Local 2117, Mine Workers

LOCAL 2117. MINE WORKERS Local 2117, United Mine Workers of America (Codell Construction Company) and Local 318, Internation- al Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CC-1243 December 8, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On March 31, 1978, Administrative Law Judge John F. Corbley issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. requiring Louisville and Nashville Railroad (hereinafter called L & N) and Codell Construction Company (herein- after called Codell) to cease doing business with each other and/or to force and require Roberts and Schaefer Con- struction Company (hereinafter called R & S), Inland Steel Coal Company (hereinafter called Inland), Railroad Maintenance Construction Company (hereinafter called Railroad Maintenance), or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with each other and/or with Codell and that by such conduct Respondent has violated Section 8(bX)(4i) and (iiXB) of the Act. In its answer to the com- plaint, which was also duly filed, Respondent has denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. For reasons which appear hereinafter, I find that Re- spondent has violated Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, essentially as alleged in the complaint. At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel. All parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence, and to file briefs. The parties waived the opportunity to make oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing. Briefs have sub- sequently been received from the General Counsel and Re- spondent and have been considered. Upon the entire record 2 in this case, including the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the fol- lowing: ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 2117, United Mine Workers of America, West Frankfurt, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN F CORBLEY. Administrative Law Judge: A hearing was held in this case on November 11, 1977. in St. Louis, Missouri, pursuant to a charge filed by Local 318, Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, hereinaf- ter referred to as the Charging Party, on September 9, 1977, which was served on Respondent by registered mail on or about the same date and on a complaint and notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director for Region 14 on October 13, 1977, which was also, thereafter, duly served on Respondent.' The complaint alleges that Respondent has picketed or engaged in a work stoppage at a railroad construction proj- ect in McLeansboro, Illinois, with an object of forcing or The Acting Regional Director subsequently rescheduled the hearing to the date on which it was held. I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES Codell is, and has been at all times material herein, a Kentucky corporation authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Illinois. At all times material herein. Codell has maintained its principal office and place of business located at 100 Moun- dale Avenue, Winchester, Kentucky. Codell has also main- tained a construction project near McLeansboro, Illinois (hereinafter called the McLeansboro project). At all times material herein, Codell has been and is en- gaged in the business of building and construction for in- dustrial and commercial construction projects. At its Mc- Leansboro project, Codell has a contract with L & N for the grading and drainage of a spur railroad line and the value of said contract is in excess of $500,000. During the year ending September 30, 1977, which pe- nod is representative of its operations during all times ma- terial hereto, Codell, in the course and conduct of its busi- ness operations, received gross revenues in excess of -On March 13, 1978. 1 issued an Order upon all parties to show cause why the record In these proceedings should not be corrected in certain parniculars No party having resporfded unfavorably within the time allot- ted. it is hereby ordered that certain errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected At the conclusion of the hearing, arrangements were made for post-hear- mng receipt Into evidence of Resp Exh. (A) (the National Coal Mine (ion- struction agreement) and I(B). a signature page. by Codell to such agree- ment and a certain stipulation bearing on the authenticity of I(A) and (B) The stipulation and documents were subsequently forwarded to me and are hereby received into evidence and are placed In the exhibit file. The record Is. accordingl,. closed. 673 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD $50,000 in payment for the performance of services, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed for various enterprises located outside the State of Illinois. Inland is and has been at all times material herein a corporation authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Illinois. Inland is building a coal mine near Mc- Leansboro, Illinois. L & N is building a spur railroad line to service that mine. (Some spur construction work has been contracted to Codell as previously found.) During the year ending September 30, 1977, which pe- riod is representative of its operations at all times material hereto, Inland, in the course and conduct of its business operation, sold coal and related products valued in excess of $50,000, of which coal and related products valued in excess of $50,000 were sold and shipped from its Illinois mines to customers located directly outside the State of Illinois. R & S is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Illinois. R & S is engaged in the construction of Inland's mine at the McLeansboro project under a contract with Inland. During the year ending September 30, 1977, which pe- riod is representative of its operations at all times material hereto, R & S, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased and caused to be transported goods and equipment valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and equipment valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped and sold to and received by R & S at its Illinois construc- tion sites, directly from points located outside the State of Illinois.3 Railroad Maintenance is a company which is to place the tracks on the L & N spur line for which Codell is per- forming the grading and drainage. Railroad Maintenance was also laying the tracks for a loop section at the Inland mine itself, apparently for Inland, at the time of the events in question. L & N is a railroad company. Inland has granted L & N a permanent easement across certain of Inland's property near McLeansboro, Illinois, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a spur railroad line from Inland's mine at that location to the existing L & N rail- road line. During the year ending September 30, 1977, which pe- riod is representative of its operations during all times ma- terial hereto, L & N, in the course and conduct of its busi- ness operations, purchased and caused to be transported goods and equipment valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped and sold to and received by L & N at its Illinois place of business, directly from points located out- side the State of Illinois.4 1, accordingly, conclude that Codell and R & S, both of whom were using their employees in their operations of the McLeansboro mine project, are each an employer engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act based 3The foregoing findings as to the business of the Companies are based on the allegations in the complaint and the admissions in Respondent's answer. These volumes of business findings in respect to L & N are based on the admissions in Respondent's answer. on the Board's nonretail standard 5 and Codell on the addi- tional basis of the Board's retail standard.6 Respondent's answer denies that Inland, R & S, L & N, Codell, and Railroad Maintenance are persons en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the Act. I will take up this issue in my "Concluding Findings." IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Both Respondent and the Charging Party are labor orga- nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1II. BACKGROUND AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS A. Respondent's Relevant Hierarchy David Curry was a grievance committeeman, at all times pertinent hereto, in the late summer and fall of 1977 for employees represented by Respondent who were working for R & S. In this capacity, Curry represented Respondent in negotiations with R & S at the job level. His position was the equivalent of a steward with an AFL-CIO union. I, therefore, conclude that at all times pertinent hereto Cur- ry was an agent of Respondent, acting in its behalf, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act. B. Background and Sequence of Events At all times material herein, Respondent, as it admitted in its answer, has had a labor dispute with Codell. Recapitulating the relationship of the various employers from my jurisdictional findings, supra, it may be recalled that Inland is developing a coal mine near McLeansboro, Illinois. R & S is engaged in the construction of this mine. L & N is building a spur line to serve that coal mine and has contracted to Codell the grading and drainage for this spur, whereas Railroad Maintenance will lay the track on the L & N spur. At the time of the incidents in question here, Railroad Maintenance was also laying the track for a loop section at the site of the mine itself. Employees of R & S and of Railroad Maintenance are members of Respondent, sometimes hereinafter referred to as UMWA. Employees of Codell are represented by three labor organizations-the Charging Party, Laborers Union 1197, and Teamsters Local 347. L & N's existing railroad line runs in an east/west di- rection north of the Inland mine site. The spur line will run from the railroad line directly to the coal mine. Between the railroad line and the mine site runs Highway 14, which is parallel to the railroad line. The spur line from the rail- road to the mine runs some 3 to 4 miles before reaching Highway 14 and then continues about four-fifths of a mile south of that highway to the point where the spur will con- nect with the loop at the minesite. Codell's contract with L & N covers work on the entire spur; i.e., from L & N's main line to the point where the spur meets the loop on the minesite. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958). 6 arolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88 (1958). 674 LOCAL 2117, MINE WORKERS Inland has surface title to the 1,800 acres south of High- way 14. To enable L & N to construct the L & N spur, Inland, as previously mentioned, has granted L & N a permanent easement from Highway 14 to the minesite. Codell began its work on the spur line on or about March 14, 1977. 7 Its employees remained in the area north of Highway 14 until August 19, when they crossed to the south side of that highway for the first time. In the afternoon of August 19, a group of men including Respondent's committeeman, Curry, approached Roy Palmer, Codell's superintendent in charge of construction of the L & N spur line. Curry told Palmer that Palmer could do all of the work he wanted to do north of Highway 14 but that when Palmer's men came south of that highway Curry and his group wanted UMWA construction people to do the work. Palmer replied that L & N had a permanent easement from the highway to the loop at the minesite. Curry re- joined that he knew nothing of easements or leases but that when Palmer came south of the highway Palmer was to use UMWA people. Palmer then pointed out that the matter would have to be settled by someone other than himself and Curry. At this juncture, John Taylor, steward for Laborers Lo- cal 1197, joined the conversation. Taylor told Curry that Taylor had been in contact with Herman Skelton, the La- borers business agent, and Skelton had told Taylor that Laborers had been trying to get a meeting with Beattie, a representative of UMWA, but had been unsuccessful. Cur- ry said there was no need for any meetings because the work on the south side of the highway would be done by UMWA people. This was the end of the conversation. Codell's employees, however, continued to work on the south side of the highway until August 22, completing the laying of two strings of pipes. After August 22, the Codell crews returned to the area north of this highway and con- tinued their work there. On September I, Codell again moved south of the high- way to begin excavation oand the work continued thereaf- ter. September 3, 4, and 5 were the days of the long Labor Day weekend. On September 7, Codell's employees were on the south side of the highway ready to work on the spur line. At or about 7 a.m., some 125-150 men, most of whom had on hard hats with UMWA symbols and Respondent's decals, came to Codell's jobsite and went to the middle of the railroad right of way on the south side of Highway 14. Palmer, Taylor, and Cozart of the Charging Union ap- proached this gathering and sought to engage them in con- versation. One of the gathering stepped up, identified him- self as Skip Moak, and stated that he was the spokesman. Moak advised Palmer, Taylor, and Cozart that there was not going to be any more work done south of Highway 14 until it was resolved whether the work would be performed by UMWA or AFL workers. Palmer stated that L & N had an easement to the point of switch (viz, the right of way south of Highway 14 to the loop at the minesite). Moak said they (apparently Respondent) did not recognize 7All dates referred to hereinafter are in 1977. unless otherwise stated. leases. He said that in the contract that they (Respondent) had with Inland Steel Inland could not contract out the work. Moak insisted that this contract gave the work to them (Respondent's members).' Palmer then asked for a copy of that contract. He was given one which he read hurriedly. After so doing, Palmer agreed to do no more work on the south side of the highway until the problem was resolved (with the exception of repairing a backhoe to which Moak agreed). Palmer asked Moak about the where- abouts of Curry, but Moak said that Curry was at the mine. The gathering of individuals which confronted Palmer, Taylor. and Cozart were employees of R & S who had first assembled at Brown's Market, a location near the mine. None of the R & S crew reported for work to R & S that day or the next, but they did report on Sep- tember 9. Following this incident, all of the Codell equipment was moved back to the north side of the highway and Codell continued to work in that area. All of Codell's work on the north side of the highway was completed on September 21 and its employees were all laid off. Between September 7 and 21, Codell performed no work on the railroad right of way south of the highway. On the morning of October 4. Codell again moved its employees south of Highway 14 to continue working there. The employees of R & S learned of Codell's action on that morning. This caused "two and a half hours of com- plete turmoil" at the mine construction site with the R & S employees questioning the basis on which Codell had returned. In an effort to resolve this difficulty, Ted Robinson, the R & S construction superintendent for the minesite, spoke to Respondent's committeeman, Curry. Robinson advised Curry that Robinson could not afford to have the men "worrying about Codell's operation" be- cause R & S "had a mine to build." Robinson, therefore, suggested to Curry to have a meeting of the men, and de- cide what to do. A meeting of R & S's employees was held and they decided to confront Codell as a group. The entire R & S work force walked off the minesite at or about 10:15 a.m. on that date. They were joined by some employ- ees of Railroad Maintenance. This group of miners and construction workers then pro- ceeded to the area south of Highway 14 where Codell's employees were working. Palmer, the Codell superinten- dent, saw this group approaching and walked over to them. When Palmer asked who would speak for the group, Curry stepped up and said that he was their spokesman. Curry also asked Palmer why Codell had returned to work that day. Palmer said that this was based on a verbal agreement between Gumbel (attorney for Respondent) and Souders (attorney for the Charging Union) that there would be no pickets, and that no one would interfere with the work. Palmer inquired whether Curry had received the same in- formation but Curry denied that he had. Reading from a prepared statement, Curry then told Palmer that for Palmer's own personal safety and the safety of Palmer's equipment, Palmer was being asked to move back to the Respondent admits responsibility for this strinke and defends on the basis of a contractual assignment of the work (although the contract put in esi- dence is between UMWA and Codell). 675 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD north side of Highway 14 and to do no work on the south side until there was an agreement in writing. Curry added that when such an agreement was received, it should be brought to Curry or Henderson, another Respondent com- mitteeman. Palmer told Curry that Palmer would move back to the north side of the highway. Curry said that would tne fine but accompanied Palmer as he walked some 800 or 900 feet to the roadside where Palmer told Taylor to have the labor- ers move all their equipment back to the north side of the highway. Palmer, also, then told Taylor that no more work would be done on the south side. The equipment was moved back to the north side of the highway and, since October 4, Codell's employees have performed no work on the south side. On October 5, when Palmer reported for work, he ob- served four untended picket signs stuck in the ground on the south side of the highway in the road detour section which crosses the right of way where Codell would be ex- tending the grading for the spur line south of the highway to the mine site. These signs bore the inscription "Codell Construction Company Unfair to UMWA Construction Panel Members." These signs were still in place on the day of the hearing herein, November 11, 1977. Concluding Findings Respondent's answer admits that at all times material herein it has had a labor dispute with Codell. The answer further admits that, since on or about September 7, 1977, Respondent has picketed or engaged in a work stoppage at the McLeansboro project. The answer denies the further allegation of the complaint that an object of Respondent's work stoppage and picketing was to force or require L & N and Codell to cease doing business with each other and/or to force or require R & S, Inland, L & N, Rail- road Maintenance, or any other person engaged in com- merce or in industries affecting commerce to cease doing business with each other and/or with Codell. Respondent contends in its brief that its strike and pick- eting constituted lawful primary activity aimed at Codell. It points to undisputed evidence that Codell and the United Mine Workers are parties to a contract pursuant to which Respondent claims the work south of Highway 14. It further argues that the evidence shows that its conduct was not for an object of forcing any employers to cease doing business with Codell. I reject these contentions. While Respondent presented its claim to the construc- tion work south of Highway 14 to Codell, the primary em- ployer here (whose work assignment to non-UMWA em- ployees was being disputed by Respondent), this is not the conduct averred as unlawful by the complaint. The com- plaint takes issue with Respondent's strike and picketing. The strike (I will consider the picketing, infra) involved the employees of R & S and, on one occasion, of Railroad Maintenance as well. These are both neutral employers. There was no strike of the employees of Codell. As to Respondent's contract with Codell, pursuant to which Respondent now claims the construction work south of Highway 14, said contract has no bearing on the unlaw- ful conduct of Respondent alleged in this complaint. To begin with, that contract was not relied on by Respon- dent's spokesman, Moak, when the strike first occurred on September 7. Moak rather claimed that Respondent had a contract with Inland which awarded Respondent the work assignment in dispute.9 Secondly, it is not clear that the Codell contract covers this work. For the work jurisdictional language of that con- tract describes coal mine construction and does not neces- sarily speak to the construction of a transportation system to or from a minesite.?0 That is, specifically, the jurisdic- tional statement does not specify construction of a railroad spur to or from a minesite and, in logic, the coal transpor- tation system involves an operation separate from the mine itself. While Respondent's members have constructed the internal railroad loop to transport the coal out from inside the mine-the traditional and practicable method for mov- ing coal from a mine to a point from which it can be trans- ported away-the loop is not a part of the transportation system from the minesite to consumers. Nor, indeed, must a transportation system to consumers involve a railroad (viz, coal can also be transported to consumers by truck and frequently is). Hence, I conclude that the construction of the railroad spur to the minesite was not a part of the construction of the mine, and was not covered by the con- tract between UMWA and Codell. Even if the Codell contract covers the construction of the railroad spur to the mine and further provides a valid basis for Respondent to claim this work at this site-that is, even if the jurisdictional dispute over the assignment of this work is, or may be, settled in favor of Respon- dent-such a settlement is no defense to a claimed viola- tion of Section 8(b)(4)(B). For Respondent's entitlement to the work would not provide it the right to strike innocent neutrals such as R & S and Railroad Maintenance." While there is no direct evidence that Respondent spe- cifically requested R & S or Railroad Maintenance to cease doing business with any other employer or with Co- dell, these cessations of business, as I will explain below, are nonetheless the "foreseeable consequence" of the strike which Respondent caused of the employees of R & S and of Railroad Maintenance. Since such cessations are fore- seeable consequences of that strike activity, such cessations f If indeed Respondent had relied on the UMWA contract with Codell at the time in question, Respondent would presumably have also claimed Codell's work north of Highway 14. t0 The contract states in pertinent part: This Agreement covers all work related to the development, expan- sion or alteration of coal mines, including the creation of tipples and preparation plants and other facilities placed in on or around coal mines, sinking of shafts, slopes, drifts or tunnels and all other such coal related work that is performed by members of the Association at or on coal lands, coal producing and coal preparation facilities owned or held under lease by signatories to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1974. or any of them, or by any subsidiary or affiliate on the date of this agreement, or acquired during its term which may hereafter (dunng the term of this agreement) be put into production or use. I l.ocal 282. International Brotherhood af[ Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America (United Slates Trucking Corporation), 146 NLRB 956. 963, fn. 9 (1946), enfd. 344 F.2d 649 (2d Cir. 1965). 676 LOCAL 2117, MINE WORKERS are objectives within the meaning of Section 8(bX4)B) of which Respondent is answerable. To explain-what is present in this case is the typical situation where a labor organization has caused a strike of employees oi various neutral employers to have these neu- tral employers cease doing business with yet other neutral employers to force the latter to cease doing business with the primary employer (here Codell) with which the labor organization has a dispute." Thus, Respondent has struck R & S and Railroad Maintenance in an effort to obtain assignment of the disputed work from Codell. This meant, of course, that while the strike was going on-and should it ever recur-R & S and Railroad Maintenance had been- or would be-forced to cease doing business with mine owner, Inland, another neutral employer. That is, with their employees on strike both R & S and Railroad Main- tenance would, at least for the term of the strike if not permanently, cease performing services for Inland. If In- land wanted to have its mine completed, which it obviously did, it would be forced to change its method of doing busi- ness with its transportation company, L & N, yet another neutral employer, by requiring the latter to cease doing business with Codell (L & N's construction contractor) or by requiring L & N to change its method of doing busi- ness with Codell by forcing Codell to complete its con- struction work using employees represented by UMWA. A cease doing business objective is the essential delict proscribed by Section 8(bX4XB) of the Act. The objective of causing a change in the method whereby one neutral does business with another neutral or whereby a neutral does business with a primary is also a cease doing business objective within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.'4 As I have already noted, Respondent admits its responsi- bility not only for the strike but also the picketing. The picketing involved the placement of signs on the railroad right of way south of Highway 14 which are still thete (stuck in the ground) 15 and which state "Codell Construc- tion Company Unfair to UMWA Construction Panel Members." I further hold that the placement of these signs on the railroad right of way is an extension of the unlawful sec- ondary activity which provided the context for Respon- dent's initial dispute with Codell. For the picket signs ap- peared on the day after the last strike. They proclaim the 12 Meat and Highway Drivers. Dockmen. Helpers and Miscellaneous Truck Terminal Employees. Local Union No. 710, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chaffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Wilton f Co., Inc.), 143 NLRB 1221, 1233, fn. 18 (1963), enfd. as modified 335 F.2d 709 (DC. Cir. 1964). N.L. R B. v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers. AFL-CIO [Burns i Roe, Inc ], 400 U.S. 297 (1971): Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. A FL CIO (New York Telephone Cormpa- ny), 140 NLRB 729 (1963), enfd. 325 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1963); Combustion Associates, Inc., 144 NLRB 1206 (1963). 14 Local 3, IBEW (New York Telephone Co.), supra. I The placement of untended picket signs in the ground constitutes pick- eting within the meaning of the Act, where the picketing union otherwise maintains control over the signs. Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Woodward Motors, Inc.), 135 NLRB 851 (1962), enfd. 314 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1963). While Respondent's members were not shown to be directly controlling or watch- ing the signs. said members continue to work nearby for R & S and Rail- road Maintenance at the minesite. continuation of Respondent's dispute with Codell and the situs of the signs, more specifically, is across the railroad right of way south of Highway 14, in an area where no Codell employees have worked since October 4, whereas employees of R & S and Railroad Maintenance continue to work at the nearby minesite. In the circumstances, I conclude not only that the picketing is a prolongation of the original dispute involved in the strike but that the pick- eting is a continuing inducement to employees of neutral employers such as R & S and Railroad Maintenance to strike or withhold their services from their respective neu- tral employers in support of Respondent's position in the dispute with Codell. 'l There remains for consideration the denial in Respondent's answer of commerce allegations in respect to Railroad Maintenance and the further denial in Respon- dent's answer that Codell, Inland, R & S, Railroad Main- tenance and L & Ni, at all times pertinent hereto were each an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and were also each a person engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4XB) of the Act at all times pertinent hereto. I have already found, on the basis of the commerce data previously recited, that Codell and R & S are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. This commerce finding establishes the Board's jurisdiction in the case. Inasmuch as Inland, L & N, and Railroad Maintenance have various relation- ships with Codell and R & S involving the construction of the mine or the railroad spur to the mine, it follows that Inland, L & N, Railroad Maintenance, and Codell and R & S are all likewise persons engaged in an industry af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.17 I so find. Accordingly, I conclude that by Respondent's strike ac- tivity and picketing on and since September 7, 1977, Re- spondent has engaged in a strike and has induced the em- ployees of R & S and Railroad Maintenance to engage in a strike with an object of forcing or requiring R & S, Rail- road Maintenance, Inland Steel, and L & N to cease doing business with each other and to force L & N to cease doing business with Codell. I further conclude that by such conduct Respondent has violated, and is violating, Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the Act.1s IV THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of the employers and persons described in sections I i See Millmen-Cabinet Makers. Industrial Carpenters Union Local 550, L'nit:d hotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. AFL-CIO (Dia- mond Industries). 227 NLRB 196 (1976). 11 Sheet Metal Workers International Association. Local Union No. 299., AFL-CIO and Allen Stout, its Agent (S M. Kisner), 131 NLRB 1196, 1199 (1961). It is of no consequence that L & N and Inland may have no em- ployees at the site. Local 150, International Union of Operating Engineers. AFL CIO et al (Frisch Contracting Service Conmpanv, Inc.). 149 NLRB 29. 34 119641. The strike (Sec. 8(b4Xl) ) also violates Sec. 8(b(4XiiXB) of the Act. Local Union 825. Internatonal Brotherhood of Operating Engineers. AFL- CIO (Carlton Brothers Company). 131 NLRB 452 (1961). 677 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and II, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tionship 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 Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Re- spondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Codell and R & S are employers engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and Codell, R & S, Inland, L & N, and Railroad Maintenance are each persons engaged in an industry af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. 2. Respondent and the Charging Party are labor organi- zations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By striking, or inducing the employees of R & S and Railroad Maintenance to strike, and by picketing at the railroad spur right of way, variously, on and since Septem- ber 7, 1977, with an object of forcing or requiring R & S, Railroad Maintenance, Inland and L & N to cease doing business with each other and forcing L & N to cease doing business with Codell, Respondent has violated, and is violating, Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER ' 9 The Respondent, Local 2117, United Mine Workers of America, McLeansboro, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Roberts and Schaefer Construction Company or Railroad Maintenance Construction Company to engage in, strikes or refusals to work or to perform services in the course of his employ- ment; from picketing; and from threatening, coercing, or restraining Roberts and Schaefer Construction Company or Railroad Maintenance Construction Company where, by any such activity, an object thereof is to force or require Roberts and Schaefer Construction Company, Railroad Maintenance Construction Company, Inland Steel Coal Company, and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad to cease doing business with each other or to force Louisville and Nashville Railroad to cease doing business with Codell Construction Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by the authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 14 signed copies of said notice for posting by Roberts and Schaefer Construction Company, Railroad Maintenance Construction Company, Inland Steel Coal Company, Louisville and Nasaville Railroad, and Codell Construc- tion Company, if any such employer or person be willing, in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 20 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Roberts and Schaefer Con- struction Company or Railroad Maintenance Con- struction Company to engage in, strikes or refusals to work or to perform services in the course of his em- ployment; nor WILL WE picket; nor WILL WE threaten, coerce, or restrain Roberts and Schaefer Construction Company or Railroad Maintenance Construction Company, where, by any such activity, an object thereof is to force or require Roberts and Schaefer Construction Company, Railroad Maintenance Con- struction Company, Inland Steel Coal Company, and the Louisville and Nashville Railroad, to cease doing business with each other or to force Louisville and Nashville Railroad to cease doing business with Co- dell Construction Company. LOCAL 2117, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 678