Local 1291, Int'l Longshoremen's Association

LOCAL 1291 , INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 257 Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association and Inter- national Longshoremen's Association and Pennsylvania Sugar Division, National Sugar Refining Company Local 1291, International Longshoremen 's Association and Inter- national Longshoremen's Association ; and their agents James T. Moock, Clifford Carter and Richard Askew and Pennsyl- vania Sugar Division , National Sugar Refining Company. Cases Nos. 41-CD-417 and 4-CC-129. April 241, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On November 23, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in sup- port thereof. 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifica- tions noted below. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act. The Trial Examiner erred, however, by failing independently to evaluate the evidence rele- vant to the issue in this complaint proceeding. He concluded that he was bound by the Board's findings made in the prior Section 10(k) proceeding which resulted in a Decision and Determination of Dispute issued July 19, 1962.' In the 10(k) case, the Board merely found that there was reasonable cause to believe that an 8(b) (4) (D) viola- tion had occurred, and in its determination of the dispute awarded the work in question to employees who are represented by Local, 1648, Sugar Refinery Workers, AFL -CIO, herein called Sugar Workers, rather than to longshoremen, who are represented by Respondent Local 1291. An award of disputed work made by the Board in a Decision and Determination of Dispute is not open to review by a Trial Examiner in a proceeding on an 8(b) (4) (D) complaint. How- ever, the standard of proof as to the inducement and coercion aspects in this unfair labor practice proceeding is not "reasonable cause to 1137 NLRB 1451. 142 NLRB No. 37. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD believe," but "preponderance of the evidence" as required in any other unfair labor practice case.' As our findings and conclusions herein are based upon our de novo review of the entire record, the Trial Examiner's failure independently to evaluate the evidence in the in- stant proceeding is harmless.' Pennsylvania Sugar Division, National Sugar Refining Company, herein called National, has a refinery and warehouse in Philadelphia, where it is engaged in the processing and refining of raw sugar. It re- ceives part of its raw sugar supply from oceangoing vessels which are docked and unloaded at pier 46, which is immediately adjacent to the plant. National subcontracts the unloading of ships to Jarka Cor- poration, herein called Jarka, a stevedoring company, which employs longshoremen for this work. The longshoremen are represented by Respondent Local 1291. At some point in National's warehouse, also on pier 46, warehousemen, who are members of Sugar Workers, which represents National's production and maintenance employees, take over the handling of the sugar and move it into the refinery. In 1960 National installed an additional and new method for receiving raw sugar at pier 14, which is located about 3 miles from the plant. At pier 14, longshoremen unload the sugar and place it in railroad cars for transportation to pier 44 which, like pier 46, is adjacent to the plant. At pier 44, National has devised a rotary dump arrangement to receive the sugar. The operation of the rotary dump at pier 44 and certain sampling work at pier 14 were assigned by National to its own employees who, as noted above, are represented by Sugar Workers. Several weeks prior to March 1, 1960, when the first shipment of raw sugar was due to arrive at pier 14 and another shipment was also due at pier 46, James Moock, an international vice president of International Longshoremen's Association, herein called ILA, asked National's refinery manager, J. K. Davis, which employees were going to be assigned to work at the newly constructed rotary dump.4 Davis replied that National's own employees would do that work, whereupon Moock stated that unless members of Local 1291 were used, the ILA "would give them [National's employees] a hell of a fight for their jobs." On February 29, 1960, Moock, in a conversation with Weber, told Weber that National would have trouble if it sent samplers from the refinery to pier 14. On March 1, ships loaded with raw sugar were docked at piers 14 and 46. Jarka, following customary procedure, sought to hire long- 2 Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 (Central Typesetting and Electrotyping Co.), 138 NLRB 231 ( LR.) ; Local 46, Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, AFL-CIO, and Brian Dillon its Business Representative ( Precrete, Inc.), 140 NLRB 1. $International Typographical Union et at. ( Worcester Telegram Publishing Company, Inc.), 125 NLRB 759, 761. 4 In the prior Decision and Determination of Dispute , this conversation was inadvertently described as having taken place between Moock and Joseph Weber, National 's industrial relations director. LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 259 shoremen for work at both locations, using the Local 1291 shapeup at pier 46 and another shapeup at pier 551/2, the pier from Which long- shoremen are usually dispatched for work at pier 14. Without ex- ception, longshoremen refused to accept a work ticket or to go on duty. Richard Askew, president of Local 1291, accompanied by several delegates of that Local, conferred with the longshoremen at both piers prior to the actual shapeup. At the hearing, Askew asserted that the men told him that they would not work until the disputed work was assigned to them. After the longshoremen's re- fusal to accept work, Askew stood by, but did not speak to them. On the same day, during a meeting at pier 46, with representatives of National and Jarka, Askew stated that no longshoremen would unload the ships unless some of the disputed job assignments were given to members of Local 1291. Present at this meeting were Moock, Clif- ford Carter, a vice president of ILA, Captain Drury, Jarka's port supervisor, and officials of National. Later that day, Weber received a telephone call from Moock, who asked how much sugar was stored in the refinery. On being advised that there was a week's supply of raw sugar, Moock stated that he would have to shut down the refinery. Thereafter, longshoremen did not resume work until March 5, 1960, when the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary restraining order (46 LRRM 2047). Although there is no direct proof that Respondents ordered the longshoremen to refuse Jarka's offer to work on National's sugar shipments between March 1 and 5, 1960, we are convinced that the circumstances as a whole, especially the occurrences at the shapeups, lead to the inescapable inference that Askew, president of Local 1291, induced or encouraged the longshoremen to withhold their services.' The record also shows conclusively that Respondents threatened both National and Jarka with a strike if the disputed work was not as- signed to their satisfaction. Upon the foregoing facts and the entire record, we find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act by inducing or encouraging longshoremen to engage in a work stop- page between March 1 and 5, 1960, and by threatening off'ici'als of National and Jarka to strike with an object of forcing National to assign the disputed work to employees represented by Local 1291, rather than to employees represented by Sugar Workers.' 5 See I.B.E.W., Local 501 et at. (Samuel Langer) V. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694, 701, 702 (1961). 6In part the Respondents' exceptions to the Intermediate Report are in the nature of a motion to reconsider the Board's award of the disputed work made in the prior Decision and Determination of Dispute. We have examined the arguments in support of the motion and find that they do not contain matter which was not previously considered by the Board. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied. 712-548-64--vol. 142-18 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. A majority of the Board finds that Respondents' conduct also violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, as it is apparent that an additional object of such conduct was to compel Jarka to cease doing business with National.' The Respondents argue that (1) National and Jarka are coemployers and, therefore, there was a primary strike and no neutral employer was enmeshed in the dis- pute; and (2) the sole object of the work stoppage activities was to obtain the assignment of the disputed work for longshoremen. The record does not support the Respondents' contention that Na- tional and Jarka are coemployers. National does not employ long- shoremen for unloading ships carrying raw sugar, but contracts with Jarka, a stevedoring company, for such work. Jarka is a subcon- tractor for many other employers and shipping companies in the ports of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Camden, New Jersey, and Wilming- ton, Delaware; consequently, it is clear that it operates an independ- ent and substantial business enterprise. Although representatives of National participate in the discussion of grievances involving long- shoremen which may arise between Local 1291 and Jarka, such griev- ances are finally resolved by the latter two parties. National's assign- ment of a clerk to check with Jarka's timekeeper is merely for the purpose of determining the number of longshoremen used on a job in order to reconcile the billing costs submitted by Jarka. Jarka em- ploys its own foremen and gang bosses who directly supervise the work of the longshoremen. Accordingly, we find that National and Jarka are not coemployers.' It is clear that Respondents sought to achieve the assignment of the disputed work to longshoremen by causing a disruption of the business relationship between National and Jarka. Respondents' con- duct was designed to cause Jarka to bring pressure on National to make such assignments. This objective seems plain, as Jarka had neither the authority nor control over the assignment of the disputed work and, therefore, Respondents' conduct, directed against Jarka, had an object of enmeshing Jarka which was a neutral to the dispute. 7 Members Fanning and Brown dissent from this finding . In Member Fanning's view the Board's unanimous finding that a jurisdictional dispute exists in these cases . precludes a finding that the Respondents' conduct for the purpose of resolving this dispute is also violative of Section 8(b) (4) (B ) with respect to the very same parties involved in the jurisdictional dispute. While the remedy for the violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D ) coincides in these cases with the majority 's finding and the remedy of a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (B ), Member Fanning points out that a logical extension of the majority's view would enjoin a union , found to be lawfully striking for work awarded to it-by-the-Board in a Section 10(k) determination , from continuing such conduct under the conflicting provi- sions of Section 8(b) (4) (B). Member Brown is of the opinion that the sole object of Respondents' conduct was to obtain an assignment of the disputed work. Accordingly, in the circumstances of these cases , he believes that no inference of other objectives is warranted. 8 N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council et al. ( Gould & Preisner), 341 U.S. 675 , 689-690 ( 1951 ). Members Fanning and Brown , because of their positions stated above, find it unnecessary to decide the coemployer question. LOCAL 1291 , INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 261 The Board has held that a disruption of an existing business relation- ship, even though something less than a total cancellation of the rela- tionship, is for a "cease doing business" object within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act? Accordingly, we conclude that Re- spondents' inducement of Jarka's employees to engage in a work stop- page and threats to Jarka's officials, with an object of forcing Jarka to cease doing business with National, was violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.10 ORDER Upon the entire record in these cases and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents , Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association and International Long- shoremen's Association , their officers, agents, representatives, succes- sors, and assigns, including James T. Moock, Clifford Carter, and Richard Askew, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Jarka Corporation , or any other em- ployer, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employ- ment to perform any services ; or threatening, coercing, or restraining Pennsylvania Sugar Division, National Sugar Refining Company, Jarka Corporation, or any other employer, where an object thereof, in either case, is : (a) To force or require Jarka Corporation or any other employer to cease doing business with National Sugar. (b) To force or require National Sugar to assign the work of sam- pling or the operation of the rotary dump to employees represented by Local 1291 , International Longshoremen 's Association, rather than to employees represented by Local 1648, Sugar Refinery Workers, AFL-CIO, except insofar as any such conduct is permitted under Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a.) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 'Local 3, Inte,national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Tele- phone Co.), 140 NLRB 729. "N L.R.B. V. Local 101, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Ets- Hokin & Galvan, Inc.), decided March 12, 1963 , 133 NLRB 1728. In accordance with the request of the General Counsel and as supported by the record, we shall add as individual respondents in the preamble to the Board 's Order, the following persons : Richard Askew, president of Local 1291 , and James T. Moock and Clifford Carter, vice presidents of ILA. For the reason stated by the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report, we reject Respondents ' objection to a broad Order as modified herein. "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." 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by authorized repre- sentatives, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its mem- bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director, Fourth Region, for posting by National Sugar and Jarka Corporation, the Employers willing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE- MEN'S ASSOCIATION AND INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIA- TION, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF PENNSYLVANIA SUGAR DIVISION, NATIONAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY AND JARKA CORPORATION 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, as amended, we hereby give notice that : WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Jarka Corporation, or any other employer, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to per- form any services; or threaten, coerce, or restrain National Sugar, Jarka Corporation, or any other employer, where in either case an object thereof is: (1) forcing or requiring Jarka Corporation, or any other employer, to cease doing business with National Sugar; or (2) forcing or requiring National Sugar to assign the work of sampling or the operation of the rotary dump to em- ployees represented by Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association, rather than to employees represented by Local 1648, Sugar Refinery Workers, AFL-CIO, except insofar as any such conduct is permitted under Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. LOCAL 1291, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Labor Organization. Dated- --------------- By------------------------------------- (RICHARD ASKEW , President) LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 263 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREDIEN'S ASSOCIATION, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (CLIFFORD CARTER, Two President) Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (JA\IES T \IOOCii, Vice President) 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, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, Telephone No. Pennypacker 5-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 1, 1960, National Sugar filed a charge in the above-cited CD case, and on the next day filed a charge in the CC case The charges were duly served. On April 5, 1960, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint in the CC case. Answers in the CC case were filed on April 7 and 13, 1960. By order of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region the hearing in the CC case was postponed indefinitely on April 19, 1960. As to the CD case, and as noted in the Board's Decision, Determination of Dispute and Order (137 NLRB 1458), a hearing upon the issues therein raised was held in March and April, 1960. Upon the evidence adduced in that case (a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act) the Board, on July 19, 1962, issued its said Order. On August 31, 1962, the said Regional Director issued an Order consolidating the two cases, and a complaint and notice of hearing in the CD case. Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the consolidated cases was held on October 10, 1962, in Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore. At the opening of the hearing and upon motion of its counsel Local 1648, Sugar Refinery Workers, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene to the extent of its interest. All parties were represented by counsel and were granted full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Argument was waived and briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Respondents. At the hearing all parties agreed that, in lieu of duplication, all evidence, both oral and documentary, which had been taken in the earlier CD case and upon which the Board had issued its above-cited Order, should be received in these consolidated cases and that: (1) "such evidence as was submitted there is submitted here by General Counsel to support the allegations of the consolidated complaints and is offered by the Respondent in support of its position with reference to the allegations of these two complaints"; and (2) "that neither party will offer other evidence in these proceedings and that the issues in Cases 4-CC-129 and 4-CD-47 are hereby submitted to the Trial Examiner and the Board on the basis" of such evidence previously adduced. Disposition of the Respondents' motion to dismiss the complaints, upon which ruling was reserved at the conclusion of the hearing, is made by the following find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations. Upon the record thus made, and upon all the evidence adduced in the two cases, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY The complaints in both cases allege, the answer in the CC case admits, the Board found in the Section 10(k) proceeding, and it is here found that: Pennsylvania 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sugar Division, National Sugar Refining Company is engaged in the business of processing and refining cane sugar at Philadelphia , Pennsylvania. In the operation of its business it ships products valued at more than $50,000 annually to points outside the State of Pennsylvania . In the cited case the Board found that "National is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding." II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association, International Longshore- men's Association, and Local 1648, Sugar Refinery Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. James T. Moock is an international vice president of ILA; Clifford Carter is an international representative of ILA; and Richard Askew is the president of Local 1291, ILA. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and issues The issues here involved stem from a dispute between the Respondents and National Sugar concerning the assignment of certain work. To the Trial Examiner it appears unnecessary here to review in detail the nature of this dispute, since the Board in the above-cited decision made comprehensive findings on this subject by which, of course, the Trial Examiner is bound. (No new evidence was adduced at the instant hearing.) It is enough here, the Trial Examiner believes, to set out the Board's ultimate "de- termination of dispute." This is quoted: Plant employees engaged as samplers at Pier 14 and plant employees at the rotary dump, currently represented by Local 1648, Sugar Refinery Workers, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work for National's Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania, operations. Accordingly, International Longshoremen's Association and its Local 1291 are not entitled to force or require National to assign the above-mentioned disputed work to longshoremen, who are currently represented by Local 1291. In the same case the Board ordered that: Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, International Longshoremen's Association and its Local 1291, shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, in writing, whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring National, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to assign the work in dispute to members of Local 1291. At the hearing in the instant case counsel for the Respondents conceded that "we did not send that letter in." The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondents have not complied with the above-quoted provision of the Board's Order.' It would appear, then, that the only issue before the Trial Examiner is to determine whether or not the Respondents, as alleged in the amended complaints, have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii)(B) and (D) of the Act. B. Relevant facts The specific provisions of the Act here invoked are: SEc 8(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where in either case an object thereof is: * * * * * * * 1 General Counsel, in his brief, appropriately cites Bechtel Corporation, et al., 112 NLRB 812, and Frank W. Hake et al . 112 NLRB 1097 LOCAL 1291, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 265 (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling , handling, trans- porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person ... . * * * * * * * (D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work. As to the issues relevant to Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii ) the Board has already made certain findings which the Trial Examiner considers himself without authority to disturb. [137 N.L.R.B. 1458 at p. 1460.] In summary such relevant findings are: . .. The first bulk sugar ship was due to arrive on March 1, 1960. Several weeks before that day, James Moock, International vice president of the ILA, asked Joseph Weber, National's industrial relations director, which employees were going to be assigned to work at the newly constructed rotary dump loca- tion near the plant. Weber replied that National's own employees would do that work and Moock then said that unless ILA Local 1291 members were used, the ILA "would give them [National's employees] a hell of a fight for their jobs " On February 29, 1960, National assigned the sampling work at pier 14 and the rotary dump jobs at pier 44 to its regular plant employees represented by the Sugar Workers. On the same day, Weber had a conversation with Moock, who told Weber that if National sent samples from the refinery to pier 14, it would have trouble. The next day, March 1, loaded ships were docked at both piers, bagged sugar at pier 46 and bulk cargo at pier 14. Jarka 2 took the usual steps to put long- shoremen to work at both locations, using the Local 1291 shapeup at pier 46 and another shapeup at pier 55V2, the customary one applicable to any long- shoremen work at pier 14. To a man, every longshoreman refused to accept a work ticket or to go on duty. Richard Askew, president of Local 1291, and several delegates of that local attended the shapeup at pier 551/2 but said nothing to the men Jarka was seeking to put to work. Askew spoke to Jarka's foreman, and further efforts to win the longshoremen over were discontinued. Very quickly after this development, a meeting was held in the office of National's dock superintendent at pier 46; present were representatives of Jarka, National, and the ILA. At this meeting, Askew claimed on behalf of long- shoremen the jobs of samplers at pier 14 and the jobs at the rotary dump on pier 44. Efforts to settle the matter, which included a telephone conversation between Askew and Tom Meyers, business representative of the Sugar Workers, were unsuccessful. Askew told J. K. Davis, National's manager, that the sugar company had no right to train or hire men from the plant, who are members of the Sugar Workers, to work on pier 14 and at the rotary dump on pier 44, without first considering members of Local 1291; he also said that no long- shoremen were going to work on any of the piers. Later that day, Weber received a telephone call from Moock, who asked how much sugar was stored in the refinery. On being advised that there was a week's supply of raw sugar, Moock stated that he would have to shut down the refinery. The longshoremen refused to work until March 5, 1960, when the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary restraining order. Thereafter, longshoremen accepted employment offered by Jarka. C. Conclusions as to violations of 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) On the basis of the Board's findings the Trial Examiner adopts the conclusions urged by General Counsel in his brief. ". . that Respondents' insistent work de- mands, accompanied by threats made to National and Jarka representatives, to shut down National, to make trouble, and to refuse to unload National's ships, in connec- 2 Corporation a stevedoring company which, as the Board found, "hires longshore- men for this work and bills National on the basis of a cost plus arrangement " Thus Jarka is clearly an employer within the meaning of the Act and is engaged in an Industry affecting commerce 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion with the timeliness of the strike which occurred in the presence of Union officials, and the failure of Respondent's representatives to take action to get the longshore- men to return to work, clearly establishes the Respondents' unlawful conduct within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) of the Act." 3 D. Conclusions as to violation of 8(b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) The foregoing findings of the Board also support, as General Counsel contends, the conclusion here made that the Respondents' conduct was for a "cease doing business" object proscribed by subsection (B) of Section 8(b) (4). It is clear that an object of the Respondents threats and inducement and encouragement of employees not to unload National's ships was to force Jarka, a secondary employer, to cease doing business with National. E. Conclusions as to violation of 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) The foregoing findings of the Board also sustain, as General Counsel urges, the conclusion here made that the Respondents' conduct had as an object the forcing of an employer to assign particular work to one labor organization rather than to an- other-conduct prohibited by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D). Counsel for the Respondents conceded at the hearing that there is in existence no "certification of the Board determining the bargaining representative for employees" here involved. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities and conduct of the Respondents, as described above, occurring in connection with the operations of National Sugar, described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States of the United 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 unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain action to effectuate the policies of the Act. In his brief General Counsel urges that a broad cease and desist order be recom- mended, in view of the similarity of this case with that cited above, involving the same Respondent Unions (137 NLRB 1178). The Trial Examiner finds merit in this position.4 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record in the con- solidated cases, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 1291, International Longshoremen's Association, International Long- shoremen's Association, and Local 1648, Sugar Refinery Workers, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. James T. Moock and Clifford Carter are agents of ILA; Richard Askew is an agent of Local 1291, ILA. 2. Pennsylvania Sugar Division, National Sugar Refining Company, and Jarka Corporation are employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce. 3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Jarka to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services and by threatening, restraining, and coercing management representatives of National Sugar, with the object of forcing or requiring Jarka to cease doing business with National Sugar and with the further object of forcing National Sugar to assign particular work to one labor organization rather than another, the Respondents have engaged in un- 8 General Counsel cites : International Hod Carriers, etc, Local No. 1140 ( Gilmore Con- struction Company ), 127 NLRB 541; Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc (Twin County Transit His, Inc ), 137 NLRB 858; International Longshoremen's Asso- ciation, AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen's Association, Local No 169.1, AFL-CIO; and James T. Moock; and Clifford Carter (The Board of Harbor Commissioners, Wilming- ton, Delaware), 137 NLRB 1178. 4See International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers (Insul-Coustsc Corporation), 139 NLRB 659. SEIBERLING RUBBER COMPANY, BATESVILLE DIVISION 267 fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ), (ii) (B) and (D) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Seiberling Rubber Company, Batesville Division and United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-CA-1302. April 241, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On February 21, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman 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 Inter- mediate 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. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed June 14, 1962, and an amended charge filed July 23, 1962, by United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, issued his complaint dated October 30, 1962, against Batesville Rubber Company. The name of the Company was amended at the hearing and now appears in the case as Seiberling Rubber Company, Batesville Division. The complaint against the desig- nated company, herein called the Respondent, alleged that the Respondent had en- gaged and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the allegations of unlawful conduct in the complaint. Upon notice of hearing duly served upon the parties a hearing was held at Batesville, Arkansas, on Decem- ber 14, 1962, before Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel. All parties were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties. Oral arguments by the parties at the close of the hearing and the brief filed by the Respondent have been carefully considered. 142 NLRB No. 29.