General Drivers, Etc., Local Union No. 806

788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX F-Continued Date hired Name Term. date Dept. Job class. 5/22/58__ __ Likens, Wealthey G. 6/30/59 (quit)_ 2__________ Folder-Pro. (rehired 1/18/59 as press opr. 2nd-Pro.). 4/29/54____ McCardlick , Dora (no 10/15/59____________________ 4__________ Bath towel folder and other rehired date). marker-Pro. 4/13/58____ Moorehead, Darwin L__ 8/17/59 (quit)______________ 4__________ "710" 700. 12/29/58___ Pinkerman , Nina_______ 10/5/59 (quit)______________ Pit. 2_____ Mending-Pro. 4/6/59_____ Scott, Linville__________ 8/14/59 (dis., drinking on Pit. 2----- Fireman-Boiler room. duty). 4/2'57_____ Shortland, Mary________ 12/30/59 (quit)_ __ Pit. 2..____ Press opr. 4/5/54_____ Steele, Lois_____________ 12/3/59 (quit)______________ 2__________ Pro.ind. pre-cond. 10/25/57___ Sterling, Mary A________ 5/24/59 (quit, ill Health____ ____________ Pro. 10/14/57___ Toland, Julia Mae______ 9/1/59______________________ Pit. 2_____ Folder. 3/25/59____ Ware, Rita______________ 12/31/59____________________ Plt. 2_____ Utility, General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 806, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and James D. O'Dell and H. H. Hulme, Jr., d/b/a Ada Transit Mix. Case No. 16-CC-93. February 28, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On a charge and amended charge duly filed on March 22 and April 15, 1960, respectively, by Ada Transit Mix, herein referred to as Transit Mix, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, issued a complaint and notice of hearing on May 6, 1960, and an amended com- plaint on May 20, 1960, against General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Help- ers, Local Union No. 886, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein referred to as Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section ^8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the complaint, amended complaint, and notice of hearing were thereafter duly served upon the Respondent and Ada Transit Mix, as Charging Party. On June 6, 1960, the parties entered into a stipulation by which they waived a hearing before and the issuance of an Intermediate Report by a Trial Examiner and agreed to submit the stipulated record to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. The parties reserved the right to file briefs with the Board within 35 days from the date of the stipulation. The parties provided in their stipulation that the record in this case should consist of the charge as amended, the complaint as amended, 130 NLRB No. 55. GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 806 789 the notice of hearing, the affidavits of service of the aforementioned documents, the record, including exhibits, of the injunction proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Okla- homa held on May 10, 1960, at Ada, Oklahoma, and titled Edwin A. Elliott v. General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 886, etc., Civil No. 4780, and certain other facts agreed to in the stipu- lation as hereinafter set forth. By an order dated June 13, 1960, the Board ordered the proceeding transferred to and continued before the Board for the purpose of mak- ing findings of fact and conclusions of law and for the issuance of a Decision and Order. The Board fixed July 11, 1960, as the closing date for the filing of briefs. Thereafter, only the General Counsel filed a brief. None of the parties requested oral argument. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board hereby approves the stipulation of the parties and on the basis of the aforesaid stipulation and the entire record in this case, makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED The partnership of Ada Transit Mix was formed on October 1, 1959, by James D. O'Dell and Homer H. Hulme, Jr., who are the sons re- spectively of Thomas O'Dell and Homer H. Hulme, Sr., partners in Hulme and O'Dell Concrete Company. Transit Mix was established by them for the immediate purpose of supplying concrete for two recently approved paving districts in the Ada, Oklahoma, area. Transit Mix is engaged in the processing, sale, and delivery of ready- mix concrete to customers in and near Ada, Oklahoma, and has fur- nished concrete to various contractors including Buster Hight and P. G. Troop General Contracting Company. Transit Mix purchased equipment from outside the State of Oklahoma, at a cost of over $11,000. Hulme and O'Dell Concrete Company, a partnership composed of Thomas O'Dell and H. H. Hulme, Sr., herein referred to as Hulme and O'Dell, is also engaged at Ada, Oklahoma, in the ready-mix con- crete business. At all times material herein, Hulme and O'Dell has furnished cement and ready-mix concrete to various construction con- tractors and others, including Transit Mix. During the period be- tween July 26, 1958, and May 23, 1959, Hulme and O'Dell furnished ready-mixed concrete valued in excess of $50,000 to Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc., of Wichita, Kansas, a concern which is en- gaged in construction projects in several States and which annuall#v 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ships and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 across State lines. In the Decision and Direction of Election issued December 31, 1959, the Board asserted jurisdiction over Hulme and O'Dell.' Buster Hight, a general contractor in the construction industry, was engaged, at times material herein, in the construction of a school build- ing at Ada, Oklahoma. In connection therewith, he purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of Oklahoma. P. G. Troop General Contracting Company, herein called Troop, a general contractor in the construction industry, was engaged, at times material herein, in the construction of a hospital building at Ada, Oklahoma, at a cost of approximately $600,000. In connection with this and other substantial construction projects, Troop has purchased goods and materials from outside the State of Oklahoma. Grade A Sand and Gravel is engaged in processing washed rock, sand, and gravel. At times material herein, it sold its products to Transit Mix and others. During the past year, Grade A Sand and Gravel purchased over $100,00 worth of machinery and other equip- ment from outside the State of Oklahoma. Johnson Sand and Gravel Company is engaged in delivering sand to Hulme and O'Dell, Transit Mix, and others in the Ada, Oklahoma, area. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, herein referred to as South- western, is one of the associated companies of the Bell System and furnishes local and long distance telephone service to communities in Oklahoma and several other States. The Respondent contends in effect that the Board should not assert jurisdiction herein on the ground that Transit Mix is not engaged in commerce, and does not meet the Board's requirements for the asser- tion of jurisdiction unless Transit Mix is considered to be an ally of Hulme and O'Dell. The Respondent, however, does not deny that its primary dispute is with Hulme and O'Dell, and that the unfair labor practice conduct it has been charged with was taken in aid of such dis- pute. It is well established that the Board will assert jurisdiction in a secondary boycott proceeding if the primary employer's operations in interstate commerce meet the Board's jurisdictional standards' There is no contention made herein that the Board does not have juris- diction over Hulme and O'Dell and the facts of this case clearly show that such jurisdiction exists. Moreover, it is also established that, even where the primary employer involved in the dispute does not meet the Board's jurisdictional standards, jurisdiction will nevertheless be 'Hulme and O'Dell Concrete Co., Case No. 16-RC-2589 ( not published in NLRB volumes). 2 Truck Drivers Local Union No. 649, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (James- town Builders Exchange, Inc.), 93 NLRB 386, 387; Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, etc. (Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association), 120 NLRB 936. GENERAL DRIVERS , ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 806 791 asserted if the combined operations of the primary employer and of any secondary employers, to the extent that the latter are affected by the conduct involved, meet any of the standards.' In the present in- stances, it is clear that Buster Hight, a secondary employer, is en- gaged in commerce and meets the Board's jurisdictional standards for nonretail enterprises as it purchased within a 12-month period goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of Oklahoma for use on its school job in Ada, Oklahoma. In view of the foregoing facts, we find that Hulme and O'Dell and Buster Hight are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris- diction. We also find that Transit Mix, Troop, and the other named persons affected by the Respondent's conduct are engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 886, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On August 27, 1959, the Respondent filed a petition seeking certi- fication as the bargaining representative for the employees of Hulme and O'Dell. On December 31, 1959, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election. In January 1960 the Respondent, having won the election, was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for the employees of Hulme and O'Dell. The parties thereafter endeavored to conclude an agreement, but the negotiations proved unfruitful, and the Respondent in about the middle of March 1960 went on strike and began picketing Huhne and O'Dell. The picket signs read : "Teamster Employees on Strike, This Firm Unfair. L.U. 886, Hulme and O'Dell." Shortly after the strike began, Transit Mix received a number of unsolicited telephone calls from persons desiring to purchase con- crete. Transit Mix informed the prospective purchasers that it could not immediately furnish the concrete because of its paving commit- ments but if they could accept delivery at a later time, it would fill their orders as soon as it got to them. Accordingly, Transit Mix began to deliver concrete to Troop and others. On or about March 21, the Respondent, without giving notice to Transit Mix, began picketing its premises. The picket sign read : "Teamster Members 8International Brotherhood of Teamsters , et at. (McAllister Transfer, Inc.), 110 NLRB 1769 ; Marie T. Reilly d/b/a Reilly Cartage Company, 110 NLRB 1742. 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on Strike. This Firm Unfair. L.U. 886." As indicated, Transit Mix filed unfair labor practice charges on March 22, 1960. At a conference held on March 23 for the purpose of finding out what, if anything, could be done to relieve the picketing at Transit Mix, Edward T. Elms, assistant business agent for the Respondent 4 objected to the fact that Transit Mix was furnishing "commercial" concrete, and declared that if Transit Mix confined itself to furnish- ing concrete for its paving jobs, at least for a period of 30 days or until the strike at Hulme and O'Dell was settled, the Respondent would withdraw its pickets. Elms charged that Transit Mix and Hulme and O'Dell were one and the same company or allied in in- terest. O'Dell denied this and maintained his right to deliver con- crete to any customer. Eventually, however, he finally agreed to halt deliveries of commercial concrete until the bulk of his paving con- tracts were completed. Elms warned him, however, that picketing would be resumed if Transit Mix undertook to deliver "commercial" concrete again.5 On Saturday, April 16, 1960, Transit Mix, having fulfilled most of its paving contracts, resumed its deliveries of "commercial" concrete (but not before it endeavored to inform the Respondent of its inten- tions to do so) with a delivery of concrete to the Hight school con- struction job.6 While the concrete was being poured there, Alford Tate, a striking employee of Hulme and O'Dell, who had previously been picketing at Transit Mix, began picketing the Hight job. Tate claimed that he picketed with a banner carrying Southwestern Build- ing Trades' name. Tate also claimed that Grant, the Carpenters' business agent and secretary of the Ada Area Building Trades, South- western Building Trades, had authorized the picketing in Southwest- ern's name and that he had been paid by Southwestern. He admitted, however, that he had followed Transit Mix's trucks to see where they delivered concrete. Tate picketed all that day. On the following Monday, Tate and others resumed picketing at Transit Mix. In the latter part of March, after Transit Mix had begun to fill its commercial concrete orders and had made deliveries to Troop, Troop was visted by Elms and Grant. Elms asked Russell F. Troop, super- intendent for Troop, how much more concrete was needed to com- plete certain footings then being poured. Troop said that it would 'Also present at the conference were John Crawford, Board agent ; James D O'Dell and his attorney, Lee West; U. S. Grant, business representative of the Carpenters Union and secretary for the Ada Area Building Trades, Southwestern Building Trades ; and a Mr. Ridenour, representative of the Common Laborers Union 5 James D. O'Dell testified without contradiction that at one point in the conversation Ridenour stated that if Elms did not undertake to picket Transit Mix, his Union would. 9 Hight testified that he had been obtaining his concrete from Hulme and O'Dell but that after a time they informed him they would not be able to furnish him with concrete because of the strike. It was then that he turned to Transit Mix for concrete Hight testified without contradiction that Hulme and O'Dell did not suggest that he obtain his concrete from Transit Mix. GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 806 793 require two more truckloads. Whereupon, according to Troop, Elms stated, in substance, that he would allow Troop to get two more truck- loads of concrete but no more, and Troop further testified that he re- ceived the impression Elms had threatened to put a picket on his job if he bought any more concrete from Transit Mix? The record also shows that as a result of having its truck stopped by the Respondent's pickets at Transit Mix on two occasions and the driver told not to return, the Johnson Sand and Gravel Company ceased its deliveries to Transit Mix. It is also shown that the Grade A Sand and Gravel Company stopped its deliveries to Transit Mix be- cause its drivers refused to cross the picket line at Transit Mix, and that an employee of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, who was to have installed a telephone extension at Transit Mix, refrained from crossing the picket line when led to believe by the pickets that they were on strike against Transit Mix. In addition to the foregoing, the evidence also shows that in the latter part of March and again on April 20, after picketing had been resumed at Transit Mix's premises, James H. Cape, an employee of Transit Mix and former employee of Hulme and O'Dell, was threatened with injury by the Respondent's pickets if he continued working for Transit Mix. CONCLUSIONS The Respondent does not deny, and the record clearly establishes, that it picketed the premises of Transit Mix in furtherance of its dis- pute with Hulme and O'Dell. By such and other conduct, Respondent induced and encouraged individuals employed by Transit Mix, and other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employ- ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform services for their respective employers. Such conduct is in clear vio- lation of Section 8(b) (4) (i), unless it can be said, as the Respondent contends, that Transit Mix was not a neutral employer but was itself involved in the dispute with the Respondent as an ally of Hulme and O'Dell. In support of this position, the Respondent argues that Hulme and O'Dell furnished financial backing for Transit Mix by guaranteeing the repayment of loans to Transit Mix from the First National Bank '' Because the testimony concerning the alleged threatening nature of the conversation between Respondent's agent, Elms, and Russell Troop is both conflicting and equivocal, we are unable to make a specific determination as to what was said in this regard. As finding a violation based on the Respondent's conduct in relation to the P. G. Troop General Contracting Company would not affect the scope of our order herein , we find it unnecessary to determine whether Elms, conduct on this occasion was such as to have violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (B). 794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Ada.' In addition, it maintains that the firms were in fact operated as a common enterprise. Thus, it alleges that Transit Mix's trucks were repaired in Hulme and O'Dell's garage, that a truck of Hulme and O'Dell, which was on lease to Transit Mix, once obtained gasoline at the Transit Mix pump without signing for the gasoline, that on two occasions an employee of Hulme and O'Dell obtained small quan- tities of lightweight concrete from Transit Mix, without signing an invoice, for delivery to Hulme and O'Dell's own customers, and that the senior O'Dell always referred to Transit Mix as "the other plant." The Board has held that where alleged primary and secondary employers, although separate legal entities, are commonly owned or controlled or are engaged in closely integrated operations, they may be regarded as a single employer, or where the conduct of the alleged neutral employer is inconsistent with his professed neutrality in the dispute, such as performing "farmed out" struck work; the alleged neutral may be regarded as an "ally." In our opinion, the evidence fails to establish that Hulme and O'Dell and Transit Mix are a single employer, or are "allies." The mere fact that Hulme and O'Dell guaranteed loans for Transit Mix is not in and of itself evidence of common ownership or control. There is nothing to show that Hulme and O'Dell participated in any respect concerning the making of loans or in Transit Mix's decisions to borrow money or exercised any control over the use of the funds so obtained. Similarly, we consider the fact that trucks of Transit Mix were repaired at Hulme and O'Dell's garage, or that a truck of Hulme and O'Dell on lease to Transit Mix obtained some gasoline from the latter's pump without the formality of the driver signing for it, or the other cited instances of a business relationship between the two firms as to too insignificant to establish common, ownership and as not inconsistent with separate ownership and control. This is also true of the Respondent's other contentions. The equipment Hulme and O'Dell leased to Transit Mix it also leased to other con- cerns and Transit Mix leased equipment similar to that leased from Hulme and O'Dell from other sources. Nor is the fact that Transit Mix obtained its bulk cement from Hulme and O'Dell indicative of a common enterprise. The record shows that Hulme and O'Dell had the only facilities in the area for loading trucks with bulk cement and while it is thus true that Transit Mix availed itself of such facilities, it is equally true that other customers did the same. Apart therefrom, it is not disputed that Transit Mix and Hulme and O'Dell are separate s It was stipulated that on October 2, 1959, Hulme and O'Dell agreed with the First National Bank and Trust Company of Ada, Oklahoma , to guarantee loans to Transit Mix up to a total amount of $100,000, and that on October 17, 1959, Transit Mix borrowed $10,000 from that bank. 6 United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO ( Tennessee Coal i Iron Division of the United States Steel Corporation ), 127 NLRB 823. GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 806 790' legal entities; that the firms keep separate books and records, have separate bank accounts, file separate income and sales tax returns and social security reports, make separate purchases of materials which are billed to them separately, and pursue separate labor policies. As to the second aspect of the alleged ally relationship, it is clear that Transit Mix did not perform any "farmed-out" work. It neither solicited orders for commercial concrete upon the commencement of the strike, nor were any customers referred to it by Hulme and O'Dell. Transit Mix itself was established months before there was any inkling of a labor dispute between the Respondent and Hulme and O'Dell, and not in furtherance of Hulme and O'Dell's business. The fact that the circumstances left Transit Mix as the only source of supply of concrete as the result of the strike at Hulme and O'Dell is not in our opinion sufficient reason to constitute Transit Mix an ally of the struck concern. We find, therefore, that Transit Mix is a neutral employer and is entitled to the protection of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. In view of Respondent's picketing and other conduct at the premises of Transit Mix and Hight, we find that the Respondent induced and encouraged individuals employed by Transit Mix and Hight and other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing work for their respective employers within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i), and that such picketing also constituted a vio- lation of Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) ( B).10 We are persuaded that Tate's picketing at Hight, allegedly in the name of Southwestern Building Trades, was, in fact, attributable to the Respondent. For one thing, it appears that Grant, a representa- tive of the Carpenters and secretary of the local organization of South- western Buildings Trades, and Ridenour, a representative of the Com- mon Laborers, had a common interest in the Teamsters' dispute with Hulme and O'Dell. This is indicated by their common effort to per- suade Transit Mix not to deal with Hulme and O'Dell's former cus- tomers, and Hulme and O'Dell' s former customers not to deal with Transit Mix. Thus Grant, who allegedly authorized the picketing at Hight, was present at the March 23 conference to consider the question of the Respondent's picketing of Transit Mix, and, together with Elms, called on Troop for the purpose of inducing Troop not to do business with Transit Mix. For another thing, neither the Carpenters Union nor Southwestern Building Trades, nor any member thereof 10lnternational Hod Carriers, etc., Local No. 1140, AFL-CIO (Gilmore Construction Company), 127 NLRB 541, and United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees, Local 261, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (Perfection Mattress & Spring Company), 129 NLRB 1014. We further find that in Elms' statement to James O'Dell, to the effect that the picketing would stop only if Transit Mix stopped delivering "com- mercial" concrete, and in his threat to resume such picketing if deliveries of such concrete were resumed, the Respondent coerced and restrained Transit Mix within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii). 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was shown to have a labor dispute with Hight, and lastly, the picket- ing followed immediately upon resumption of Transit Mix's delivery of commercial concrete, and was engaged in by a striking employee of Hulme and O'Dell who had picketed Transit Mix and who resumed such picketing there soon after the delivery of concrete to Hight. As the object of the Respondent's unlawful conduct was to force Transit Mix to cease doing business with Hight and other secondary employers, and to force Hight and others to cease doing business with Transit Mix, we find, in view of the foregoing, that the Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent as set forth above, which are found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations of the companies involved herein, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and foreign countries and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY As we have found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action to remedy the unfair labor practices and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. As the total pattern of the Respond- ent's conduct indicates the likelihood that other employers who are customers of Transit Mix may be subjected to the practices herein found violative of the Act, we shall issue an order broad enough to proscribe such violations." Upon the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, we make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Transit Mix, Hulme and O'Dell, P. G. Troop General Contract- ing Company, Buster Hight, Grade A Sand and Gravel, Johnson Sand and Gravel Co., and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company are em- ployers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Transit Mix, Hight, and other persons to engage in 'strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to perform services for their respective employers, and by "International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. (Samuel Langer) v. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694, 705-706. See also N.L.R .B. v. Dallas General Drivers, Local Union 745 (Macatee, Inc.), 281 F. 2d 593, 596 (C.A. 5). GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 806 797 threatening, coercing, or restraining Transit Mix and Hight with the object of forcing or requiring Transit Mix to cease doing business with various other persons, and forcing or requiring neutral persons to cease doing business with Transit Mix, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (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 General Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 886, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Engaging in or inducing or encouraging any individual em- ployed by Ada Transit Mix to engage in, a strike of refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- modities or to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or re- straining Ada Transit Mix, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Ada Transit Mix to cease doing business with Buster Hight, P. G. Troop General Contracting Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce. (b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual em- ployed by Buster Hight, Johnson Sand and Gravel Company, Grade A Sand and Gravel Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Com- pany, or any other person engaged in comerce or in an industry affect- ing commerce to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his em- ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to per- form any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining Buster Hight, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require such persons to cease doing business with Ada Transit Mix. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 12 12 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." 798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond- ent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region signed copies of said notice for posting at the premises of Ada Transit Mix, and Buster Hight, Johnson Sand and Gravel Company, Grade A Sand and Gravel Company, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company at all locations where notices to individuals employed by them are customarily posted, if said companies are willing to do so. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writ- ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GENERAL DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 886, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES 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 engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Ada Transit Mix to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services; nor threat- en, coerce, or restrain Ada Transit Mix, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Ada Transit Mix to cease doing business with Buster Hight, P. G. Troop General Con- tracting Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Buster Hight, Johnson Sand and Gravel Company, Grade A Sand and Gravel Company, Southwestern Bell Tele- phone Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; nor threat- en, coerce, or restrain Buster Hight, where in either case an RURAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 799 object thereof is to force or require such persons to cease doing business with Ada Transit Mix. GENERAL DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 886, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, 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. Rural Electric Company, Inc. and Local Union 415, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 27- CA-816. February 28, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On August 23, 1960, Trial Examiner John F. Funke 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 Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed ,exceptions to the Intermediate Report and 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Kimball]. 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 In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, only insofar as they are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and Order hereinafter set forth.' 1. The Trial Examiner found that the construction and mainte- nance employees of the Respondent constituted a unit appropriate for 1 We do not approve or adopt the gratuitous and wholly inappropriate comments of the Trial Examiner in footnote 20 of the Intermediate Report with regard to matters beyond his concern or province as a Trial Examiner. 130 NLRB No. 87.