General Teamsters Local No. 162, Etc.

536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Jerseyville Retail Merchants Association and its constituent members are em- ployers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Local 646, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Retail Store Employees Local 344, Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association, AFL-CIO; Local 553, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 525, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Local No. 50, Congress of Independent Unions are all labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing the members of the Jerseyville Retail Merchants Association when such Association had lawfully recognized another labor organization and a question concerning representation could not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, with an object of such picketing being to force or require the As- sociation and its members to recognize and bargain with them or any of them as the representative of the Association's employees, Respondents have engaged in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) 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. 5. Respondent Alton-Wood River Building and Construction Trades Council has not committed unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] General Teamsters Local No. 162, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent and Furniture Workers Local 3182, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and B. P. John Furniture Corporation, Party to the Contract . Case No. 36-CD-?7. Sep- tember 12, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING NOTICE OF HEARING This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, follow- ing a charge filed by Furniture Workers Local 3182, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO, hereinafter called Furniture Workers. The charge alleged that on or about February 6, 1963, General Teamsters Local No. 162, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, herein called Teamsters, had threatened, coerced, and restrained B. P. John Furni- ture Corporation, hereafter called B. P. John or the Company, with the object of forcing and requiring B. P. John to assign certain work to employees belonging to the Teamsters, which work had previously been done by employees belonging to the Furniture Workers, in viola- tion of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before 144 NLRB No. 60. GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 162, ETC. 537 Hearing Officer Gordon M. Byrholdt, on April 2 and 3, 1963. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. No briefs were filed by any of the parties herein. 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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings : 1. The business of the employer B. P. John is a corporation, located in Portland, Oregon, engaged in the manufacture and distribution of household and institutional furniture. It has annual sales and shipments of furniture to points outside the State of Oregon valued in excess of $500,000. The parties stipulated, and we find, that B. P. John is engaged in commerce with- in the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. 2. The labor organizations involved The parties stipulated, and we find, that Furniture Workers Local 3182, affiliated with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and General Teamsters Local No. 162, af- filiated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The dispute A. The work in dispute The dispute involves the work of loading furniture on trailers for transportation. Both the Furniture Workers and the Teamsters claim jurisdiction of this work under their respective contracts with B. P. John.' The Furniture Workers' contract by its terms covers employees performing all of the production and maintenance work in the Portland, Oregon, plant, including the warehousing and loading of the furniture for shipment but excluding upholstering work. The Teamsters' contract covers drivers, helpers, and extra men at that loca- tion, although the Company, until early 1963, had employed only 1 Both of the contracts contain valid union-security clauses 2 Upholstered items are made by employees represented by the Upholsterers Union under a separate contract with the Company. 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD drivers. Both Unions have had continuous collective-bargaining rela- tions with the Company for periods in excess of 20 to 25 years. Until mid-1959, when B. P. John closed its California operation and transferred its trailers to the Portland plant, the bulk of the Portland production was moved by rail, with minimal shipments going by truck and steamship. The railroad cars were, and continue to be, loaded by employees covered by the Furniture Workers' contract under its classifications of "warehousemen," "checker," and "Head Car Load- er."" On transferring its own trailers to the Portland plant, B. P. John began moving a greater portion of that plant's production by trailer. Until early 1963, these trailers were apparently loaded by warehouse employees working under the supervision of drivers,' al- though the latter also performed some actual trailer-loading work. At times, when the warehousemen were otherwise occupied, employees from the plant's other departments, such as the veneer department, were used to assist with the loading. In the fall of 1962, the Teamsters learned from warehousemen Gordon Elmer and David Rensch that the trailer-loading operation had become a very substantial part of their daily work, taking an average of 60 percent of their workday. Before approaching the Teamsters, these two had complained to the Furniture Workers about their extensive loading work for which they felt entitled to higher pay. Getting no satisfaction from the Furniture Workers, who stated they were bound by an existing contract with the Company, Elmer and Rensch approached the Teamsters, which, upon investigation, con- firmed their story. The Teamsters, thereupon, in December 1962, called this situation to the attention of Robert Bourden, Sr., company vice president, and requested that the Company pay Elmer and Rensch the wage rate for "helpers" under its contract with the Company. Bourden agreed that, effective January 1, 1963, the two men would be paid according to the Teamsters' rates while engaged in trailer- loading work. On January 18, 1963, the Furniture Workers learned that its two members, Elmer and Rensch, had joined the Teamsters and were re- ceiving Teamsters wage rates. The Furniture Workers thereupon summoned several meetings with Teamsters representatives, at which both Unions unbendingly asserted jurisdiction of the work involved. The Company was not represented at these meetings. 3 The job of loading railroad cars is not in dispute . "Warehousemen " bring the furni- tuie from the warehouse to the loading platform ; the "checker" confirms that the furni- ture being loaded conforms to the orders ; the "Head Car Loader " supervises the proper loading. All three classifications help with the actual placement of the furniture into the cars. A The drivers were primarily used to oversee and supervise the loading operation, much like the "Head Car Loader," in order to insure the proper sequence for unloading at the various delivery points and to avoid damage to the furniture in transit. GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 162, ETC. 539 On February 6, 1963, Dan Hay, the Company's labor-management consultant and counsel, in an effort to resolve the dispute, called a meeting at which the two Unions and the Company were represented. All persons who attended that meeting and testified in this proceeding were in accord that, at the conclusion of the meeting, Hay announced that, as representative of B. P. John, he was recommending that, ef- fective February 6, 1963, the Company use Teamsters unit employees to do the work of loading trailers. The testimony is conflicting as to whether Hay indicated this was not a final disposition of the issue. It is clear, however, that the Furniture Workers was dissatisfied and that the dispute between the two Unions continued. B. Contentions of the parties On the merits of the jurisdictional dispute-whether employees within the unit represented by Teamsters or by Furniture Workers are entitled to do the work in question-each Union urges a number of grounds to support its contention that the work should be awarded to employees represented by it. The Furniture Workers relies prin- cipally on the facts that (1) B. P. John employees represented by it have historically performed the work of loading; (2) Furniture Workers has had contracts with the Company covering the loading operations continuously for the past 20 to 25 years , which, since mid- 1959, have encompassed the work of loading trailers ; and (3) the Teamsters, by failing to assert its claim of jurisdiction over the trailer- loading operation during previous contract negotiations, has ac- quiesced to the existing method of loading by furniture workers. The Teamsters, on the other hand, urges that ( 1) the operation of loading goods on a trailer for transportation is intimately connected with the primary function of transporting the goods ; (2) the area practice and custom, as evidenced by Teamsters contracts in the whole- sale furniture field, as well as in other industries in the area, shows that loading trailers for transportation is done by Teamsters unit employees ; ( 3) Teamsters' contracts with the Company, spanning some 20 to 25 years, have covered the work of loading trailers under the classification of "helpers"; (4) the Teamsters did not relinquish its claim of jurisdiction over the disputed work by failing to assert such claim until it learned that the work had become substantial; and (5) the Company voluntarily assigned the work to Teamsters unit employees. The parties agree that neither Union has been certified and that there have been no decisions by the National Joint Board regarding the disputed work. However, each Union contends that employees represented by it possess the special skills required for loading trailers, and that the efficiency , economy, and safety of the loading operation is superior when performed by employees represented by it. 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Entirely apart from the merits of the conflicting claims for the work here involved, the Teamsters argues that there is no evidence to show that it or any of its agents engaged in conduct violative of Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. It contends, therefore, that the charge filed is without merit, and that in consequence the notice of hearing must be quashed. C. Applicability of the statute The charge alleges that on February 6, 1963, the Teamsters threat- ened the Company by indicating that, unless it assigned the disputed work to Teamsters unit employees, the Teamsters would refuse to handle or drive any trucks hauling B. P. John furniture. As noted above, in December 1962, R. Bourden, Sr., agreed that em- ployees doing the work of loading trailers would be paid the rate provided in the Teamsters' contract under the classification of "helpers." Upon learning of the situation, the Furniture Workers called a number of meetings between it and the Teamsters in Janu- ary 1963. There was extensive testimony concerning what occurred at those meetings. However, the Company was not present, and there is no indication that any of the allegedly threatening remarks at- tributed to the Teamsters by the Furniture Workers were communi- cated to the Company. Accordingly, those meetings are immaterial to this proceeding and we need not consider them. The only relevant events occurred on February 6, 1963, during the meeting called by the Company's attorney, in which all three parties participated. The testimony of those who attended that meeting is, in material respects, both vague and conflicting as to what was said by whom and to whom, as appears from the following summary. All parties are in apparent agreement that Company Counsel Hay opened the meetingby stating that its purpose was to settle the dispute over jurisdiction, and that Teamsters' counsel, Herbert Galton, said that the question had already been settled to their satisfaction between the Teamsters and the Company, in response to which William Evans, secretary of the Washington-Oregon District Council of Furniture Workers, replied that it was not satisfactory to the Furniture Work- ers. The testimony is in accord that, after unyielding assertions of jurisdictional claims by both Unions, Hay asked for a discussion between the Furniture Workers and company representatives (referred to by the parties as a caucus). The parties further agreed that fol- lowing this "caucus," which, in fact, involved no discussion of the problem, Hay called the Teamsters representatives back into the room and announced that he was recommending that the Company hence- forth use Teamsters unit members for loading the trailers. However, with respect to the alleged threats by the Teamsters, the record reveals substantial disparity. Evans testified, on behalf of the GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 162, ETC. 541 Furniture Workers, that after his statement that the matter had not been settled to the Furniture Workers' satisfaction, Joseph Edgar, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 162, stated to Teamsters At- torney Galton, "Well, obviously, Mr. Evans wants to do it the hard way, and that's the way we will do it." According to Evans, neither he nor anyone else asked Edgar what he meant by that statement, nor did Edgar elaborate. Evans further testified that, after the "caucus," Hay announced to the assembled group that "inasmuch as a petition had been filed with the National Labor Relations Board for a juris- dictional determination, that he would advise his client to use Team- sters on the job until the determination was made," and that Hay said he made this decision "in order to not have any work stoppage at the client's plant." Evans' testimony is corroborated in part by Fred Klingman, busi- ness agent of Furniture Workers Local 3182. Thus, Klingman testi- fied that Edgar made a statement about learning the hard way, but that it referred to Klingman rather than to Evans. He could not recall, however, exactly why the statement was made, but testified that "it pertained to jurisdiction on the jobs," and was said to Evans (rather than to Galton) after the assignment.' Klingman's version of Hay's announcement awarding the work to the Teamsters, pending a deci- sion from the Board, accords with Evans' testimony. Witnesses for the Teamsters denied making any direct or indirect threats. Edgar, whose testimony was confirmed by Teamsters Rep- resentatives Galton, Rogers, and Hood, denied making the "hard way" or any similar statements at the February 6 meeting. He did, how- ever, recall saying to Evans, at the meeting between the two Unions on January 21, 1963, "If you want to go the hard way, I certainly have no objections," in response to Evans' statements that the Furni- ture Workers would seek a determination of the dispute by this Board. Edgar further testified that Hay said that he made his recommenda- tion to use Teamsters for the work "rather than to create any difficulty or hardship on the Company." Although Calvin Rogers, business agent of Teamsters Local 162, testified that Hay said he was assign- ing the work to the Teamsters because "he didn't want any work stoppage there at the plant," he also testified that Hay was the only person at the meeting who mentioned "work stoppage." Galton denied that there were any threats or implications of threats, direct or in- direct, uttered by any Teamsters representatives, and asserted that nothing was said by either the Furniture Workers or the Teamsters 5 On examination by the Hearing Officer near the end of Klingman 's testimony , Kling- man, for the first time, stated that Edgar made the "hard way" statement and that this occurred after the "caucus " However, on the basis of his testimony as a whole, it appears that Klingman timed the incident as taking place after Hay's assignment to the Teamsters. 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representatives to prompt Hay to use the word "trouble" in connection with his work assignment decision. Company Counsel Hay testified that Edgar "told me that they [Teamsters] were going to maintain their jurisdiction, that . . . the trailers would be loaded by Teamsters ..." and ". . . from that point on, the argument went back and forth [between the Teamsters and the Furniture Workers representatives]...." Hay further testified that he said : .. I could understand that we could have some difficulties in the loading of our trailers, and there was no answer to it, but I do believe that Mr. Edgar said that that was possible. He didn't threaten me. He didn't make any threat that they were going to boycott any deliveries' nywhere. According to Hay, his reference to possible trouble in loading the trailers was merely a recital of the problem as he saw it-the two Unions were uncompromising in their claim of jurisdiction, and the Company was in the middle; all that the Company wanted was to continue operating the plant peacefully. Hay explained that his statement regarding the possible difficulties which the Company might encounter was based on the fact "that [Edgar] had told me at the start, that they [Teamsters] would not relinquish jurisdiction, and, further, on the statement that Mr. Edgar had said it was possible when I said that Nye could have a work stoppage." While this latter testimony vas not denied by Edgar, it was also not corroborated by any other witness. Hay testified that he did not discuss his decision regarding the work assignment either with the Furniture Workers representatives or with the Company's assistant plant manager, Robert Bourden, Jr., nor did he disclose to any of them in advance what that decision would be. According to Hay's testimony, after the "caucus," when the Teamsters representatives returned to the meeting room, "I told them [all the parties] that I was going to recommend to the Company that, effective February 6th, that the Teamsters would do the loading of these trailers, and ... I believe I said that, `I am making this recommenda- tion pending the determination of the petition that had been filed for jurisdictional dispute."' 6 60n cross-examination by the Teamsters ' counsel , Hay reiterated, "My testimony was that nobody said, 'I'm going to picket this place' Nobody said 'I'm going to throw a strike on this place.' " Q And nobody said that, "we're going to cause you difficulty ," other than the in- sistence on their jurisdictional claims, isn 't that right? A It wasn't explained to me how in the hell you 're going to insist on something and not cause me difficulty. Q. In other words , you inferred there would be difficulty because each party was maintaining their jurisdictional clah .ms. Now isn 't that true 9 A. Well, it isn't true to this extent , that I couldn 't see where I was going to have GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 162, ETC. 543 Robert Bourden, Jr., testified, contrary to Hay, that before the "caucus," "Edgar recommended or suggested or indicated that it would be to the best interests of B. P. John if they would use Teamsters for the loading of the trailers in order to avoid any further complica- tions." When asked whether Edgar elaborated on the interest of B. P. John to which he referred, Robert Bourden, Jr., replied, "Well, Mr. Edgar indicated that we might have difficulty in unloading the trailers if they weren't properly loaded." Robert Bourden, Jr., fur- ther testified that : Mr. Edgar made the statement, and whether he was speaking to Mr. Hay, or to any specific person in the room, but he made the statement that we could either go ahead and do as the Teamsters Union was requesting, or we could object to do or not do what the Teamsters Union wanted, and it would-we would be doing it the hard way, and ... the elaboration on the statement that I recall was that, in the event our trailers were, as Mr. Edgar put it, improperly loaded, that we would then possibly have dif- ficulty in getting the trailers unloaded at their destination. On cross-examination by Teamsters counsel, Robert Bourden, Jr., at first said that he could not recall Hay's statement immediately after the "caucus." On further cross-examination, however, Robert Bourden, Jr., testified : I recall that, after the caucus, you [Teamsters' attorney Galton] and Mr. Edgar returned and then basically I cannot say precisely what was said, but the general conversation was such that both parties were standing firm on their attitude toward the particular situation. Mr. Hay recognized the attitudes of both parties and recommended that B. P. John go ahead and comply with the request of the Teamsters Union, pending the decision or dis- pensation [sic] of the matter. Robert Bourden, Jr., could not recall whether Mr. Hay prefaced his statement by saying that his recommendation was intended to avoid any problems of work stoppage. In order to make a determination of a dispute in Section 10(k) proceedings, the Board is required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated. To satisfy this requirement, it is not enough to show that two competing groups of employees make claim to the same work assignment. Under the any difficulty with the Furniture Workers. I could see where I was going to have some difficulty with the Teamsters, though. Q And . . . because of the possibility you may have some trouble with the Teamsters, you made the determination that the Teamsters would load the furniture trailers , isn't that right? A Until this matter was adjudicated before a government agency. Q. That's right? A. That's right. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD language of Section 8(b) (4) (D), the evidence must relate to illegal conduct or speech of the Respondent or its representatives.7 On this record, we find that there is insufficient evidence to support the con- clusion that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Teamsters resorted to prohibited methods in pressing its claim for the work assignment. It is clear from the above recital that the only testimony offered by the Furniture Workers representatives, in support of its charge, was that on February 6, 1963, Teamsters Representative Edgar stated that someone was going to do or learn something the "hard way." How- ever, the witnesses did not agree concerning the person to whom the remark was made. And neither Evans nor Klingman testified that it was made in the presence or hearing of any Company representa- tive, nor was either able to elaborate on what was meant by that state- ment. Furthermore, Evans and Klingman each interpreted the state- ment as referring to him personally-that he would have to learn or do something the "hard way." The only testimony of Teamsters threats against the Company came from Company Representative Robert Bourden, Jr. His testimony of what was said at the February 6 meeting, however, was totally un- corroborated by the Furniture Workers' witnesses, was denied by the Teamsters, and contradicted by Hay, the Company's counsel and labor- management consultant. Hay expressly denied that Edgar threatened him. It may well be that Hay's ultimate decision awarding the work to the Teamsters was prompted by a sincere concern and apprehension of the possible con- sequences to the Company resulting from a continuation of the dispute. However, he admittedly only inferred a threat from the Unions' un- compromising attitudes and from Edgar's alleged comment that "that is possible," which was assertedly made in belated response to Hay's own recitation of the possible ramifications of the dispute to the Com- pany. We note that, as between the two company representatives, Hay's testimony is much more consistent with that of both the Furni- ture Workers' and the Teamsters' witnesses than is Robert Bourden, Jr.'s. Therefore, even if a clear threat appears from Robert Bourden, Jr.'s testimony, there is not only no corroboration thereof, but it is wholly inconsistent with that of all the other witnesses. The Furniture Workers apparently assumed that Edgar's "hard way" statement implied a threat of unlawful activity by the Teamsters unless the disputed work were assigned to employees represented by the Teamsters. However, such a threat would be inconsistent with the Teamsters' position that the Company had previously assigned the work to the Teamsters unit. In fact, according to Klingman, the 7International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 106, AFL-CIO ( E C. Ernst, Inc ), 137 NLRB 1746. GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 162, ETC. 545 statement was made after the assignment of February 6, and such a threat would be even more improbable at that time. Furthermore, the phrase, "the hard way," is ambiguous and logically capable of several interpretations in addition to that advanced by the Furniture Workers. For a statement of this kind takes on meaning depending on the context in which it is made. Thus, in view of the Teamsters' construction of the Company's action in December 1962, as an assignment of the work to its unit and of the assignment at the February 6 meeting, it could be that the "hard way" for the Furniture Workers would be the latter's resort to some means of compulsion to secure reassignment of the work to itself. Also, whatever testimony is credited as to the time at which the statement was made, there is no doubt that there was clearly an understanding by the parties that a Board determination had been or would be sought.' In light of that understanding, it is entirely possible that, as Edgar testified, the "hard way" meant resort to the processes of this Board and to have the Teamsters prevail. It is thus apparent that the statement here involved is subject to interpretations other than as a threat to engage in illegal conduct. Under these circumstances, we deem this evidence too vague and in- substantial to support the necessary finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Teamsters engaged in an unfair labor prac- tice. Nor is Edgar's alleged comment that "that is possible," which in view of the above stands alone, sufficient by itself to support that necessary finding. Therefore, we conclude that the Board is with- out authority to determine this dispute. Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of hearing issued herein.' [The Board quashed the notice of hearing.] MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting : I dissent from the decision of my colleagues to quash the notice of hearing in this proceeding. Throughout the history of the Board's interpretation of Section 10(k) of the Act, the Board has held that before it may proceed to determine a dispute, it is necessary to establish only that there is reasonable cause to believe-that is, a prima facie case-that there has been a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D).10 Although my col- leagues purport to apply this principle here, their treatment of the evidence implies that they are insisting here on proof that Section 8 (b) (4) (D) has in fact been violated. 8 While the testimony indicates that the charge had been filed by February 6, the charge itself is dated February 11, 1963. 8International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO ( Carling Brewing Company, Inc.), 136 NLRB 1216, at 1218-1220. 10 E.g., Direct Transit Lines, Inc., 92 NLRB 1715; Ethyl Corporation, 107 NLRB 463; WVendnagel & Company, 116 NLRB 1063. 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record herein is replete with testimony of threats, mostly by innuendo, uttered by Teamsters Representative Edgar, in the context of insistence by both Unions on their respective jurisdictional claims. If believed, this testimony, in my opinion, would with the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, establish a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (D). Thus there is, for example: (1) testimony by Evans of the Furniture Workers as to Edgar's statement that "Mr. Evans wants to do it the hard way, and that's the way we will do it"; (2) testimony by Company Counsel Hay concerning Edgar's statements that the Teamsters would not relinquish its jurisdiction and that it was possible the Company would have some difficulties loading its trailers-i.e., a work stoppage; and (3) testimony by Assistant Plant Manager Bourden concerning Edgar's statements that it would be to the Com- pany's best interests to use Teamsters to avoid complications, and fur- ther that the Company could comply with the Teamsters' "request" or it might possibly have difficulty with the unloading of the trailers if they were "improperly loaded." My colleagues have concluded in effect that these statements are ambiguous; that in view of conflicting evidence it is more reasonable to assume that these statements were not made; and that in any event the inferences to be drawn from these statements could just as well be lawful as unlawful. Even assuming everything they say is true, it is wholly irrelevant at this stage of the proceeding. Their analysis would be relevant if the issue were whether a violation had been estab- lished by a preponderance of the evidence. But that is not the issue now. The issue now is only whether there is enough evidence in the record to establish a prima facie case of violation. Reasonably construed, Edgar's statements constitute at least veiled threats of strike or other coercive action to compel assignment of the disputed work to the Teamsters. As I would thus find that a prima facie case has been established, I would accordingly proceed to de- termine the dispute. Radio Kemetal Industries, Inc. and Radio Industries , Inc. and Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-4978. September 13, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 16, 1963, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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 144 NLRB No. 62.