Local Freight Drivers Local No. 208, Etc.

1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.13 18 In the event that this Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, we are posting this notice to inform our employees of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor Relations Act: ALL OUR EMPLOYEES have the right to join or assist Local 525, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor union. They also have the right not to join or assist any labor union. WE WILL NOT question any of our employees regarding their attendance or prospective attendance at any union meeting or otherwise coercively question them concernmg their union activities , sympathies , or desires. WE WILL NOT request any employee to inform us concerning the attendance of our employees or what may take place at any union meeting, and WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings of our employees or create the impression that we are engaging or have engaged in such surveillance. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831 Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone No. 724-8356, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Local Freight Drivers, Local No. 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer- ica; and Steel, Paperhouse & Chemical Drivers & Helpers Local No. 578, IBT and Les Brockman. Case No. 21-CC-755-1. January 14, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On November 10, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. The Respondents filed no exceptions. 150 NLRB No. 104. LOCAL FREIGHT DRIVERS, LOCAL. NO. 20 8, ETC. 1017 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner with the following modifications, and orders that Respondents, Local Freight Drivers, Local No. 208, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America; and Steel, Paperhouse & Chemical Drivers & Helpers Local No. 578, IBT, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Section 1(a) of the Order shall be changed to read as follows : "(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by any person 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 to threaten, coerce, or restrain Les Brockman, a self-employed person, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require him to join a labor organization." 2. The indented paragraph in each of the notices (Appendixes A and B) shall be changed to read as follows : WE WILL NOT 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, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise 1 The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner 's failure to make clear in his conclusions of law that Respondents' conduct violated subsection ( A) of section 8(b) (4) (1) and (11) of the Act both in the inducement of employees to withhold their services and in the threatening , coercing , and restraining of Brockman The General Counsel also excepted to the Trial Examiner 's failure to include in his recommendations and notices a provision directing Respondents to cease and desist from threatening , coercing, and restraining Les Brockman , where an object thereof is to force or require Les Brockman to join it labor organization The omission to identify the section violated as subsection (A) of Section 8(b)(4) and the failure to include the additional provision in his recom- mendations and notices apparently were no more than an oversight we shall therefore hereby correct his conclusions of law and modify his recommendations by ordering the Respondents to cease and desist from threatening, coercing , and restraining Les Brock- man with an object of forcing or requiring him to join a labor organization. 1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or to threaten, coerce, or, restrain Les Brockman, a self-employed person, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require him to join a labor organization. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and amended charges duly filed by Les Brockman,' the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the Gen- eral Counsel2 and the Board, through the Regional Director for Region 21 (Los Angeles, California), issued a complaint, dated July 15,3 against Local Freight Driv- ers, Local No. 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, herein called Local 208, and Steel, Paperhouse & Chem- ical Drivers & Helpers Local No. 578, IBT, herein called Local 578, alleging that Respondent 4 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii) (A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon Local 208 and Local 578, and copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon Les Brockman. Specifically, the complaint, with respect to the unfair labor practices, alleged that: (1) Brockman is a self-employed person engaged in the transportation of freight by motor truck ; ( 2) at all times material herein, Respondent has demanded that Brock- man join and become a member of Local 208 ; ( 3) in furtherance of Respondent's aforementioned demand, Respondent , on or about April 30, threatened Brockman with picketing and on or about May 18, Local 208 and Local 578 commenced picketing Brockman at Hillbro Newspaper Printing Company, herein called Hillbro, a division of Hearst Publishing Company, Inc., which publishes the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, a daily newspaper; (4) since said date, May 18, Respondent has picketed Brockman at the Santa Fe Railway Company's auto dock at Washington and Alameda Streets in the city of Los Angeles, California; and (5) by the aforesaid acts and conduct, Respondent has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Hillbro, Santa Fe, and by other persons engaged in commerce , or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in strikes or a refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles , materials, or commodities , or to perform services and have threatened , coerced, and restrained Brockman, Hillbro, Santa Fe, and other persons engaged in commerce or in an indus- try affecting commerce. On July 24 Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held on September, 22, before Trial Exam- iner Howard Myers. The General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel . Full and complete opportunity was afforded all parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the record at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or before October 14. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Respondent 's counsel, which have been carefully considered. After the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel filed a motion to correct certain inaccuracies appearing in the stenographic report of the hearing . The motion is, hereby granted and the motion papers, copies of which have been served upon the parties, are hereby received in evidence and are marked "Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1." i The original charge was filed on May 6, 1964, the amended charge was filed on May 8, and the second amended charge was filed on June 23. 2 This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing 3 All dates herein mentioned refer to 1964 unless otherwise noted. 4 Conjointly Local 208 and Local 578 are herein referred to as Respondent LOCAL FREIGHT DRIVERS, LOCAL NO. 208, ETC. 1019 Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BROCKMAN 'S BUSINESS OPERATIONS Brockman, who has his principal offices and places of business at Compton, Cali- fornia, is a self-employed person engaged in the transportation of freight by motor- truck. He owns his own equipment , which consists of three GMC tractors and three electronic 40-foot vans . During the calendar year immediately preceding the issu- ance of the complaint herein, Brockman transported goods in 47 different States. His gross revenue from this business amounted to $71,000. Since May 14 Brockman has been delivering newsprint from the Los Angeles- Santa Fe Railroad auto docks , herein called Santa Fe, to the warehouse of Hillbro, the publishers of the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. The aforesaid newsprint is manufactured at Snowflake, Arizona, by Southwest Forest Industries and shipped by rail from Southwest Forest Industries Arizona premises to Santa Fe for delivery by Brockman to Hillbro. Hillbro is bound by contract with Southwest Forest Indus- tries to purchase a minimum of 50,000 tons of this newsprint per year. This paper is valued at $ 134 per ton. Under a 3-year contract with Southwest Forest Industries, Brockman is bound to deliver all the newsprint, referred to above, to the Hillbro warehouse from Santa Fe. Under the terms of said contract , Brockman is to receive $ 1.80 for each ton of paper delivered by him from Santa Fe to Hillbro. The record is clear, and find that since May 14 Brockman has delivered 4,500 tons of paper per month in performance of the aforesaid contract. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, find in line with established Board authority, that Brockman is engaged in, and during all times material was engaged , in, a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that his business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 208 and Local 578 are, and during all times material were, labor organiza- tions within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The pertinent facts 5 Since May 14 Brockman has been delivering newsprint to the warehouse of Hillbro from the Los Angeles auto docks of Santa Fe. The newsprint which Brockman delivers to Hillbro is produced in Snowflake, Arizona, and shipped from there by rail to Los Angeles. Brockman employs no drivers , loaders, or unloaders . He does all the driving himself. In fact, Brockman has no employees at all. The persons who load and/or unload Hillbro's newsprint are under contract with Brockman. The loaders and unloaders are not employees of Brockman but are independent contractors. Regarding his operations with respect to the delivery of the newsprint to Hillbro, Brockman credibly testified as follows: A. Well, I operate all three trucks that-actually, we load the trucks at the Santa Fe Auto Dock. They are unloaded at the Herald-Examiner. I have one 5 In light of my observation of the conduct and deportment at the hearing of all the persons who testified herein, and after a very careful scrutiny of the entire record, all of which has been carefully read and parts thereof have been reread and rechecked several times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the credibility problems herein involved, of the fact that in many instances testimony was given regard- ing events which took place months prior to the opening of the hearing , and of the fact that very strong feelings have been generated by the circumstances of this case, coupled with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this Decision to summarize all the testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein, the following is a composite picture of all the factual Issues involved and the conclusions based thereon. The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions , findings , and con- clusions herein, the record as a whole has been considered , relevant cases have been studied ; and each contention advanced by the parties has been weighed , even though not specifically discussed. 1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD being loaded and one being unloaded and I am driving the third one either coming or going, and I have a contract with a contractor for loading. The same thing for unloading. Q. Well, when you get over to the Hillbro where you first load in the morn- ing how do you get to the Santa Fe Auto Dock? A. I have a motorcycle that I carry on the back of the truck, and I jump on my motorcycle, ride back over and get the second truck and from then on it is just a round-robin case. Q. You testified that you have no employees. How is the paper on your trucks unloaded and-from the truck to the auto dock or to the Hillbro storage areas and how is it loaded from the auto dock onto your truck? A. I have a contract with an unloader, and he unloads the trucks. The same thing applies for the loading of the trucks. I have nothing to do with that. Q. How many of these loaders and unloaders do you use? A. There is two loaders and one unloader. Of course this varies from time to time. In order to unload at the Hillbro warehouse, Brockman must pull his truck into a tunnel at said warehouse. The entrance to the tunnel is at the corner of 11th and Hill Streets. The exit is on Hill Street. In order to enter the tunnel on the'llth Street side of the Hillbro warehouse, a truck must make a 90° turn, and when the truck gets into the tunnel, it is placed on a turntable and is then turned so it faces the tunnel's exit. It is only possible to have two trucks of the type Brockman drives in the tunnel at one time. On April 30 William Croysdill, a business agent of Local 208, telephoned Brock- man. Regarding this telephone conversation, Brockman credibly testified 6 that after Croysdill had identified himself as the business agent of Local 208, Croysdill stated that he would have to become a member of the Teamsters Union if he was going to haul any newsprint to the Hillbro warehouse; that only Teamsters Union members could deliver to the said warehouse; that Hill Transportation Company had informed Croysdill that he was the one who was now delivering newsprint under contract to the Hillbro warehouse; 7 that the transportation company had to discharge seven Teamsters Union members because he had taken over the newsprint delivery con- tract; that Croysdill wanted him to put these seven men back to work operating his trucks; that he told Croysdill that he had been driving for 22 years, he owned his own equipment and was going to continue to drive his equipment, and he did not need any employees, he had a mechanized system of hauling the newsprint which did not require the employment of anyone, he did not propose to become a member of the Teamsters Union, or to hire any Teamsters personnel; that Croysdill then stated he would picket his operations at Santa Fe, would also picket his operations at the Hillbro, and at all other places he might go, the Teamsters council had author- ized Local 208 to strike his operations, and the Teamsters Union members then employed at Hillbro who handled the newsprint which he was to deliver would not receive the newsprint, and he would be put out of business unless he joined the Teamsters Union. Brockman further credibly testified that on or about May 18 Vern Breitbach, a union business agent of Local 578, came to the Hillbro warehouse where he was unloading newsprint; that Breitbach asked him for his Teamsters Union card; that when he told Breitbach that he did not have a card and was not a member of the Teamsters Union, Breitbach then told him that only members of the Teamsters Union could deliver newsprint to Hilibro; that Breitbach also said if he did not become a member of the Teamsters Union the Teamsters Union would picket him; that Breitbach then exhibited a paper or a card which he was to sign; that he told Breitbach that he owned the trucks which he had been driving; that about 30 minutes or so after the referred to conversation, Local 578 began to picket his operations at Santa Fe; and that Breitbach was one of the persons who actually did the picketing at Santa Fe. On or about May 18 William Davison, who was a member of Local 578; and who was employed by Hillbro at its warehouse dock at Eleventh and Hill Streets, was approached by Croysdill and told by Croysdill, to quote from Davison's credible and undenied testimony, "I could walk off the job if I wanted to." Davison further credibly testified that he told Croysdill that before he "walked off the job" he thought he had to consult his shop steward or his business agent. 6 Croysdill did not testify. 7 Prior to May 14 Hill Transportation Company hauled the Southwest Forest Industries newsprint from Santa Fe to Hillbro. LOCAL FREIGHT DRIVERS, LOCAL NO. 208, ETC. 1021 For the first 2 weeks or so of the picketing, a man named Delaney and Dominick Scacia, two Local 208 pickets, would almost continuously block or delay Brockman when he tried to enter into the Hillbro tunnel in order to deliver the newsprint. Then, commencing around the last week in May, Delaney and Scacia reduced their activities by only occasionally blocking Brockman's entrance into the tunnel. The means used by Delaney and Scacia•to delay Brockman's entrance into the tunnel was by standing in front of his truck carrying signs. One sign bore the legend to the effect that Brockman was unfair to Local 208 and the other sign stated that Brock- man was committing unfair labor practices. Brockman was delayed by the aforesaid conduct of Delaney and Scacia for as much as 15 minutes on each occasion. On one occasion there was a traffic tieup which caused automobiles and other vehicles to be blocked for about 2 blocks in each direction from the Hillbro warehouse. These obstructions to Brockman's entrance into the tunnel of the Hillbro warehouse diminished in frequency but continued at intervals until the picketing was stopped by court order. Dwight Hallner, who used a butane-powered forklift to unload the newsprint from Brockman's truck when it arrived at the tunnel, had the hoses of the forklift cut on two separate occasions. After the hoses had been repaired twice, he and Hallner decided it would be better if the butane-powered forklift was replaced by a gasoline-powered forklift because the latter machine would not create as great a fire hazard if anyone tampered with the hoses as the former machine might; that on May 20, when the two men Hallner had hired to repair the damaged butane-powered forklift were about to enter the Hillbro warehouse, Delaney had told one of the repairmen that he could not cross the picket line which Local 208 had thrown up around at the tunnel entrance, and if he did cross the picket line he would notify the repairman's union and the repairman "would naturally be fined." Because the Los Angeles chief of police had warned Brockman not to use his motorcycle to go from Santa Fe to the Hillbro warehouse, Brockman decided to use his pickup truck to go back and forth. Concluding findings The question to be resolved by the issues raised herein is whether it is a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) for a union to force or require an employer (in this case, a person who is self-employed and has no employees whatsoever) to join a labor organization, by means of picketing. The pertinent portions of Section 8 (b) of the Act read as follows : 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, manufacture, 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 commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor organization or employer organization ... (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person ... The above-cited section cannot be successfully challenged on the ground it is vague and indefinite. The statute furnishes an adequate guide to what conduct is proscribed and is specific as to what conduct it does not proscribe. In short, the statute prohibits labor organizations and their agents from engaging in a strike or inciting employees to engage in strikes or concerted refusal to perform services provided an objective of such action is to force or require an employer or a self-employed person to join a union. The picketing was inducive under 8(b) (4) (i) 8 as was the remark that Croysdill made to Davison as found above.9 Picketing such as indulged in this case by Respond- ent was, coercive within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) of the Act.10 There can 8 See N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al. (Gould d Prensner), 341 U.S. 675; Local 761 International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L R.B., 366 U S. 667. P Bangor Build-mg Trades Council, 123 NLRB 484. Even If Davison did not heed Croysdill's suggestion, the latter's remark was nonetheless violative of the Act. 10 Hughes v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 339 U.S. 460. 1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be no doubt that Croysdill's threat to Brockman that if Brockman did not join Local 208, said labor organization would put Brockman out of business, and delaying Brock- man's deliveries at Hillbro by the pickets, had as an object to force Brockman to join Local 208. Croysdill's threats in connection with this object are undenied. On two occasions, Breitbach, representing Local 208, told Brockman he would have to become a member of the Teamsters Union if he wanted to haul newsprint to Hillbro. This' finding becomes inescapable when consideration is given to the fact that both Croysdill and Breitbach were on notice that Brockman had no employees. Neither Respondent had any rational basis for believing, during the 2-month period before the picketing activities were stopped by an order of the Federal court, that Brockman had any employees or paid any wages, much less substandard wages. It is well settled that where two unions engage in a joint venture, each is respon- sible for the acts attributable to the other.il Since Local 208 sought Brockman's membership, its activities toward this objective'are attributable to Local 578, a partici- pant in the picketing. Since the credible evidence in this case clearly establishes that by attempting to induce employees of other employers to cease work or handling any newsprint to be delivered by Brockman, and by threatening and coercing Brockman, a self-employed person, where an object of this activity was to force Brockman to join Local 208, I find that by engaging in such conduct and activities, Respondent has violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A).12 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Brockman, set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(A) of the Act, it will be recommended that Local 208 and Local 578 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Les Brockman, a self-employed person , is engaged in, and during all times mate- rial herein, was engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 208 and Local 578 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Since May 18, 1964, Local 208 and Local 578 have engaged in and are engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees of employers other than Brockman to engage in, the concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform any services where the object was to force or require Brockman to join Local 208. 4. The unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. n Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Co , 81 NLRB 886 12 See Lakeview Creamery Co, 107 NLRB 601, Kanawha Coal Operators Association, 94 NLRB 1731, enfd 198 F. 2d 391 (C A 4) ; Chicago & Illinois Hairdressers Association, 120 NLRB 936; Painters Local No. 249, etc, 136 NLRB 176. At the hearing and in his brief, the General Counsel contended that the evidence clearly establishes that, in addition to the unlawful activities of Delaney and Scacia, as epitomized above, Delaney was instrumental In causing the tires of one of Brockman's GMC trucks to be damaged while said truck was in the Hillbro warehouse tunnel on or about May 25, waiting to be unloaded and that Scacia took some keys out of Brockman's pickup truck, including said truck's ignition switch key, while it was parked in the aforesaid tunnel on or about May 20, and kept said keys for about a week and that said acts and conduct of Scacia and Delaney were violative of the Act. Upon the entire record, I find that said contention Is not supported by substantial evidence. LOCAL FREIGHT DRIVERS , LOCAL NO. 208, ETC. 1023 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Local Freight Drivers, Local No. 208, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America; and Steel, Paperhouse & Chemical Drivers & Helpers Local No 578, IBT, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall- 1. Cease and desist from inducing and/or encouraging the employees of any em- ployer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or self-employed person to join any labor organization or employer-association. - 2. Take the following' affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act; (a) Post at their respective business offices, copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B," respectively.13 Copies of said notices to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for Region 21 shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of each of the Respondents be posted by each of said labor organizations immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by each Respond- ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materials. (b) Immediately mail or deliver to said Regional Director signed copies of the aforesaid notices for posting, Brockman willing, at his various offices. (c) It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, each Respondent notifies said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the above recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring it to take the aforesaid action 14 13 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the wards "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" In the notice In the further event that the Board's order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for'the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" 14 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL FREIGHT DRIVERS, LOCAL No. 208, INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, from time to time, we hereby notify you that: - WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu- facture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services for their respective employers where,an object thereof is to force or require any employer or self-employed person to join any labor organization. LOCAL FREIGHT DRIVERS, LOCAL No. 208, INTERNATIONAL BROTH- ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Members and employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5206, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. 775-692-65-vol. 150-66 1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF STEEL, PAPERHOUSE & CHEMICAL DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL No. 578, IBT Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, from time to time, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, or commodities, or to perform any services for their respective employ- ers where an object thereof is to force or require any employer or self-employed person to join any labor organization. STEEL, PAPERHOUSE & CHEMICAL DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL No. 578, IBT, Labor Organization. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Members and employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No. 688-5206, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Bud Ingledue d/b/a Ingledue Excavation Service and Ingledue Excavation Company and Local 649, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Party to the Contract. Case No. 38-CA-8 (formerly 13-CA-5995). January 14, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On September 28, 1964, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Fanning and Jenkins]. 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 Trial Examiner's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations only to the extent that they are consistent with this Decision and Order. 150 NLRB No. 98.