Dallas General Drivers, Etc. Local Union No. 745

DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 683 entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or require the Company to assign the disputed work to ILA members rather than to the Company's own employees who are not members of that organization. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act. 1. Clerks and Checkers Local Union No. 1692, International Long- shoremen's Association, Independent, and International Longshore- men's Association, Independent, are not, and have not been, entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or require J & R Contractors, Inc., to assign the work of timekeeping and related duties to members of said Local 1692 rather than to said Company's own employees who are not members of said labor organization. 2. Clerks and Checkers Local Union No. 1692 and its parent organi- zation, International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, shall within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring J & R Contractors, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the particular work in dispute to members of said Local 1692 rather than to said 'Company's own employees who are not members of said labor organization. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745 and Macatee, Inc. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Macatee, Inc. Cases Nos. 16-CB-158 and 16-CP 1. May 11, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On February 16, 1960, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Interme- 127 NLRB No. 93. 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and, except as noted below, hereby adopts the findings,' conclu- sions, and recommendations 3 of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, repre- sentatives, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing, or threatening to picket, Maca- tee, Inc., an object thereof being to force or require Macatee, Inc., to recognize and bargain collectively with it for a period of 1 year fol- lowing the conduct of the election of June 24, 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to its members are custom- arily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 1 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, exceptions , and brief adequately present the positions of the parties. 2 In Case No. 16-CB-158, the Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A ) of the Act by peacefully picketing from June 24, 1959, the date on which Respondent lost a Board-conducted election , to November 27, 1959, the date on which this picketing was enjoined . -In so finding, he relied on the Board's decision in Curtis Brothers, Inc, 119 NLRB 232, and related cases. On March 28, 1960, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Curtis ( 362 U. S. 274 ) in which it held that peaceful picketing by a minority union to compel immediate recognition is not an unfair labor practice under Section 8(b) (1) (A ). Accordingly, as the decision of the Court is controlling as to the allegations in Case No. 16-CB-158, we shall, in compliance therewith , dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges a violation of that section in this case. Member Fanning finds it unnecessary to determine in this proceeding whether a union's picketing for reinstatement of economic strikers who are union adherents , standing alone, constitutes picketing for an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (7). In his opinion, the record contains sufficient independent evidence that Respondent 's picketing and related conduct after November 13, 1959, was to obtain recognition from the Charging Party. 8 Respondent has excepted to paragraph numbered 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's recom- mended order which restrains Respondent from picketing or threatening to picket the Charging Party to force or require it to recognize and bargain collectively with it "so long as the Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election issued by the National Labor Relations Board on September 2, 1959, remains in force and effect." As Section 8 ( b) (7) (B) forbids picketing, or threats to picket for these proscribed objects for a year following the conduct of a valid election, we find merit in Respondent's exceptions and shall modify the recommended order accordingly. A 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." DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 685 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representa- tives of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Macatee, Inc., the Company willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respond- ent's official representatives, be forthwith returned to said Regional Director. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act in Case No. 16-CB-158, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 745, AFFILIATED WITH INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT picket or threaten to picket, Macatee, Inc., Dallas, Texas, where an object thereof is to force or require Macatee, Inc., to recognize and bargain collectively with us for a period of 1 year following the conduct of the election of June 24, 1959. DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 745, AF- FILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Union. 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. 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate charges, duly filed, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth, Texas), pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), issued a complaint dated November 10, 1959, alleging that the Respondent, or the Union, has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. A second complaint, dated November 25, 1959, was issued alleging that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (B) of the Act. On the latter date the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the cases. The answer of the Respondent admits certain allegations of the complaints but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner on January 18 and 19, 1960, at Dallas, Texas. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. The General Counsel filed a brief which I have considered.' Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF MACATEE, INC. The parties stipulated that Macatee, Inc., a Texas corporation, maintains its prin- cipal office and warehouse in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the business of selling building materials and supplies and as a contractor in the building and con- struction industry. Annually Macatee purchases materials and supplies which are shipped to it from places outside the State of Texas valued in excess of $50,000 and sells materials and performs services outside the State of Texas valued in excess of $50,000. I find Macatee is engaged in commerce as defined in the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues The initial complaint (Case No. 16-CB-158) alleges that from June 24 to No- vember 13, 1959, the Union, by continuing to picket at Macatee's warehouse and plant, after failing to receive a majority of the valid votes cast in a Board-directed election, thereby violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. The second complaint (Case No. 16-CP-1), as amended, alleges that by engaging in such activities from November 13 to 27, 1959, by threatening to picket on De- cember 31, 1959, and by the resumption of picketing on January 4, 1960, the Union violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. In its answer the Union admits picketing Macatee's warehouse and plant during the period June 24 to November 27, 1959, but challenges the validity of the repre- sentation proceedings and election for the reason that striking employees were not permitted to vote in the election. The Union denies that the picketing of January 4, 1960, was a resumption of the previous picketing, but was for an entirely different purpose, namely, to obtain reemployment of the strikers. i Counsel for the Union and the Charging Party in separate letters dated February 2, 1960, advised me they would not submit formal briefs but rely upon their respective oral arguments made at the conclusion of the hearing. Counsel for the Union also requests the following corrections be made in the transcript of the hearing Line 14, page 143. Mr. Wells : Very glad to, and stipulate further that he [Henry Miller] is not an officer , agent or representative of the union. He is an agent The record is corrected by striking the italicization and substituting therefor : He is an ex-striker. Wherever the word "advisory" appears in the oral argument of counsel, it is corrected to read "adversary." DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 687 B._ Chronology of events The parties stipulated most of the substantive facts so, on the basis of the stipula- tion, I find as follows: On October 16, 1956, the Union was certified by the Board (Case No. 16-RC- 1912 ) as the exclusive bargaining representative for Macatee 's employees in a unit composed of: All truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, glass cutters, warehousemen , shipping and receiving clerks, and machinists and mechanics at the employer 's warehouse at Dallas, Texas, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Thereafter the Union and Macatee entered into an agreement which expired about April 1 , 1958. Pnor to the expiration date the Union gave timely notice of its desire to negotiate amendments to the contract while Macatee served notice of termi- nation of the agreement . By consent, the contract was extended until April 7, 1958. The Union and Macatee were unable to reach agreement , so on May 12, 1958, the Union declared a strike and conducted picketing at Macatee 's warehouse and plant with a banner which stated: Macatee Building Materials on strike. Dallas General Drivers Local 745. As appears below, there were approximately 37 employees in the unit , all of whom, except 2, went on strike. Subsequently, in July or August 1958, an additional picket sign was utilized bearing the legend: Attention Macatee Construction Employees. Please do not report to work behind our picket line . Help Macatee Teamsters to win fair wages and a union contract. Thereafter a third picket sign was used bearing the above legend but with the addition: We are picketing Macatee only, not any other person or firm. Picketing on the public street adjacent to Macatee 's principal place of business and warehouse continued until November 27, 1959. The Union concedes that the pickets used all three of the above-described signs until August 1959, when the pickets thereafter used the initial sign, "Macatee Building Materials on strike.. . There was no violence or threats thereof in connection with the picketing. Throughout the period thereof a substantial number of persons observed the pickets and crossed the picket line, without reprisal, in order to do business with Macatee. Other persons refused to cross the picket line and enter the premises. In this respect, a union driver for East Texas Motor Freight Lines refused to cross the picket line on November 23, 1958, to make a pickup for shipment out of the State. About October 15, 1958, a decertification petition was filed by an employee (Case No. 16-RD-196) asserting the Union was no longer the statutory representative of the employees in the above-mentioned unit. About February 15, 1959, Macatee filed a representation petition (Case No. 16-RM-172 ) on the grounds that one or more individuals or labor organizations claimed to represent the employees in the bargaining unit. The cases were duly consolidated and pursuant to notice a hearing was held before a hearing officer on March 9 and 10, 1959, in Dallas, Texas. On June 3, 1959, the Board issued its decision and directed an election be con- ducted among the employees in the aforesaid unit to determine whether they desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining . Concerning the strikers, the Board found that on May 12, 1958, 35 of the 37 employees in the unit involved engaged in an economic strike, which was still current , and by May 16 Macatee had filled each position vacated by a striker and had a full complement of 38 employees . Since the strikers had been permanently replaced, and economic stnkers lose their right to reinstatement upon permanent replacement , it follows, the Board held, that the strikers were ineligible to vote in the election . The Union also contended that no election should be held while an injunction obtained against it under Section 10(1) was pending (Case No. 16-CC-91) because the injunction deprived the union members of Section 7 rights "which are essential in any pre- election campaign." The Board found this contention to be without merit for the injunction prohibited only certain unlawful conduct by the Union and did not extend to lawful preelection activity Egg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,On June 24 the election was held and of the 43 eligible voters, 3 voted in favor pf the Union and 38 against it. On June 23 the Regional Office notified the Union that no permanently replaced striker would be permitted to vote a challenged ballot and no striker voted in the election. The Union filed timely objections on these grounds to the conduct of the election which the Regional Director found , in his report, raised no material issues with respect to the conduct of the election and recommended they be overruled and the results of the election certified. The Union thereupon filed exceptions to the Regional Director 's report. On September 2, 1959, the Board issued its Supplemental Decision and Certifica- tion of Results of Election wherein it adopted the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director. The Union continued its strike and picketing and on November 17, 1959, Macatee filed a charge (Case No. 16-CP-1 ) alleging the Union was engaging in conduct in violation of Sections 8 (b) (1) (A ) and 7 (B) of the Act. On November 27 picketing ceased when a temporary injunction was issued under Section 10 ( l) of the Act restraining the Union from engaging in such picketing. Thereafter the Union called a meeting at which time the strikers voted to end ,the strike and authorized the Union to send a letter to Macatee , dated December 9, 1959, to the effect that the strike had been terminated and that the Union was making an unconditional request for reinstatement on behalf of each of the striking iemployees. By letter dated December 14 Macatee advised the Union that it no longer recog- nized the Union as the bargaining representative of its employees and that all the striking employees had been permanently replaced. The letter concluded by stating Macatee had no objection to accepting an application from any individual who ,desired to apply for a position as a new employee. Subsequently, several strikers made individual applications for reemployment ,but were told there were no vacancies and that persons hired since the strike were performing the work which they had previously performed. On December 31 the Union wrote Macatee that in view of its refusal to reemploy -the strikers the Union intended to initiate a program of peaceful picketing, the sole objects thereof being to persuade Macatee to reemploy the strikers and to jnduce the "strikebreakers" to relinquish their employment to the extent necessary -to make room for strikers who desired reemployment. The Union disclaimed making any request for recognition or bargaining. Macatee made no response to this letter. On January 4, 1960, the former strikers commenced picketing at Macatee's ware- house and plant carrying signs bearing the legend: Lock-out by Macatee. Strike breakers quit your jobs and make room for us. Macatee, Inc., we want our jobs back. We urge company to rehire former strikers and abandon lock-out. We are picketing for these objects only. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union 745. On January 8 picketing ceased following a conference between representatives of .the Union and the Regional Director. On January 10 the complaint (Case No. 16-CP-1) was amended to allege this .conduct as being violative of Section 8(b)(7)(B ). The amended answer denies the illegality of this picketing. The stipulation and testimony supplementing portions thereof clearly establish that an object of the strike and picketing, from the outset of this course of action, was to force or require Macatee to recognize and bargain with the Union as the .exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit . Thus, C. M. Roseborough, union business agent, testified that up to November 27, 1959, the -Union would remove the picket line only "On one condition, the company would sign a contract with us and we would remove it." Roseborough further testified -that the purpose of the picketing from January 4 to 8, 1960, was to obtain the reemployment of about 29 former employees or former striking employees, all of whom were members in good standing when they went on strike. When asked if the Union wanted a contract with Macatee, the same as in the period up to November 27, Roseborough answered; ". . . we want a contract with every company that -we can get, but that was not the purpose of the pickets." The evidence fully supports the finding that an object of the strike and picketing ,during the period June 24 to November 27, 1959, was to obtain recognition and an agreement, despite the fact that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit involved. It is undisputed that picketing ceased on November 27, 1959, when an injunction was entered against the Union. Thereafter, the Union made unsuccessful attempts to secure reemployment of the strikers, so on' DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 689 December 31 the Union announced its intention to picket Macatee in an effort to induce the replacements to quit their jobs to make room for the strikers and to persuade Macatee to reemploy the striking employees. In line with its threat the Union picketed at Macatee's premises from January 4 to 8, 1960, the pickets carrying signs plainly indicating the foregoing purposes of the picketing. From a realistic and practical viewpoint I fail to see how the Union could have entertained any hope of achieving its stated objectives when it is considered that the replacement employees had been working behind the picket line for many months and Macatee had plainly given its reasons for refusing to reemploy the strikers. Be that as it may, and granting picketing was for those purposes, nevertheless I am satisfied the evidence also supports the finding that an object of the picketing was to secure recognition and a contract. (See Lewis Food Company, 115 NLRB 890 ) L further find, from the testimony of Arthur L. Bissonnette, vice president of Macatee, that in the interval July to November 27, 1959, employees of Macatee such as roofers, carpenters, and glaziers, who were members of their respective trade unions, refused to cross the picket line to enter the plant or warehouse. During this period other employees loaded the trucks on Macatee's premises and delivered them to these employees outside the picket line. After the pickets were withdrawn the men entered the premises to pick up their trucks and materials but during the picketing of January 4 to 8, they again refused to cross the picket line. Concluding Findings The primary issue here is whether the election of June 24, was a valid one under Section 9(c) of the Act, so that the Union by picketing thereafter, in the manner found herein, thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (7) (B) of the Act? In general the Union attacks the validity of the representation proceeding and election on the grounds that: (1) the Board's finding that the striking employees had been permanently replaced was not only improper because of the nonadversary character of the proceeding, but was also contrary to the evidence; and (2) the Board should not have directed an election while the Union was subject to an injunction obtained under Section 10(1), which deprived union members from exercising their statutory rights essential in the preelection campaign. The Board rejected these contentions in its Decision and Direction of Election as well as in its Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. It is, of course, well settled that under the Act the Board has the exclusive power to determine the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, as well as the designation of the representative of the employees therein and the Board may determine the majority status by secret election or any other suitable means.3 Insofar as the representation petitions are concerned the Board did nothing more than carry out its statutory obligations. Section 9(c)(1) provides that if a question of representation exists the Board must resolve it through an election by secret ballot The election details are left to the Board and voting eligibility, timing of elections and standards of election conduct are subject to rules laid down in the Board's Rules and Regulations and decisions .4 Accordingly, the Board on the basis of the record established in a formal hearing on the petitions rejected the same contentions now raised by the Union in its Decision and Direction of Election Contrary to the arguments advanced by the Union, that record clearly shows that the parties and their counsel were cognizant of the questions involving representa- tion and that the questions were in fact litigated in the proceedings. Indeed, counsel for the Union in the course of his argument in the instant complaint cases quoted 2 Section 8(b) (7) (B), which became effective November 13, 1959, declares it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents, "to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative, unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees : w n a t s x : (B) where within the preceding twelve months a valid election under section 9(c) of this Act has been conducted, . . . s N.L R B. v. Falk Corporation, 308 U.S 453, 458-459; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com- pang/ v N.L.R.B., 313 U S 140, 152-153. 4 Twenty-third Annual Report of the Board, p. 43. 500940-01-vol 127-45 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the testimony of a witness for Macatee , developed by union counsel on cross- examination in the representation hearing, to support his position that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Board's findings that the strikers had been permanently replaced. I have read the record in the representation proceeding and, without attempting any review of the Board's findings, I am convinced the Board could have come to no other conclusions than those it reached. In the present unfair labor practice cases the Union sought to again litigate the same issues, which I refused to permit it to do. The Board in passing upon a similar contention in The Baker and Taylor Company case (109 NLRB 245), stated: It has long been the Board's policy not to permit relitigation, in a proceeding based on charges of refusal to bargain, of the issues decided in a prior rep- resentation proceeding. In the absence of evidence of changes in the facts surrounding a prior unit determination, or the discovery of evidence unavail- able to the respondent in the representation, the Board has uniformly refused to redetermine unit issues in an unfair labor practice proceeding.5 At the hearing counsel for the Union made an offer of proof as what he expected to prove had he been permitted to litigate the questions of permanent replacements and deprivation of electioneering rights by reason of the outstanding injunction. The offer reveals no new evidence or evidence that was not available at the time of the representation hearing. I, therefore, find and conclude that the election was a valid one and was in full compliance with the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Act. I have already found that, at all times material herein, an object of the Union's picketing was to force or require Macatee to recognize and bargain with it, when it did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit involved. It follows, and I find, on the authority and rationale expressed in the Curtis Brothers case,6 that by thus picketing after June 24, 1959, and September 2, 1959, the Union thereby restrained and coerced the employees of Macatee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 and thereby engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The language of Section 8(b)(7)(B) makes it clear that Congress intended to outlaw picketing, or threats to picket, for recognition and bargaining by a minority union where within the preceding 12 months a valid election has been conducted. The requirements essential to show a violation of this provision have been fully established by the evidence. Therefore, I find that by picketing under the circum- stances herein from November 13 to 27, 1959, by threatening to picket on December 31, 1959, and by picketing from January 4 to 8, 1960, the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Macatee , Inc., described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (7) (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: 6 United Insurance Company, 122 NLRB 911 . Remanded to Board on other grounds, United Insurance Company v. N L R.B., decided December 11, 1959, 272 F. 2d 446 ('C A. 7). 6 Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 639, etc (Curtis Brothers, Inc ), 119 NLRB 232. See also International Association of Machinists, Lodge 942, AFL-CIO (Alloy Manufacturing Company, et al.), 119 NLRB 307; United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 511 (O'Sullivan Rubber Corpora- tion), 121 NLRB 1439; Local 208 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc. (Sierra Furniture Company), 125 NLRB 159 , and Local # 98, Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation (Pggly-Wiggly Midwest Co, Inc), 126 NLRB 362. THE CROSS COMPANY 691 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Macatee, Inc., Dallas, Texas, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745. Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing Macatee, Inc., on and after June 24, 1959, and September 2, 1959, an object thereof being to force or require Macatee, Inc., to recognize and bargain collectively with the Respondent, when it did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit involved, the Respondent thereby restrained and coerced the employees of Macatee, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. By picketing Macatee, Inc., from November 13 to 27, 1959, by threatening to picket on December 31, 1959, and by picketing from January 4 to January 8, 1960, an object thereof being to force or require Macatee, Inc., to recognize and bargain collectively with the Respondent, when it was not currently certified as the repre- sentative of the employees in the unit involved, where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act had been conducted, the Respondent thereby engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (7)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] The Cross Company and International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 155, Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-2468. May 11, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On February 5, 1960, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw 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 recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Union filed exceptions to the In- termediate Report, and the Respondent and the Charging Union also filed supporting briefs. 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- member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommends tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions. X127 NLRB No. 88.