Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Etc., Local Union 631

504 DECISIONS _OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. The laborers employed by Pipe Linings, Inc., who are repre- sented by Laborers District Council of the Metropolitan, Area of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Local 57, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the disputed work in connection with the site designated as Race Street between 52d and 65th Streets, in Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Local 690, United Association of Journeymen. and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Company to assign the above-described disputed work to plumbers. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Local 690, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Company, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to plumbers rather than laborers. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 631, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., Inc. Case No. 0O-CD-134. December 16, 1964 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding'pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed May. 5, 1964,1 and amended May 11, 1964, by Reynolds Electrical and Engi- neering Co., Inc., designated herein as REECO or the Employer, alleging that Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 631, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, designated herein as the Team- sters, had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. A duly sched- uled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Melton Boyd on June 4 through 25, 1964. All parties appearing were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings made at the hear- i The May 5 charge is dated April 28, 1964. 150 NLRB No. 44. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS^'ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 505. ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer, the Teamsters , and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 357, designated herein as the IBEW, have filed briefs which have been duly considered by the. Board. Upon the entire record in the case , the Board 2 makes the following findings : I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER REECO ' is the prime ' contractor, operating under a "cost plus a fixed fee" agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission, desig- nated herein as A.E.C., to provide construction services at the A.E.C. Nevada Test Site, designated herein as N.T.S. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the charges herein, REECO purchased and received at N.T.S. goods, supplies, and equip- ment valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to it directly from sources outside the State of Nevada. During this same period REECO performed services for the A.E.C. valued in excess of $100,- 000 at N.T.S. and having a substantial impact on the national de- fense. It is admitted, and we find, that REECO is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.' H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Teamsters and the IBEW are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act .3 M. THE DISPUTE A.' The work at issue The dispute herein involves two kinds of work. The first of these is described in the notice of hearing as : The unloading of materials and equipment from vehicles at con- struction staging areas or area compounds within .. '. the Nevada Test Site, the checking, tallying and placement or "spotting" of the materials and equipment within the construction staging areas or area compounds.... We shall refer to this issue as the composite staffing dispute. 2 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]. 8 Other labor organizations named in the charge as affected include: Laborers Union, Local #873; Painters Union, Local 159; Plumbing and Pipefitters , Local 525; Sheet Metal Workers, Local 88; Iron Workers , Local #433; International Union of Operating Engi- neers, Local 12. The latter organization was granted leave to intervene at the hearing. -506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The second area of dispute involves : The subsequent loading of materials and equipment on to vehicles at the construction staging area or area compounds and driving such vehicles and unloading same at the point of utiliza- tion or installation of such materials or equipment. B. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D) Since 1952 when REECO became the prime construction support .contractor at' N.T.S. there have been conflicting jurisdictional claims by the Teamsters and IBEW with respect to the staffing of ware- houses used exclusively for the storage of electrical supplies , and with respect to the transportation of electrical supplies. ' In 1952 in an effort to resolve these disputes Ralph A. Legion, business manager of the IBEW , and William F. Carter, secretary- treasurer of the Teamsters , entered into an agreement known as the Carter-Legion Agreement which was intended to incorporate and adapt a preexisting agreement between the Teamsters International and the IBEW International known as the Greenbook agreement' to the special problems at N.T.S. The Carter-Legion agreement in relevant part provided as follows : The mutual understanding as to the interpretation of the exist- ing [Greenbook] agreement, copy of which is attached , between -the' two International Unions was determined as follows : Paragraph #2: Crew or Line truck referred to in this para- graph shall be loaded by Warehousemen if available , or com- posite crew, at the start of the shift , and operated by I.B.E.W. -men. All other materials required during the shift other than first loaded as above, shall be requested from the warehouse or yard and delivered by vehicle operated by Teamsters. It was further mutually agreed that a composite crew of Ware- housemen and Electricians shall work together in the warehouse storing electrical material exclusively . One to one ratio between the two crafts shall be maintained as equally as possible. 4 This agreement in relevant part provided as follows: It is further agreed that the operators of vehicles used for electrical construction work, maintenance work, or electrical repair work-that is, when such vehicles are used for transporting man or men and/or material to and from job, and said vehicle 'remains at jobsite with man or men in the performance of electrical work, and the operation of the vehicle is an integral part of the work-such operator comes under the jurisdiction of the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS. It is understood and agreed that the equipment operated by electrical workers shall only be the truck carrying the line and maintenance crews, tools, etc , to and from the job, or the emergency car from electrical contracting shops carrying only tools and repair equipment for emergency work. Operation of all delivery equipment for the delivery of materials of all character , such as poles , pipes, transformers , cables, and electrical appliances, such as refrigerators, radios, etc., shall be the jurisdiction of the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 507 The record shows that from the time of its execution REECO fol- lowed the Carter-Legion agreement in making work assignments, and has referred to and relied upon said agreement as a basis for resolv- ing conflicts which arose between the Teamsters and IBEW. The provisions with respect to composite staffing soon ceased to be actively applied, however, as the exclusive electrical warehouse was converted in 1952 to a mixed materials warehouse where the Teamsters undis- putedly had exclusive jurisdiction. Commencing in October 1958 there was a moratorium on testing which continued until September 1961. Whereas prior to the mora- torium virtually all testing had been conducted in the atmosphere, all testing after the resumption in 1961 was conducted underground. Because of the change in the method of testing there developed for- ward staging and supply areas known as compounds proximate to the points where the tests occurred. These compounds were sub- divided into segments known as craft compounds. At the electrical compounds a practice developed of storing electrical supplies for future use. On April 17 or 20, 1964, Carter accompanied an A.E.C. inspector on a tour of the testsite. At that time Carter observed electrical compounds being used for the storage of supplies and electricians per- forming loading work at the electrical compounds. Carter advised REECO that he considered the electrical compounds to be "exclusive electrical 'warehouses" within the meaning of the Carter-Legion agreement and that REECO was violating that agreement by not utilizing composite crews to perform "warehousemen's" duties at the electrical compounds. Discussions between Carter and REECO offi- cials failed to produce any agreement with respect to the matter and on April 23 Carter told the job stewards and Teamster business rep- resentatives to inform Teamster drivers not to deliver supplies to electrical compounds unless there. was a composite crew and/or a warehouse receiving clerk. From April 23 to 28 Teamster drivers refused to make deliveries to the electrical compounds .5 6 The record also shows that in some instances drivers refused to deliver to the other craft compounds. REECO claims that the Teamsters' demand that there be a receiving clerk at the compounds was not limited to the electrical compounds but encompassed the other crafts as well , and that a jurisdictional dispute exists as to these other crafts. It appears, however, that to the extent there were refusals to deliver to the other craft com- pounds these were the result of a mixup in carryink out Carter 's instructions rather than deliberate economic action in support of a jurisdictional claim . Moreover, at the hearing all of the unions other than the IBEW where such refusals occurred entered into a stipulation with the Teamsters that there was no jurisdictional dispute between them during the relevant period ( the Plumbers did not so stipulate but there is no evidence of any special circumstances indicating a jurisdictional dispute as to the Plumbers) Under these circumstances we find that there is no dispute cognizable under Section 8(b) (4) (D) between the Teamsters and any craft named in the charge other than the IBEW. (See footnote 2, supra ) 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Applicability of the statute While the Teamsters do not deny that,they caused a work stoppage to I support their claims to composite staffing at the electrical com- pounds, they'contend, in effect, that there is no jurisdictional dispute under the Act as they do not seek the reassignment of work now being performed by electricians but merely that teamsters be em- ployed on an equal ratio with electricians. - It is obvious, however, that the Teamsters could not have assumed that REECO would maintain twice the necessary work force at the compounds. Thus, the Teamsters in making their demand for com- posite staffing must have contemplated a reduction in the existing staff of electricians to permit an equalization of the number of team- sters and electricians. We conclude, therefore, that as a practical matter the Teamsters' claim for composite staffing at the electrical compounds constituted a demand for the reassignment of work being performed by electricians to teamsters, and that a dispute within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) exists and the issue is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k). As to the Teamsters' claim to the work of driving delivery vehicles from the compounds to the point of use, it is undisposed that the Teamsters engaged in picketing from May 12 to May 28, 1964, when picketing was halted by court order, to enforce their demand that the Employer reassign the driving of such vehicles from the electrical compounds to the point of use of the supplies. We conclude, there- fore, that a dispute within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) exists with respect to this issue and that it is properly before the Board for determination under Section 10(k). D. Merits of the dispute As we stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,6 we will, pur- suant to the Supreme Court's decision in Columbia Broadcasting Sys- tem,7 determine in each case presented for resolution under Section 10(k) of the Act, the appropriate assignment of disputed work only after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors. The following factors are asserted in support of the claims of the parties herein. 6International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction Com- pany), 135 NLRB 1402. 7 N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers , Union, Local 1212, et at. ( Colum- bia Broadcasting System), 364 U.S. 573. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 509 1. The composite staffing of the electrical compounds The Teamsters' claim for composite staffing of the electrical com- pounds rests solely on the Carter-Legion agreement.8 The Employer and IBEW dispute the Teamsters' interpretation of the agreement. Carter-Legion provides that there shall be composite staffing only in "the warehouse storing electrical material exclusively." The record shows that at the time Carter-Legion was adopted there existed a conventional warehouse used exclusively for the storage of electrical supplies. There were no electrical compounds in existence at the time. Thus, it would appear that the agreement is referring to "the warehouse" in existence in 1952 as is argued by REECO and IBEW, rather than the electrical compounds. The record indicates that the Teamsters apparently so interpreted the agreement as they did not make any demands for composite staffing at the electrical compounds until April 1964 although the compounds had obviously been operat- ing in their present form for a substantial period prior to that date. However, even if it is assumed that the Carter-Legion agreement may be construed as having a broader application than the ware- house which was in existence at the time of its execution, the Team- sters' claim must nonetheless fail unless it can be established that the compounds are "warehouses" within the meaning of 'that agreement. In this respect the record shows that while supplies are stored at the compounds, in some cases for periods of several months, such supplies are ordered not for the purpose of maintaining a general inventory but in connection with the performance of some specific task. More- over, the great bulk of these supplies consists of various types of coaxial cable which is normally prefabricated at the compounds for installation at the point of use. The compounds are also used to store tools and the electricians' personal belongings. Also the compounds are normally within a mile or so of the wellholes where the cable and other materials are installed. While such distances may be 8 Neither the Teamsters nor the IBEW have been certified by the Board with respect to any employees involved in the instant proceeding. Although both unions have contracts with the Employer, such contracts shed no light on the dispute as they are silent on the issue of composite staffing of the electrical compounds While both the IBEW and REECO claimed that the work involved requires the skills of an electrician , the record does not clearly establish the superiority of electricians over teamsters with respect to the skills involved in the. disputed work. However, because of our disposition of the Team- sters' claim on other grounds we find it unnecessary to consider the allegedly superior skills of the electricians . We do find, however , that with respect to such factors as em- ployer, industry, or area practice , and efficiency or economy of operation , the record on balance tends to support the Employer's assignment of the work to the electricians rather than the teamsters. 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD viewed as substantial in the usual construction project, in view of the fact that the warehouses may be as many as 35 miles from the testholes and the 1,500 square mile area of N.T.S. such distances must be viewed as relatively proximate under the circumstances of this case. Thus, we find that the electrical compounds are not ware- houses as that term was used in the Carter-Legion agreement but are, rather, in the nature of on-the-site supply dumps and/or workshops. We find, therefore, that the Carter-Legion agreement does not sup- port the Teamsters' claim to composite staffing at the compounds; and, as the Teamsters have no other basis for such claim, we conclude that there is no merit in their contention that they are entitled to any of the work being performed by the electricians at the electrical compounds. 2. The dispute over the delivery of supplies from the electrical compounds to the point of use The Teamsters' claim that they are entitled to drive nonwork ve- hicles transporting electrical supplies and equipment is based pri- marily on an award interpreting their contract with the Employer,9 the Carter-Legion agreement, and the Employer's previous disposi- tion of an allegedly similar dispute in 1957 known as the BJY dispute. O The Teamsters relied in particular upon an award by the A G.C. Joint Conference Board interpreting the parties' contract in connection with a grievance filed by the Teamsters protesting the Employer's practice of assigning to electricians the work of operating vehicles used for the hauling of supplies between the compounds and the point of use. As a result of the Teamsters' grievance a proceeding was conducted under the A G.C. contract between REECO and the Teamsters (the IBEW did not participate in the proceeding ) which resulted in a finding by the Joint Conference Board that the Employer's assignment of the work to the electricians was in conflict with area practice and, therefore constituted a violation of article III F of the A G.C. agreement which provided as follows: III F During the life of this Agreement, no Contractor signatory hereto or on whose behalf this Agreement has been made shall assign employees of another craft to per- form work in the classifications covered by this Agreement contrary to the decisions or agreements of record or established trade practice in the area As the Supreme Court has held, an arbitrator's award in a jurisdictional dispute case is a proper consideration in a 10(k) proceeding but is not binding upon the Board Carey v. Westinghouse, 375 U S 261, 271-272; also see International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America, et al (J R Condon d Sons, Inc.), 148 NLRB 356, footnote 5 We have considered the award in light of the evidence adduced herein The Joint Board's finding that REECO was in violation of article III F rests on an implicit as- sumption that an area practice exists with respect to situations comparable to that present herein. Other than the award itself, however, there is no evidence of any such practice On the contrary, there is it great deal of evidence in the record with respect to area practices which establishes that there are no construction projects of comparable , size or where comparable work is being performed N.T.S. presents a unique situation . We cannot agree, therefore, in these circumstances that the award controls the disposition of the Teamsters' claim to jurisdiction in this case over the driving of vehicles hauling electrical supplies from the compounds to the point of use. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 511 Since the resumption of testing in 1961 REECO has assigned the work of driving vehicles delivering electrical supplies from the elec- trical 'compounds to the electricians. Neither the agreement with the IBEW or the Teamsters, however, contains a clear-cut assignment of the disputed work.10 Nor has either union been certified with respect to any employees involved herein. The Carter-Legion agreement, however, which incorporates the Greenbook agreement,'1 establishes guidelines relevant to the claims of the IBEW and the Teamsters to the disputed work. In essence, this agreement provides that jurisdic- tion over the driving of vehicles transporting supplies from points outside of the jobsite to the first drop on the jobsite shall be per- formed by the Teamsters. After the first drop at or on the jobsite, the transportation of such materials as are necessary to or utilized in the electricians' performance of their work is within the jurisdic- tion of the IBEW. The evidence on the record establishes that at all times the Teamsters, the IBEW, and REECO have applied the provisions of the Greenbook agreement. Thus, the conflicting claims of the Teamsters and the Electricians, with respect to the Greenbook, turn on the question of whether the compounds are part of the job- site. REECO and the IBEW contend that the compounds are part of the jobsite, while the Teamsters, as we have seen, claim that they are electrical warehouses. We have already found that the compounds are not exclusive elec- trical warehouses; however, this does not necessarily mean that they are part of the jobsite. The record reveals in this connection that the compounds' as they are presently constituted have developed over the years as the methods of testing have changed. During the period of atmospheric testing there were no compounds such as presently exist. For the most part supplies were transported directly from the ware- house to the point of use where they were fabricated into the various components required by the job. Much of the electrical work 'was performed in portable shacks. Supplies could not be stored for any period of time in the test area, for they would have been destroyed by the wide-range destructive effects of atmospheric testing. With the resumption of testing in 1961 when atmospheric testing was abandoned and replaced by underground testing in tunnels and wells, primitive, unfenced compounds were developed which in fact were no more than forward supply depots. These were normally quite close to the point of use, and it is undisputed that the elec- 10 See footnote 9, supra 11 See supra. 7 7 5-69 2-6 5-v o 1 150-34 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tricians transported supplies from these compounds to the point of use or the mouth of the tunnel (when this type of testing was utilized). With the development of testing in wells the compounds have be- come less transitory in nature, as the well technique permits the prep- aration and conduct of several tests contemporaneously and at rela- tively close distances to the supply point. Nevertheless, the com- pounds have not changed their basic characteristics. They continue to be utilized as forward area supply dumps for materials ordered specifically for the performance of a particular job. Moreover, the buildings where the electricians fabricate components are in effect no more than adaptations of the preexisting portable shacks, albeit a more sophisticated and efficient version thereof. In light of these facts we believe that the compounds are, in essence, an integral part of the jobsite, and, therefore, under the provisions of the Carter-Legion agreement, jurisdiction over the transportation of electrical supplies utilized by the electricians in the performance of their work is vested in the electricians rather than the teamsters.12 The Teamsters' reliance upon the Employer's resolution of the BJY dispute as a precedent supporting their claim herein is mis- placed in our opinion.13 The record shows that the BJY was an area which was utilized during the period of atmospheric testing as a supply dump and staging area. It was of necessity located many miles from the point of use of the supplies. There is no evidence that it was utilized for the prefabrication of components as are the compounds, and it would appear that supplies were deposited for general use rather than ordered in connection with the performance of a specific job as in the case of the compounds. Thus, for both geographic and functional reasons the BJY could not be considered as part of the jobsite, and can have no relevance with respect to the disposition of this dispute. While we do not agree with REECO and the IBEW that the dis- puted work necessarily requires the skills of electricians only and that teamsters are not capable of performing the work, we find, how- ever, that the record supports the Employer's contention that it would be more efficient and practicable for electricians rather than teamsters to perform the work. 12It is not disputed that the work of delivering materials from points outside of the jobsite to the compounds or any other part of the jobsite is work performed by the Teamsters. 13 The BJY dispute involved a claim by the Teamsters that teamsters rather than electri- cians were entitled to the work of operating supply delivery vehicles from the BJY to the point of use. In that instance REECO agreed with the Teamsters ' claim and assigned such work to teamster employees. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 513 E. ConeTiusions as to the merits of the disputes On the basis of the whole record and appraisal of the relevant considerations, for all of the reasons set forth above we shall deter- mine the existing jurisdictional disputes by deciding (1) that the -teamsters are not entitled to composite staffing at the electrical com- pounds but that such work is properly the work of the electricians, and (2) that electricians rather than teamsters are entitled to per- form the work of driving vehicles transporting electrical supplies from the electrical compounds to the point of use. We shall there- fore assign the disputed work to the electricians. Our present deter- mination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to this proceeding. In making this determination, we are assigning the disputed work to electrician employees represented by IBEW, but not to IBEW or its members.' DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act: 1. Electricians currently represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 357, are entitled to the work of unload- ing of materials and equipment from vehicles at the electrical area compounds within the Nevada Test Site, the checking, tallying, and placement or "spotting" of said materials and equipment within said compounds, and the subsequent, loading of materials and equipment on vehicles at the said compounds and driving of such vehicles and unloading of same at the point of use or installation of said materials and equipment. 2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 631, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America, is not and has not been lawfully entitled to force or require Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., Inc., to assign the disputed work to teamsters. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 631, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Reynolds Electrical and Engineer- ing Co., Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the work in dispute to teamsters who are its members rather than to electricians who are represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local 357. Local Union No. 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Deaton Truck Line, Inc. Case No. 10-CP-37. December 17, 196. DECISION AND ORDER On July 6, 1964, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed ex- ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board dismissed the complaint]. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter is before Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman, on a complaint l pur- suant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, alleging that since on or about January 12, 1963, Local Union No. 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called Respondent or the Union, violated Section 8(b) (7)(C) of the Act, by picketing for more than 30 days without a representation petition being on file and not being then certified as the representative of Deaton's employees, the Birmingham, Alabama, terminal and offices of Deaton Truck Line, Inc., herein called Deaton or Company, with an object of forcing or requiring Deaton to recognize or bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of Deaton's employees, or to force or require said employees to accept or select the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. Respondent, by answer, admitted the picketing, the lack of a certification, and that the picketing continued for more than 30 days without a representation petition being on file, but denied that its picketing had any recognition or organizational object, and averred that its picketing was solely to protest alleged unfair labor practices on the part of Deaton. On March 25, 1964, the parties entered into a stipulation submitting this case for decision by a Trial Examiner to be designated by the Chief Trial Examiner, upon a record consisting of the formal documents and the transcript of evidence 1 Issued February 12, 1964; based on a charge filed August 19, 1963. 150 NLRB No. 40.