Local 584, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WEST BAY DRUG CORPORATION, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full rein- statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle 4, Washington, Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, Extension 553, if they have any ques- tions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ; Local 182, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America (Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc.) and Fairway Farms, Inc. and John Staryk and William Staryk doing business under the trade name and style of John and William Staryk Trucking Co. Case No. 3-CC- 175. March 20, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 8, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents, Locals 584 and 182, had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cerua,in affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent Local 584 had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. 141 NLRB No. 56. LOCAL 584 , INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 639 The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modification. We agree with the contentions of the General Counsel and the Charging Party that Local 584, as well as Local 182, violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) by reason of Local 182's conduct. The rec- ord shows that, at the outset, Local 584 enlisted the aid of Local 182, the representative of secondary employer Dairymen' s employees in its dispute with Fairway, that Local 182 agreed to assist Local 584, and that, in furtherance of the cause of Local 584, Local 182 not only induced employees in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B), but coerced Dairymen's in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). In our view, Local 182, if not engaged in a joint venture with Local 584, was at the very least acting as Local 584's agent and, accordingly, we attribute to Local 584 those acts which Local 182 committed on Local 584's behalf. Additional Conclusion of Law By the acts and conduct of Respondent Local 182, Respondent Local 584 has also engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications : 1. Add the following paragraph after 1(a) of part B of the Recom- mended Order : (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to .cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. 2. Add the following paragraph to Appendix B immediately above the signature line : WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci in Oneonta, New York, on August 15, 1962, on complaint issued by the General Counsel, against Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , herein called Local 584 and Respondent Local 584, and against Local 182, International Brotherhood of Team- 640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , herein called Local 182 and Respondent Local 182. The issues litigated were whether the Re ;pondents had violated Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) ( B) of the Act . A brief was sLDmitted after the close of the hearing by the Charging Party. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: I FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Fairway Farms, Inc., has its principal place of business at Hicksville, New York, where it is engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution of milk, dairy products, and related products. During the past 12 months, in the course and conduct of its business operations , Fairway purchased, transferred, and delivered to its said place of business products valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 was transported to said place of business directly from States other than the State of New York. During the same period Fairway caused to be sold and distributed at its New York State places of business products valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 was furnished to various enterprises located in the State of New York and each of which annually ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside that State. John Staryk and William Staryk are individuals doing business under the trade name of John and William Staryk Trucking Co. They maintain their principal place of business at Hicksville, New York, where they are engaged in the business of providing and performing trucking services and related services for Fairway Farms. During the past 12 months the Staryks performed trucking services and related services valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 was performed for Fairway. Fairway Farms, Inc, and John and William Staryk Trucking Co., are affiliated businesses with common officers , ownership, directors, and operators, and constitute a single integrated business enterprise ; the said directors and operators formulate and administer a common labor policy for both companies, affecting the employees of both companies Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., herein called Dairymen's, is a New York corporation which maintains its principal office and place of business at New York, New York, and also operates in other locations in the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania . It is engaged at these various places of business in the processing, sale, and distribution of milk , dairy products , and related products. During the past 12 months Dairymen 's processed, sold, and distributed at its said places of business , products valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50 ,000 was shipped from said places of business directly to States of the United States other than the States wherein said places of business are located . During the same period Dairymen 's purchased, transferred, and de- livered to its said places of business products valued in excess of $50 ,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50.000 was transported to said places of business directly from States of the United States other than the States wherein said places of business are located. The complaint alleges , the answers admit , and I find that Fairway Farms, Inc., John and William Staryck Trucking Co., and Dairymen's, each are, and have been at all times material herein, persons and employers engaged in commerce and in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answers admit, and I find that Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Heloers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I Counsel for the Charging Party has filed with me, and served upon all interested parties a motion to correct the record in a number of stated respects Counsel for Local 182 Joined In the request. I have carefully checked the motion against the transcript, and find the same to be in all respects well taken . The motion Is, therefore , granted and the record is corrected accordingly A copy of the motion has been placed in the exhibit file marked "Trial Examiner's Exhibit No 1." LOCAL 584, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 641 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES This is a secondary boycott case. Fairway operates in Hicksville, located in Long Island, New York, within the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent Local 584; its employees are represented by that union . In July 1962, there existed a labor dispute between these parties, a question arising over the signing of a new collective- bargaining agreement. For purposes of this complaint the primary employer was therefore Fairway Farms. Dairymen's gathers milk from farmers over a widespread area. It became involved in this dispute at the plant which it operates in Milford, New York, a considerable distance away from Hicksville, Long Island. Fairway buys milk from Dairymen's Milford plant by sending its own trucks to Milford for that purpose. The Milford plant is in the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent Local 182, and the employees of that plant are covered by contract between Local 182 and Dairymen's It was a desire of Local 584 to enlist the cooperation of Dairymen's towards winning the dispute with Fairway. It is conceded that an objective of the activities of the agents of Local 584 was to cut off the milk supply of Fairway, at least to the extent that milk was obtained from Dairymen's, and thereby pressure Fairway into yielding in its primary labor dispute. Thus, under the theory of the complaint, Dairymen's is the secondary, or neutral employer, in the total situation It is a basic contention of both the Respondent Unions that the extent of their activities was limited to requesting Dairymen's to refuse to supply milk to Fairway, conduct which the complaint does not allege would have been unlawful. The com- plaint, instead, charges that both Local 584, and its sister, Local 182, to which it turned for assistance, did more than merely request Dairymen's cooperation. It alleges instead that the agents of these two unions induced and encouraged the employees of Dairymen's to refuse to load the Fairway truck, and thereby violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the statute, and threatened, coerced, and restrained "persons engaged in commerce" (in this instance management representatives of Dairymen's) to achieve the same immediate objective, and thereby violated Section 8(b) (4) (ir) (B) of the Act. The Events of July 18 Shortly before July 18, 1962, John Kelly, president of Respondent Local 584, telephoned Rocco DePerno, president of Respondent Local 182, and asked the cooperation of Local 182 with regard to the dispute then separating Local 584 and Fairway Farms When Cory, the driver of a Fairway Farms milk tank truck, arrived at Milford early in the morning of July 18 to pick up a load, he found at the loading yard an automobile in which there sat John Kelly, president of Teamster Local 584, and two other men. He drove away from the plant for a short while. Shortly thereafter, Plant Manager Slocum arrived; Kelly spoke to him and said his local union was having trouble with Fairway Farms; Kelly added that he "didn't like to see the truck loaded there at Milford." Kelly said essentially the same thing to Bartell, the area supervisor of Dairymen's, when the supervisor reached the plant a little while later: "Would we cooperate by not loading." Bartell replied Fairway farms was a regular customer and must be loaded There were at that time, so far as this record reveals, four employees who did regular plant operations work. These were: Wilkinson, Goodrich, Bresee, and an- other. Believing that Wilkinson might be a union steward, Bartell had the plant manager call Wilkinson, who was on leave that day, at his home. When Wilkinson arrived Bartell referred him to Kelly, in the automobile; at the hearing Wilkinson quoted Kelly as telling him at that time "not to load the truck." According to Wilkinson, Kelly also said: "If I loaded the tanker it wouldn't do any good, be- cause it wasn't going to move." Kelly also said that because Fairway Farms "wouldn't cooperate. we were going to dry them out." When Goodrich arrived for work the plant manager sent him also to speak to Kelly. According to Goodrich, Kelly said, "We haven't come to terms with Fair- way Farms and I come up here to tell you not to load the truck." Kelly did not testify. Uncertain as to what to do, Wilkinson telephoned Leon Parks, the assistant business representative of his Local 182, at Utica. According to Wilkinson's testi- mony he started by telling Parks that Kelly "didn't want us to load the tanker and that he had seen Rocky DePerno and said we would go along with them and I asked him if that was right," and that Parks replied, "That was right ... don't load the truck " Wilkinson then had Goodrich and Bresee speak to Parks on the telephone also. Like Wilkinson, Goodrich quoted Parks as saving on the telephone, "Do not load the truck." Bresee testified he did not recall Parks saying on the telephone 642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the employees should not load the Fairway truck . He testified only that Parks said on the telephone "he would be down in an hour." Called as a witness by Respondent Local 182 , Parks denied that he told any one of these three employees on the telephone not to load the Fairway truck . He said he only told them he did not know what the situation was and that he would be at the Milford plant in an hour. The men proceeded with their other work, the Fairway truck standing idle. In an hour or so Parks arrived . He spoke to Kelly at the automobile and then en- tered the plant. Bartell testified that he exchanged only brief words with the busi- ness agent, that he asked Parks: "Well, what about it?" and that Parks replied, "We are not going to load the milk." Parks then spoke to both Goodrich and Bresee . Goodrich testified that Parks then told him in person not to load the truck, and that Parks said the same thing to Bresee in Goodrich's presence . Bresee also testified that when Parks spoke to him in person at the plant he said there was union trouble and "not to load the truck." In his testimony Parks said he only told the supervisor that "the men will not load the truck." As to his talk with Goodrich and Bresee he recalled their having asked him what should they do, denied having told them not to load, and added he said they could use their own judgment because there was a contract in effect. With time the Fairway truck tanker was backed to the platform ready for load- ing. Bartell then told Goodrich : "Well, we are ready to load." Goodrich re- plied, "We can't do it." Bartell then turned to Bresee with: "What about you?" Bresee also replied, "No." The Fairway truck was not loaded that day and returned to Hicksville empty. No Fairway truck was loaded for several days thereafter , until, on July 28, a temporary restraining order was issued by the Federal district court. Fairway Farms trucks have been loaded at Milford Dairymen 's plant from that day on. Other trucks of other purchasers from Dairymen's were loaded at the Milford plant on July 18 by these same employees. Analysis and Conclusions The evidence shows clearly and I find that Respondent Local 584, through the activities of its president , John Kelly, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i )(B) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. The Respondents do not dispute that the purpose for Kelly's visit to Milford that day was to cut off shipments of milk to Fairway Farms, or to "dry up" the primary employer . In this posture of the total situation-the New York local sending its representatives to a distant point for the purpose of bringing about a discontinuance of business between the primary and the neutral or secondary employer-the direct, unequivocal , and clear testimony of Goodrich and Bresee, in no way contradicted, that they were directly told by Kelly that morning not to load the Fairway truck, stands entirely plausible and credible. I see no reason for discrediting their candid direct testimony . They did as he told them. Thus the inducement of employees of a secondary employer not to work for the direct purpose of bringing about interruption of business between Dairymen's and Fairway Farms is clear and unquestionable. The complaint also precisely alleges that Respondent Local 584 violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii ) (B) of the Act. The total evidence respecting this allegation is the uncontradicted , and therefore also credited, testimony of Wilkinson that Kelly told him there would be no purpose in loading the Fairway truck because in any event it would not move. The theory of the complaint on this point would appear to be that Wilkinson is "a person engaged in commerce ," as that term appears in Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(ii ) and that Kelly's statement that the Fairway truck would not move regardless of Wilkinson's desire necessarily "threatened or coerced" him within the intendment of that section. I need not decide here whether Kelly in fact threatened or coerced Wilkinson be- cause I find on the record as a whole that Wilkinson is not "a person engaged in commerce" within the meaning of the Act. Wilkinson occasionally substitutes for Slocum, who is the foreman in the plant . He is otherwise a regular production worker. He said: "I assist the manager in looking after the plant and seeing that the work is done properly and carried out." There are, however, only three other employees at the Milford plant and Wilkinson devotes almost his entire time per- forming the very same duties as the other rank-and-file employees He has no authority to hire or discharge employees and can take no disciplinary action inde- pendently of Slocum's decisions Slocum is absent from the plant about one after- noon a week to inspect the farms . Wilkinson substitutes for Slocum on such occasion and whenever Slocum might be absent for reasons of illness or vacation. LOCAL 584, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 643 I'think it clear that Wilkinson, if he may be deemed a supervisor at all, must be described as "more nearly related" to rank-and-file employees than to management .2 As he is a "low level supervisor" (see the Board's treatment of Andy Clay in its Carolina Lumber case, above), I consider him an "individual employed by any per- son," and find that Kelly's statement to him not to load the truck was an act of illegal inducement and encouragement to strike in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B). For the same reason in accordance with the Board's holding in the Carolina Lumber case, Kelly's further statement that the truck would in no event move, cannot con- stitute a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(it)(B). Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint on this allegation with respect to Respondent Local 584. As to Respondent Local 182 the evidence of improper conduct centers upon the activities of its Assistant Business Representative Parks at the Milford plant on the morning of July 18. Two of the only three employees shown to have been on duty at that time, Goodrich and Bresee, testified without equivocation that Parks told them not to load the Fairway truck. And Bartell, the Dairymen's supervisor, recalled with precision and consistency that Parks told him that day, "We are not going to load the milk." On cross-examination he held firm to the position that Parks did not say to him that "the men" would not load the truck. On the record in its entirety, and with due consideration of the total testimony of Parks and his demeanor on the witness stand, I credit the testimony of Goodrich, Bresee, and Bartell. Parks insisted he never told the employees not to load the trucks; as to his conversation with Bartell his story was that he only said "the men" were not going to load. There are a number of facts which I think bear a relation- ship to this conflict in credibility and which lead me to resolve it in favor of the employees and against Parks' version of the conversations. The clear object of Kelly's trip to Milford that day was to stop the delivery of milk to Fairway. Toward this end he had a few days earlier requested cooperation from DePerno, Local 182's president and therefore Parks' superior officer. When Wilkinson, after being told by Kelly not to load, called Parks for instructions, he repeated what Kelly had said about DePerno agreeing to "go along" with the stoppage program. He asked Parks was this "right," and Parks said "Yes." In his testi- mony Parks did not deny these words of Winkinson's. While denying having told the employees on the telephone that they were not to load the truck, Parks admitted he told them "Stay as you are," or "Hold still." He argued from the witness stand that this statement of his ought not be construed as a momentary instruction to the employees not to load, and at one point in his testimony insisted he did not know what was going on when Bartell spoke to him of the problem in the first instance. Elsewhere in his testimony, however, he also said that he did understand from Bartell that Kelly and his men were there as pickets to the Milford plant. But in the total context of a plant picketed by a sister local of the same International, of the express request for "cooperation" from one local to the other, and of the realities of which Parks, a Teamster business agent, must surely have been aware, I can only conclude that even assuming he did use the phrase "hold still," instead of "don't load," his message was intended to have the same effect of approving the work stoppage. In fact it is clear and uncontradicted that Wilkinson, the first to speak to Parks on the telephone, started by reporting that Kelly had already told the employees not to load. Parks' version of the conversations carries another inherent implausibility. According to him when he arrived at the plant the employees asked whether they were to load the Fairway truck or not, and he only told them to use their own judgment. Asked whether he knew their intention was not to do so, his testimony was continuously evasive. He also testified that when he spoke to Kelly in the automobile Kelly did not tell him why he had come to Milford, and Parks simply did not ask him. If Parks is to be believed, all he asked Kelly was the details of Local 584's dispute with Fairway Farms in Long Island. Parks expanded by adding: "We talked about the country up this way and a number of other things." I cannot accept Parks' testimony that all he told Bartell was that "the men" were not going to load. He had no reason to believe the men had themselves already decided not to fill the Fairway truck. He said all that happened was that they asked him what they should do and that he left them uncertain. But if he did not learn from them, the only way he could have believed they had already decided would be if, as they themselves directly testified, it was Parks himself, abetted by Kelly, who told the men not to work. 2 Local Union No. 505, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, et al. (Carolina Lumber Company), 113 NLRB 1438. 708-006-64-vol. 141-42 644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I find that Parks, when asked by the employees whether they should honor Kelly's picketing of the Milford plant, told them not to load the trucks, and he told Bartell that the men were not going to work. After these conversations, and as the Fairway Farms truck stood in loading posi- tion at the platform, Supervisor Bartell asked both Goodrich and Bresee were they ready to work. I think it immaterial, in view of the circumstances of the moment, that Bartell may not have spoken in the imperative. He said to Goodrich, "We are ready," and to Bresee, "What about you?" Each responded "No," and in fact they did not load the truck either that day or for a period of time thereafter. The inducement, by the authorized agent of Respondent Local 182, of employees of a neutral employer not to do their work is therefore clear on the record. That the object of the strike action so induced was in furtherance of the primary dispute between Local 584 and Fairway Farms, and not part and parcel of a dispute between Local 182 and Dairymen's, is also clear on the record. Accordingly, I find that by Parks' action in inducing Goodrich and Bresee to engage in a strike, Respondent Local 182 violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the statute. Parks' further statement to Bartell at the very moment when Bartell was uncertain as to whether the work would be performed and at the very moment when he turned to the agent of his own union for clarification of position, that the men were not going to work, was a clear coercion of "a person engaged in commerce" in furtherance of a secondary objective.3 I find, as alleged in the complaint, that by this action of Parks Respondent Local 182 violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., Fairway Farms, Inc., and John and William Staryk Trucking Co., described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in activities which violate Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact , and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., Fairway Farms, Inc , and John and William Staryk Trucking Co., are employers within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2) of the Act. 2. Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; and Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By instructions to the employees of Dairymen's League Cooperative Associa- tion, Inc., to refuse in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, with an object of forcing and requiring Dairymen's League Coopera- tive Association, Inc., to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc., the Re- spondents Local 584 and Local 182 have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act. 4. By the act of its agent, Leon Parks, in telling Supervisor Bartell of Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., that its employees would refuse in the course of their employment to perform services for that Company, all with an object of forcing and requirine Dairymen's League Coonerative Association. Tnc . to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc , the Respondent Local 182 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. s H,ohway Trilckdrivers and Helpers, Local No. 107, etc. (IZiss d Company, 1no ), 130 NLRB 943, 947. LOCAL 584, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 645 The evidence does not support the complaint allegation that Respondent Local 584 engaged in conduct violating Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of theforegoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I recommend that: A. Respondent Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Utica, New York, its officers, agents, repre- sentatives, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Dairy- men's League Cooperative Association, Inc., to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Dairymen's League Cooperative Associa- tion, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Local 182's representative, be posted by it immediately upon the receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of the Respondent are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Additional copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by this Respondent's repre- sentative, be returned to the Regional Director for posting at all premises of Dairy- men's League Cooperative Association, Inc., within the territorial jurisdiction of Respondent Local 182, if that Company is willing, for 60 consecutive days, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps this Respondent has taken to comply herewith .5 B. Respondent Local 584, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Hicksville, New York, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by this Respondent's repre- sentative, be posted by it immediately upon the receipt thereof and be maintained In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Ap"eils Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order." 5If this Recommended Order should be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 dgvs from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 6 See footnote 4, supra. 646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of this Respondent are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Additional copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by this Respondent's representa- tive, be returned to the Regional Director for posting at the premises of Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., at Milford, New York, if that Company is willing, for 60 consecutive days, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, what steps this Respondent has taken to comply herewith? It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed to the extent that it alleges any violation by Respondent Local 584 of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. It is further recommended that unless within 20 days from the date of the serv- ice of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respondents notify said Regional Director that they will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the Board issue an order requiring the Respondents to take the aforesaid action. 7 See footnote 5, supra. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 182, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., to engage in a strike, or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any service, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. LOCAL 182, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No. Tl. 6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 584, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., to engage in a strike, or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process. transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities MID-STATE TRUCKING SERVICE 647 or to perform any service, where an object thereof is to force or require said employer to cease doing business with Fairway Farms, Inc. LOCAL 584, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. Dated----------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone No. Ti. 6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Mid-State Trucking Service and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Help- ers, Local #431, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 20-CA-2393.. March 20, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On January 4, 1963, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommendiltg that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi- ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report and the entire record in the case, including exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions 1 of the Trial Examiner with the exception noted below 2 1 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, Member Rodgers is convinced that the award of interest in this case exceeds the Board's remedial authority, while adhering to such view, for the purpose of this decision . he is acceding to the majority Board policy of granting interest on money due. 2 The cease-and-desist provisions of the Recommended Order are to be amended as follows : (1) By omitting in paragraph (b) the word "Discouraging." (2) By adding a new paragraph (c) reading as follows: "Discharging or other- wise discriminating against an employee because he has filed charges or given testi- mony under the Act." 141 NLRB No. 52.