ILA, Locals 1224, 1225, 1241 and 1245

732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. American Federation of Grain Millers , AFL-CIO, Local 33 , is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. American Federation of Grain Millers , AFL-CIO, Local 33, has been, and now is, the representative of a majority of Respondent's employees in the appro- priate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. By refusing, on and after November 24, 1965, to bargain collectively with American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Local 33, as the exclusive repre- sentative of all its employees in the appropriate unit , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 5. By engaging in the aforementioned unfair labor practices , the Respondent converted the Union 's economic strike into an unfair labor practice strike on Novem- ber 24, 1965, in consequence of which the employees who went on strike on and after that date became entitled to reinstatement , upon application , to their former or substantially equivalent positions in preference to all employees hired since that date. 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] International Longshoremen 's Association, Local 1224, AFL- CIO; International Longshoremen 's Association, Local 1225, AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1241, AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen 's Association, Local 1245, AFL-CIO and Jess Edwards, Inc. Case 03-CC-188. August 06,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On May 3, 1966, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents 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 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, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. 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 brief, and the entire record in this case, and finds merit in the exceptions. Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and reconunendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. 160 NLRB No. 65. ILA, LOCALS 1224, 1225, 1241, AND 1245 733 The complaint, in substance, alleges that Respondents were involved in a labor dispute with Jess Edwards, Inc. (Edwards) and that in furtherance thereof, on or about December 26, 1965, Respondents induced and encouraged employees of Dix Shipping Company (Dix), members of Respondent Local 1225 employed in unloading pipe from the MV Verona, to cease work and not to perform services or load a cargo of steel pipe onto trucks operated by Edwards. The complaint further alleges that Respondents threatened, coerced, and restrained Dix by notifying Dix that they would cease unloading the cargo of the Verona, with an object to force or require Dix, a neutral, to cease doing business with Edwards, and a further object to force or require Edwards to recognize and bargain with Respondents as the repre- sentative of Edwards' employees, although said Respondents have not been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, and that by such conduct Respond- ents violated 'Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. As set forth in the Trial Examiner's Decision and reflected in the record, sometime in 1965 the Respondents learned that Edwards was building an industrial facility including docks and a channel for barge traffic, and that Edwards intended to use this facility for barges and other vessels. On September 15 Respondents addressed a letter to P. P. Hill, general manager of Edwards, advising him of the current contract between the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, Inter- national Longshoremen's Association (ILA), and the shipowners, operators, and/or agents of ships operating in and out of Texas and Louisiana gulf coast ports, and requesting that Edwards use ILA labor at the new dock facilities. It appears that this letter was not seen by Hill and the record shows that it was returned to the sender. However, the contents of the letter were made known to Edwards thereafter on September 21, when Respondents' attorney, Al. K. Crawford, and George Hartley, business agent for Respoiident Locals 1224 and 1245, met with Hill. Although Hill apparently indicated to Crawford and Hartley that he planned to use as his stevedore agent Corpus Christi Terminal, which was under contract with the Respondents, and that he had no intention of changing his method of hiring, nevertheless, sometime thereafter, Edwards received some barges at its new facilities and unloaded them with its own employees who were not represented by any of the Respondent Locals. When Hartley called Hill about October 27 and complained about Edwards not using ILA labor, Hill answered that it was more convenient to use the Edwards employees.,, I On October 29 Crawford filed an unfair labor practice charge against Edwards alleg- ing that on or about September 21 Edwards refused to bargain with Respondents and that such refusal was in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act The Regional Director dis- missed this charge on December 8, and the Charging Parties did not appeal this dismissal. 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD On December-26 the MV Verona, which was under a time charter by Retla Steamship Company (Retla) from its Norwegian owners, arrived at dock 10 of ,the Nueces County Navigation District at the port of Corpus'Christi, Texas, with a cargo consisting of pipe manu- factured by the Union Pipe Company (Union Pipe). Part of the pipe was to be delivered to Coastal States Gas Producing Co. (Coastal) and the rest was consigned to Gensco Company (Gensco). The Coastal pipe was to be hauled from the ship by the E & P Truck Line (E & P) ; the pipe for Gensco (herein referred to as Edwards pipe) was to be picked up at the ship by Edwards and hauled to Rosson- Richards Company of Texas, Inc. (Rosson-Richards) for intermedi- ate processing. Edwards had a contract with Gensco to haul pipe to the Rosson-Richards yard, another contract with Rosson-Richards to unload and stack the pipe, and a third contract with Union Pipe to inspect and separate any damaged pipe upon arrival at the Rosson- Richards yard. Commencing about 7 a.m., Dix, agent for Retla under contract to provide stevedore services to unload the Verona, commenced unload- ing the pipe from the ship. The pipe cargo was interlaid in the ship's holds in such manner that it was necessary for Dix to unload it piece- meal, alternately unloading Coastal and Edwards pipe. From the time that .unloading started until about noon Dix discharged pipe onto E & P trucks and shortly thereafter was ready to unload the Edwards pipe. About 1 p.m. Forest Alexander, president of Respond- ent Locals 1225 and 1241, and gang foreman in charge, noticed that the Edwards trucks had arrived on the dock and were preparing to receive the Edwards pipe. The work of unloading was stopped and Alexander telephoned Hartley. Richard Lee Ostas, Jr., part owner and stevedore for Dix, who was present at the dock, upon being informed that the men would not unload onto Edwards trucks, told Alexander, and then Hartley upon his arrival, that the charterers 'wanted the ship unloaded onto the docks if no trucks were available. Upon being informed of this, Hartley told the men to go back to work and discharge the cargo onto the docks, although this action was con- trary to all established practice. The Trial Examiner found that the work of unloading the ship was discontinued from 1 to 1:15 p.m. because the Local 1225 gang refused to load onto Edwards trucks. Work was resumed and some 175 pieces of Edwards pipe, which normally would have been loaded onto Edwards trucks , were depos- -ited on the docks. However, work was again halted on the Verona when a crane which Edwards had brought to the dock started to load the Edwards pipe lying on the dock onto the Edwards trucks. As the Trial Examiner found, Ostas confirmed the testimony of Wayne Bur- ILA, LOCALS 1224 , 1225, 1241 , AND 1245 735 nett, vice president of Edwards. Thus, Ostas testified that Hartley came to him and told him : they were shutting down, that the men were not going to work any more and he did say that if we would work on Coastal Pipe that they would continue work but they would not continue working Union Pipe because the trucks were carrying it off the docks. Of course, at this time, why, it was very impractical for us to go to another hatch and start working there because the whole purpose of the operation was to shorten the ship-shorten that one hatch, so, in other words, the whole ship was, as far as ourselves were concerned, the whole ship was shut down.2 It is not disputed that work was halted for the period of time it took Edwards to remove the Edwards pipe.3 We can agree with the Trial Examiner that the action of the Respondents in halting work on the unloading of the ship was "directed to Edwards" in the sense that it was in pursuit of a primary dispute with Edwards, but we cannot agree with him that the Respondents' conduct was not unlawful within the intent of Section 8(b) (4). That section, as the Board and courts have repeatedly declared, was designed by Congress to protect neutral employers from being enmeshed in labor disputes not of their own making and in which they have no conceivable interest. In the present instance the evidence is clear that in furthering their dispute against Edwards and Respondents intended to and did enmesh employers who were entirely neutral in that dispute. No more persuasive evidence of the purpose and intent of the Respondents to involve Dix and other neu- tral employers in their dispute is required than is contained in Ostas' credited testimony that when' Edwards' crane appeared on the dock Hartley told him that ". . . they were shutting down" and ". . . were not going to work any more ... because [Edwards ] trucks were car- rying [Edwards pipe] off the docks." As Ostas further testified, the 7 According to Burnett, Hartley told him that the reason the men would not load his trucks was "because of that barge facility or dock that you built" and, that when he told Hartley that Edwards' employees would load the pipe , Hartley replied , "The hell you will. If you load that pipe we will shut the ship down." Hartley denied making these state- ments to Burnett. Because of his resolution of the principal issue in the case, the Trial Examiner found it unnecessary to decide the questions of credibility arising out of the conflicting testimony of Hartley and Burnett. Resolutions of conflicting testimony often depend on demeanor of witnesses . We have nevertheless decided to credit Burnett's testi- mony that the conversations took place and that they were as testified by Burnett because, in our opinion , his version is consistent with the events that occurred in connection with unloading the Verona. 8 The Trial Examiner found that as a result of Respondents ' actions , Edwards lost its contract with Gensco to haul the pipe to the Rosson -Richards yard, lost its contract with Rosson-Richards to unload the pipe, and lost its contract with Union Pipe to inspect the pipe and separate the damaged pipe. 736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI4 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD threatened,,and accomplished, action not only affected the unloading of pipe, but resulted in the whole ship being shut down. Even if we were to accept the Trial Examiner's findings that Ostas had "voluntarily" Agreed that the Edwards pipe was not to be loaded onto, Edwards' trucks, and hence no unlawful inducement as to that incident, a finding which we consider most dubious under the circum- stances but'one which'it is unnecessary to pass upon, it can hardly be said that in the later incident Ostas agreed, voluntarily or otherwise, either to the Respondents' refusal to unload Edwards pipe onto the dock, or to have the entire ship shut down, because of the complete impracticality of unloading Coastal pipe without unloading Edwards pipe. Nor is it significant in any way that, as the Trial Examiner found, Dix was not itself doing business with Edwards. Dix, as well as Retla, the charterer it represented, certainly had an interest in the speedy unloading of the ship-an interest that was furthered by the appar- ently established practice of unloading pipe cargo directly onto the trucks that were to cart it away. Respondents' actions were clearly designed to interfere with that practice and that interest. Moreover, in our opinion, Dix as a neutral employer was nonetheless unlawfully enmeshed in a dispute in which it was not involved even though it had no direct contractual or business relationship with Edwards.4 In any event, the pressure applied against Dix and Retla did have the effect of causing other persons who did have direct business relations with Edwards, to cease doing business with Edwards. We find there- fore that Respondents in halting the unloading of the Verona had as an unlawful object,forcing and requiring Dix to cease doing business with Retla, thereby forcing or requiring Gensco, Rosson-Richards, and Union Pipe to cease doing business with Edwards. It is also clear that- Respondents' conduct had as its further object forcing and requiring Edwards to recognize and bargain with Respondents as the representative of Edwards' employees, although said Respondents have not been certified as the representative of such employees under- the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. We also find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that Respondents' conduct amounted to direct inducement and encouragement- of Dix's employees to refuse to handle and to withhold their services from Dix for an object hereinabove found to be an unlawful one. We can draw no other inference from the fact of the second work stoppage, from Hartley's apparent authority over Local 1225 members, and his state- ments to Ostas that "they were shutting down" and "if we [Dix] would work on Coastal States pipe that they would continue work ' See National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO ( Sous ton Maritime Association, Ino.), 147 NLRB 1328 , 1331 , enfd. 346 F.2d 411 ( C.A. 2). ILA, LOCALS 1224 , 1225, 1241 , AND 1245 737 but would not continue working Union [Edwards] pipe because the trucks were ' carrying it off the docks,'; that Respondents not only induced and encouraged Dix employees to withhold their services but also threatened, coerced, and restrained Dix and other neutral per- sons, for an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) of the Act. Such actions, with respect to the second stoppage, constituted not only a violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act but also of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B). Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and on the record as a whole, we find that the Respondents violated Section 8(b) (4) (i)• and (ii) (B) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, we shall order that they cease and desist therefrom and,take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair labor practices and to otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Jess Edwards, Inc., and Dix Shipping Company are persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6)^ and (7) and 8(b) (4) of the Act. 2. International Longshoremen's Association, Locals 1224, 1225, 1241, and 1245, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Retla Steamship Company, Gensco Company, Inc., Rosson- Richards Company of Texas, Inc., and Coastal States Gas Producing Co. are persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2 (6) (7) and 8(b) (4) of the Act. 4. By inducing or encouraging individuals employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services, and by coercing or restrain- ing persons engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting com- merce, with an object of forcing or requiring Dix to cease doing busi- ness with Retla, and thereby forcing or requiring Gensco, Union Pipe, and Rosson-Richards to cease doing business with Edwards; and, to force or require Edwards to recognize and bargain with Respondents as the representative of Edwards' employees, although said Respond- ents have not been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, the Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 5. The activities of the Respondents found above to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operation of 257-551-67-vol. 160-48 738 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD the, Companies involved herein, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and have led, and tend to lead, to labor disputes burdening and obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended; the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, International Longshoremen's Association, Locals 1224, 1225, 1241, and 1245, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Dix Shipping Company, or any other employer, to engage in, a strike or 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, and from threatening, coercing, or restraining the above-named Employer, or any other employer, where an object is to force or require Gensco Company, Inc., Union Pipe Company, Rosson-Richards Company of Texas, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing business with Jess Edwards, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effec- tuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Post in the Respondents' business offices and meeting halls in Corpus Christi, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 23, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents' representative, be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to their members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. . (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies' of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 23 for posting by each of the Employers named in the preceding paragraphs, if willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith. In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words, "a Decision and Order" the words , "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order." ILA, LOCALS 1224, 1225, 1241 , AND 1245 739 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage individuals employed by Dix Shipping Company, or any other employer, to engage in, a strike or 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 per- form any services, or threaten or coerce or restrain Dix Shipping Company, or any other employer, where an object thereof is to force or require Dix, or any other person, to cease doing business with Gensco Company, Inc., Union Pipe Company, Rosson- Richards Company of Texas, Inc., or any other person to cease doing business with Jess Edwards, Inc. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCALS 1224,1225,1241, AND 1245, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 228-6011, if they have any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 30, 1965, Jess Edwards, Inc., hereinafter sometimes called Edwards, filed a charge and on January 7, 1966, an amended charge against Locals 1224, 1225 , 1241 , and 1245, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, herein sometimes called the Respondents , asserting that the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce as set forth and defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act. Thereafter , on February 2, 1966 , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for Region 23, pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act and Section 102.15 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended, issued a complaint and notice of hearing against the Respondents , alleging certain acts on their part constituting unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tions 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act . The Respondents filed timely answer to the complaint, effectively denying the acts constituting unfair labor practices as set forth in the complaint. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' Pursuant to notice, this case came on to be heard before Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman at Corpus Christi, Texas, on March 1, 1966, and was closed on the following day. Each party was represented by counsel and was afforded full oppor- tunity to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to present relevant evi- dence, to argue orally upon the record, to file proposed findings and conclusions, and to file briefs. Briefs have been submitted on behalf of the General Counsel and' the Respondent Unions. From my observation of the witnesses, and upon the whole record, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESSES INVOLVED HEREIN (a) Jess Edwards, lac., is, and has been at all times material herein, a Texas corporation with its principal office and place of business at Corpus Christi, Texas, where it is engaged in the business of oil field hauling. During the 12 months imme- diately preceding the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of all times material herein, Edwards received an excess of $50,000 from hauling pipe and other oil field materials, which materials were shipped into the State of Texas from locations outside of the State of Texas. Edwards has been, during all these times, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. (b) Dix Shipping Company, herein called Dix, is engaged in the port of Corpus Christi as shipping agent for various interstate and foreign owners and charterers of ships. During the period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of all such times, Dix received an excess of $50,000 for performing services as shipping agent for interstate and foreign steamship lines, each of which received in excess of $50,000 for transporting goods in interstate and foreign commerce. During all such times, Dix was and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. (c) Retla Steamship Company, herein called Retla, during the times material herein, was a time charterer of the MV Verona, a Norwegian-owned vessel, ship- ping cargo for both interstate and foreign manufacturers and shippers. (d) Union Pipe Company, herein called Union Pipe, is engaged in the manufac- ture and sale of pipe and piping which it ships throughout interstate and foreign commerce. (e) Gensco Company, Inc., herein called Gensco, is engaged in the Corpus Christi area in the business of distributing the pipe manufactured by Union Pipe, to customers of Union Pipe in the Corpus Christi area. (f) Rosson-Richards Company of Texas, Inc., herein called Rosson-Richards, is engaged in the Corpus Christi area in the business of coating pipe for Union Pipe and other manufacturers, owners, and distributors of pipe and piping. (g) Coastal States Gas Producing Co., herein called Coastal, is engaged in the business of gathering and distributing natural gas and other petroleum products, having its principal office and place of business at Corpus Christi, owning gas gath- ering facilities in the Corpus Christi area and south Texas area. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Locals 1224, 1225, 1241, and 1245, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, the Respondents herein, are, and have been at all times material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues as raised by the pleadings The complaint alleges, and the answer admits, that the Respondents have been, and are now, the collective-bargaining representatives of the employees of Dix, and that the Respondents have not been certified as the representatives of Edwards' employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. The complaint alleges, and the answer either denies or alleges insufficient knowl- edge to admit or deny, that at the times mentioned herein Edwards has had a con- tract with Gensco to haul certain pipe from dock 10 of the Nueces County Naviga- tion District, to Rosson-Richards' coating yard, and has had a contract with Rosson-Richards to unload and stack pipe upon arrival at the Rosson-Richards' yard and an additional contract with Union Pipe to inspect and separate any dam- ILA, LOCALS 1224, 1225, 1241 , AND 1245 741 aged pipe upon arrival at the Rosson -Richards' yard ; that during such times Dix has had a contract with Retla to agent , discharge, and/or unload the above- mentioned pipe and to unload certain other pipe owned by Coastal from the MV Verona at Dock 10 of the Navigation District; that since on or about September 15, 1965, the Respondent Unions have demanded that Edwards recognize and bargain with them as the representative of Edwards' employees who work at the latter's dock; that at no time material herein have the Respondents had any labor dispute with Dix, Retla, Union Pipe, Gensco, Rosson-Richards, or Coastal; that in further- ance of the aforesaid demand for recognition and bargaining the Respondents, on or about December 26, 1965, ordered, instructed, requested, and appealed to the employees of Dix to cease work and in furtherance of their demand for recognition and bargaining did, on or about December 26, 1965, threaten, coerce, and restrain Dix by notifying Dix that they would cease unloading the cargo of MV Verona; and that as a result of the Respondent Unions' acts and conduct, the employees of Dix ceased working while Edwards' trucks were present, and as a consequence thereto Gensco, Union Pipe, and Rosson-Richards were and are unable to receive such material from Retla and Edwards, and Edwards was and is unable to deliver such material to Gensco, Union Pipe, and Rosson-Richards, pursuant to its contract with such persons, and Coastal was unable to receive its material from Retla and Union Pipe. There is no head-on collision here concerning what the contending parties con- ^ceive to be the issues involved. Counsel for the Respondent Union simply says that for there to be a secondary boycott there must be a threat or inducement to an employee or employees of a neutral employer for a prohibited object; that in the instant case, the only neutral is Dix, who was the employer of Local 1225, that the only party who can be the aim of a prohibited object is Edwards and, therefore, for this to be activity in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B), there must be a threat or inducement to employees of Dix to further the prohibited object against Edwards. Counsel for the General Counsel defines the issues in question form: (1) do the Respondents have a primary dispute with Edwards?; (2) is the dispute that of recognition, within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (B) of the Act?; (3) did the Respondents induce the employees of Dix to cease work in furtherance of their dis- pute with Edwards?; (4) did the Respondents threaten, coerce, or restrain Dix in furtherance of their dispute with Edwards?; and (5) was an object of Respondents' conduct that of forcing or requiring Dix to cease doing business with Retla, thereby forcing or requiring Gensco, Union Pipe, and Rosson-Richards to cease doing busi- ness with Edwards or forcing or requiring Edwards to recognize or bargain with Respondent? B. Background There is in existence a collective-bargaining agreement, effective October 1, 1964, to terminate September 30, 1968, between the owners, operators, and agents of all deep-sea vessels arriving at or departing from all ports in Texas and the port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, "subscribed for by the Galveston Maritime Associa- tion, Inc., and the Houston Maritime Association Inc., and their respective regular and associate members as first parties and the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast Dis- trict, International Longshoremen's Association and its affiliated unions" including the Respondent Locals 1224 and 1225. Edwards is not a party to this agreement. On September 15, 1965, representatives of the Respondent Locals herein addressed a letter to the general manager of Jess Edwards, Inc., the letter reading as follows: "Corpus Christi Sept 15 65 Mr P. P Hill; Gen'l Manager Jess Edwards Inc: Dear Sir; It has become common knowledge that your company is constructing an industrial park on the Up River Road in Nueces County, and that this devel- opment includes a channel for barge traffic from the main ship channel. It is our understanding that your company intends to use this facility to load and unload barges and even possibly load and unload deep sea vessels. In the Spring of 1965, a "coastwise" longshore contract was, agreed to between the various stevedores between Lake Charles, Louisiana and Browns- ville Texas and the various I.L.A. Locals including Locals 1224-Deep Sea 1245 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Coastwise & Local 1225 Deep Sea, 1241 Coastwise in Corpus Christi, which contract sets forth the wages, terms and other conditions of employment of the longshoremen who perform the coastwise work. Traditionally, in Corpus Christi and other points on the Texas coast, all barge cargo moving in interstate commerce into or out of the area has been handled by the I.L.A. Locals. The before mentioned Locals in Corpus Christi, have been and are presently chartered by the International Longshoreman's Association to handle coastwise and deep sea cargoes, that is, cargo moving from domestic points to other domestic points and including barge traffic. Since you have in the past years handled your freight with the various steve- doring companies who recognize the I.L.A. and who have entered into collec- tive bargaining contracts with the I.L.A. to load and unload your cargoes, we would like to discuss with you the manner in which you will staff or use labor in your new industrial facility. The men in our Locals are experienced and dependable in handling coastwise cargoes, and will be able to do a satisfactory and efficient job for you at your new facility. We will appreciate it if we can schedule a meeting with you in the near future so that we might discuss our mutual interests. Sincerely, (S) R. W. Tackett (S) Forest Alexander R. W. TACKETT FOREST ALEXANDER President I.L.A. #1224/1245 President I.L.A. #1225/1241 (S) G. A. Hartley (S) M. Hooper G. A. HARTLEY M. HOOPER Bus Agent Bus Agent" (GC-ex-3) There is no dispute concerning the construction of the facility by Edwards as stated in the letter. It appears that General Manager Hill never read the letter. It is uncontradicted that Michael K. Crawford, an attorney for the Respondent Locals, personally handed the letter to an investigator of the Board's Regional Office in a sealed envelope. Some time after the date of the letter, Attorney Craw- ford and George A. Hartley, business agent for Locals 1224 and 1245, visited with Hill and at that time Hartley requested that Hill make arrangements to use Inter- national Longshoremen's Association labor at the new dock facilities referred to in the letter. Hill advised Hartley and Crawford that he did not intend to change his method of hiring. Subsequently Edwards unloaded barges at its new dock facilities without the use of I.L.A. labor. On October 27 Business Agent Hartley telephoned Hill, reminding him that in the meeting previously held at Hill's office Hill had told Hartley and Crawford that he did not at that time have any intention of mak- ing any change in the procedure for using Corpus Christi terminals as a stevedore and in response to Hartley's question as to why he had made the change, Hill told him it would be to his convenience to use his own employees. On October 29, 1965, Attorney Crawford filed an unfair labor practice charge against Edwards on behalf of Locals 1241 and 1245, alleging, as a basis for the charge, that: Since on or about September 21, 1965, the above named employer, by its officers, agents and representatives, has refused and is refusing to meet and bargain with Local 1241 and Local 1245, International Longshoremen's Asso- ciation, AFL-CIO, labor organizations, recognized bargaining agents of the employees of the above named employer. The charge ultimately was dismissed by the Regional Director on December 8, no appeal being taken by the Charging Party unions from the dismissal. On December 26, the MV Verona tied up to dock 10 of the Nueces County Navigation District, its main cargo consisting of pipe to be delivered to Coastal States Gas Producing Company, and to Edwards for further delivery pursuant to certain contracts. The Verona cargo was loaded in Japan. The pipe owned by Coastal, and the pipe to be received by Edwards, was substantially interlaid in the hold under each of the ship's five hatches. The pipe owned by Coastal was to be unloaded on E & P Truck Line trucks and, as needed, Edwards' trucks were to receive the remaining pipe.' i The pipe referred to in the record as "Union" pipe was manufactured by Union Pro- ducing Company. ILA, LOCALS 1224, 1225, 1241 , AND 1245 743 C. Work stoppage of December 26, 1965 Local 1225 is a deep-sea local, and was the local called to supply a gang of men to discharge pipe from the Verona on December 26. Forest Alexander, president of this local, was also the gang foreman from the local that furnished the gang work for the Verona on this particular cargo . On this unloading job, Dix was the stevedore for the ship and was represented by Richard Lee Ostos, Jr., part owner and stevedore for Dix. Local 1224 is also a deep-sea local. This local did not have any men working at or on the Verona on this day. George Hartley, its business agent, whose name will be mentioned later, was on the scene but had no official connection with the work then being done .2 The Local 1225 gang went to work on the morning of that day and worked until about noon discharging pipe from the Verona onto E & P trucks until about noon . During the morning Dix discharged a portion of the pipe owned by Coastal and then, commencing about noon time the crew unloading the Verona began unloading Union pipe . At approximately 1 p.m., Gang Foreman Alexander observed Edwards' trucks arrive and back up under the sling to receive the Union pipe. (The method of discharging pipe was by way of a crane which picked up loads from the hold of the ship , swinging them in slings over the side onto truck beds where positioned, and then unhooked by other men on the Local 1225 gang.) Gang Foreman Alexander, after observing Edwards' trucks arrive and back up under the sling to receive the Union pipe, telephoned Hartley, and at about this time Ostos was notified that the men were not going to load onto Jess Edwards' trucks. Ostos testified: So at 1 o'clock when I got back from lunch, why, my foreman came to me and told me that the men were not going to load onto-that the men were not going to load onto Jess Edwards' trucks, so at that time I went to Mr. Burnett with Jess Edwards & Company and told him what the situation was and that he should take some type of steps to resolve it. In the meantime I had gone to-I talked to Mr. Alexander , who was on the deck of the ship at the time . I told him I wanted the ship unloaded whether it be to the docks- I wanted it unloaded to the trucks or to the dock. He said that Alexander asked him to wait just a minute , that Hartley was com- ing down to the ship. He testified further: So at that time I went down again and talked to Mr . Burnett and I told him we had instructions from the charterers of the ship that if no trucks were available that we were to go to the docks for this cargo , so then Mr. Hartley had gotten there by then, so I told Mr. Hartley this and he told the men to go to work, to start discharging the cargo to the docks at that time. The work of unloading the ship was discontinued from 1 to 1:15 p.m. because the Local 1225 gang refused to load onto Edwards' trucks. Hartley, upon his arrival , told the men to go to work and to discharge the cargo onto the decks . Some 175 pieces of Union pipe were discharged up until that time, when the crew commenced unloading Coastal pipe again onto E & P trucks. During the approximate hour that the crew was unloading Coastal pipe, Wayne Burnett, vice president of Edwards , made arrangements to have a mobile crane sent down from Rosson-Richards . Burnett loaded one of Edwards ' trucks with the crane and, after it pulled away, commenced to load another. Burnett testified: And they went ahead and put the pipe on the dock. There was something that hadn't ever been done before , we have probably hauled-we have hauled more pipe probably then anybody working the Navigation District and that is the first time I have seen anybody put pipe on the dock for us to pick it back up or someone else to load it back so they had a fork lift or something else that-it just isn't the procedure to do with light wall pipe as this is, it is what we call "stove pipe," it is very easily damaged but if they put it on the dock and they get this fork lift they would run it under and forward over there and dump it on the corner of the dock and about this time the pipe owner, Mr. Knowles, was having a fit, he didn't know what to do so I asked 2 Locals 1241 and 1245 are "coastwise" locals and had nothing to do with the work or incidents which occurred on December 26. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the representatives for Coastal States, also of Mr. Knowles, with Gensco, they were all there together, and I told them, I said, "Now, we sure don't want to have any trouble like this, messing this pipe up like that." I said "If you all want me to get off this dock, well, I will leave." But they said, "No, that is up to you, as far as we are concerned you still have your job to do." So when they finished putting this 3-inch pipe over there on the dock I told my pusher to go up to Rosson-Richards and get our mobile crane and bring it down there and we would go ahead and load it and get it over to Rosson- Richards, so when our crane came up there to load the pipe, well, they had stopped unloading on the ship and we went ahead and loaded one load onto our truck. When that truck pulled away, that is when Mr. Vandiver came up, parked in front of the pipe rack there in front of the crane where we couldn't load the other trucks? Well, while he was parked, just before he drove up when we got the first load of pipe there,- Mr. Ostos-I was talking to Mr. Truman Arnold, with Coastal ,States * * * * * * * Mr. Knowles, and Mr. T. J. Dixon, with Rosson-Richards, were standing there talking, and I asked the same thing. They were worried about not being able to get their pipe, that they told me they had planned on if something didn't happen quick they were going to send the ship onto Houston and I told them ,again if they felt I should go ahead and leave the dock that I would, but they told me again that I didn't have to, that under other circumstances it wouldn't be happening again, but, anyway, I stayed there and we finished loading that one truck and. it pulled away, then that is when Mr. Vandiver came up and parked in front of our rack where we couldn't get to the pipe, and we asked him to move and that was when he said he wouldn't move so I told my peo- ple to go over there and stand by the crane and there wasn't anything we could do except maybe get the sheriff down there to have them move the car, and the sheriff came down. Ostos confirmed the testimony of Burnett stating that when the crane came up Hartley said "They were shutting down, that the men were not going to work any- more and he did say that if we would work on Coastal States pipe that they would continue work but they would not continue on Union pipe because the trucks were carrying it off the docks." After Vandiver's automobile was ordered removed, according to Burnett, the ship was shut down in the meantime while we were loading this last bunch of pipes . and we finished getting this last load of pipe and I had my crane leave and my last truck left and I was the last one to leave the dock. That was just a matter of 10 or 15 minutes it took with that last load of pipes. The record reflects that Edwards received approximately 35,000 pounds out of some 6 million pounds of pipe which it had contracted with Gensco, to be received and delivered to Rosson-Richards. Local 1224 Business Agent Hartley categorically denied the testimony of Burnett that he (Hartley), at sometime prior to 2 p.m. on December 26 had stated to Burnett, "You know damn well why we won't load your trucks. It is because of that 'barge facility or dock that you built"; he denied that Burnett had told him that he would load the pipe himself and that Hartley had replied "the hell you will. That is warehouse work"; he denied that in the conversation with Burnett the latter had said that Jess Edwards could load the pipe themselves and that he had replied to Burnett "the hell you will. If you load that pipe we will shut the ship down"; and also denied a conversation related by Burnett in which Hartley allegedly said "if you don't get off the dock the ship will leave in 6 hours and go to Houston." D. Concluding findings It is argued on behalf of the Respondents that for there to be a secondary boy- cott, there must be a threat or inducement to an employee or employees of a ® Vandiver was or is a representative of Warehouse Local 1280, not involved in this proceeding. ILA, LOCALS 1224, 1225 , 1241 , AND 1245 745 neutral employer for a prohibited object; that in the instant case, the only neutral is Dix Shipping Co., who is the employer of Local 1225; and that the only party who can be the aim of a prohibited object is Jess Edwards. It is argued that for this to be activity in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B), there must be a threat or inducement to employees of Dix Shipping Co. to further the prohibited object against Jess Edwards, but that this clearly is not the case. I agree with counsel for the Respondent that the testimony of Ostos reveals that Dix had no contractual relationship with Edwards other than a voluntary understanding to service any and all carriers who receive freight from the ships unloaded by Dix; that Ostos voluntarily agreed with Local 1225 and Hartley that the pipe which was to go on the Edwards trucks was going to be piled on the dock; and that the deci- sion to place the pipe on the dock was agreeable to him and done without threat or inducement. On behalf of the General Counsel, it is pointed out that Forest Alexander, presi- dent of Locals 1225 and 1241, discussed the dispute with Jess Edwards at mem- bership meetings. Counsel correctly states that Alexander has the authority to discipline the members of the Locals of which he is president, and to police the collective-bargaining agreement with the shipping companies in the Corpus Christi area. Therefore, it is said, the dual status of Alexander as gang foreman, on behalf of the secondary employer, and president of two of the Respondent Locals, placed him in a perfect position to induce employees under his supervision to follow his example so that when he ceased work to telephone Hartley, the business agent of the other two Respondents, the employees of Dix working under his supervision also ceased work. Counsel argues that Alexander's prior discussions at union meet- ings about the dispute with Jess Edwards, his authority to fine and otherwise dis- cipline members of the Unions, his authority as gang foreman, and the timing of his cessation of work, immediately upon observing Edwards' trucks at the dock, constituted inducement of Dix's employees to cease work, within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(1) of the Act. It further is urged that it has been proven that an object of the unlawful inducements and threats was to obtain recognition and that the Respondents chose the business location of neutral employers as the place to force its position or demand. The parties seem to be in agreement, and_ I find, that on December 26 the Respondent Locals were engaged in a primary dispute with Edwards. As a result of the stoppage of work and after Edwards finally left the dock, Edwards forfeited its contractual obligations to several secondary employers. It lost its contract with Gensco to haul the full 3,000 tons of pipe to the Rosson-Richards coating yard, lost its contract with Rosson-Richards to unload the pipe upon arrival at the Rosson-Richards yards and finally, lost its contract with Union pipe to separate damage pipe. In view of my findings herein, I have concluded that it is not necessary for me to decide the questions of credibility arising out of the conflicting testimony of Hartley and Burnett regarding what was said in conversations between them. Under the decisions upon which I rely, the position and argument of the Respondents present great force. The record shows, without contradiction, that the thrust of action on December 26 by the Respondents, particularly Local 1225, was directed to Edwards, Respondents' antagonist in a primary labor dispute. There is no evidence of inducement or encouragement, or threats, coercion, or restraint exercised against any employee of any employer. I can find no secondary boycott or other forbidden activity here. The Court, in Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667, 672, et seq., held (p. 673) : Employees must be induced; they must be induced to engage in a strike or concerted refusal; an object must be to force or require their employer or another person to cease doing business with a third person. Thus, much that might argumentatively be found to fall within the broad and somewhat vague concept of secondary boycott is not in terms prohibited... . Important as is the distinction between legitimate "primary activity" and banned "secondary activity," it does not present a glaringly bright line. The objectives of any picketing include the desire to influence others from with- holding from the employer their services or trade. In the instant case, no problem of picketing is even involved. In Houston Insula- tion Contractors Assn. v. N.L.R.B., 357 F.2d 182, reversing in part and enforcing `746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in part 148 NLRB 866 and remanded , the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, relying on Local 761 , International Union of Electrical Workers v. N.L.R.B., supra, wrote: An illegal "object" is something more than a result , even an inevitable result, of a work stoppage for a legitimate reason . Otherwise the right to strike would for practical purposes be nullified , a result which Congress clearly did not intend. See Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 v. N.L.R.B., 296 F.2d 368, 373 (C.A.D.C.). The distinction to be drawn , as best one can, is between an object and a consequence. Accord N.L.R.B. v. International Union of Operating Engineers (Layne Western Co.), 317 F.2d 638, 643-644 (C.A. 8). See also National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 342 F.2d 538, 543 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 284 F.2d 887, 889 (C.A. 2). Therefore, on the facts herein and on the authorities above cited , I find that the Respondents did not engage in forbidden activity in pressing their dispute with Jess Edwards, Inc. The complaint herein should be dismissed. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, I make the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Jess Edwards, Inc., is a Texas corporation, engaged in commerce and in activities affecting commerce and is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. International Longshoremen's Association, Locals 1224, 1225, 1241, and 1245, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The said local unions, Respondents herein, have not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. 4. The complaint herein should be dismissed. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners Inc. and Gulf Linen Service Inc. and Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers' Interna- tional Union, Local 218. Cases 15-CA-2690 and 15-RC-3076. August 26,1966 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On May 25, 1966, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom- mended such allegations of the complaint be dismissed. In addition, the Trial Examiner found merit in certain objections to the election in Case 15-RC-3076 and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 160 NLRB No. 60.