Local 375, Teamsters

1 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Truck Drivers, Helpers & Dockmen Local Union No 375, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Womeldorf , Inc Case 3-CC-494 May 22, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 9, 1970, Trial Examiner Morton D Fried- man issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a memorandum in support of exceptions The Charging Party filed a brief in answer to the exceptions 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 con nection with this case to a three-member panel The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion,' the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein 2 2 In paragraph 1(b) substitute "Pillsbury Company, J W Clement Company, Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , and Acme Markets, Inc ," for the words "said employers " 3 In the first paragraph of the Appendix delete J W Clement, Inc , Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , or Acme Markets, Inc ," and substitute the word "employer" for the word `employers " MEMBER FANNING concurring and dissenting in part The majority correctly finds that Respondent's state- ments to three secondary employers were violations of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) only, and not of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) also as found by the Trial Examiner and I concur As to the fourth secondary employer, Pillsbury, where the only picketing by Respondent occurred, the majority agrees with the Trial Examiner's findings that while the picketing was conducted in conformity with the Moore Dry Dock" standards for lawful common situs picketing, a statement by Respondent to that employer somehow converted the picketing into a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) directed against the employees of Pillsbury Since Moore Dry Dock was satisfied as to the picketing, I do not believe there was any violation of (i), but as with the other secondary employers, the statement to this secondary employer was a (ii) violation only 4 9 Sailors Union of the Pacific AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company) 92 NLRB 547 " See my partial dissent in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No II AFL-CIO et al (L G Electric Contrac tors Inc) 154 NLRB 766 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that Respondent, Truck Drivers, Helpers & Dock men Local Union No 375, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified I In paragraph 1(a) delete "J W Clement Company, Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , and Acme Markets, Inc ," and substitute the word "employer" for the word "employers " ' The Trial Examiner in his Decision inadvertantly listed June 3 1969 as the date of the first amended charge instead of June 30 1969 and further listed June 11 1969 instead of July 2 1969 the date the complaint was issued as ] We conclude that Respondent s actions with respect to J W Clement Company Hickman Coward & Wattles Inc and Acme Markets Inc did not constitute or result in violations of Sec 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act and we shall amend the Order accordingly We agree that Respondent violated Sec 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act with respect to the Pillsbury Company and we further agree that Respondent by its actions violated Sec 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) with respect to all four of the above named companies TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MORTON D FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner Upon a charge filed on June 11, 1969, by Womeldorf, Inc , herein called Womeldorf or the Charging Party, and a first amended charge also filed by Womeldorf on June 3, 1969, the Regional Director for Region 3 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a complaint on June 11, 1969, on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board against Truck Drivers, Helpers & Dockmen Local Union No 375, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called Local 375 or the Union, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U S C , Sec 151, et seq ), herein called the Act In its duly filed answer to the complaint, the Union, while admitting certain allegations of the complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor practices The issues posed by the pleadings are whether the Respondent, by conduct to be set forth herein below, threatened, restrained, and coerced certain secondary employers and their employees in order to induce and encourage the secondary employers directly and through their employees to cease doing business with Womeldorf, 182 NLRB No 93 LOCAL 375, TEAMSTERS the primary Employer and Charging Party herein, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to notice, a hearing in this case was held before me in Buffalo, New York, on September 11, 1969. All parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to -be heard, to introduce relevant evi- dence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs were filed by counsel for the Charging Party and for the Union. Upon consider- ation of the' entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and upon my observation of each of the witness- es as they appeared before me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION It was admitted at the hearing herein by the Respond- ent, and stipulated between the parties, that Womeldorf is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal office at Lewistown, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the business of operating trucking terminals and truck services in and between various States of the United States, including the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York and is engaged, in part, in providing and performing trucking services between its Rochester, New York, terminal and points outside the State of New York. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, a repre- sentative period, Womeldorf performed in excess of $1,000,000 worth of trucking services, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed between the various States of the United States; and also per- formed trucking services valued in excess of $50,000 consisting of transporting merchandise directly from its Rochester, New York, terminal to points outside the State of New York and also performed trucking services valued in excess of $50,000 consisting of transporting merchandise directly from points outside the State of New York to its Rochester, New York, terminal. It is conceded, and I find, that Womeldorf is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It was further stipulated at the hearing, and I find, that the Pillsbury Company, herein called Pillsbury; the J. W. Clement Company, herein called Clement; Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc., herein called Hick- man; and Acme Markets, Inc., herein called Acme, are employers and persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was admitted by the answer, and I find, that the Respondent Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Primary Dispute 651 Womeldorf is a common carrier by motortruck of certain commodities, principally foodstuffs, throughout the mid-Atlantic, central States, and New England area. Since sometime around the early 1930's, Womeldorf has been operating, among other places, in and around Buffalo, New York. However, Womeldorf does not own or use a terminal in Buffalo but does have one in Rochester, New York, about 70 miles distant, where its employees are members, and where Womeldorf recog- nizes and contracts with, a sister local of Local 375. In all its other operations, Womeldorf's employees, except top management , are unionized, and all of its truckdrivers are represented by various locals of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Womeldorf additionally, through various truckers associations to which it belongs, is a signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement between the Teamsters International and various associations called the National Master Freight Agreement and, also, through its contract with the Local representing its Rochester terminal employees, Womeldorf is signatory to a supplemental agreement to the Master Agreement known as the New York State Teamsters Joint Counsel Freight Division, Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement. However, it is not a signatory directly, nor does it have any contractu- al relations with, nor do any of its employees belong to, Local 375. Sometime early in 1969, Womeldorf was awarded a United States Government mail contract which requires Womeldorf to haul shipments of the magazine, Readers Digest from the publisher, J. W. Clement Co., in Buffalo, to various post offices in Pennsylvania and Camden, New Jersey. Womeldorf's predecessor on this contract was a local Buffalo company, Mushroom Transportation, which had a terminal at Buffalo and whose employees were represented by Local 375. When the Federal mail contract was awarded to Womeldorf, therefore, Mush- room had little work for these Local 375 members and a number of them, therefore, were laid off. Local, 375's officials thereafter received many complaints with regard to this from the laidoff employees of Mushroom. As a probable result of these foregoing complaints, sometime in the spring of 1969, Frank Campanella, business agent of Local 375, made contact with Womel- dorf and asked Womeldorf' s terminal manager at Roches- ter and Womeldorf's vice president at Womeldorf's head- quarters in Pennsylvania to hire Local 375 men whenever Womeldorf was picking up or leaving merchandise at various places within the jurisdictional area of Local 375. This request was refused by Womeldorf which asserted that it already had contracts with various Team- ster locals and therefore did not have to recognize, bargain, or deal with Local 375. As the direct result of this refusal, Campanella warned Womeldorf's vice president that Womeldorf could expect picketing "or something of that nature" whenever Womeldorf's trucks 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appeared to pick up or deliver in the jurisdictional area of Local 375.' It should be noted in connection with this dispute that Local 375 supports its position by reliance on certain terminology within the Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement, mentioned above, which states, in substance, under the section delineating work assignments, that over-the-road drivers shall not be permitted to load or unload in cities or localities where the Union exists, it being contrary to the union rules. Womeldorf claims that it is not bound by these contractual terms vis- a-vis Local 375 and, furthermore, claims that the inter- pretation of this disputed clause does not result in Wom- eldorf's being bound thereby. We are not here concerned with the merits of this contract dispute between Womel- dorf and Local 375 and do not deem it necessary to determine whether Womeldorf is bound vis-a-vis Local 375 to the terms of the foregoing agreement. The only matter for determination here is whether in pursuit of its dispute with Womeldorf, Local 375 approached sec- ondary employers to whom Womeldorf was making deliveries, or picking up merchandise, in such a manner as to constitute unlawful inducement or encouragement so as to constitute an unlawful secondary boycott. B. The Secondary Activity In furtherance of its position in the 'primary dispute, Local 375, through Campanella , made contact with a number of employers with whom Womeldorf did busi- ness in the Buffalo area. The first employer contacted by Campanella was Cle- ment , the publisher of Reader ' s Digest . In the latter part 'of April, Campanella came to Clement's shipping dock, and spoke to Clement ' s supervisor of shipping, Joseph A. Bondanza . According to Bondanza, whom I credit , Campanella said he was there to represent his local ; that Clement was doing business with Womel- dorf and Womeldorf was "not a member of Campanella's Local." Campanella said he was trying to get in contact with Womeldorf so they could get together and do business. Campanella further stated that if they did not meet or come to agreement "that he would have to picket , picket our employees ." Bondanza explained to Campanella that Clement did not bring in the Womel- dorf trucks ; that they came to Clement's premises to pick up because Womeldorf was handling government mail and this was the only reason that Clement used Womeldorf . Campanella said that if Local 375 put up a picket line he did not think anybody would cross it but that he had respect for Clement and did not want Clement to be hurt. Bondanza asked what Campanella meant by picketing, where the pickets would be stationed . Campanella stated that they would picket out in front of the road entrance. Campanella further explained to Bondanza that Womel- I All the foregoing from the credited and virtually uncontroverted testimony of Nelson H Chilcote, formerly terminal manager of Womel- dorf's Rochester, New York, terminal , and Robert Womeldorf, vice president and general manager of Womeldorf dorf was hauling Clement's freight and that Womeldorf did not have any local men on the trucks, and that, therefore, Local 375 would picket the road entrance when Womeldorf's truck was at Clement's dock. Bon- danza admitted that Campanella told him that the picket- ing would last only as long as Womeldorf's trucks were at Clement's dock. When Bondanza asked Campanella what the effect of a picket line would be, Campanella stated that if they put a picket line at the Clement entrance they would stop all trucks from coming in. In the latter part of May an incident occurred at the premises of Hickman, Coward & Wattles, wholesale grocers, which company had its place of business at a group of warehouses known as the Niagara Frontier Food Terminal. Womeldorf trucks visited this location to make deliveries to Hickman in the course of business. None of the Hickman employees are represented by Local 375. According to Willis Coward, president of Hickman,' on the occasion in question he heard in his office that Womeldorf had made a second or third attempt to deliver a shipment of merchandise to Hickman. This was a shipment of food items from H. J. Heinz Company. When Coward found out that the Womeldorf truck could not get into the platform, he went outside to find out what was the matter. Someone pointed out Campanella to Coward. At that time Campanella was out in the street. Coward approached him and the two introduced themselves to each other. Coward asked Campanella if Womeldorf's people unloaded the ship- ment would Campanella put up a picket line. Campanella answered "yes." Coward then inquired whether Campa- nella intended to picket if Coward's own employees unloaded the shipment. Again Campanella's answer was "yes." Campanella did not describe in any way where the picketing would occur or when it would occur or how long the pickets would remain. However, on cross- examination, Coward admitted that Campaella might have explained to him that the dispute was with Womel- dorf. In his testimony, Campanella stated that he explained to Coward the contract dispute that Local 375 had with Womeldorf and told Coward that Womeldorf was in violation of the National and Supplemental Agree- ments; that if Womeldorf unloaded, Local 375 was going to put up an informational picket line. Campanella admit- ted that during this conversation Coward asked what would happen if Hickman's own employees unloaded the truck and Campanella told him that if the truck was unloaded without the services of a Local 375 man Campanella would put up a picket line. It should be noted in connection therewith, that the record does not reveal whether the truck was unloaded that day. However, I find that Campanella did explain to Coward about the primary dispute with Womeldorf but that Campanella refused to permit Hickman's employees to unload the truck without the use of Local 375 men. Although Campanella's testimony with regard to this meeting in some respects differs from Coward's, I credit Coward's testimony. LOCAL 375, TEAMSTERS On occasion Womeldorf trucks come to the place of business of Acme Markets, Inc., in Buffalo. As in all of the instances herein, none of the employees of Acme are represented by Local 375. On approximately June 9, according to Howard Schneider, personnel man- ager of Acme, he was visited in his office by Campanella. Campanella stated that he had a small problem which he thought Schneider could help him with. Campanella then said that if Acme did not help him, Campanella would put pickets at the Acme locations. Schneider told Campanella that he did not like to be threatened because Acme did not have any dealings with Local 375, and, secondly, he would like to know the problem before he was threatened with pickets. Campanella then explained that Womeldorf was bringing merchandise into the Acme warehouse illegally and that Campanella would like to stop Acme from doing business with Womeldorf. When Campanella had explained this, Schneider said he would talk to the food buyers and see if other arrangements could be made for getting the merchandise into the Acme warehouse without using Womeldorf. During the conversation, Schneider asked Campanella how soon the pickets would be posted. Campanella answered that they would not be put on that day but he did say that it could happen within the next couple of days if Acme did not cooperate. According to Schneider, that was the end of the conver- sation. Campanella's version of the conversation was some- what different. He testified that he first told Schneider that Womeldorf was party to the National Master Freight Agreement and also party to the New York State Agree- ment, and that Womeldorf was in violation in the Buffalo area in having over-the-road men unload the trucks in Buffalo . He stated that according to the contract Womeldorf should use local people for the unloading service at Acme's warehouse. Then, Campanella told Schneider that if Womeldorf did go to Acme and the road men attempted to unload their own trucks, Local 375 would put a picket line up when Womeldorf's trucks were being unloaded by the road driver. When Schneider asked when the pickets would be posted, Campanella answered that when Womeldorf was there with the road men unloading Womeldorf's trucks, Local 375 would establish a picket line . From my observation of the witnesses and because Schneider was in effect not a party to the dispute between Womeldorf and Local 375, and because Schneider's only interest was in seeing that Acme's merchandise was delivered, I credit Schneider over Campanella. Another employer whose premises are visited by Womeldorf's trucks to make pickups and deliveries is the Pillsbury Company in Buffalo. According to Arthur N. Rosenhahn, traffic manager for Pillsbury in Buffalo, in the first part of June 1969, Rosenhahn received a call at his office from the plant manager asking Rosen- hahn if the latter knew why the Teamsters were picketing the Pillsbury south end loading dock. Not knowing the reason why the picketing was being conducted, Rosen- hahn proceeded to the dock' where he saw Campanella and three other men out in the street adjacent to the 653 loading dock. The three men with Campanella were carrying picket signs. Rosenhahn walked over to Campa- nella who introduced himself to Rosenhahn. Campanella told Rosenhahn he did not want to cause any inconven- ience but that Local 375 and Womeldorf were both parties to the same National Agreement and Womeldorf was violating this agreement by not employing Local 375 men to perform pickup and delivery services at Pillsbury's plant. Campanella stated that his pickets would remain there as long as Womeldorf's truck was there. With that Rosenhahn went back inside, checked with his plant people, and determined that the Womeldorf truck was about one-third loaded at the time. According- ly, it was decided that they would stop loading the Womeldorf truck at that time and have Womeldorf's truck get out. However, Womeldorf's driver would not cross the picket line. With that Rosenhahn went out and talked again to Campanella and asked the latter if he would be satisfied if the truck would leave empty or if the driver of the Womeldorf truck would employ a Local 375 driver. During this time they talked to the Womeldorf driver who then made a phone call, probably to make arrange- ments to employ a 375 driver. They finally gave up on that because Pillsbury's employees who had evidently been out to lunch were ready to come back to work and Rosenhahn and the others at Pillsbury thought that their employees would not cross the picket line. Rosen- hahn then told Campanella that if Womeldorf did not employ a Local 375 driver, Pillsbury would unload the trailer and it would leave empty. Rosenhahn asked Cam- panella if that would be satisfactory. Campanella stated in answer that he had just been about to extend the picket line, or transfer the picket line, to the north end loading dock. It should be noted in connection therewith that the north end loading dock was never used by Womeldorf. Thereafter, without Womeldorf's driver being able to get any specific advice from his headquarters, Pillsbury people unloaded the truck. As soon as Campanella was advised the truck was empty, Campanella removed the picket line and Womeldorf's driver left with the truck and moved out of the dock.2 It should be noted that the sign carried by the pickets at the Pillsbury loading dock read: "Womeldorf is unfair to Local 375." C. Discussion and Concluding Findings The Respondent , Local 375, contends that the only picketing that occurred, at the south end loading dock of Pillsbury, conformed in all respects to the Moore Dry Dock3 standards and was free from any accompany- ing threats or other indications that an object of the picketing was to induce or coerce Pillsbury to cease doing business with Womeldorf , and that , therefore, the picketing was primary in nature and protected. The Y I do not credit Campanella's denial that he said anything about moving or extending the picket line to the north end dock 8 Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Charging Party, Womeldorf, contends to the contrary, claiming that the picketing had an unlawful object as demonstrated by the nature of business agent Campanel- la's conduct during his conversations with the officials of the employers heretofore mentioned As Local 375 admits in its argument, despite the fact that a union may carefully follow the guidelines of Moore Dry Dock insofar as the picketing is concerned, secondary picketing will not be saved if conversations or other acts of the union or its representatives clearly indicate that the object was an illegal one 4 However, the determination of object in such cases often requires that fine distinctions be made Thus, the picketing at Pillsbury's dock and the accompanying conversations must be carefully considered together and fully analyzed It is abundantly apparent that the picketing at the Pillsbury dock was conducted in conformity with the Moore Dry Dock standards The picketing took place adjacent to the dock, close to Womeldorf's truck, it continued only for the time Womeldorf's truck was present and the picket signs clearly advertised that the dispute was with Womeldorf Thus, were the Moore Dry Dock standards to be applied mechanically, it could be concluded that the picketing, judged alone, was law- ful The question remains, however, whether the picketing remains lawful when considered in the full context of the accompanying conversation between Campanella and Rosenhahn Campanella explained to Rosenhahn that Local 375 and Womeldorf were parties to the national agreement and told Rosenhahn that Womeldorf was violating this agreement by not employing Local 375 men to perform pickup and delivery services at Pills bury's plant Campanella stated carefully that his pickets would remain there as long as Womeldorf's trucks were there Thus, in this part of the conversation there was no appeal whatsoever, or any coercive statement made, which would indicate that the object of the picketing was other than to advertise Local 375's dispute with Womeldorf Then, Rosenhahn and others who manage Pillsbury's facility decided that they would stop loading the Womeldorf truck and have it leave the plant empty But, Womeldorf's driver refused to cross the picket line Thereupon, Rosenhahn again spoke to Campanella and asked the latter if he would be satisfied if the truck would leave empty or if the driver of the Womel- dorf truck would employ a Local 375 driver However, Womeldorf's driver could not induce his superiors to permit him to hire Local 375 men for loading and unload- ing purposes Thereupon Rosenhahn, fearing that his own employees would not come back to work across the picket line, asked Campanella if Pillsbury would unload the trailer so that the truck could leave the premises empty, would Campanella remove the pickets This evidently satisfied Campanella who, in assenting to this arrangement , commented that he had just been about to extend the picket line, or transfer the picket line, to the north end loading dock rather than the south end loading dock where the Womeldorf truck was located The north end loading dock, as heretofore stated, was never used at any time by Womeldorf Thereafter, the truck was unloaded by Pillsbury people whereupon Campanella disbanded the picket line and the truck left empty I am persuaded that although there was nominal com- pliance with the Moore Dry Dock standards, when Cam- panella informed Rosenhahn that he was about to move or extend the picket line to the north end loading dock of Pillsbury's facility, which dock was used only by Pillsbury's employees and never by Womeldorf's employees, Campanella indicated strongly that he was attempting to embroil the employees of Pillsbury in the Union's dispute with Womeldorf By doing this, Campanella displayed an intention to induce or coerce Pillsbury's employees to refuse to perform services for their employer with an object of forcing Pillsbury to refuse to permit Womeldorf to make deliveries and pickups at Pillsbury's facility, thus causing Pillsbury to cease doing business with Womeldorf Such an object is clearly unlawful and in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act I so find 5 A similar conclusion is reached with regard to the conversation which occurred on June 9 at the premises of Acme Markets between Howard Schneider, personnel manager of Acme, and Campanella In that conversation, Campanella without explaining the full situation between Local 375 and Wolmendorf first threatened Schneider that he would put pickets at the Acme locations if Acme did not cooperate with Campanella as representa- tive of Local 375 Then, upon Schneider's protests and request for further explanation, Campanella stated that Womeldorf was bringing merchandise into the Acme warehouse illegally and that Campanella would like to stop Acme from doing business with Womeldorf Thus, the conversation as a whole constituted a threat to picket Acme's location if Acme did not cease doing business with Womeldorf It requires no citation of authority to support a finding, in this instance, of a labor organization threatening and coercing a person, Acme, engaged in commerce, to force that person to cease doing business with an employer engaged in com- merce Clearly, this constitutes a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) In the instance of the conversation between Campanel- la and Joseph A Bondanza, supervisor of shipping for J W Clement Co , Campanella first explained that he was there representing his Local and that Clement was doing business with Womeldorf and that Womeldorf was "not a member of Campanella's Local " Campanella then explained that he was trying to contact Womeldorf so that they could come to an agreement However, Campanella then stated that if Local 375 and Womeldorf did not come to agreement "that he would have to picket, picket our employees "6 See Local 294 International Brotherhood of Teamsters etc (The United Association of Journeymen etc Local No 32 AFL-CIO Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company Inc) 173 NLRB No 234 (A& B Plumbing Inc) 171 NLRB No 66 Emphasis supplied LOCAL 375, TEAMSTERS When Bondanza explained that Clement did not engage Womeldorf to do its shipping but that Womeldorf was a contractor with the United States Post Office contract- ing to' pick up the mailed Reader's Digests published by Clement, Campanella answered that, nevertheless, if Womeldorf's truck came to pick up mail at Clement's facility, Local 375 would put up a picket line which he, Campanella, did not think anybody would cross. He added that he had respect for Clement and did not want Clement to be hurt. However, Campanella further explained upon questioning by Bondanza that the pickets would be stationed out in front of the road entrance to Clement's premises. He did not specifically state that the pickets would be stationed at the loading dock, which would be the nearest place to Womeldorf's trucks when they came to Clement's premises to pick up Clement's merchandise. Then Campanella further explained that Womeldorf was hauling Clement's freight and that Womeldorf did not have any Local 375 men on the trucks; thus, in part, explaining to Bondanza the dispute between Womeldorf and Local 375. Addition- ally, Campanella explained that the pickets would be present only so long as Womeldorf's trucks remained at Clement's premises. However, Campanella further stated that if they put up a picket line at Clement's entrance they would stop all trucks from coming in. While it is possible that Bondanza did not accurately and fully state all that traversed between himself and Campanella, the foregoing represents, in substance, Bon- danza's testimony. While the question of whether the statements of Campanella as set forth represented an attempt by Campanella to enmesh Clement in Local 375's dispute with Womeldorf is not readily answered, I find and conclude that in the light of the other activities of Campanella heretofore discussed that Campanella's statements to Bondanza did not sufficiently set forth that the threat and picketing would conform to the Moore Dry Dock standards. Thus, Campanella did not inform Bondanza that the picketing would occur at the Clement dock, but rather at the Clement road entrance which would effectively seal off the entry of all trucks to, the Clement plant. Nor did Campanella request that he be permitted to put the picket line up at the dock rather than at the entrance to the Clement premises. This is so even though the dock and not the entrance to the Clement premises would be the nearest place to picket the Womeldorf trucks. Moreover, according to Bondanza's statement which I accept, Cam- panella told Bondanza that the "employees" of Clement would be picketed. This was a direct threat to involve Clement's employees. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Campanella's threat to Bondanza, and through Bondanza to Clement, was in violation of,Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).7 We come now to the last of the incidents, that which occurred at the warehouse of Hickman, Coward & Wat- tles. Here Campanella again failed to describe in any way where the picketing would occur or when it would ' Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union 728 (Campell Coal Co.) v N.L.R.B,249F2d512 655 occur or how long the picketing would last. Thus the threat was a threat of picketing which would not conform to the Moore Dry Dock standards. Moreover, when Coward asked Campanella if the pickets would still go up if Hickman's employees would unload the truck themselves, Campanella's answer was in the affirmative. This indicated that Campanella was not only seeking to inform the public of the dispute between Local 375 and Womeldorf, but also that Local 375 would picket to induce employees of Hickman, Coward & Wattles to cease their work in order to force Hickman, Coward & Wattles to cease doing business with Womeldorf." Accordingly, I find that the threats contained in the conversation between Campanella and Coward constitut- ed coercion and inducement in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).1 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, and occurring in connection with the operations set forth 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 375 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Womeldorf, Inc., is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. Clement, Hickman, Coward & Wattles; Acme; and Pillsbury are employees engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Clement; Hickman Coward & Wattles; Acme; and Pillsbury and their employees with an object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with Womeldorf, Inc., Respondent has engaged in and is " Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union 728 v. N L R B , supra " I find inapposite the cases cited by the Charging Party to support its contention that the picketing and threats to picket in the instant case were violative because an object was to protect the work of Local 375 members generally. In the cited cases there were stokes by unit employees to preserve work for union members generally. Such theory of violation is not applicable to the situation in the case at bar where there was no stoke by any unit employees 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act writing, within 10 days from the date of this decision, 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith i i " 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 as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent, Truck Drivers, Helpers & Dockmen Local Union No 375, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chau- ffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Inducing and encouraging employees of the Pills- bury Company, J W Clement Company, Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , and Acme Markets, Inc to strike or engage in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services where an object thereof is to force or require the said employers to cease doing business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other person engaged in commerce or industry affecting commerce (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining said employ- ers where an object thereof is to force them to cease doing business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce 2 Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act (a) Post at Respondent Local 294's business offices and meeting halls in the Buffalo , New York, area copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "I" Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by Respondent Local No 375, or its representatives, shall be posted 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 by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- nal (b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 3 for posting by Clement, Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Acme, and Pillsbury, if they are willing, at their Buffalo, New York, facilities i" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify you that WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individ- uals employed by J W Clement, Inc , the Pillsbury Company, Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , or Acme Markets, Inc , to engage in a work stoppage or to engage in refusal in the course of their employ- ment to refuse to handle goods with an object of forcing or requiring the said employers to cease doing business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce J W Clement Company, the Pillsbury Company, Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , or Acme Mar- kets, Inc , where an object thereof is to force or require them or any of them to cease doing business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce TRUCK DRIVERS, HELPERS & DOCKMEN LOCAL UNION No 375, A/W INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone 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 Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone (716)-842-3100