Radio-TV Service Technicians Union Local 202

RADIO-TV SERVICE TECHNICIANS UNION LOCAL 202 1049 Radio-TV Service Technicians Union Local 202, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Packard Bell Electronics Corporation. Case No. 20-CC-9204. August 17, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On June 24, 1960, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in a certain unfair labor practice and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board 1 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions 2 For the reasons stated in Jack H. Lohman, d/b/a. Lohman Sales Company, 132 NLRB 901, we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent's handbilling at the premises of retailers handling Packard Bell products or using its services was "publicity" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 8(b) (4) of the Act. We also find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the handbills here were truthful. Accordingly, we find that the distribution of these handbills was activity protected by the Section 8 (b) (4) proviso.3 Also in agreement with the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons given in the Intermediate Report, we find that the Respondent's pick- eting at the two Packard Bell service locations were not violative of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor 1 Member Brown took no part in the consideration of this Decision and Order. As no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's finding that the presence of Respondent's handbillers in the vicinity of the car with placards was tantamount to picketing and therefore violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii ) (B), we adopt that finding pro forma. 8 Member Rodgers agrees with the finding that the Respondent 's handbilling was pro- tected by the proviso to Section 8(b)(4), but he does so on the ground that all of the conditions of that proviso have been met, including the fact that the employer with whom the Respondent has a primary dispute produces products. See his dissenting opinion in Jack M. Lohman, d/b/a Lohman Sales Company, 132 NLRB 901 132 NLRB No. 94. 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Radio-TV Service- Technicians Union Local 202, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, San Francisco, California, its officers, repre- sentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing or requiring such person to cease using, sell- ing, handling, or dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business, with, Packard Bell Electronics Corporation. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its office and meeting hall in San Francisco, California, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tive, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix" for posting at the premises of Television City, Oakland, California, the latter willing, for a period of 60 consecutive days, at all locations where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice shall be furnished by the aforesaid Regional Director. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. 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." APPENDIX NOTICE TO OUR MEMBERS AND ALL OTHER PERSONS 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 threaten, restrain, or coerce any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing or requiring said person to cease using, selling, han- RADIO-TV SERVICE TECHNICIANS UNION LOCAL 202 1051 doing or dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Packard Bell Electronics Corporation. RADIO-TV SERVICE TECHNICIANS UNION LOCAL 202, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case was heard on March 15 and 16, 1960; at San Francisco, California, on a complaint by the General Counsel alleging that Radio-TV Service Technicians Union Local 202, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Briefs have been submitted by all parties. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF PACKARD BELL Packard Bell Electronics Corporation, herein called Packard Bell, is a California corporation with its principal office and factories at Los Angeles, California, where it is engaged in the manufacture of television and radio receivers, stereo equipment, and electronics devices. It maintains branch offices and service divisions throughout the State of California and other western States. During the year 1959, goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000 were shipped to Packard Bell's Los Angeles plants from points outside the State of California, and manufactured products valued in excess of $100,000 were shipped by it to points outside the State of California. I find that the operations of Packard Bell affect commerce. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Radio-TV Service Technicians Union Local 202, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership the employees of Packard Bell. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the issues The facts involved herein are not in dispute. Packard Bell has four operating divisions, one of which, the Home Products Division located in Los Angeles, manufactures television and radio receivers and stereo equipment. The employees of this division are not represented by a labor organization and, in fact, rejected such representation in a Board election held in June 1957. Another division is the Service Division which operates 30 branches in 14 States where radio and television service technicians are employed by Packard Bell to install, service, and repair Packard Bell products sold by local retailers. There are 3 service division branches in the San Francisco Bay area, located in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Mateo and employing approximately 40 techni- cians. Respondent has for some years represented the service technicians employed at these three locations and, on or about April 4, 1958, in Case No 20-RC-3514 ,(not published in NLRB volumes), was certified as their bargaining representative. 1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The last contract between the parties was entered into on January 14, 1957, but was not in force at the time material herein . Indeed, as the result of their inability to agree upon a new contract, Respondent commenced a strike in October 1959 against these three service divisions; this continued until sometime in the latter part of December 1959 with picketing at the San Francisco and Oakland installations on and after October 14. The complaint alleges that in furtherance of its basic primary dispute with Packard Bell, Respondent has distributed leaflets at the street entrances of various retailers handling Packard Bell products , the operations of these concerns affecting commerce; picketed these retailers; solicited persons entering the premises of these retailers not to purchase Packard Bell products; and demanded that said retailers discontinue selling or handling Packard Bell products, all within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. As will appear, the General Counsel contends that the legend on the handbills and on the placards was, in part at least, untruthful. The complaint also lumps together with the foregoing an attack upon alleged hand- billing and picketing at the premises of exclusive franchised distributors of Packard Bell products, these being independent entrepreneurs who buy directly from Packard Bell and in turn sell directly to retailers. Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, so far as pertinent, provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where . . . an object thereof is: * (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using , selling, handling, trans- porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer , processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, . .. . Section 8(b)(4) further provides that ... for the purposes of this paragraph (4) only, nothing contained in such paragraph shall be construed to prohibit publicity , other than picketing,-for the purpose of truthfully advising the public, including consumers and members of a labor organization, that a product or products are produced by an employer with whom the labor organization has a primary dispute and are distributed by another employer, as long as such publicity does not have an effect of inducing any individual employed by any person other than the primary employer in the course of his employment to refuse to pick up , deliver, or transport any goods, or not to perform any services, at the establishment of the employer engaged in such distribution; As will appear below, the facts in this case involve a consideration of that portion of the above-quoted proviso which states that "publicity" shall not be prohibited. There is no issue raised with respect to any individual being induced to refuse to perform services, as stated in the latter part of the proviso, because it is clear that in every instance there has been no interruption of work or services by any individual employed by a secondary employer. The legislative history of the recent amendments reveals that Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B) was designed, in part at least, to close loopholes existing under prior decisions of the Board and the courts. Senator Goldwater inserted in the Congressional Record a "Summary analysis of conference agreement" stating that the revised language of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act "Closes loophole which permitted secondary boycott through coercion applied directly against secondary employer (instead of his employees)." (Congressional Record, September 9, 1959, p. 17181.) And the Senate Committee analysis of the amendments to the Act pointed out that Section 8 (b) (4) had been revised so that a labor organization could not threaten, coerce, or restrain "a secondary employer" for an object forbidden under Section 8(b) (4) of the Act (September 10, 1959). This section of the Act is to be distinguished from Section 8(b) (4) (i) ( B) which speaks of inducement and encouragement of individuals . Threats, restraint, and coercion manifestly entail more substantial forces and elements than inducement and encouragement which may embrace a nonthreatening plea. See Bernard L. Alpert v. Excavating and Building Material Chauffeurs and Helpers, etc. (Consalvo Trucking, Inc.), 184 F. Supp. 558 (D.C.Mass.). And, although the charge in the instant case is broad enough to support allegations both under Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) and Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B), the General Counsel has proceeded only under the latter. Hence, the remarks that follow herein do not treat with a possible violation under the former section. RADIO-TV SERVICE TECHNICIANS UNION LOCAL 202 1053 Some of the conduct relied upon herein-by the General Counsel antedated Novem- ber 13, 1959, the effective date of the amendments to the Act, but, as will appear, no findings adverse to Respondent are predicated thereon. Hence, it is deemed unnecessary to explore Section 707 of the Act stating that "no provision of this title shall be deemed to make an unfair labor practice, any act which is performed prior to such effective date which did not constitute an unfair labor practice prior thereto." 1 After October 8, Packard Bell hired radio and television technicians to work at these three branches in place of the strikers, and, on or about October 14, Respondent commenced picketing at the -San Francisco and Oakland branches. On or about October 29, Business Representative Peter Cunha of Respondent sent a form letter to all retail dealers in San Francisco and Oakland handling Packard Bell products. It stated: You are hereby notified that strike lockout conditions exist at the Packard Bell Service branches located in San Francisco, Oakland and San Mateo. Packard Bell, after shutting down these outlets is now attempting to operate behind our picket lines, utilizing strike breakers. We respectfully request therefore, that you acquire the services of other firms for your installation and service needs until our current dispute with Packard Bell is settled. Local Union 202 feels sure your customers, many of whom are union mem- bers, would not appreciate learning that their Packard Bell purchased at your store, had been installed or serviced by a strike breaker. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation. ... . The evidence relied upon by the General Counsel lends itself to treatment in the categories of handbilling of retailers; picketing of retailers; and picketing and handbilling of distributors. B. Handbilling of retailers Redlick's is a large furniture store in San Francisco whose operations affect com- merce. Early in October 1959, Charles Redlick, an official of the concern, received a telephone call from Edward Bird, business manager of Respondent. Bird in- formed Redlick, as the latter testified, that Respondent had received strike sanction against Packard Bell from the San Francisco Labor Council and suggested that inasmuch as Redlick's was a large customer of Packard Bell, it "could put pressure on them to get the thing settled." In the early part of November, it not appearing herein whether this preceded or followed November 13, Bird again telephoned Redlick. Bird stated that Respondent had struck the Packard Bell service installations and asked whether Redlick's was using Packard Bell for service. Redlick replied that it was and Bird informed him that the work was being done by "strike breakers" and that Redlick should "keep my nose clean, or keep my skirts clean." Redlick suggested that Bird discuss the matter with his counsel and Bird agreed to do S0.2 On November 9 or 10, a paid representative of Respondent appeared at a street entrance to Redlick's and commenced the distribution of handbills. He wore no identifying insignia and carried no sign or placard . He appeared regularly, al- though apparently not on every business day, and, until the middle of December, dis- tributed these handbills to all passersby and to persons entering or leaving the store. Each visit lasted 2 or 2Y2 hours and usually took place in the early afternoon. The handbill, in pertinent part, read as follows: 1 Evidence antedating November 13 was received on the ground that this was roughly analogous to the existing situation under Section 10(b) of the Act which has been con- strued as a statute of limitations and not a rule of evidence. Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (Stan-Jay Auto Parts and Accessories Corporation), 127 NLRB 958. But see Local Lodge No. 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, et al. v. N.L.R.B. (Bryan Manufacturing Co.), 362 U.S. 411. a Redlick's did not have a TV service department ; it sold service policies on TV sets and in turn turned over these policies to Packard Bell. Other concerns involved herein operated their own television service departments and either sold their own service policy or, on occasion, a service policy which provided for Packard Bell service E g, Lachman Bros. Inc, discussed below, runs its own service department and usually sells its own policy, but, upon customer request, would sell a Packard Bell service policy. 1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BOYCOTT PACKARD BELL RADIOS-TELEVISION RECEIVERS & HI-F3'S THESE PRODUCTS ARE MADE UNDER NON-UNION CONDITIONS and Packard Bell is employing STRIKE BREAKERS at their San Francisco, Oakland and San Mateo Service Branches to Install, Service and Repair their equipment THANK YOU RADIO-TV SERVICE TECHNICIANS UNION LOCAL 202 INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 3 On November 11, Charles Redlick accepted a handbill from the distributor and commented on his ample stock. The latter replied that "If you take the sets out of your window, I wouldn't have to do this." Shortly thereafter, Redlick instructed his personnel to stop selling Packard Bell service installation contracts, but apparently did not stop handling or- selling Packard Bell products. According to Redlick, he was concerned over his other union contracts. It appears that Respondent and two other labor organizations have a master contract with various furniture stores in the area providing that farmed out or subcontracted work must be done by members in good standing of the respective labor organizations and this would not have been the case with the replacements for the Packard Bell strikers; according to Redlick, he employed no members of Local 202 in his store, however.4 Lachman Bros. Inc., is a retail furniture store in San Francisco whose operations affect commerce. In October 1959, -James Laird, manager and buyer of its appliance and television department, received a telephone call from Bird announcing that it was Respondent's intention to distribute handbills in front of the store because of its strike against Packard Bell. Laird pointed out that Lachman rarely handled Packard Bell service policies, customarily selling its own. He offered not to solicit customers to purchase Packard Bell policies, and Bird replied that this was "fair enough." Laird further testified that Bird did not request that Lachman cease selling Packard Bell service policies. This concern, however, did not make any change in its handling of Packard Bell service policies. According to Laird, he had in- tended to do so but never carried through. This same 'handbiller, according to Laird, initially appeared at the Lachman premises on the-last Saturday in October or on the first Saturday in November. He showed up at an entrance to the store on four occasions, usually at lunch, and re- mained for 1 or 2 hours, with the last appearance during the third week of Novem- ber. It is to be noted that no Lachman employee covered by the contract with Re- spondent declined or failed to work on, handle, or perform any services on Packard Bell products during this period. The testimony of Emerson Krebs, an appliance salesman at this store, was in sub- stantial agreement with that of Laird. According to Krebs, he saw the handbiller distributing handbills in front of the store on an undisclosed date in October, during the early afternoon, for approximately 1 hour. This was repeated but not on a daily basis and-continued through October, November, and possibly into December 1959. On several occasions, unspecified, the handbiller and Krebs exchanged greet- ings. On one of them, less than 2 weeks prior to his last appearance, he asked Krebs when he would stop buying Packard Bell products. Krebs replied that he was not the buyer but only "one of the hired help" and the conversation ended. As at Redlick's, no sashes, placards, or signs were used and the handbiller, although possibly present at the end of the employees' lunch period, was never present at the beginning or the end of the workday when employees entered and left the prem- ises, respectively. I find here, as in the case of all retailers discussed herein, that while handbills may have been handed to their respective employees, this reflects an effort to dis- s The General Counsel makes no contention herein as to the prominence of certain words on the handbills, although he refers to such an arrangement on a placard discussed below. ' No Issue has been raised herein with respect to Section 8(e) of the Act. RADIO-TV SERVICE TECHNICIANS UNION LOCAL 202 1055 tribute them to all persons in the vicinity of the store rather than an attempt to reach employees as such. Emporium Capwell Company, a California corporation whose operations affect commerce, operates eight department stores including The Emporium in San Fran- cisco which handles Packard Bell products. While the topic was not fully developed, the record discloses that the same ubiquitous handbiller passed out handbills on the sidewalk in front of this store on December 4, 1959, ostensibly during business hours. Photographs reveal that this handbill is apparently the same handbill set forth above. Jackson's Furniture Company operates a retail furniture store in Oakland which handles Packard Bell products and its operations affect commerce. As Anthony Grigas, assistant manager of its appliance and TV department, testified, on unspeci- fied dates during the months of October and November 1959, "just before the holiday season," copies of the same handbill were distributed at a customer entrance to the store by a paid representative of Respondent. This store has its own service depart- ment but, on occasion, will sell Packard Bell service policies; there is no evidence that the store made any change in the sale thereof. The record does disclose that on one occasion the handbiller parked his car near a receiving entrance to the store and that a large placard treating with the dispute was affixed to the side of the car. This aspect of the case is treated below in the discussion of activity at the premises of another Oakland retailer, Television City, but no adverse finding is predicated upon herein because the record discloses that it took place in October prior to November 13, that the car was parked across the street from the receiving entrance, that there were parking spaces closer to that store entrance, and that it was an isolated instance. The conduct of a representative of Respondent involving the use of his car with affixed placard at Television City, dis- cussed below, warrants the inference that he happened to park his car near Jack- son's on this lone occasion, either preceding or following a visit to Television City, and I find that this did not involve any effort on the part of Respondent directed at this employer. Butler Brothers operates a general department store in San Francisco whose operations affect commerce. The same handbiller who appeared at other San Fran- cisco locations also put in two appearances at this store. During the first week of November, he was observed distributing the same handbill in front of the store for 1 or 2 hours. The store manager and the buyer of the appliance department ap- proached and asked what he wanted. He replied that he disliked handing out the leaflets and that he wanted them to take Packard Bell products off sale. The handbiller made another appearance approximately 2 weeks later, on a date subsequent to November 13. On this occasion, he distributed leaflets outside the store for 15 or 20 minutes and then entered the appliance department. He asked a sales- man, who, it may be noted, happened to be watching a television program on a Pack- ard Bell television set, why he was selling Packard Bell products which were not made by union members. The handbiller also spoke to the buyer, expressed regret that he was still purchasing television sets from Packard Bell, and suggested a switch to an- other make. The handbiller left and did not return to this store again. While Butler Brothers was signatory to the master contract with Respondent, none of its employees refused or failed during this period to work upon or handle Packard Bell products. Conclusions (1) Section 8(b)(4) of the Act now provides that "for the purposes of this Para- , graph (4) only, nothing contained in such paragraph shall be construed to prohibit publicity, other than picketing, for the purpose of truthfully advising the public, including consumers and members of a labor organization, that a product or products are produced by an employer with whom the labor organization has a primary dis- pute and are distributed by another employer, . - The reference to "publicity, other than picketing" would manifestly appear to embrace handbilling and the legislative history of the recent amendments so dis- closes. Senator Kennedy, in his explanation to the Senate concerning changes in the original bill, made it amply clear that the proviso was designed to include this activity within its scope. He stated: We were not able to persuade the House conferees to permit picketing in front of that secondary shop, but we were able to persuade them to agree that the union shall be free to conduct informational activity short of picketing. In other words, the union can hand out handbills at the shop, can place advertise- ments in newspapers, can make announcements over the radio, and can carry on all publicity short of having ambulatory picketing in front of a secondary site. (Congressional Record, September 3, 1959, p. 16414.) 1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD And Congressman Griffin, one of the House conferees on the bill, inserted in the Congressional Record a Summary Analysis of the Conference Agreement on the amendments to the Act wherein it is stated that the Conference Agreement had adopted a House provision prohibiting secondary customer picketing "with the clarification that other forms of publicity are not prohibited." (Congressional Rec- ord, September 3, 1959, p. 16539.) It follows, therefore, that there was a congressional intent to expressly protect the dissemination of information under these circumstances , whether it be oral or in printed form. This, of course, is entirely consistent with a. long line of cases holding that ordinances restricting the distribution of handbills are unconstitutional as an invasion of civil liberties. For example, in Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 63, the Supreme Court recently struck down an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of anonymous handbills protesting alleged discriminatory practices of certain manufacturers and urging a boycott of other merchants who carried products manufactured under these alleged discriminatory conditions. The Court therein cited an earlier decision holding that "one who is rightfully on a street . carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion . by handbills and literature as well as by the spoken word. Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 401, 416." Thus, the distribution of handbills as such, at the premises of retailers handling Packard Bell products or using its services, would fall squarely within the protection of the cited provision. This would include the handbilling at all the locations referred to above. (2) This would, in my view, also dispose of the claim that a threat to distribute these handbills at those locations was violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. If the Act protects the right to distribute these handbills, I fail to see how a threat to engage in this protected activity can constitute a violation of the Act. (3) This presents the contention of the General Counsel that this proviso to Section 8(b)(4) protects only, as stated by the proviso, "truthfully advising the public" of the nature of the dispute and his further claim that the content of these handbills was not truthful. This contention is actually a double-barrelled one. He urges that the handbill is untruthful because the exception of the proviso refers to "-a product or products [which] are produced." The primary dispute involved employees who, as the handbill stated, "Install, Service, and Repair" Packard Bell equipment and this allegedly is not production. No authority, however, is cited that Congress intended here to construe production in a limited sense restricted to the manufacture of goods. And, in any event, I believe that the term is broad enough to embrace the work performed by the striking employees of Packard Bell. Stated otherwise, it is not the division which is the employer but the corporation and, indeed, it was the latter which filed the charge herein. The General Counsel's second theory has received more stress. He points out that the handbill not only refers to the use by Packard Bell of strike breakers or replace- ments to install, service, and repair Packard Bell products but further brings in the fact that Packard Bell products are made under nonunion conditions. Attention is directed to the fact that they are manufactured in Los Angeles, some 400 miles distant, by employees who have chosen not to be represented by a labor organization and further that for some years the strikers have without complaint installed, serviced, and repaired Packard Bell products so produced. In brief, it is contended that this constituted untruthful publicity. While the question is not free from doubt, I do not agree. The handbill is truthful because Packard Bell products are "produced by an employer with whom the labor organization has primary dispute," as specifically stated by the statute. True, the dispute centered on the service division, but the statutory language is met. To accept the General Counsel's theory herein is to say that a labor organization has no interest in the fact that its members are required to work upon a product made by their own employer under nonunion conditions. The fact is, as numerous cases have revealed over the years, that labor organiza- tions have regularly demonstrated vigilant interest in this area and particularly so, it would seem, where the employer is one and the same. While it would seem that this Respondent has not availed itself of this type of publicity in the past, I am not prepared to say that it is thereby precluded or estopped from espousing this issue when the facts are true and the occasion is such that it is in its self interest to do so. I therefore will recommend dismissal of this aspect of the case. C. Handbilling and picketing Several witnesses testified concerning activity by an agent of Respondent at the premises of Television City, an Oakland retailer of Packard Bell products employing RADIO-TV SERVICE TECHNICIANS UNION LOCAL 202 1057 15 or 16 persons and whose operations affect commerce. Two handbillers alternated in the distribution of the previously described handbill on a daily basis, excluding weekends, in front of the store. According to Sales Manager Edgar Jalbert, one of the handbillers, Garcia, who was a striking member of Respondent and paid by the latter for his services, ap- proached Jalbert, during October, asked if this concern had stopped the purchase of Packard Bell products and stated that if they did not buy or sell Packard Bell prod- ucts "we will get out of your hair." Jalbert observed Garcia appear on the scene between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. and remain for 1 hour while he handed out these handbills. Robert Barnes, a salesman for this concern, testified that in October, after asking Garcia to move down the street, the latter replied that he was there because Television City sold Packard Bell products. Four or five days later, the other handbiller, one Kraft, told Barnes, in response to the latter's query, that he was distributing the handbills because a Television City truck had crossed Respondent's picket line at a location. not disclosed herein. About 5 days thereafter, Barnes asked Kraft what was required to eliminate the handbilling and Kraft replied that he would have no reason to pass out the handbills if Television City stopped purchasing and selling Packard Bell products. During December, Barnes asked Garcia how long the hand- billing would last. Garcia replied that he would have no reason to distribute the handbills if Television City stopped ordering Packard Bell products. Barnes also admitted that he initiated each of these conversations with the handbillers on his own initiative. According to William Robinson, the individual owner of this concern, the hand- billing started in the latter part of October with the two handbillers appearing sep- arately in the morning and afternoon. During the latter part of October, Robinson asked Kraft why he was distributing the handbills and he replied that it was because a Television City driver had crossed the picket line at a Packard Bell service installa- tion in Oakland. Early in November, and prior to November 13, Robinson was told by Kraft that if he stopped purchasing Packard Bell products the "picketing" would stop. Robinson observed that Kraft would arrive in mad-morning and distribute handbills for 1 or fah hours and that Garcia would arrive at 1:30 p.m. and stay until 3 p.m. The last appearance of either man was made several days after December 14. Although there is some disparity between these witnesses as to the hours when the respective handbillers appeared, it is undisputed that both did appear on an almost daily basis. As is apparent, this conduct is no different from that treated above and the same conclusions are applicable. However, there is one additional factor in this instance which is relied upon by the General Counsel. Handbiller Garcia had affixed to each side of his automobile, and specifically on the door panel of each side of his two-door car, a placard 29V2" x 20" in size which read as follows: BUY UNION BOYCOTT PACKARD BELL RADIOS-TELEVISION RECEIVERS HI-FI'S GARAGE DOOR OPENERS Packard Bell products are made under NON-UNION CONDITIONS and the Company is using STRIKE BREAKERS to Install, Service and Repair their equipment RADIO-TV TECHNICIANS LOCAL 202,1 B E. W. Garcia, to the observation of the witnesses named above, would circle the block in which Television City was located until he found a parking space at a parking meter in front of the store. He then parked the car parallel to the curb and proceeded to distribute handbills to all passersby I find that the placard was clearly visible to persons on the sidewalk as well as in the store and I see no difference in logic between a picket who is carrying a sign or banner with this legend on it and one who stations an automobile and its sign in front of a store in this manner, and adds his physical presence. This manifestly poses a different situation from pure handbilling, because a passerby, employee, supervisor, or an employer may refuse to accept a leaflet, but he could hardly avoid seeing the legend on the placard. Amalgamated Meat Cutters etc. (Peyton Packing Company, Inc ), 125 NLRB 531. That picketing is a coercive technique requires no discussion at this point Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460. And that this conduct was engaged in for a pro- scribed object is disclosed by the statement of Respondent's representative, Garcia, to the owner of Television City that this activity would cease if Television City stopped purchasing Packard Bell appliances. 1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I further find that Garcia was stationed by Respondent at this location, was paid for his services, and that this use of the placard on the car was within his ostensible authority. Indeed, no contention is made that the placard was not authorized by Re- spondent. While it may well be that the placard was intended primarily for use at the various Packard Bell service locations, discussed below, the fact is that this was not an isolated instance but rather conduct engaged in openly for a period of several months and deliberately so in an area where it would be most effective to exert pressure on the employer, Television City. And, although Garcia did not speak to the em- ployer after November 13, his object was made clear by other statements and con- duct after that date.5 I find that Respondent, by the use subsequent to November 13, 1959, of this placard on the automobile of its agent at the premises of Television City, under the specified circumstances, has engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. While the handbilling is deemed to be protected, the presence of agents of Respondent distributing handbills in the vicinity of the parked automobile is tantamount to the carrying of the placard by ambulatory pickets under these conditions. D. Alleged picketing of Packard Bell distributors The General Counsel has attacked picketing at the two Packard Bell service lo- cations in San Francisco and Oakland on the ground that it perforce involved whole- sale distributors of Packard Bell products who are also doing business at these locations. Packard Bell chooses to operate through the distributor system. Their distributors are entrepreneurs who have exclusive franchises and purchase products from Packard Bell in their own names. Payment is made directly to Packard Bell by the distributor who in turn sells to the retailer; the latter is billed by the distributor and makes pay- ment to him. It would seem that it is advantageous both for Packard Bell as well as the distributors to house these distributors in Packard Bell service installations, be- cause that system is utilized in the San Francisco Bay area and, according to Dis- tributor Robert Odell of Oakland whose case is typical, he is free to move to another location if he chooses. In Oakland, Packard Bell rents a one-story building which has over 4,000 square feet of floor space. There is one front door and the only emblem on the front of the building is a large neon sign bearing the name of Packard Bell. The Packard Bell service division occupies by far the bulk of the space therein and it has 14 to 18 em- ployees at this location. Also housed in this building are two exclusive franchised distributors for Packard Bell products who divide the local territory. One is Robert Odell doing business as Bob Odell Company. He has one employee, an occasional part-time helper and sub- lets 400 square feet of floor space from Packard Bell. The other distributor, Paul Daly Company, has one full-time employee and leases from Packard Bell approxi- mately 400 square feet of floor space next to the Odell space. These two distributors also maintain a joint showroom in the building directly adjoining their other space of some 700 or 750 square feet; both distributors pay rent directly to Packard Bell. An almost identical arrangement as to personnel, floor space, and methods of doing business exists in San Francisco where Packard Bell leases the building and sublets space therein to three distributors who divide the local territory. It is noteworthy that Packard Bell operates trucks at this location but that the distributors do not As in Oakland, there is one large sign on the exterior of the building which identifies only Packard Bell as the occupant of the premises. Inside, plaques have been placed over doors leading to the areas sublet by the respective distributors. Both the Oak- land and San Francisco locations have a rear door which is used chiefly as a shipping entrance. Handbills identical with those distributed at the various retail outlets were also distributed at the front entrances to the San Francisco and Oakland Packard Bell service installation. In addition, at these locations, the handbillers adopted and utilized the accoutrements of the picket. They wore sashes designating them as pickets and they also carried signs bearing the following legend: Packard Bell Technicians ON STRIKE Radio-TV Technicians Union Local 202 I.B.E.W. 5 The use of the placard may also have constituted inducement or encouragement of individuals within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (1) (B) of the Act, but that issue is not alleged and Is not before me. WIX CORPORATION 1059 Photographs disclose that a sign identical with that utilized on the automobile at Television City in Oakland was placed on the windshield of an automobile parked at the San Francisco location . Respondent concedes herein that it established pickets at both the San Francisco and Oakland locations of Packard Bell. This picketing activity was carried on for approximately 21/2 months until late in De- cember 1959. It is clear from the foregoing that Respondent had a primary dispute with Packard Bell and that it established a picket line pursuant thereto at the Packard Bell premises in San Francisco and Oakland . This was the location of the primary employer and indeed consisted of the very two locations at which the dispute had arisen and at which operations were being carried on with replacements or strike breakers. The requisites of the Moore Dry dock decision, 92 NLRB 547, are met because Packard Bell was carrying on its normal business at the site , the pickets were close to the locus of the business and the signs were limited to the dispute . Furthermore, this was the location of the primary dispute and not a location removed therefrom. Brewery and Beverage Drivers and Workers Local Union No. 67 , etc. (Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc.), 220 F. 2d 380 (C.A.D.C.). In view of the fore- going considerations , I see no merit to this aspect of the case and recommend its dismissal. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the company described in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Radio-TV Service Technicians Union Local 202, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By threatening, restraining, or coercing a person in an industry affecting com- merce with an object of forcing him to cease doing business with another person, Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 4. Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) ( B) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Wix Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-1627-92. August 17, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On March 15, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher 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 132 NLRB No. 87. 614913-62-vol. 132-68