Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America

826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America , AFL-CIO; ' Local 294, International Brotherhood - of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America;2 Local Union No. 106, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO;3 Local No. 6, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, AFL-C104 and T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc. Cases 3-CC-385-1, 3-CP-112-3, 3-CC-385-2, 3-CP-112-4, 3-CC-385-3, 3-CP-1 12-2,3-CC-385-4, and 3-CP-1 12-1 December 11, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On October 6, 1967, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en- gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, and recommending that Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents Laborers, Teamsters, and Carpenters jointly filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and Respondent Operating Engineers filed separate exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a memorandum in sup- port of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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,5 conclusions,6 and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondents, Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Local Union No. 106, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO; and Local No . 6, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, their officers , agents, and representa- tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order , as so modified: 1. Delete the names "Lane Construction Com- pany" and "Cushing Stone Company" from para- graph 1 (b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 2. Delete "and Lane Construction Company" from the first indented paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision. 3. Delete "including also Cushing Stone Com- pany" from the second indented paragraph of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Referred to herein as Laborers z Referred to herein as Teamsters Referred to herein as Operating Engineers. Referred to herein as Carpenters. In adopting the Trial Examiner's Decision, we do not rely upon his findings that: (a) Either at 7.30 a in. on May 3 "or previously the business agents had conferred among themselves about picketing, particularly at Capitol- Northern at least " (b) A few days after June 26, "picketing of Madden commenced by some union other than the four Respondents here." 6 We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions that Respondents violated Sec 8(b)(4)(B) by its activities at Lane Construction Company and Cushing Stone Company. Neither of these incidents were alleged in the complaint Moreover, at the hearing, General Counsel, after introduc- ing evidence concerning the events at Lane, stated. The purpose of that testimony was merely to show that the picket was not merely to inform the public, and also to show the effect of the picketing under Section 8(b)(7)(C) We do not allege in the complaint that there was an unlawful secondary activity at Lane Construction To the extent that the Trial Examiner's Decision may be subject to mis- interpretation, we point out that while we agree with his finding that Respondents' picketing had a recognitional objective within the meaning of Sec. 8(b)(7), this in itself does not deprive the Respondents of the pro- tection of the second proviso to Sec. 8(b)(7)(C). However, we neverthe- less adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion in this regard, for it is clear from Respondents' actions at Capitol-Northern, Cushing Stone Com- pany, and Lane Construction Company, that the purpose of the picketing "was not directed at achieving the limited purpose of communicating with the public ." See Jack Picoult, 144 N LRB 5. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS S. WILSON, Trial Examiner: Upon charges in the CC cases duly filed on May 5 and 11, 1967, and upon charges duly filed in the C P cases on May 19, 1967, by T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., herein called the Charging Party or the Company, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the General Counsels and the Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for Region 3 (Buffalo, New York), is- sued its consolidated amended complaint dated June 1, 1967, against Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters), Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Laborers), Local ' This term specifically includes the attorney appearing for the General Counsel at the hearing. 168 NLRB No. 109 LOCAL 157, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA Union No. 106, International Union of Operating En- gineers, AFL-CIO (Operating Engineers), and Local No. 6, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (Carpenters), hereinafter referred to collectively as the Respondents or by their individual designations. The complaint alleged that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and 8(b)(7)(C) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, herein called the Act. Copies of the various charges, the consolidated amended complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served on the Charging Party and Respondents. Respondents duly filed answers admitting certain al- legations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Albany, New York, on July 5 and 6, 1967, before me. All parties ap- peared at the hearing, were represented by counsel, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to produce, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence material and pertinent to the issues. Oral argu- ment at the close of the hearing was waived. Briefs from the General Counsel and the Respondents were received on August 18, 1967. Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Business of the Charging Party The complaint alleged, the answers admitted, and I find: T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., a New York corporation, is engaged as a contractor in the heavy and highway contruction industry with its principal office and place of business at Oriskany Boulevard, Whitesboro, New York. In the course of its business, the Company annually receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of New York or from other enterprises within the State of New York which receives said goods and materials directly from outside the State of New York. Capitol Concrete Products, Inc., and Northern Concrete Pipe Corp. (herein collectively called Capitol- Northern), New York corporations, are commonly con- trolled and operated, and a common labor policy is formu- lated and administered affecting the employees of said companies. Said companies constitute a single-integrated business enterprise. They are engaged in the manufacture and sale of concrete pipe for construction uses, with their principal office and plant at Scotia, New York. Capitol- Northern annually ships goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to outside the State of New York or to other enterprises within the State of New York each of which annually receives goods and materi- als valued in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of New York. Accordingly, I find that the Company and Capitol- Northern each are, and have been at all times material herein, employers and persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce. II. THE RESPONDENTS 827 Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Local 294, International Brother- hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Local Union No. 106, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO; and Local No. 6, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Early in 19672 the State of New York awarded a con- tract for the construction of three bridges with ap- proaches at Amsterdam, New York, to T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., herein known as the Amsterdam Project. On February 17, Operating Engineers, over the signa- tures of Daniel J. McGraw, its business manager, and Geo. Paul Moran, its business representative, sent the Company a letter reading as follows: We would like to arrange a pre job conference with you re your job at Mongomery Co. - Highway & Bridges (FAC 67-4) Amsterdam, N.Y. Will you please advise us of a convenient date to meet with you? We will be glad to arrange a meeting at the job site or at our office in Albany, New York, whichever is more convenient to you. At this stage we are primarily interested in signing an agreement if you are not already covered by our Agreement. If you sub out your clearing and excavating or any other phase of your work that we as engineers would be interested in, would you please let us know who these subs are? [Emphasis supplied.] Under date of March 2, the Albany-Schenectady-Troy and Vicinity District Council of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which council in- cluded Local No. 6 of Amsterdam, Respondent here, over the signature of Edward J. Gardner, its secretary- treasurer, wrote the Company as follows: We wish to congratulate you on being the lowest bidder on the job in Montgomery County, City of Amsterdam, New York. The purpose of this letter is to request a meeting with you at your earliest convenient [sic] to familiarize you and your Company on the availabilities of car- penters we have in the Amsterdam area. By this method we have been able to eliminate 99 percent of the problems, which would have other- wise happened on the job site. Please let us know if we can make an appointment and on what time and date would be convenient for you. The Company acknowledged neither of these commu- nications. 2 All dates herein are in the year 1967 unless otherwise noted. 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On April 13, Company Project Superintendent Edwin T. Reilly was at the jobsite doing preliminary layout work when Anthony J. Carusone, business representative for contruction of Teamsters , accompanied by one Gaudio, stopped by the site and spoke to Reilly. Carusone told Reilly that he, Carusone , was a little perturbed that the Company had not gotten in touch with him after his letter regarding the Amsterdam Project. Reilly answered that the only correspondence the Company had received had been from the Operating Engineers . Carusone replied that, if the Company had received a letter from one, it meant "all of us," Operating Engineers , Laborers, Car- penters, and Teamsters . Reilly stated that he thought that they had broken up the "four powers" after World War II. Carusone then inquired what the Company's "inten- tion" was in operating. Reilly answered that the Com- pany ran an "open shop" but would need more men and would contact Teamsters . To this Carusone answered that "maybe you operate that way in Utica but you can't down here because we 'll furnish the men." At this point a pickup truck drove by. Carusone pointed out that "you'll have to have a chauffeur driving your pickup" in accordance with Teamsters jurisdiction. Reilly added that Teamsters would send the Company a steward to tell them where to get their materials, a parts chaser, and a stockroom man and added that the Company was "going to have to sign a contract with Teamsters so we could operate" in the area. Reilly asked for and received Carusone's name and telephone number and said that he, Reilly, would relay this information to Company Pres- ident Madden when he saw Madden. The conversation ended with Chrusone saying that, if he did not hear from Madden by Friday, he, Carusone , would have a picket line up on Monday morning.3 Carusone did not hear from Madden but there was no picket line at the project on Monday. On April 18, Reilly was at the jobsite talking to Jim and Jack Cushing, who owned and/or managed the Cushing Quarries and Capitol-Northern, when Teamsters Busi- ness Agent Carusone , accompanied by Business Agents David Downing (Carpenters), Paul Moran (Operating Engineers), and Louis Phillips (Laborers), walked up to them. The Cushings started to walk away but, as they did, Moran inquired what they were doing there and received the answer "to sell material." The Cushings continued on their way. After introducing the other business agents, Carusone asked if Reilly had seen Madden and what their "intentions" were. Reilly said that the Company "was going to run open shop." Carusone inquired how the Company planned to get supplies , if they intended to fly them in, and added "we control them too." Moran then asked what the Company's intentions were as to Operat- ing Engineers . Reilly answered that the Company had a nucleus of old-time employees it intended to use but, if additional help were needed, the Company would contact Moran's Union. Moran retorted to that, "No, they could not work like that because they would have to have a con- tract and that (Operating Engineers) was going to supply 3 Except for the reference to the picket line, Carusone's generalized an- swers denied none of the above findings which are here made on the credited testimony of Reilly. A Hageboom-Campbell was a construction firm well known for operat- ing "open shop ." Madden had been a partner therein while Reilly had been employed by it 5 Three of the business agents testified that nothing was said about any picket lines at any meeting. One testified to the contrary. In the light of all all the men." Moran continued, "We did not work open shop in this area, never have and never will." Reilly then inquired as to what would happen to the Company's old- time operators and was informed by Moran that Operat- ing Engineers would screen those employees , sign up the suitable ones, but that those found to be unsuitable "would have to go." Reilly asked how long a time the em- ployees would have to make up their minds about joining. Some business agents thought the employees would have 30 days while others thought it was 7 days . The conversa- tion then turned to whether the Company had operated in the Amsterdam area before . Reilly answered that he and Madden had both worked in the Amsterdam area before with a firm known as Hageboom-Campbell.4 Upon hear- ing this Moran stated , "We're wasting our time here, fel- lows, let's go." As the business agents were departing, they told Reilly that if Madden wanted to get in touch with them, they would be at the coffeeshop nearby. Downing left his business card stating that he would get in touch with the others if Madden wanted to see them. As the business agents left, Moran said that unless they heard from the Company , "they were going to set up a picket line Monday morning. They were not going to operate without contracts."5 The others nodded agree- ment. On April 24 pickets bearing signs reading "EM- PLOYEES OF T. J. MADDEN CONS'T CO. DO NOT RECEIVE THE BENEFIT OR PROTECTION OF A UNION CONTRACT. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 294" appeared at the Amsterdam site and continued picketing until June 26 when an injunction was issued against such picketing. The captain of the three pickets was one Antimo (Jim- my) lavarone who received his appointment as such from Carusone along with instructions not to interfere with anybody and to refer all questions to Teamsters headquarters . In addition Carusone also instructed lavarone to follow Reilly every place he went in order to find out where he was getting his supplies and materials.6 Early in May lavarone , stating that he was sent by representatives of the Teamsters , inquired of James J. DeBerry, superintendent of Cushing Stone Company, if "Cushing"7 was selling concrete to Company. DeBerry answered that, to the best of his knowledge, "Cushing" was. On May 2, having made an appointment to meet Jim Cushing at Capitol-Northern the following morning, Carusone sent word to Moran, Downing, and Phillips to meet him the next morning at 7:30 at the Scotia Diner in Scotia, a short 5-minute ride to the Capitol-Northern plant. About 7:30 a.m. on May 3 Business Agents Carusone, Downing, and Phillips, with Picket Captain lavarone in attendance , gathered at the Scotia Diner as arranged. Moran failed to appear as he went to the wrong diner. Either at this time or previously the business agents had conferred among themselves about picketing, particularly at Captiol-Northern at least. the probabilities and of the whole tenor of this conversation, I have to ac- cept the testimony of Reilly that there was conversation, as found above, regarding a picket line. 6 But, if Iavarone's testimony can be believed, lavarone never reported his findings in that regard to anyone. I find this impossible to believe. 7 "Cushing" was an obvious reference to Capitol -Northern as well as The Stone Co. LOCAL 157, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA 829 About 8 a.m. the aforementioned individuals, without Moran, repaired to the Capitol-Northern plant to await the arrival of Jim Cushing. Moran arrived about 20 minutes later having had to call the Laborers Hall in order to secure directions to the Capitol-Northern plant. When Capitol-Northern Plant Manager John Festino arrived at the office, Carusone introduced him to the other business agents present and, upon his arrival, to Moran. Carusone inquired whether Capitol-Northern had a contract with Madden to supply pipe to Madden. Festino acknowledged that Capitol-Northern did have such a contract." Festino was then told that, "when a Madden truck came into the plant yard, a picket line would be there, a picket would be there, somebody would be picketing the plant" and "the men would not work when a Madden truck is in your yard or getting loaded so long as there's a picket line there." When Jack Cushing ar- rived, he explained to the business agents that he was substituting for Jim Cushing because of a death in the Jim Cushing family. Carusone asked Jack Cushing's help in getting a meeting with Madden. Cushing stated that he would try. While the business agents were busy in this conference, Picket Captain Iavarone left the office in order to find the Capitol-Northern forklift operator. lavarone wandered back into the plant proper where he found Teamsters Steward Ed Aleshes who, at lavarone's request, in- troduced lavarone as "a union man" to forklift operator Richard Ballmes whose job it was to load the trucks. lavarone told them that there "would be a picket at the gate if a Madden truck drove in" and for them not to load the Madden truck." As they were leaving the meeting, Business Agents Phillips and Carusone had a conversation with Laborers Steward Vincent Itzo during which Phillips told Itzo that "they were trying to unionize the Madden job" and, as Laborers would have men working on that job if it were unionized, the matter involved Itzo. Phillips also said that, "if a Madden truck showed up at the Capitol- Northern plant, there would be a picket at the gate" and added that, "while he could not order the men not to load Madden's trucks, he would like their cooperation as it would help the Union get men onto the Madden job." Itzo stated that they would honor the picket. Phillips also happened to see Ballmes as Phillips was leaving the premises, told Ballmes that a picket would be there and said "go along with [me] and not load the Mad- den truck," and that if Ballmes had any problems to see Steward Itzo. An hour or so after the business agents had left, a Mad- den truck did drive into the plant. The driver secured a loading order at the office which he then took and gave to Ballmes. Ballmes excused himself, saying that he had to see Steward Itzo. Itzo and Ballmes went to the telephone where Itzo telephoned Laborers headquarters and received instructions from Business Agent Brown not to load the Madden truck. Itzo repeated Brown's instruc- tions to Ballmes. Itzo and Ballmes returned to the Madden driver and told him that there were no hard feelings but they could not load his truck. After the Madden truck left the premises empty, Itzo and Ballmes reported to the picketing lavarone that they had honored the picket. lavarone then followed the truck back to the Amsterdam project. About 1:30 p.m. on a rainy May 9, when the job was down because of rain, Reilly was visited at the job site by Joseph Lia,10 representative of the New York State Council of Carpenters, Downing and Branden (Carpen- ters) and Phillips (Laborers). Lia began this conversation by saying that he thought maybe he could help get things straightened out, he knew that the Company paid union scale wages but that his carpenters could not come to work without a union contract because of the supple- ments and benefits which had to be paid under a union contract to the Union. Reilly stated that the Company was paying these supplements and benefits. Lia suggested that the carpenters could not work like that, but as an out- sider he possibly could sit down with Madden and straighten things out. When Reilly suggested the Com- pany had no problems, Lia stated that the pickets did not look good to the public, but that, "if we got things straightened out, the pickets would leave, we would have harmony and the job could be completed faster." Reilly said that Madden was in Utica. Lia said that he was headed for Utica and that Madden could get in touch with him at the motel there. Branden remarked that he, Bran- den, had allowed the Company to operate nonunion around Utica, but that he did not know the Company was big enough to get jobs the size of the Amsterdam project. With that the conference ended.11 Sometime in the latter part of May, Iavarone had fol- lowed Reilly to the Cushing Stone Company office. Reilly walked into Superintendent James DeBerry's of- fice. Before any conversation could start, lavarone tapped DeBerry on the shoulder and asked him to come outside the office. Outside the office, Iavarone asked what Reilly was doing on the premises. After DeBerry answered that it was too early to tell as Reilly had just ar- rived, lavarone stated, "Well, if you sell this man any material, ... I'll picket this plant."12 There was some interruption in deliveries to be made at the jobsite when drivers for United Parcel Service, Bethlehem Steel, and Boss Linco Trucking Company refused to cross the picket line at the jobsite. There is no showing that the pickets there did any more than to carry their informational signs as usual. The Bethlehem Steel driver, although refusing to cross the picket line in his truck, conveniently left his truck parked on the street while the Company sent its crane and unloaded the ship- ment. Ultimately the Company was able to send and pick up all these shipments. The Company was incon- venienced in these instances. The Company purchased some machinery from Lane Construction Company and about May 17 sent its truck " Madden's trucks had already picked up 3 or 4 loads from Capitol- Northern on a contract amounting to about $9,000 ' lavarone acknowledged telling Aleshes, Ballmes, and employee Re- lyea that there would be an "informational" picket at the gate d 7a Madden truck drove in but testified that, when Ballmes asked what he should do in that case, only advised Ballmes to see Capitol-Northern Laborer Steward Victor Itzo and to call Business Agent Brown (Laborers) whom lavarone said he "happened" to know would be in the Laborers office that morning. In view of lavarone's other conduct herein I cannot believe that lavarone was as reticent as he claimed to have been in his testimony 10 Lia did not testify " Throughout the hearing the business agents maintained that they were only seeking to get a meeting with Madden. But, except for denying any remarks about picketing, the business agents did not deny those parts of the aforefound conversations which indicate a further and different mo- tive. 1-2 This testimony is undemed 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to Lane to pick up the same. The Madden truck was fol- lowed to Lane by lavarone. When the Madden driver stopped at the Lane office to pick up his delivery ticket for this machinery, lavarone left his car, went on to the Lane property, and into the Lane garage where he told the employees there present that there would be an "in- formational" picket at the gate while the Madden truck was on the premises . When the Madden truck was moved into position to be loaded, lavarone accompanied by some unidentified Teamsters employee of Lane appeared at the scene where the unidentified Lane employees told the crane operator who was about to load the Madden truck that, as Teamsters, they would not be able to load the Madden truck. The crane operator agreed. lavarone was present throughout but then left the scene to com- mence picketing at the gate with his informational sign. The Madden truck ultimately left unloaded.13 On June 24, 1967, the Honorable James T. Foley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a temporary injunction against Respondents here against further picketing of Madden Construction Company at the request of the Board. On June 26, Respondents here ceased picketing of Madden as provided in the order of Judge Foley. A few days thereafter picketing of Madden commenced by some union other than the four Respondents here. B. Conclusions General Counsel maintained in his brief and at the hearing that the picketing at the jobsite was both recogni- tional and organizational picketing lasting beyond the period of 30 days without a representation petition having been filed and thus in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C).14 He also argued that the secondary boycott provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) were violated at both the May 3 meeting at Capitol-Northern and about May 17 at Lane Construction Company at least. Further, General Counsel contended that all four Respondents here were engaged at all times in a joint venture in the picketing so that each was individually in violation of the above sec- tions of the Act. Operating Engineers, on the contrary, argued that no joint venture including it was proved. Laborers, Carpenters, and Teamsters argued in addi- tion that the picketing was (1) informational only and thus permissible under the Act, and (2) that the incidents at Capitol-Northern, Cushing Stone, and Lane Construc- tion were purely innocent attempts to arrange a meeting with the Company and thus did not constitute illegal secondary activity prohibited by the Act. The facts proved here prevent my agreement with Respondents. Despite the fact that the verbiage on the picket sign was indeed "informational," the written and oral state- ments by each of the business agents involved proved that an object of the picketing was to secure recognition from and to organize the employees of the Company. It 13lavarone's testimony was in general agreement with the above findings except that, according to him , he went to the garage for two pur- poses- (1) to go to the restroom and (2) to assure the Lane employees that his picket sign was not intended for the Lane employees but was applica- ble to the Madden truck alone. Again I cannot believe that lavarone was so reticent. 14 The answers admitted that the picketing lasted for more than 30 days was not informational picketing. As early as the February 17 letter to the Company, Operating Engineers made its intentions clear by writing, "at this stage we are primarily interested in signing an agreement if you are not already covered by our agreement." Business Agent Moran of that Union was even more explicit on April 18 when, in answer to Reilly's stating the Company's intention of working "open shop," Moran stated, "No, they couldn't work like that because they would have to have a contract and that [the Union] was going to supply all the men.... We [Operating Engineers] did not work open shop in this area, never have and never will." Carusone for the Teamsters had been equally blunt on April 13, while telling Reilly that the Company "was going to have to have a contract with Teamsters so it [Company] could operate." On May 3, Phillips for Laborers explained the purpose of the picketing to Capitol-Northern employee Itzo on the basis that "they [the Unions] were trying to unionize the Madden job" so that Laborers could put its men to work there. And to make it unanimous from the Unions' point of view, on May 9, Carpenters' Lia ex- plained to Reilly, while supposedly trying to "straighten out" the picketing matter, that his union carpenters "could not come to work without a union contract," With such blunt comments, Respondents' defense of "informa- tional" picketing fades away. These comments prove that each of Respondent Unions was picketing the Madden project in order to organize and secure recognition and bargaining from the Company. Despite the camouflage of the informational sign, what each of these Unions was really after was to organize the Company's employees the "easy way," i.e., "from the top" through recognition by, and a contract with, the Company without regard to the wishes of the employees. Accordingly, the facts proved here require that I find that an object of the picketing, at least, was to secure recognition and bargaining from the Company and thus to organize the Company's employ- ees.15 Respondents' next contention is that this picket activi- ty in the instant case was not proved to be a joint venture engaged in by Teamsters, Laborers, Carpenters, and Operating Engineers. The facts again belie this conten- tion. As early as April 13, Carusone explained to Reilly that a letter from one of the Unions to the Company was in fact from "all of us." On April 18, Carusone's sug- gestion was confirmed by the visit of all four business agents (Laborers, Carpenters, Teamsters, and Operating Engineers) to Reilly at the jobsite during which the busi- ness agents threatened the Company with picketing un- less the Company extended recognition and executed contracts with the participating Unions. Upon the Com- pany's refusal to concede, the picket line was in fact established as threatened on April 24, albeit with only the name of the Teamsters mentioned on the picket sign. Then on May 3, these same four business agents, this time accompanied by the picket captain, met at Capitol- Northern plant by prearrangement 16 and discussed with Capitol-Northern officials the predetermined roving and that no representation petition was filed. 15 It would be well for the business agents to reread Sec. 7 of the Act giving employees the right to bargain "through representatives of their own choosing." 16 Business Agent Moran was late only because of a propensity for getting lost. LOCAL 157, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA 831 picket which Capitcl-Northern was told would be present whenever a Madden truck was at the plant with threats that Capitol-Northern employees would not work such trucks with such picket at the gate. Promptly thereafter, a Madden truck appeared and so did the roving picket, even as threatened. And further, as promised by the busi- ness agents, Capitol-Northern employees refused to load the Madden truck due to efforts made by the picket cap- tain among the employees while the business agents were conferring with the Capitol-Northern officials as well as due to the efforts of the Teamsters, Laborers, and Car- penters business agents among the employees after that meeting. Then on May 9 the three Unions (minus Moran of the Operating Engineers on this occasion) again met with the Company on the jobsite to "straighten things out" and remove the pickets. At the hearing it developed that Laborers, at least, had contributed financially to the cost of the picketing. Carusone was almost unduly unin- formed as to financial contributions from the other two Unions towards the picket costs. As suggested by Judge Foley in the injunction proceeding, under all these cir- cumstances one would have to overlook reality in order not to hold that both the picketing at the jobsite and the roving picketing constituted a joint and concerted venture of all four Respondents here. I have no hesitation in find- ing that, despite the fact that only Teamsters were named on the picket sign, the picketing was in fact the joint ven- ture of all four Respondents here. Furthermore any and all lingering doubts as to the type, purpose, and object of this so-called "informational" picketing must be dispelled by the actions of Respondents on May 3 at Capital-Northern, in early May at Cushing Stone Company and later that same month at Lane Con- struction Company. At Cushing Stone picket captain lavarone, having fol- lowed Reilly of the Company to the office, threatened Plant Superintendent DeBerry that he, lavarone, would picket Cushing Stone if DeBerry did any business with Reilly and Company. At Capitol-Northern on May 3 the four business agents inquired if Capitol-Northern was doing any busi- ness with the Company and, upon learning that it was, threatened a picket line at the gate any time a company truck was on the plant property and further that Capitol- Northern employees would not work while there was a picket at the gate. Indeed at the very time the business agents were making these threats against neutral Capitol- Northern, picket captain lavarone was busy inducing and encouraging the employees of Capitol-Northern to refuse in the course of their employment to handle goods in- tended for the Company; i.e., to refuse to load company trucks. And then, in order to fulfill the threats made earlier to Capitol-Northern officials, Business Agents Carusone, Phillips, and Downing, while on their way from the meeting with those officials, urged and induced Capitol-Northern employees Ballmes, Aleshes, Relyea, and Itzo to "cooperate" with their attempts to unionize the Company by not loading company trucks because of the roving picket which the business agents promised would be at the gate on any occasion when company trucks were in the plant. At Lane Construction Company picket captain lavarone again induced and encouraged employees of the neutral Lane Construction Company to honor the "infor- mational" picket by refusing to load the Company's truck with machinery which the Company had already purchased from Lane with the result that the Lane crane operator who would have loaded that material did in fact refuse to load the truck. In the light of the above use of this so-called "informa- tional" picket line by Respondents, it is all too clear that another purpose and object of the picket line was to cut off and stop all supplies from reaching the Company by coercing neutral employers into ceasing doing business with the Company by threats of a picket line and by in- ducing the employees of these neutral employers into refusing in the course of their employment to handle any goods or to perform any services involving the Company in order to force these neutral employers to cease doing business with the Company unless and until the Company recognize and bargain with Respondents as the represent- ative of the Company's employees constitutes a violation These activities by Respondent clearly violate Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. I so find. Respondent's maintenance of this recognitional and or- ganizational picket line for a period of more than 30 days without a petition under Section 9(c) having been filed by Respondents with an object of forcing the Company to recognize and bargain with Respondents as the represen- tative of the Company's employees constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. I so find. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents, and each of them, as set forth in section III, above, appearing in connection with the operations of the Employer as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents, and each of them, have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order them to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., Capitol Concrete Products, Inc., and Northern Concrete Pipe Corp. are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondents Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Local 294, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Local Union No. 106, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO; and Local No. 6, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondents, and each of them, by picketing the Amsterdam, New York, jobsite of T. J. Madden Con- struction Co., Inc., with an object of forcing or requiring that Company to recognize or bargain collectively with each of the aforenamed Respondent Unions as the representative of its employees although none of such labor organizations was at any time certified as a representative of such employees and although none of 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them had filed a petition under Section 9 (c) of the Act within 30 days from the commencement of said picketing, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 4. Respondents , and each of them, by engaging in, and by inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Capitol-Northern, Lane Construction Company, and other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry af- fecting commerce to engage in, strikes or refusals to per- form services , and by threatening, coercing, and restrain- ing Capitol-Northern , Lane Construction Co., and Cush- ing Stone Company to cease doing business with the Company with the object in each case of forcing Capitol- Northern, Lane Construction Company, and Cushing Stone Company to cease doing business with the Com- pany and to force the Company to recognize and bargain with Respondent Unions as the representative of the Company's employees , have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) (i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that Respondents , and each of them: Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Local Union No. 106, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO; and Local No. 6, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents , and representa- tives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing or causing to be picketed , or threatening to picket or causing to be picketed, T. J. Madden Con- struction Co., Inc., at its project site located at Amster- dam, New York, where an object thereof is to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with any or all of said Respondent Unions as the bargaining agent of the employees of T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., in circumstances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. (b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any in- dividual employed by any neutral supplier of the Com- pany and particularly Capitol-Northern, Lane Construc- tion Company, or by any other person engaged in com- merce to engage in, a strike or refusal to perform services, or threatening, coercing , or restraining any neutral suppli- er of Company including Capitol-Northern, Cushing Stone Company , and Lane Construction Company, where an object thereof is to force any such supplier of Company to cease doing business with Company or where an object thereof is to force or require Company to recognize and bargain with Respondents , or any of them, as the collective-bargaining representatives of Com- pany's employees. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at the respective business offices and meeting halls of each of the aforenamed Respondents copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. " 17 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re- gion 3, after being duly signed by a representative of each of Respondents , shall be posted by each respective Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 3 signed copies of said notice marked "Appendix" for post- ing by T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., if willing, in places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Re- gional Director shall, after having been signed by a representative of each of the respective Respondents, be forthwith returned to the said Regional Director for dis- tribution by him. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondents , and each of them, have taken to comply herewith. 1I " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE FOLLOWING NAMED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS: Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: 1. Local 157, Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO 2. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America 3. Local Union No. 106, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO 4. Local No. 6 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce and encourage any individuals employed by any person engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce and particularly by Capitol Concrete Products, Inc., Northern Concrete Pipe Corp., and Lane Construc- tion Company, to engage in, a strike or refusal to per- form services in the course of employment to use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle LOCAL 157, LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL or work on any goods, articles, materials, and com- modities or to perform services intended for T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain the above-named companies or other persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce where an object thereof is (1) to force and require any of the aforementioned companies including also Cushing Stone Company to cease doing business with T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., or (2) to force or require said T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., to recognize and bargain with any of our Unions above named as representatives of any of the employees of T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., at its Amster- dam, New York, project as none of the aforenamed Unions has been certified as such representatives of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, T. J. Mad- den Construction Co., Inc., or any of that Com- pany's neutral suppliers including Capitol Concrete Products, Inc., Northern Concrete Pipe Corp., Cushing Stone Company, or any other such supplier where an object thereof is to force or require that T. J. Madden Construction Co., Inc., to bargain with all or any of the above-mentioned labor organizations, or any other labor organization, as the bargaining representative of Company's employees in circum- stances violative of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. LOCAL 157, LABORERS' IN- TERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) UNION OF NORTH AMERICA 833 Dated By Dated By Dated By LOCAL 294, INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) LOCAL UNION No. Io6, IN- TERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) LOCAL No. 6, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN- TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 842-3100.