Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local 484

BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS '& SALESMEN , 'LOCAL NO. 484 987 APPENDIX NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Packinghouse , Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate employees , or in any other manner discriminat- ing in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union adherence or activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT promise employees economic benefits to discourage member- ship in the above-named or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer Simon Littleton , J. C. Comick, and James Sims immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and -make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. AMERICAN COMPRESS WAREHOUSE, DIVISION OF FROST-WHITED COMPANY, INC., Employer. 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone Number, 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 and Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 and Continental Baking Company Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484 and Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484; and Continental Baking Company and Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation . Cases Nos. 00-CC-217, 20-CC-248, 20-CC-249, and 20-CE-5. June 28, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed by Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation, herein called Aksland or Sunrise; Continental Baking 137 NLRB No. 98. 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company, herein called Continental; and Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, herein called Oroweat, the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twen- tieth Region, on June 20, 1961, issued a consolidated complaint alleg- ing that Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484, herein called Respondent Union, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) and (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and that Respondent Union and Conti- nental had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(e) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondents and the Charging Parties. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that the Respondent Union has engaged in, induced, and encouraged, and is engaging in, inducing, and encouraging, individuals employed by Continental and Oroweat to engage in strikes, slowdowns, and refusals in the course of their employment to handle or prepare bakery products for shipment by Sunrise and has threatened, coerced, and restrained, and is threatening, coercing and restraining, Conti- nental and Oroweat where the objects thereof were and are to force or require Continental and Oroweat to enter into an agreement pro- hibited by Section 8(e) of the Act, whereby such employers cease or agree to cease doing business with Sunrise, and to force or require Continental and Oroweat to cease doing business with Sunrise. The complaint further alleges that Respondent Union and Respondent Continental have entered into an agreement whereby Continental has ceased and refrained and agreed to cease and refrain from doing business with Sunrise and have at all times material continued and are continuing to maintain and give effect to said agreement. Respondent Union's answer, filed on June 30, 1961, admits certain jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies the commission of unfair labor practices. Respondent Continental's an- swer denies that it has entered into an agreement with Respondent Union in violation of 8 (e). On July 21, 1961, all parties to the proceeding entered into a motion to transfer this proceeding directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order. The parties stipulated that they have waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Exam- iner and to the issuance of an Intermediate Report, that the charges, consolidated complaint, and the transcript of testimony in Shore v. Bakery Wagon Drivers d; Salesmen Local Union No. 484, Civil No. 39957, N.D. Cal., June 27, 1961, shall constitute the entire record in the case and that no oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of the parties. On August 1, 1961, the Board granted the motion, ordered BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 989 the transfer of the proceedings to the Board, and granted permission to the parties to file briefs. All parties filed briefs. Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation, the Respondents' answers, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE Continental is, and has been at all times material herein, a corpora- tion engaged at Redwood City, California, and elsewhere, in operat- ing bakeries and in the sale and distribution of breads and other bak- ery products. During the past 12 months, Continental, in the course and conduct of its said business at its Redwood City plant here in- volved, manufactured, processed, sold, and shipped bakery products to points outside the State of California valued in excess of $50,000, and caused to be shipped to it from sources outside the State of California, raw materials, goods, and supplies valued at in excess of $50,000. Oroweat is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation engaged at San Francisco, California, and elsewhere, in operating bakeries and in the sale and distribution of breads and other bakery products. During the past 12 months, Oroweat, in the course and conduct of its said business at its San Francisco plant here involved, manufactured, processed, sold, and shipped bakery products to points outside the State of California valued in excess of $50,000, and caused to be shipped to it from sources outside the State of California, raw materials, goods, and supplies valued at in excess of $50,000. Sunrise is engaged as a common carrier duly licensed by the Inter- state Commerce Commission and the State of California Public Utili- ties Commission, transporting primarily bakery products to various points in California and neighboring States, with its place of business at Manteca, California. During the past 12 months, in the course and conduct of this business, Sunrise received in excess of $50,000 for serv- ices performed for Continental, Oroweat, and other bakery whole- salers in California, who are themselves engaged in interstate com- merce and each of which annually ships bakery products valued at in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of California. Accordingly we find, and the Respondent Union admits, that Conti- nental, Oroweat, and Sunrise are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts-background Continental and Oroweat are engaged in the baking and distribu- tion of bakery products from their plants in San Francisco to points in and out of California. Both are members of Bay Area Council of Bakery Operators, Inc., herein called Association, a multiemployer bargaining group, and each has a current contract with Respondent Local 484 covering drivers, loaders, shipping and receiving clerks, machine wrappers and packers, and inside foremen. For a period of years Continental, Oroweat, and other employer members of Associa- tion have used common carriers for shipping their bakery products to points outside San Francisco. Sunrise, a common carrier licensed ,by the State PUC and the ICC, is one of these carriers and is located in Manteca, California. Sunrise has seven employees; six are rep- resented by Teamsters Local 439, which has geographical jurisdiction over the area where Sunrise is located, and one (Huarte) is repre- sented by Respondent Union. Sunrise is a party to contracts with both Local 439 and Respondent Union covering its respective em- ployee members. In addition to the contracts between Respondent Union and Sun- rise, and Respondent Union and the members of the Association, there exists, according to the Respondent Union, an oral guarantee given by Continental to Respondent. There is sharp conflict in the record evidence and testimony regarding the existence and scope of the alleged guarantee. Respondent Union's business agent, Wendell Phillips, testified that the guarantee came about in the following manner : In late 1948 or 1949 Continental and another member of the Association expressed the desire to utilize outside carriers for out-of-town deliveries. The Respondent Union contended that this proceeding was contrary to the then existing association contract, but that it would make an exception if the employer would commit itself to be responsible for the terms and conditions under which the drivers of the independent carrier worked. The Union, in the person of Wendell Phillips, then agreed orally with one Goldie, the general manager of Continental, that Continental could use the services of an independent carrier, Niel- son, and Continental guaranteed that the delivery of bakery goods by Nielson would be done under the terms of its contract with the Union. Continental commenced using Nielson at that time. In 1952 Sunrise took over the trucking operation from Nielson and, under the terms of Nielson's contract with Respondent Union, Sunrise also succeeded to the labor contract. Shortly thereafter Sunrise executed a contract with the Respondent Union and has had contractual relations with it ever since. Just as Sunrise succeeded to its predecessor's business and BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 991 labor contracts, so Sunrise became a succesor under the guarantee, and during the period since 1952 the Union has had occasion to call upon Continental to abide by the guarantee. Several times a year the Respondent Union has asked Continental, under the terms of the guarantee, to remind Sunrise of its delinquencies in regard to health and welfare and pension payments. Until the more recent develop- ments, described more fully 'infra, Continental has always complied with the guarantee and the Union at no time dealt directly with Sun- rise in straightening out such matters relating to delinquent pay- ments.' The guarantee was never reduced to writing nor was it ever incorporated into subsequent contracts. None of the General Counsel's witnesses professed to know anything about a guarantee. Goldie, who allegedly made the guarantee, has since died 2 However, Bird, Goldie's successor, though denying knowledge of any guarantee prior to February 1961, testified that he was frequently asked by Respondent Union to speak to Aksland, the owner of Sunrise, in regard to delinquent payments to the health and welfare and pension funds, and that he did do so as an accommodation to Respondent Union. B. The present dispute According to Respondent's agent, Phillips, in February 1961 he telephoned Bird to inform Bird that Sunrise was once again delin- quent in its payments to the union health and welfare and pension funds. In the course of his investigation of these delinquencies, Phillips learned that Aksland was making payment to the Respondent Union's health and welfare and pension funds for all his employees, even though only one of them was a member of Respondent Union. Phillips then made an appointment with Aksland and requested Aks- land to produce certain records. Aksland testified that he had occasion to call Phillips in early March 1961, and at that time Phillips complained that Aksland's employees were delivering to retail stores without being paid retail commissions, and that Aksland's employees were working prior to 6 a.m. without receiving night compensation, and Phillips asked Aks- land to come to his office and to bring his payroll and certain other records with him. Aksland testified that a meeting was arranged for March 14, 1961. The record is clear that on that day Aksland met with Walsh, presi- dent of Respondent Union, who had a list of questions prepared by Phillips. Phillips sought information about the names of Sunrise's drivers, the carriers and shippers with whom Sunrise was dealing, and Sunrise's retail deliveries, which Walsh stated were prohibited. 1 The record does indicate that in 1956 Aksland dealt directly with the Respondent in settling a dispute involving backpay. 2 The record is not clear as to whether Goldie's death occurred in 1955 or 1958. 992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There was no discussion in regard to late payments or the union affiliation of Sunrise's employees, and Aksland made an appointment to see Phillips the following week. Aksland did not keep the appointment. Thereafter, according to Phillips, he again telephoned Bird and informed him of Sunrise's alleged practices in violation of the con- tract, namely, that Sunrise had six drivers working for him who were members of Local 439 and that he was not paying bakery wagon drivers' contract wages. Phillips also stated that he again demanded that Bird perform under the guarantee but that Bird stated that he, Bird, could not do so and was withdrawing the guarantee. Phillips then told Bird that if the guarantee were withdrawn Continental would have to start performing under its contract. In short, Con- tinental would have to ship the goods with its own trucks and drivers, or see to it that the goods were shipped by drivers who enjoy the benefits of the bakery wagon drivers' contract rather than the over- the-road contract. Bird's version of this telephone conversation substantiates the fact that Phillips attempted to get Bird to perform under the guarantee; that Bird denied knowledge of the guarantee; that he told Phillips his efforts in writing and phoning Aksland about delinquent payments were an accommodation to the Union; and that he could not guarantee Aksland's performance because Aksland dealt with all the bakers over a large geographical area. On April 14, 1961, Phillips told Bird he was giving Continental 2 weeks to get "lined up" or do its own hauling rather than use the services of Sunrise. On April 21,1961, a joint union-industry meeting was held at which representatives of the Association and various Teamsters locals were present. Phillips brought up the matter of the guarantee and the fact that Sunrise's employees were not receiving bakery wagon drivers' contract wages and benefits and that he had given Continental a dead- line of April 29, after which date, if the guarantee were not per- formed, Continental and other members of Association could no longer use Sunrise. McKee, the regional director at Continental, testified to this, and he stated further that Sizoo, the director of the Association, attempted to get Phillips to arbitrate this matter as an alleged viola- tion of section 8 of the contract,3 and that Phillips refused. Section 8 of the contract provides- With respect to bakery goods produced by employers at plants located in the area covered by this Agreement, and which are sold to customers within the State of California, it is agreed that existing employer-employee relationships subject to this contract shall not directly or indirectly be replaced with that of independent con- tractors, nor shall any such employer permit, allow, or enter into any agreement with any individual or group of individuals to distribute such bakery products of the employer when the truck, vehicles, or equipment used in the sale of such products is not owned or controlled by such employer and such individual or group of individuals are not guaranteed all of the benefits of the agreement with the local union of the BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 993 At the request of the Association, the April 29 deadline was ex- tended to May 7,1961. The parties stipulated and the record is clear that on May 7, 1961, Respondent induced Continental's employees not to put up orders to be transported by Sunrise .4 The record shows that this inducement and consequent refusal of Continental's employees to put up orders for delivery by Sunrise continued through the hearing dates and after dates the parties filed briefs with the Board. The parties also stipu- lated that the Union induced the employees of Oroweat not to assist in the loading of Sunrise trucks, which activity lasted from May 8 to June 14, 1961.5 Such conduct on the part of Continental and Oro- weat employees constituted a refusal to handle goods or products des- tined for delivery by Sunrise, and amounted to partial strikes. C. Conclusions On the basis of the foregoing, we find that there did exist a guarantee between Respondent Union and Continental, under which Continental was permitted to use the services of Sunrise so long as Continental guaranteed Sunrise's performance of its contract with Respondent Union. We find, however, that the guarantee was with- drawn by Bird of Continental at the outset of the dispute which is the subject of this proceeding, and that Respondent Union's admitted inducement of the employees of Continental had as an object, forcing Continental either to reinstitute the guarantee, or to perform under its contract with the Union. Contrary to Respondent Union, however, these findings do not mean that it was engaged in protected primary dispute with Continental and that its inducement of Continental's employees was therefore per- missable primary activity. An understanding of our conclusions in this regard requires an understanding of the relationship of the guar- antee to the terms of Respondent's contract with Continental. It is Respondent Union's contention that absent the guarantee, Continental could not have subcontracted its delivery services to Sunrise or to Sunrise's predecessor (under the guarantee), Nielson, because they did not fall within the class of enterprises set forth in the contract be- tween Continental and Respondent with which subcontracts were per- mitted. While Respondent does not point to any specific provisions International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers hav- ing jurisdiction in the area in which they operate. It is the understanding of the parties to said Agreement that this Section shall not apply to the individual independent contractors previously agreed to , nor shall it affect existing policies in distribution other than the use of independent contractors A The inducement at Continental included both the refusal to load racks with bakery products destined for Sunrise trucks as well as the refusal to load the trucks. 5 Though the Respondent contends that its activities at Oroweat were not sufficient to find a violation , the record is clear that the employees at Oroweat had been performing these duties regularly, and that the Union had disrupted these employment practices 649856-63-vol. 13 7-6 4 '994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,of its contract to support its contention, the testimony of Phillips re- lating to the circumstances giving birth to the guarantee, as well as -the provisions of section 8 of the contract, indicate there is substance to .the contention. However, the record also reveals that the basis for the exception created by the guarantee was the fact that Nielson and later Sunrise, had a contract with Respondent Union, and it was the -function of the guarantee to compel performance of such contract. Accordingly, accepting the construction of its contract urged by Re- spondent Union, it appears that the guarantee operated to lift a ban against subcontracting, but only to the extent of permitting subcon- tracting with an employer which had an agreement with Respondent -Union. Therefore the guarantee stands in violation of Section 8 (e) of the Act,' for, though the Board has held that Section 8(e) of the Act does not prohibit all agreements which limit an employer's right to subcontract work, agreements which limit the right to subcontract only to employers who have agreements with the contracting union ,do violate its terms.' It follows from the foregoing that Respondent Union's admitted inducement of Continental's employees to cease handling products scheduled for delivery by Sunrise, which action constituted partial strikes, for the purpose of forcing Continental to reinstitute the guar- antee, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act, which makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to engage in such activi- ties where an object is to compel an employer to enter into an agree- ment prohibited by Section 8 (e) of the Act.' We so find. We do not find, however, that the Respondent Union's admitted inducement of Oroweat's employees violated 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) because the record clearly shows that Respondent Union was not seeking to compel Oroweat to enter into the guarantee. We find, further, that Respondent's admitted inducement of the employees of Continental and Oroweat to engage in partial strikes violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. With respect to the inducement of Continental's employees, Respondent concedes that it was seeking to compel Continental either to reinstitute the guarantee or to have its delivery services performed in accordance with its own contract with Respondent Union. It is obvious that the alternative P Section 8 ( e) states in pertinent part: It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling , using, selling , trans- porting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person. . . . . See Dish set No. 9, International Association of Machinists ( Greater St . Louis Auto- motive Trimmers and Upholsterers Association , Inc ), 134 NLRB 1354 ; Automotive, Petroleum & Allied Industries Employees Union, Local, etc. (Greater St Louis Automotive Trimmers and Upholsterers Association, Inc.), 134 NLRB 1363. 873ighway Truck Drives and Helpers, Local 107 , etc. (E A. Gallagher & Sons), 131 NLRB 925, enfd . 302 F. 2d 897 (C.A D C) For purposes of this proceeding , it is un- necessary to, and we do not, pass upon the legality or illegality of section 8 of the coutiact. BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 995 avenue of conduct left open to Continental would require a cessation of business with Sunrise. It is therefore apparent that an object of Re- spondent's conduct was to force Continental to cease doing business with Sunrise .9 With respect to the inducement of Oroweat's employees it is plain that such action was taken to harass Sunrise in the per- formance of its delivery service for Oroweat, and was a pressure tactic designed to compel Oroweat to stop doing business with Sunrise be- cause Sunrise did not live up to the terms of its contract with Re- spondent. Respondent, admittedly, had no dispute with Oroweat. It therefore violated the Act by striking Oroweat for a proscribed objective. In Case No. 20-CE-5, the General Counsel alleges that the Re- spondent and Continental entered into an agreement in violation of Section 8 (e) when Continental, at Respondent's request, ceased prepar- ing shipments for delivery by Sunrise's trucks. Record testimony shows that Continental has, since the partial strike began, attempted to utilize Sunrise but was unable to do so because its employees refused to load Sunrise's trucks. As the record discloses that Continental never agreed to cease dealing with Sunrise but that the cessation of business was the result of its employees' refusal to prepare shipments for delivery by Sunrise, we find that the violation of Section 8 (e), alleged by the General Counsel, does not exist. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action which the Board finds is necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act.10 Because the record indicates that Sunrise does business with other baking firms in the San Francisco area, not all of which are members of the Association, and because the record discloses that Respondent BIbid. See also Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, et at. v N.L R B (Sand Door & Plywood Co ), 357 U. S. 93; York Corporation, 121 NLRB 676, 677, 684 10 Member Fanning would limit the effect of the cease-and -desist provisions of the Order to conduct involving Continental , Oroweat, and any other member of the Associa- tion , and their employees . The record does disclose a proclivity on Respondent's part to seek to deny to all members of the Association the right to utilize Sunrise 's services Thus in establishing the April 29 , 1961 , deadline, later extended to May 7, 1961 , Respond- ent notified all members of the Association that they could no longer utilize Sunrise, if Continental ' s guarantee were not performed by that date. It is apparent that, in Re- spondent's view, Continental 's guarantee protected not only Continental, but all members of the Association, in their dealings with Sunrise. The decision herein precluding Re- spondent from seeking to reinstitute or enforcing the guarantee makes it likely that Respondent will proceed against other members of the Association , unless such conduct is enjoined These considerations , however, do not apply to employers who are not mem- bers of the Association. Accordingly, he would narrow the scope of the order , provided by his colleagues, con- sistent with the above observations See his dissenting opinion in W. D. Don Thomas Construction Company, 130 NLRB 1289 , 1291, enfd. as mod. 300 F. 2d 649 ( C.A. 9). 996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD viewed its dispute with Sunrise as an industry problem, we find that the order in the case should enjoin 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) violations involving all secondary employers doing business with Sunrise, and their employees, rather than just Continental and Oroweat and their employees." Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the en- tire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Union No. 484, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Continental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, and Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation, are- engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b) (4) of the Act. 3. By engaging in, and inducing and encouraging employees of Continental Baking Company and Oroweat Baking Co. of Sail Francisco to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their em- ployment to perform services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining- Continental Baking Company and Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, by strike or refusal to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Continental Baking Company and Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco to cease doing business with Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 4. By engaging in and inducing and encouraging employees of Continental Baking Company to engage in a strike or a refusal in the- course of their employment to perform services, and by threatening,. coercing, or restraining Continental Baking Company by strike or re- fusal to perform services, for the purpose of forcing or requiring the- aforesaid employer to enter into an agreement prohibited by Sec- tion 8 (e), Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act. 5. 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 Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby or- n See Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Fern Can Corporation, at at ), 131 NLRB 59, enfg. 299 F 2d 636 (C.A. 2) ; International Brotherhood of Elect,ical Workers, Local 501, et at. (Samuel Langer) v NLRB., 341 U S. 694. BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL NO. 484 997 tiers that Respondent, Bakery Wagon Drivers & Salesmen, Local Un- ion No. 484, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of Con- tinental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining the af ore- said employers by strike or refusal to perform services, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring Continental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, or any other person to cease doing busi- ness with Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation. (b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging employees of Con- tinental Baking Company to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining the aforesaid employer by strike or refusal to perform services, where an object thereof is to force or require Con- tinental Baking Company to enter into any agreement which is pro- hibited by Section 8 (e). 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in Respondent's business offices and meeting halls, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representatives of the Respondent, be posted by Respondent 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 Respond- ent to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region signed copies of said notices for posting by Continental Baking Com- pany and Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being signed by Respondent, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (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 herewith. 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." 998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX To ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY AND OROWEAT BAKING CO. OF SAN FRANCISCO 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 give notice that : WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage employees of Continental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Fran- cisco, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike, or in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform any service for their respective employers, or threaten, coerce, or restrain Continental Baking Company, Oroweat Baking Co. of San Francisco, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, by a strike or refusal to perform services, where an object thereof is to force Continental Baking Company and Oro- weat Baking Co. of San Francisco, or any other person, to cease doing business with Clifford L. Aksland, d/b/a Sunrise Transportation. WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of Continental Baking Company to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform any service for their employer or threaten, coerce, or restrain Continental Baking Company by strike or refusal to perform services where an object thereof is to force or require Continental Baking Company to enter into an agreement prohibited by Section 8 (e). BAKERY WAGON DRIVERS & SALESMEN, LOCAL UNION No. 484, 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 703 Market Building, 830 Market Street, San Francisco, Cali- fornia, Telephone Number, Yukon 6-3500, Extension 3191, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.