were customarily made. Just how the Respondent could have made it more clear that the appeal of its picketing was to customers and not to employees we do not see. Pos- sibly our colleagues would have permitted such picketing had it occurred at night, or on Sundays or holidays, on the assumption that it was thus patently restricted to that potential consumer, the window shopper. But even in those circumstances they would demand, no ,doubt, that the premises picketed be devoid of employees. We think they reduce the area for consumer appeal by picketing to a point clearly not intended by the Act as it existed at the time the events in question occurred. With a broad sweep, our colleagues say that the natural and prob- able result of picketing at an entrance used in part by employees is to induce a strike. With complete disregard of the legend on the signs, the locale of the picketing, and its disciplined and limited duration, they infer that it was calculated to induce and encourage employees to take action." They ignore those cases in 'which the courts have required independent evidence-apart from the mere fact of picket- ing-to support the inference of inducement, 15 or have made it clear that it is not the purpose of the Act to condemn all customer or sec- ondary picketing."B And, in our view, they specifically rely upon cases which do not support their conclusion on the facts here presented. For instance, in Associated Wholesale Grocery," unlike the instant case, the picket signs directly implicated the secondary employer by saying it was unfair, and the daily duration and locale of the picket- ing made it necessary for store employees to cross to go to work and for some regular supplier employees to cross. In Southern Service,"' :although factually somewhat closer to the instant case, there were inquiries by employees and deliverymen as to the purpose of the picket line and delay in some deliveries. When that case reached the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for enforcement, the 14 In this connection we note in Gardeners, Exterminators, etc. Local 399, AFL-CIO (Roberts & Associates), 119 NLRB 962 , that Member Jenkins has already committed him- self to the proposition that the Act does not per se outlaw picketing at the premises of secondary employers , and in that case, looked to the legend on the signs and the manner ,of picketing in concluding that the picketing in that case did not violate the Act. See his dissent with 'Member Bean at p. 965. zs N.L.R.B. v. Local 50, Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL- CIO (Arnold Bakers, Inc.), 245 F. 2d 542 (C.A. 2), setting aside 115 NLRB 1333; N.L.R.B. v. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 968, etc. (Otis Massey Co.), 225 F. 2d 205 (C.A. 5), setting aside 109 NLRB 61, cert. denied 350 U.S. 914. 11 N.L.R.B. v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459, etc. (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F. 2d 553 (C.A. 2), setting aside 111 NLRB .317, cert. denied 351 U. S. 962. 17Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745 AFL-CIO (Asso- ciated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc.), 118 NLRB 1251, enfd . 264 F. 2d 642 (C.A. 5). 1e See Laundry, Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers Local No. 928, etc. ( Southern .Service Company, Ltd.), 118 NLRB 1435, enfd . 262 F. 2d 617 (C.A. 9). 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD court stressed the fact that the unions "did nothing to dispel the nat- ural effect of a picket line," noting that the pickets had been instructed not to tell employees and deliverymen that they were free to cross the line. Instead the pickets handed out a card with the telephone num- ber of the union's representative. No such inquiries about crossing the line occurred in the instant case, and there is no evidence that the pickets were instructed not to explain that the appeal being made was simply what the signs themselves said. In fact, there is no evidence whatever in the instant case to except it from the rules so recently stated by the Ninth Circuit : "The cases are clear that secondary pick- eting may be done where the union makes clear to everyone just whom the picketing is directed at and why." 19 We think the Respondents made it abundantly clear that their ap- peal by picketing was to consumers and not to employees.20 Hence we would find no violation of 8 (b) (4) (A). 19 N.L .R.B. v. Laundry Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers, Local No. 928 (Southern Service Co.), 262 F. 2d 617, at 620 (C.A. 9). ° See Crowley's Milk Company, Inc. (Paterson Division ), 102 NLRB 996 , enfd. 208 F. 2d 444 ( C.A. 3), wherein the Third Circuit, at p. 447, ordered reinstatement of a striking employee who had engaged in consumer picketing of customers of his employer. The placards-as in the instant case-were carried in front of the places of business of various customers of respondent and requested the public and such customers not to buy respondent's products. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, AFL-CIO, AND ITS AFFILIATED LOCAL UNITED WHOLESALE AND WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 261 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 you that : WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Standard Furniture Company, Braswell Furniture Company, Ross Black Furniture Company, F. G. Calder Furniture Company, Inc., Marks-Fitzgerald Furniture Company, and Willoughby Furni- ture Company, or of any other employer, except Perfection Mattress & Spring Company, 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 to force or require said Standard: Furniture Company, Braswell Furniture Company, Ross Black Furniture Company, F. G. Calder Furniture Company, Inc., Marks-Fitzgerald Furniture Company, and Willoughby Furni-, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS, ETC. 531 ture Company, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with Perfection Mattress & Spring Company. UNITED WHOLESALE AND WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 261, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, AFL-CIO, Dated----------------- Labor Organization. By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPART- MENT STORE UNION, AFL-CIO, 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. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO and Peyton Packing Company, Inc. Case No. 33-CC-61. December 2, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On July 21, 1959, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and had not engaged in others and recommending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of his exceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and-hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions noted below.' ,In support of the finding that the picketing at the premises of retail store customers of Peyton Packing Company violated Section 8(b) (4) (A), Chairman Leedom and Member Rodgers rely not only on the reasons stated by the Trial ' Examiner, but also on the rationale set forth in the majority opinion in United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees, Local 261, etc. (Perfection Mattress & Spring Company ), 125 NLRB 520 ; Member Fanning relies only on the Trial Examiner's rationale. For the reasons adopted by him in Dallas General Drivers, etc. (Associated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc .), 118 NLRB 1251, 1254, enfd. 264 F. 2d 642 ( C.A. 5), Member 125 NLRB No. 63.