Teamsters "General" Local 200

TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200 and Reilly Cartage, Inc. Case 30-CC-104 June 12, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On September 19, 1969, Trial Examiner James M. Fitzpatrick issued his decision in the above-enti- tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent, Teamsters "General" Local No. 200, had engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended that they be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respon- dent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The Charging Party filed an answering brief to Respon- dent's exceptions and in support of the Trial Ex- aminer'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,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent with the Decision herein. The Trial Examiner found in numerous instances that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) by its conduct in instructing employees, members of Local 200, to refuse to unload merchandise from Reilly's trucks when such trucks appeared at the terminal loading docks of secondary connecting carriers. In view of the other numerous violations by Respondent of Section 8(b)(4)(B) found by the Trial Examiner, we deem it unnecessary to con- i In the absence of any exceptions to the factual findings of the Trial Examiner, with the one exception noted below, we hereby adopt his factual findings pro forma The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent violated Sec 8 ( b)(4)(i)(B ) by picketing the premises of the Navajo Freight Lines, Inc, as being contrary to the evidence We find merit in 305 Sider, and we do not adopt, the Trial Examiner's finding in this regard. The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding and conclusion that its picketing at the ter- minal entrances (except at Consolidated Freightways, Hickey-Ryder, and Eazor) was not in conformity with Moore Dry Dock standards.' He reasoned that the failure of the carriers to respond to the Respondent's letter of November 14 requesting permission to picket inside the yards did not grant Respondent a license to picket the ter- minal entrances while Reilly trailers were on the situs, because Respondent was under a duty to legalize its picketing by a further request for per- mission from the carriers to enter upon the premises and conduct its picketing in the dock area adjacent to Reilly's trailers. In the Trial Examiner's view, Respondent's failure to take such additional affirmative action caused the terminal entrance picketing not to conform to Moore Dry Dock and thus to violate the Act. We do not adopt this find- ing and conclusion.' In our opinion, the Union's early request for permission to engage in dockside picketing, having gone unanswered, resulted in a fair assumption on its part that access to the prop- erty of the neutral carriers would be denied. It is also true that neutrals seeking to minimize the ef- fects of the dispute could easily have invited the pickets to the immediate vicinity of Reilly trucks when pickets first appeared at their entrances. In these circumstances, we cannot find that the Union's picketing at the terminal either violated the Moore Dry Dock standard requiring that picketing be limited to locations reasonably proximate to the primary situs, or otherwise evidenced a secondary objective. The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order which Respondent contends would preclude all picketing of Reilly Cartage Company's trucks at connecting carriers terminals. We find that the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order is somewhat ambiguous and we have amended it. The Respondent contended before the Trial Ex- aminer, and urges the same contention in its excep- tions before us, that Local 200's appeals to terminal employees not to unload or otherwise handle freight in trailers delivered by Reilly for further over-the-road transportation was protected primary activity within the proviso of Section 8(b)(4)(B), Respondent 's exception The record, in our opinion, does not support this finding of the Trial Examiner Therefore, this allegation of the complaint is dismissed 2 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 ' Trial Examiner's Decision, sec 11, C, 19 183 NLRB No. 39 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because the services by them were related to the on-going enterprise of Reilly . We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's related work ar- gument is without merit , and its reliance upon our decision in Auburndale Freezer Corporation, 177 NLRB 791, is misplaced. We do not adopt, how- ever, that part of his rationale which finds .the re- lated work defense to be "essentially a hot cargo concept." Rather , we conclude that once the in- transit freight had been unloaded from Reilly's trucks, Reilly's control or "presence" at that site was ended and the Union 's activity became secon- dary. The General Counsel has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner to specifically provide in his Recommended Order that Respondent shall cease and desist from picketing at Rex Chainbelt, Inc., for proscribed objectives. We find that the Trial Ex- aminer, through inadvertence, failed to include such a prohibition . Accordingly, we shall amend the Recommended Order , as set forth below. We also amend the Trial Examiner 's proposed notice to conform with the Order issued herein. 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 and hereby orders that the Respondent , Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute for paragraph 1(a) the following: "(a) Engaging in any conduct, including picket- ing, which is for the purpose of inducing or en- couraging any individual employed at the terminals of motor freight carriers where Reilly Cartage, Inc., delivers or picks up freight , including Hennis Freight Lines , Inc., Mercury Freight Lines, Inc., Dohrn Transfer Co., Express Freight Lines, Inc., Cushman Motor Delivery Co., C. W. Transport, Inc., Clairmont Transfer Co., Advance Transporta- tion Co., Eazor Express, Inc., Advance-United Ex- pressways , Inc., Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc., Consolidated Freightways, Consolidated Forward- ing, Inc ., Roadway Express, Knox Motor Service, Inc., Ryder Trucklines, Hickey Cartage, Inc., or of any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or a refusal to use , manufacture, process , transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials , or commodities , or to perform any ser- vices ; or threatening , coercing , or restraining any of said motor freight carriers or other company, in- cluding Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where in either case an object thereof is to force or require any of said over-the-road car- riers or any other person or company, including Rex Chainbelt, Inc., to cease handling, transport- ing, or otherwise dealing in freight to be picked up or delivered by Reilly Cartage, Inc., where such freight remains in the possession and control of such over-the -road carriers or any other person, or to cease doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc." 2. Substitute the following for footnote 26 of the Trial Examiner's Decision: "In the event that this 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 POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government TO ALL MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL UNION No. 200 TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HENNIS FREIGHT LINES, INC., MERCURY FREIGHT LINES, INC., DOHRN TRANSFER Co., EXPRESS FREIGHT LINES, INC., CUSHMAN MOTOR DELIVERY CO., C. W. TRANSPORT, INC., CLAIRMONT TRANSFER Co., ADVANCE TRANSPORTATION Co., EAZOR EXPRESS, INC., ADVANCE-UNITED EXPRESSWAYS, INC., ADMIRAL MERCHANTS-COLE-DIXIE, INC., ARKANSAS BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, CONSOLIDATED FORWARDING CO., INC., ROADWAY EXPRESS-KNOX MOTOR SERVICE, INC., RYDER TRUCK LINES, HICKEY CARTAGE, INC., REX CHAINBELT, INC., FRED OLSON MOTOR SERVICE COMPANY, AND CHARLES LUBOTSKY TIRE Co. To EMPLOYEES OF OTHER COMPANIES WHICH DO BUSINESS WITH REILLY CARTAGE, INC. We hereby notify you that: After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela- tions Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business representatives, business agents, or anyone act- ing for us, whatever his title may be, do any of the following things to force any shipper or motor freight carrier to stop delivering freight to or receiving freight from Reilly Cartage, Inc., or to force any shipper or motor freight carrier or any other company including Rex Chainbelt, Inc., to stop doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or en- courage, by picketing, or by any other conduct any member of this Union or any other em- ployee working at the terminal or dock of any motor freight carrier at which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers freight or which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., or any em- ployee, including members of this Union, of any other company, including Rex Chainbelt, Inc., which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., or any emploee, including members of this Union, or any other company which picks up or delivers freight or other merchandise at Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or at the terminals or docks of any motor freight carrier at which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers freight, to strike, or to take part in a general work stoppage, where an object thereof is to force or require such employers to cease doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. WE WILL NOT in any way threaten, coerce, or restrain any motor freight company at which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers freight, or Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or any other company which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require such employers to cease doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. TEAMSTERS " GENERAL" LOCAL UNION No. 200 (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 consecu tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the 307 Board's Office, Second floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-272-8600, Ext. 3861. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION Statement of the Case JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act), was tried before me at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, and 28, 1969, on a complaint is- sued January 8 and amended February 13, 1969, pursuant to charges filed November 27, December 2, and December 4, 1968, and January 27, 1969, and Respondent's answer to the amended com- plaint.' The overall issue is whether the Respon- dent, since about November 20, 1968,2 has engaged in an extensive and unlawful secondary boycott in connection with a longstanding dispute it has had with the Charging Party. More particularly the questions presented are whether Respondent, con- trary to the requirements of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, by picketing and verbal state- ments on numerous occasions, induced employees at various trucking terminals in and around Mil- waukee, Wisconsin, to cease work for their em- ployers, and unlawfully threatened certain of these trucking terminals with work stoppages; whether in addition to its dispute with the Charging Party, Respondent had a legitimate primary dispute with some of these terminals ; and whether at a concern called Rex Chainbelt, Respondent unlawfully refused to restrict its activity to a separate gate established for the use of the Charging Party and unlawfully induced drivers of companies making deliveries to Rex Chainbelt not to enter the premises ; and whether in its conduct Respondent was entitled to the shelter of an ally defense. The facts relating to these issues, although extensive, are in general not disputed. The conclusions to be drawn from the facts are in dispute. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs sub- mitted by the parties, I make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations: FINDINGS OF FACT AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESSES INVOLVED The charges were filed by Reilly Cartage, Inc. (herein called Reilly).3 Reilly is a Wisconsin cor- ' During the hearing the complaint was further amended orally T Unless otherwise indicated all dates mentioned herein were during the period November 1968 to March 1969, inclusive 3 The complaint indicates the charges were filed by Russ R. Mueller and John P Savage as attorneys for Reilly At the hearing they stated they had not filed the charges for themselves but rather on behalf of Reilly Ac- cordingly Reilly is treated herein as the Charging Party 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 21 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD poration engaged in and around Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in local cartage by means of motor truck. It annually receives over $50,000 revenue for such local cartage of goods and products being shipped to and from other enterprises themselves engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce. In the conduct of its business, Reilly regularly picks up and delivers goods at the Mil- waukee terminals of various over-the-road motor carriers engaged in interstate hauling and in this manner its operations form a link in the interstate hauling of goods and commodities by motor trucks. Among the motor carriers from whom and to whom Reilly picks up and delivers goods are the following: O. K., Murphy, Hennis, Navajo, Mercu- ry, Dohrn, Express, Cushman, C. W., Clairmont, Advance, Eazor, Advance-United, Admiral, Arkan- sas, Consolidated Freightways, Consolidated For- warding, Roadway, Knox, Ryder, and Hickey.' All of these except Hickey are over-the-road motor carriers engaged in interstate hauling . Hickey does only local cartage for Ryder with which it shares terminal facilities . All of the named over-the-road carriers other than Ryder perform local cartage with respect to some of the over-the-road ship- ments which they handle. Rex Chainbelt, Inc. (herein called Rex Chain- belt) is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in Mil- waukee, Wisconsin, and elsewhere in the manufac- ture and sale of construction equipment, chain and power transmission equipment, and conveyor and process equipment. It annually ships from its Mil- waukee plants products valued at over $1 million to points outside Wisconsin. Rex Chainbelt is one of the shippers of freight for which local cartage is performed by Reilly. At its plant Rex Chainbelt receives substantial amounts of supplies delivered to its dock by a variety of motor frieght carriers. Its outgoing finished products are transported by all manner of common carriers, including the over-the-road trucking companies involved in this proceeding, and on occasion even by its own trucks. Where local hauling of such shipments to the Milwaukee terminals of over-the-road trucking companies is required, Rex Chainbelt since 1952 has preferred that a single local hauler, Reilly, perform such local cartage.' At the suggestion of Rex Chainbelt, Reilly solicited from the various over-the-road trucking companies agreements stating tariffs for local cartage to be performed by Reilly. At the time of the hearing herein Reilly had such tariff agreements The full names of these carriers are respectively as follows 0 K Trucking Co of Ohio, Murphy Motor Freight, Hennis Freight Lines, Inc , Navajo Freight Lines, Inc , Mercury Freight Lines, Inc , Dohrn Transfer Co , Express Freight Lines , Inc , Cushman Motor Delivery Co , C W Transport, Inc , Clairmont Transfer Co , Advance Transportation Co , Eazor Express, Inc , Advance-United Expressways , Inc , Admiral Merchants-Cole-Dixie, Inc , Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc , Con- solidated Freightways, Consolidated Forwarding Co , Inc , Roadway Ex- press, Knox Motor Service, Inc , Ryder Truck Lines , and Hickey Cartage, Inc ' See Marie T Reilly d/b/a Reilly Cartage Company, 110 NLRB 1742, with substantially all such carriers involved in this case. The agreements are general in terms, not specifically referring to Rex Chainbelt freight. It was estimated that such local cartage services were performed by Reilly on about 50 percent of the volume of Rex Chainbelt's outbound freight hauled by over-the-road carriers, and that of the total volume of Rex Chainbelt freight handled by local cartage haulers, Reilly performed about 83 percent and other local cartage haulers about 17 percent. Thus Reilly handled a substantial part but not all of Rex Chainbelt's outbound freight. For these ser- vices Reilly was not directly compensated by Rex Chainbelt but rather by the over-the-road carriers in accordance with the applicable tariff agreements between them and Reilly. If outbound freight was a volume shipment or hard to handle freight, the over-the-road carrier normally supplied one of its own empty trailers to avoid the necessity of rehandling the freight at its Milwaukee terminal.' For such freight, Reilly's function consisted of pulling the loaded tractor from the Rex Chainbelt plant to the over-the-road carriers' Milwaukee terminal and dropping the trailer there. Reilly's services with respect to that shipment ceased at that point. If the shipment was less than truck load (commonly referred to as LTL freight) Reilly ordinarily supplied a Reilly trailer which, after being loaded at Rex Chainbelt's dock, Reilly hauled to the designated over-the-road car- rier's terminal where the freight was unloaded either onto the terminal dock or immediately trans- ferred to a trailer of the over-the-road carrier.' Rex Chainbelt compensated the over-the-road carriers for the complete hauling job including the local cartage, if any, performed by Reilly. They in turn compensated Reilly for its local cartage ser- vices. In the circumstances above-described, the over-the-road carriers ordinarily used Reilly rather than their own personnel and equipment for local cartage of Rex Chainbelt shipments because they understood that Rex Chainbelt preferred that they use Reilly. The evidence indicates that Rex Chain- belt's preference was based on a desire to reduce the number of trucks and consequent congestion at its own docks. Rex Chainbelt operated some trucking equip- ment of its own, including some straight trucks which were used for local deliveries in the Milwau- kee area and for transportation between Rex Chainbelt's own plants. In addition to the above- described services performed by Reilly, Rex Chain- 1745, 1747 ' Such "loaning " of trailers was standard practice in the trucking indus- try and applied as well to freight other than Rex Chambelt freight ' The unloading of LTL freight normally was performed by terminal dock employees , sometimes with the assistance of the Reilly driver If the shipment was small the Reilly driver often placed it on the dock himself, or if there were many small packages he placed , or assisted dockmen in plac- ing, them on the tailgate of the truck If the cargo was of a kind that could be handled best by some type of dock equipment such as handtrucks or forklifts, the dockmen entered the truck with the equipment and removed the cargo in that manner TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 belt also used Reilly when needed to supplement its own fleet for transportation between its plants and for some local hauling ordinarily performed by its own fleet. For this it paid Reilly on an hourly basis. Reilly has maintained its own terminal, including a dock, office, and space for parking equipment located about one block from the Rex Chainbelt plant. It maintained a telephone and a dispatcher part time at Rex Chainbelt. But it has had no cor- porate connection with Rex Chainbelt; no joint stockholders, and no financial arrangements. Fred Olson Motor Service Company (herein called Olson) is a common carrier in the interstate transportation of goods by truck and is among the carriers which has delivered supplies to Rex Chain- belt's plant. Charles Lubotsky Tire Co. (herein called Lubot- sky) is engaged in the sale and service of automo- bile and truck tires in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rex Chainbelt is a Lubotsky customer. I find that Reilly, the various motor freight car- riers named above, Rex Chainbelt, and Lubotsky are employers engaged in commerce or in indus- tries affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200 (herein called Respondent or the Union), is an or- ganization in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose of dealing with em- ployers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and con- ditions of work. It is It labor organization within the meaning of the Act. It admits to membership and represents, among others, dockmen, warehousemen and drivers employed by all of the above-named over-the-road carriers. It does not represent em- ployees of Reilly, Rex Chainbelt, or Lubotsky. A. The Dispute Reilly has operated nonunion . Because of this the Union for many years has had a running dispute with Reilly.8 In June and early July 1968, the Union, under the terms of its collective-bargaining agreements with the over-the-road carriers involved herein, prosecuted grievances against the carriers because of their continued use of Reilly for local cartage from certain shippers. The grievances, how- ever, because of deadlocks in the committees which considered them, were not thereby resolved. Failing to achieve a satisfactory solution under its contracts with the carriers, the Union set upon a course of self-help with regard to "the Reilly problem." On July 23, 1968, it sent a letter to Reilly claiming that Reilly was paying substandard wages and benefits ° See Marie T Reilly dlbla Reilly Cartage Company, supra, 1748 ° In all its picketing Respondent used signs reading on one side, "Em- ployees of Reilly Cartage Company receive substandard wages and 309 to its truckdrivers and threatening to publicize these substandard conditions if Reilly did not remedy the situation. It expressly disclaimed any in- terest in representing Reilly employees. Not receiv- ing what it considered a satisfactory response from Reilly, the Union in late November began a two- pronged campaign. In one facet of this it engaged in picketing and other activity at the various terminals of over-the-road carriers where Reilly delivered. The other facet of the campaign involved picketing and other activity at the premises of Rex Chain- belt." The Union did not at any time picket or en- gage in any other type of conduct at Reilly's own premises. B. Preliminary Steps in the Campaign In anticipation of its ambulatory picketing, the Union on November 14 mailed to each of the over- the-road carriers dealing with Reilly a letter declar- ing the Union's intent to picket Reilly "where found." The letters made certain additional requests, including a request that the terminals refrain from influencing their dock employees to perform work for Reilly if the employees should ex- ercise their option not to, that if the terminals were permitting Reilly to use their trailers that they discontinue the practice pending resolution of the dispute, and that although the projected picketing would be around Reilly trucks, unless the terminals sent the Union written permission for the pickets to enter upon terminal property while following Reilly trucks, the pickets would remain at gates leading into the terminal and patrol there while Reilly was present. The complaint alleges and Respondent denies that various of Respondent's dock stewards at the terminals were its agents. In spite of Respondent's denial, viewing the record as a whole, there is little doubt that the dock stewards involved in this matter were its agents within the meaning of the Act. They acted as one of the principal conduits for supplying information to union officials about con- ditions at the terminals generally and specifically with regard to the Reilly dispute. They were likewise a normal channel for communicating in- structions and advice from the union hall to the membership in each terminal. Before the campaign was activated the stewards were integrated into the program by orientations during the regular stewards' meetings. As the campaign progressed they, as well as the business agents, implemented the campaign. On numerous occasions they con- veyed to terminal managers on behalf of the Union, the Union's conditions with respect to the Reilly dispute. As Respondent states in its brief, "the cam- paign against Reilly was highly organized." The evidence, part of which is detailed hereinafter, benefits- Local Teamsters 200," and on the other side , "Our only dispute is with the substandard wages and benefits by Reilly Cartage Company- Local Teamsters 200 " 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD demonstrates that the dock stewards were an essen- tial arm of the Union in executing this highly or- ganized campaign. C. Events at the Terminals of Over-the-Road Carriers 1. The events at Consolidated Freightways Consolidated Freightways employed at its Mil- waukee terminal about 230 members of Respon- dent including 58 dockmen of which from 18 to 25 worked the evening shift when most of the Reilly deliveries were made. On November 20, the union steward at the ter- minal, in discussing the upcoming Reilly campaign with the supervisor of dockmen, indicated that the dockmen would not unload Reilly freight from either a Reilly vehicle or a Consolidated Freightways trailer brought in by Reilly if a picket line were present. On November 25, they had a second talk in which the steward informed the su- pervisor that he had been instructed by the union hall that if Reilly brought in LTL freight on a Con- solidated Freightways trailer the dockmen would not unload it and that even if the trailer were left at the dock or in the yard by the Reilly driver and the Reilly driver then left with his tractor, union pickets would remain until the trailer was unloaded. The next day, November 26, they had a third talk in which the steward told the supervisor that pending a further decision by the union attorneys, the ter- minal dockmen would refuse to handle Reilly freight on the dock even after it had been unloaded by terminal supervisors. Reilly normally made two deliveries daily at the Consolidated Freightways terminal. On November 27, during the first Reilly delivery, no pickets were present and the freight was unloaded without in- cident. On the occasion of Reilly's second delivery, the union steward started to unload the freight but, at that point Respondent's Business Agent Raymond (Red) Fularczyk arrived for the first time with pickets,10 and the steward immediately walked off the dock with him saying to the supervisor of dockmen that it was all his. No other dockmen would then unload the freight. On December 2, at the time of Reilly's first delivery, there were no pickets and the terminal dockmen unloaded the freight. However, after it was unloaded Fularczyk arrived and met with the dockmen's supervisor, the picket who accompanied Fularczyk, the dock steward, and a local driver em- ployed by the terminal. Fularczyk declared that the dockmen were not going to unload Reilly freight whether it was on a Reilly vehicle or a Consolidated Freightways trailer brought in by Reilly, even if no pickets were present, and that when pickets were present they would stay even after the Reilly driver had left the premises. The next day, December 3, the dockmen's steward in a conversation with the supervisor of dockmen reaffirmed what Fularczyk had said and in answer to a question from the supervisor as to whether in those circumstances the dockmen would work on other freight, the steward stated that such decision was up to each employee. Later in the evening, and in advance of Reilly deliveries for that day, Fularczyk again met with the dockmen during their coffeebreak. When the first Reilly delivery did arrive, although there were no pickets, all of the terminal dockmen walked off the dock en masse. Thereafter until February 10, whenever a Reilly delivery was made all of the dockmen as well as any yardmen on duty walked off whether or not pickets were present. In fact from this time on the pickets came only infrequently to the Consolidated Freightways terminal, although Respondent's busi- ness agents did appear from time to tme. These work stoppages averaged about one-half hour each night for from 18 to 25 terminal employees. The longest work stoppage lasting a little over 1 hour occurred in mid-December. Based on the evidence relating to Consolidated Freightways I find that the statements of the union steward to the supervisor of dockmen, made on be- half of Respondent and in pursuance of the union campaign against Reilly, were threats of unlawful refusals by terminal dockmen to handle freight delivered by Reilly forbidden by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. His initial statements on November 20, 1968, although referring only to picket line situations, were applicable regardless of the legality of the expected picketing. His later statements, reaffirmed by Business Agent Fularczyk on December 2, went further, threatening con- tinued picketing and work stoppages even after Reilly personnel and equipment had departed. I also find that the general work stoppages on the oc- casion of all Reilly deliveries during the period December 3, 1968, to February 10, 1969, which commenced after Fularczyk's meeting with the dockmen on December 3, were induced by Respon- dent. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) in these regards. 2. The events at Advance Advance employed between 26 and 28 dockmen, all members of Respondent. It received almost daily deliveries of freight from Reilly. Prior to the present dispute it was not uncommon for Reilly, when pulling an LTL load in an Advance trailer to the Advance terminal, to use the extra unused space in the trailer to drop off other ship- ments at terminals of carriers other than Advance. 10 Consolidated Freightways was one of the terminals which did not per- mit pickets to patrol at the dock but required that they patrol outside on the street TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 Making such dropoffs was called peddling. When the present dispute with Reilly became active Union Representatives Jesinski and Fularczyk threatened to close Advance down because Reilly was using Advance trailers to peddle . In order to avoid being shut down Advance agreed it would not allow its trailers to be used by Reilly for peddling and instructed Reilly not to so use its trailers. On November 25 Roy Lane, president of Respondent, telephoned Roger Young, the terminal manager for Advance, and complained to him that he was still allowing Reilly to use Advance trailers. Lane said that trouble could occur and a strike might occur. The terminal manager then explained that he was only giving Reilly trailers for straight loads and untransferable freight as he had in the past . The union president then said okay and hung up. On December 6 when a Reilly truck pulled into Advance to make a delivery Larry Grabowski, one of the Advance dockmen, was directed by his foreman to unload the Reilly truck . No pickets being present, Grabowski proceeded to unload the truck. As he finished, a union representative (un- identified by name but admitted by Respondent to be its agent) appeared and told him he should not be handling the Reilly freight. Grabowski responded to the effect that since there were no pickets he had done what his foreman told him to do. The two became angry and began shouting at each other with the result that the terminal manager asked the union agent to leave the premises . By this time a group of dock employees had gathered around . Before leaving the union agent asked the terminal manager for the em- ployee's name, stating that he was going to take him before the union executive board. He further told the manager that Advance should not ask its men to unload Reilly freight even when no pickets were present. On this occasion by the time the union representative had walked across the dock to talk to Grabowski the Reilly truck had already pulled out so that neither Reilly truck nor employee were present at the time the union representative spoke to Grabowski. Advance's practice of loaning trailers to Reilly for LTL freight and knowingly permitting Reilly to peddle other dropoffs from that equipment was an established business practice prior to the active dispute. It was not essentially different from other cooperative business practices in the industry in- volving the loan of equipment and its existence did not alter the complete independence of Advance from Reilly . By threatening to shut down Advance if it continued with the practice , Jesinski and Fu- larczyk uttered a classic threat within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )( B) of the Act. Construed against the background of their threats, the November 25 statements of President Lane to the terminal manager amounted to a reaffirmation and reiteration of the threats. 311 I also find that the December 6 inducement of Grabowski by the union representative not to thereafter handle Reilly freight, work which he would normally perform for his employer Advance, clearly was within the proscription of 8(b)(4)(B). The threat to take Grabowski before the union ex- ecutive board was a further unlawful inducement of the dockmen present as well as an unlawful threat to Advance. In sum I find that by the above-described state- ments of Lane, Fularczyk, and Jesinski Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), and by the December 6 statements of the union representative violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). 3. The events at Consolidated Forwarding In normal practice Reilly made daily deliveries at Consolidated Forwarding's terminal . Beginning about November 25 Respondent picketed at the front entrance to the terminal on the occasion of every Reilly delivery until about Christmas. On two or three occasions a business agent of Respondent came onto the terminal dock at the time of the picketing and announced that there was a picket line in front and that the employees were not to work behind the picket line. While the picketing was in progress dock employees did not work. On one such occasion on December 11 a business agent persuaded a Consolidated Forwarding driver who was returning with his vehicle to the terminal not to enter the terminal. In an effort to speed Reilly's departure from the terminal the terminal management after the first week or 10 days endeavored to have Reilly freight unloaded immediately rather than have the Reilly vehicle wait its turn in line with other traffic as had been the practice prior to the active dispute. As in the case of other carriers Consolidated For- warding has as a matter of practice made available to Reilly its trailers for certain volume and non- transferable types of freight. After the picketing began and as a result of it, Consolidated Forward- ing refused to allow Reilly to use its trailer in this manner. The evidence regarding events at Consolidated Forwarding establishes that Respondent induced terminal dock employees to engage in general work stoppages whenever a Reilly truck appeared for a period of about a month. I find by such induce- ments, which were effective in causing general work stoppages, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The events at Arkansas In the normal course of business Reilly delivered once each day to the Arkansas terminal. On November 25 Robert Verhaalen, Respon- dent's dock steward at Arkansas showed the ter- 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD minal manager a set of instructions to the dockmen which he had prepared dealing with the manner in which they were to perform when Reilly made deliveries . I infer from all the circumstances that Verhaalen also communicated these instructions to the dockmen . In sum these instructions were that if a picket was present at the time of a Reilly delivery the dockmen need not unload the Reilly freight nor sign the bills of lading . In the event no picket was present at the time of a Reilly delivery, the dockmen were to do nothing until advised by the Union and in the meantime were to call one of the business agents . In the event that Reilly delivered freight on one of Arkansas' trailers under circum- stances which required that some freight either be added or taken off the trailer, the dockmen were likewise to do nothing until advised by the Union. The steward told the terminal manager, however, that once the freight was on the dock the dockmen would handle it and in any case they would work on other work not related to Reilly. During that week pickets appea.ed at each of the Reilly deliveries and the dockmen in accordance with the steward's in- structions refused to unload the Reilly freight. On December 2 at the time of the Reilly delivery pickets appeared, apparently in front of the ter- minal. On that occasion the dock steward an- nounced to the terminal manager and a group of dockmen who were in the vicinity that the rules had just been changed and that no one would work while Reilly was present. As a result the dock em- ployees performed no work whatsoever but instead stayed in the drivers room while the Reilly vehicle was in the terminal and supervisors unloaded the freight. The dock foreman told them that if they were not going to work they should punch out, which they did, and punch in again when they were ready to go back to work, which they did when the Reilly vehicle and the pickets had left. When the Reilly delivery arrived the next day, December 3, substantially the same events occurred. On December 4 when the Reilly delivery arrived the dockmen similarly refused to unload the Reilly freight and when instructed by the foreman to punch out they refused. He then proceeded to punch them out himself, telling the dockmen to punch back in when they were ready to go to work, which they did when the Reilly vehicle and the pickets had left. On December 5 events initially developed in about the same way. When the Reilly delivery ar- rived, the dockmen refused to unload that freight or to perform other work and also refused to follow the foreman's instructions to punch themselves out. Accordingly he punched them out as he had the previous day. When supervisors had completed the unloading of the Reilly vehicle and it had left, the dockmen returned to the dock with Business Agents Fularczyk and Fred Hammer who had been out front on the picket line. Fularczyk told the dock foreman he had no right to punch the men out. The foreman responded that his instructions were that if the men refused to work he was to punch them out and that when they were ready to go back to work they could punch themselves back in. Fularczyk asked the foreman if he was going to punch them back in and the foreman replied no, that when the men were ready to go back to work they could punch themselves back in. Fularczyk then indicated to the dockmen that since they were not on the timeclock they were not required to work and were free to go . They then all left for the day. The following day the terminal manager asked the dockmen if the union representatives had told them that they could go home and be paid for it and the dockmen agreed that they had been so told. On December 6 Business Agents Fularczyk and Hammer again came to the terminal and conferred with the terminal manager. They complained because management had punched the men out, claiming that under the union contract which pro- vided for an eight hour guaranteed wage the em- ployees could refuse to work and still be paid. The terminal manager indicated that he wanted to avoid a repetition of the expanded work stoppages. The business agents told him that in order to avoid a repetition the company would have to pay the dockmen for their down time. The question of whether the dockmen were to be paid for their down time on December 5 was reserved and later became the subject of a grievance procedure prosecuted by the Union under the contract. How- ever, the problem was resolved insofar as future in- cidents were concerned by the company agreeing to grant the dockmen an additional paid cof- feebreak on the occasions of, and for the duration of, Reilly's deliveries to the terminal . The net result was that for the duration of the union campaign against Reilly until early March , a couple of weeks before the hearing herein , whenever a Reilly delivery arrived the dockmen automatically took a paid coffeebreak while supervisors unloaded the freight. In addition, commencing December 6 and con- tinuing for the duration of the dispute, Arkansas stopped its prior practice of allowing Reilly to use Arkansas trailers for volume or nontransferable loads . Instead such loads were delivered in Reilly's own trailers which then had to be unloaded by Ar- kansas supervisors . The net effect of this was that the Reilly equipment and driver were present on the premises for a longer time than would have been the case previously and likewise the Arkansas dockmen were off duty longer on their coffeebreak. The Union's campaign against Reilly insofar as Arkansas was concerned came to an end in early March when the union steward told the terminal manager that the dockmen would thenceforth han- dle the Reilly freight and that there would be no more picketing or further general work stoppages. Dock Steward Verhaalen's November 25 instruc- tions to the dockmen insofar as they applied to freight left by Reilly on an Arkansas trailer were necessarily directed to freight the control of which TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 had passed to Arkansas. To this extent, therefore, the instructions were an inducement to Arkansas employees not to perform work on freight for which Arkansas was responsible. Such inducement violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Verhaalen's ad- vice to the terminal manager that instruction would be applied was a threat within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 ( b)(4)(ii)(B). The general work stoppages during Reilly deliv- eries which commenced with the December 2 change in rules and continued to occur until the following March were plainly contrary to the requirements of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B). Respondent's attempt to justify them as protests of contract violations or because Arkansas agreed to them are without merit. The general work stop- pages were.all occasioned by Reilly's delivery, not by the dock foreman thereafter punching the men out or his insistence that they punch themselves back in, regardless of whether he was right or wrong under the union contract. The stoppages were not caused by a contract dispute, rather a contract dispute resulted from work stoppages in pursuance of the Union's secondary boycott. And the fact that the Arkansas management agreed to continued work stoppages under union pressure that they would be further expanded as on December 5 does not legalize such stoppages. 5. The events at Roadway Roadway, one of the larger over-the-road carriers involved in this matter, employed between 85 and 90 members of Respondent of which about 70 were dockmen or drivers who performed dock work. Reilly ordinarily made daily deliveries to Roadway. Respondent picketed at Roadway two or three times a week beginning November 25 and continu- ing until the last week or two of January. Pickets were thus present during only some of Reilly's deliveries over this period. In its early stages the union campaign had only a limited impact on Road- way. In the first week only one dockman ceased working while a supervisor unloaded the Reilly vehicles. All other dockmen continued to perform other work. Since supervisors endeavored to unload the Reilly vehicle as soon as possible, the Reilly vehicle did not wait its turn as it had prior to the dispute. In early December the pattern of the dockmen's response to the presence of Reilly changed. From that time forward whenever a Reilly vehicle ap- peared in the terminal, irrespective of the presence or absence of pickets, the entire dock crew ceased working. These general work stoppages continued to occur on the occasion of each Reilly delivery until the end of picketing at Roadway in late Janu- ary at which time the Union and Roadway reached an accommodation. This came about in the following manner. Some- time in January, in a conversation with Union Pres- 313 ident Lane, Roadway's terminal manager protested to Lane because of the general work stoppages. Lane indicated that there was little Roadway could do about it but he also stated that Roadway should work Reilly in turn. The terminal manager replied that they couldn't do that because of the general work stoppages but had to put a supervisor on the truck to immediately unload it. The effect of this was to shorten the duration of Reilly presence in the terminal and the general work stoppage which accompanied that presence. Thereafter the work stoppages continued but in a later telephone con- versation with Lane the terminal manager again protested them, indicating the Company would have to deduct from the dock employees pay for the time they engaged in work stoppages. As a result of this later conversation Business Agents James Jesinski and Fularczyk called on the terminal manager and in response to his reiterated threat to dock the employees' pay, proposed that if the ter- minal supervisors would not unload Reilly deliv- eries immediately upon their arrival but would delay the unloading , taking Reilly in turn with other deliveries, the dock employees would not engage in the general work stoppages. They agreed on this ac- commodation and thereafter there were no further general work stoppages nor was there any further picketing. All incidents of picketing at Roadway occurred at the entrance to the terminal. The pickets did not ask for nor were they given permission to picket the Reilly vehicles at the dock. I find that throughout Respondent's campaign at Roadway general work stoppages at the dock were engaged in when Reilly delivered, starting during the first week with one dockman standing around while a supervisor unloaded and thereafter being expanded to include a general work stoppage by all employees on the dock. Respondent seeks to justify these general refusals to work as protests against terminal favoritism to Reilly in unloading Reilly im- mediately. But as with the Arkansas situation, Respondent has the cart before the horse. In the first place it is clear that when the campaign began Respondent was content that supervisors at all ter- minals should unload Reilly trucks. At Roadway, as at other terminals , supervisors unloaded as soon as possible from the very beginning. When the general work stoppages at Roadway began in early December the Union made no point about favoritism. Not until the terminal had endured a month of these stoppages did Lane suggest a delay in unloading Reilly . So in fact during that time Respondent had no issue with Roadway over the way Reilly was unloaded but only over the fact that Roadway continued to do business with Reilly. But even if the question of prompt unloading of Reilly had been raised earlier, Respondent could not in a common situs situation impose on a neutral employer, under threat of general work stoppages of the neutral's employees, a limitation on efforts of 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the neutral's management to limit the impact on the neutral of the union campaign by hastening the pri- mary's departure from the scene . This is especially so when Respondent 's own members , in what it as- serts was legitimate protected activity, refused to unload Reilly trucks thereby necessitating unload- ing by supervisors if it was to be done at all. For the supervisors under such circumstances to have chosen their own time to perform unloading, which dock employees refused to perform , in an effort to diminish or contain the spreading dispute did not, in my view , ally the terminal with the primary. See United Marine Division , Local 333, International Longshoremen 's Association (Independent), 107 NLRB 686, 708. In sum , I find that from November 25 until at least mid-January Respondent engaged in daily 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )( B) violations at Roadway when Reilly made deliveries. steward to the terminal manager about November 14 in anticipation of the Reilly campaign, the overall message conveyed was that when Reilly made deliveries, Respondent would shut down the Eazor terminal . This was coupled with a suggestion that Eazor could avoid the trouble of trucks refus- ing to enter or leave the terminal on such occasions by stopping all business with Reilly . I find these statements were unlawful within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(ii)(B). I also find that about the first of December Fularczyk in effect told the dockmen they could engage in a general work stop- page if pickets were present and that they actually engaged in a general work stoppage as a result of the inducements of Hammer and Jesinski. I find that the inducements of all three business agents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and those of Hammer and Jesinski 8(b)(4)(ii )( B) as well because of the work stoppage which resulted. 6. The events at Eazor Reilly usually delivered freight to Eazor four times a week . As noted elsewhere herein, about November 14 the Union sent to all over-the-road carriers a letter advising that ambulatory picketing would be accompanying Reilly deliveries. In ad- vance of the letter Respondent 's steward at Eazor, one Llewellyn ( Proky ) Martin advised the terminal manager that he would be receiving the Union's letter and alerted him to the prospect of picketing of Reilly at the Eazor terminal . The manager un- derstood from the conversation that the dockmen would not unload Reilly freight and would probably take a coffeebreak when Reilly was present. The steward indicated that it would be better if Eazor did not do any business with Reilly because to do so might cause a lot of trouble with trucks refusing to enter or leave the terminal. Respondent's pickets first appeared at Eazor in late November. From then until the end of December they were present whenever Reilly made a delivery. They picketed at the terminal entrance since Eazor refused them permission to picket at the dock: On those occasions the Eazor dockmen would not unload the Reilly freight. However, it was unloaded by Eazor supervisors or the Reilly driver after which it generally was handled by the dockmen after the Reilly driver had left the ter- minal. On one occasion about the first of December when a Reilly truck arrived Business Agents Hammer and Jesinski came onto the dock and spoke to the dockmen . Although the evidence does not indicate what words they uttered , the dockmen all took a coffeebreak until after Reilly and the pickets had left. About the same time Business Agent Fularczyk told the dockmen, including the union steward, that they did not have to work while the pickets were there. First, with regard to the statements of the dock 7. The events at Hickey-Ryder and at Admiral As noted earlier, Ryder, an over-the-road carrier, performed none of its own local cartage but instead employed Hickey, a local cartage concern , for most such hauling . They shared a common terminal. For the purposes of this case Hickey and Ryder are considered a single employer . Access to the Hickey-Ryder terminal was had through a driveway shared with Admiral , another over-the-road carrier. The separate Admiral terminal was somewhat closer to the street than the Hickey-Ryder terminal which was set back some distance . Normally Reilly made deliveries to Hickey-Ryder once a day and to Admiral once or twice a week. About the time Respondent 's campaign first began in late November Business Agent Fularczyk followed a Reilly truck into the Hickey-Ryder ter- minal and commenced picketing in the vicinity of the truck . He was immediately evicted by the Hickey management and required to picket on the street at the entrance common to both the Hickey- Ryder and Admiral terminals . All subsequent picketing occurred at that location and on each oc- casion the business agent in charge of picketing (usually Fularczyk) would first hurry onto the Hickey-Ryder dock to announce that Reilly was there and then set up the picket at the entrance. Picketing occurred about once a week from late November until sometime in January when pickets began to appear daily. At first the Hickey-Ryder dockmen simply refused to unload the Reilly trucks when the pickets were at the gate . But in mid-January they began to engage in general work stoppages when the pickets appeared and even on some occasions when no pickets were present during the Reilly deliveries. Similarly at Admiral on two occasions when Reilly was delivering to the Admiral dock and pickets were at the common entrance to the ter- TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 minals, the Admiral dockmen engaged in a general work stoppage. In addition, on about 15 other oc- casions during the period from the end of November to mid-January the Admiral dockmen refused to perform any work while pickets were at the common entrance to the terminals because of Reilly deliveries to the Hickey-Ryder terminal. On these occasions there were no Reilly employees or equipment at the Admiral terminal. On those occa- sions the Admiral assistant manager went out to the street to investigate how long the picket would be up." Based on this, as well as the testimony of Fu- larczyk that on the occasion of the first picketing at the common entrance to the terminals chaos resulted in the driveway and on the street because incoming trucks at both the Admiral and the Hickey-Ryder terminals refused to enter, I find that Respondent's representatives were aware of the work stoppages at Admiral caused by the picketing. The Admiral management, unlike that at Hickey- Ryder, did not order Respondent's pickets off the Admiral premises. On no occasion did the pickets specifically request permission to picket or even make an effort to picket Reilly at the Admiral dock. On December 19 Business Agent Clarence Johannes suggested to the Ryder terminal manager that Ryder cease the longstanding practice of sup- plying trailers to Reilly for certain types of freight. Johannes told the terminal manager that if Reilly continued with that practice it was possible the Union would picket Ryder from the time such trailer was placed loaded in their yard until such time as the trailer was removed from the yard. The evidence shows that with one exception throughout the period of the active dispute Hickey-Ryder did not make trailers available as in the past . It is not clear whether or not they were withheld as a result of Johannes' December 19 talk with the Ryder manager. The exception occurred on January 24 when, in response to a request from either Rex Chainbelt or Reilly for a trailer, the Hickey dispatcher sent a Hickey driver with an empty Ryder trailer to the Rex Chainbelt plant. The driver, a member of Respondent, delivered the empty trailer to the Rex Chainbelt dock by using the Greenfield Avenue entrance to the plant which had been reserved for persons other than Reilly or Reilly suppliers. The record does not show why he used that entrance. The driver then reported to the Union that he had so delivered the empty trailer. As set out hereinafter, Respondent, asserting that the sanctity of the separate gate had thereby been violated, immediately resumed its picketing of the Greenfield Avenue gate. Respondent also urges that this incident justified it in treating Hickey- Ryder as an ally of Reilly. "On one occasion Business Agent Jesinski , who coordinated and managed the entire Reilly campaign , was one of the pickets "The effect of Respondent's blanket request for written permission to 315 I find that from mid-January on Respondent's picketing was its signal for the general work stop- pages at both the Hickey-Ryder and Admiral ter- minals and that it thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). In addition, although Respondent clearly picketed as close as it was allowed when Reilly deliveries were made at the Hickey-Ryder terminal, the same was not true when the deliveries were to the Admiral terminal. The pickets were not forbid- den to picket immediately around Reilly vehicles at the Admiral dock. Yet they never attempted to do so nor did they on any occasion of picketing specifically ask permission to do so.2 While Respondent was not affirmatively advised by Ad- miral management that it could picket Reilly trucks at the dock, it was Respondent's responsibility to picket as close as possible to the Reilly trucks. I find it did not do so. Instead I find that by design it picketed at the common entrance during Reilly deliveries to Admiral because by so doing it caused a greater disruption at Admiral and Hickey-Ryder. I further find that by instigating general work stop- pages on the Admiral dock on some 15 occasions when it was picketing at the common entrance because of Reilly deliveries at the Hickey-Ryder terminal, Respondent demonstrated that the pur- pose of its picketing was to involve neutral em- ployees and employers in the dispute. Accordingly, in all the circumstances, I find that the picketing at the common entrance to the Hickey-Ryder and Admiral terminals was for an object proscribed by, and therefore in violation of, Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B), and because it caused work stop- pages at the terminals, I find it was also in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). I further find that Johannes' threat to the Ryder terminal manager on December 19 to picket if Ryder continued the established past business prac- tice of loaning trailers to Reilly was also in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Respondent's argument that the January 24 delivery of a trailer at Rex Chainbelt somehow made Hickey-Ryder an ally of Reilly or a primary in the dispute thereby justifying union action against Hickey-Ryder is without merit. First of all, it could have no bearing on union ac- tion with regard to Hickey-Ryder taken before January 24. Secondly, the loan of the trailer simply resumed an established past business practice which existed for the convenience of the over-the- road carriers and which Hickey-Ryder could en- gage in without becoming a Reilly ally or a primary disputant. Friden, Inc., 134 NLRB 598, 599, 607-608. Thirdly, it is not clear on this record to whom the trailer was loaned on January 24, whether to Rex Chainbelt or to Reilly. And finally, the January 24 incident was too isolated in any case picket at the Reilly trucks made in its letter of November 14 to all the over- the-road carriers is treated elsewhere herein 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to destroy Hickey-Ryder 's neutrality . Drivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees, Local No. 75 ( Seymour Transfer, Inc.), 176 NLRB 528. 8. The events at C. W. C. W. operates one of the larger over -the-road trucking terminals in Milwaukee , employing about 90 drivers and dockmen , all members of Respon- dent . Reilly normally made nightly deliveries to C. W. At such times the terminal had about 18 dockmen on duty. From late November and continuing at the time of the hearing herein in mid-March Respondent's pickets appeared at the terminal entrance and exit during some of Reilly 's deliveries . The record does not show whether the pickets received or even asked for permission to picket Reilly at the terminal dock. From late November until December 16 C. W. dockmen, on the occasion of Reilly deliveries. refused to unload the Reilly freight but continued to perform other work during Reilly's presence. On December 16 when the Reilly delivery arrived at the terminal Irvin Bell, the union steward for drivers who at the time was acting as dock steward, told the dockmen to leave the dock area and go downstairs to the lunchroom . According to the dock foreman he told the dockmen, "to sit down when Reilly comes in, that they 're being picketed." Pickets were in fact present at that time . The result- ing work stoppage , involving approximately 18 dockmen , lasted about 20 minutes until the Reilly driver and equipment as well as the pickets had left. During December and January the frequency of picketing increased to the extent that Reilly deliv- eries were accompanied by picketing as many as 3 and sometimes 4 nights a week . Subsequent to December 16 and continuing until mid -February the dockmen left the dock area and proceeded to the lunchroom whenever Reilly made a delivery whether pickets were present or not . On four such occasions the union steward announced on the dock that " Reilly 's here and to go downstairs." On two other occasions union business agents ( other- wise unidentified in the record ) spoke to the dockmen on the dock , telling them, "go downstairs to wait until Reilly leaves ." During such general work stoppages the dock foreman , in order to short- en the duration of the shutdown , endeavored to unload Reilly as quickly as possible and speed his departure from the terminal . In mid-January one of Respondent's business agents (identified as such to the dock foreman by the union steward) proposed to the foreman that he let the unloading of Reilly wait awhile and that if he would do so the business agents would not put the pickets up. The foreman however did not accede to this proposition but instead proceeded with his prompt unloading of the Reilly delivery and, in accordance with the pat- tern at that time, the pickets immediately com- menced picketing and the dockmen walked off the dock. I find that the inducement of the general work stoppages at C. W. from December 16 on and also the instructions of the steward and the business agents establish the secondary purpose of both their comments and of the picketing. Accordingly, I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B). As in the Arkansas and Roadway situation the defense based on the con- tention that C. W. favored Reilly by supervisors im- mediately unloading is without merit. 9. The events at Mercury In normal practice Reilly only made deliveries to the Mercury terminal once or twice a month and during the period of time involved in this case made only one such delivery. In late November the Mer- cury dock steward , Herb Lemke , advised the ter- minal manager that he had been instructed at a stewards' meeting that when Reilly freight was delivered the dock employees were not to unload it and that a supervisor would have to. Sometime thereafter apparently in late November or December on the occasion of the one Reilly delivery to Mercury, pickets appeared and picketed around the Reilly truck at the dock. On this occa- sion the shipment of freight, which was small, was already unloaded from the Reilly vehicle by the Reilly driver before the Mercury supervisor got out to the truck. The dock employees continued to do their other work but they were instructed by union representatives present at that time that in the fu- ture when Reilly deliveries arrived they were to cease all work on the dock. One of the dockmen then informed the terminal manager of these in- structions and he acceded to them, indicating that in the future when Reilly arrived the dockmen should just drop everything while he unloaded the Reilly freight. The evidence does not show whether any such future incident ever occurred. Although Respondent 's picketing during the sin- gle incident described above was confined to the environs of the Reilly vehicle , the union representa- tives' inducement of the dockmen on that occasion to stop all work during future deliveries indicates that Respondent 's purpose in picketing was to in- volve the dockmen and their employer in the pri- mary dispute . I find, therefore , that the picketing at Mercury was contrary to the proscriptions of Sec- tion 8 (b)(4)(i)(B ). The evidence is insufficient to establish that a violation of 8(b )(4)(ii)(B ) occurred at Mercury. 10. The events at Dohrn Reilly made deliveries at Dohrn 's terminal about three times a week and on rare occasions as many as five times a week . In late November or early December Dennis Kobs, Respondent's dock TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 steward at Dohrn, advised the terminal manager that he had been at a union stewards' meeting the night before and that the Union's instructions were that the dockmen were not to unload Reilly freight; that it would instead be unloaded by supervisors who could place it on the dock and thereafter after Reilly had left the premises the dockmen would handle the freight. In the period that followed whenever Reilly made a delivery the Dohrn dockmen would not unload that freight. They did, however, continue to work on other freight during the Reilly delivery except in those rare occasions when pickets appeared in which event they ceased work altogether.13 In about mid-January the frequency of picketing during the Reilly deliveries increased to the point where there were pickets present at virtually every Reilly delivery and as a consequence there was a general work stoppage by the dockmen on each such occasion. This pattern of events continued and was still in existence at the time of the hearing herein . On none of these occasions did the pickets attempt to picket the Reilly vehicles at the Dohrn dock, nor did they ask or receive permission to do so. All of the picketing was conducted on the street at the entrance to the terminal. On February 6 in a conversation with the Dohrn terminal manager business agent Johannes inquired if Dohrn was then supplying trailers to Reilly. The manager indicated that none had been requested of Dohrn since the last of January. Johannes said to the manager, "Well, continue on. Don't give them any trailers." Considering all of what transpired regarding Dohrn, I find that Respondent's picketing con- stituted repeated violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). I find, however, that Johannes' Febru- ary 6 comment to the terminal manager did not amount to a threat, coercion, or restraint. within the meaning of 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). 11. The events at Express Reilly typically delivered freight to Express three or four times a week. On December 2 at 4 p.m. a Reilly operated tractor pulling a loaded Ex- press trailer drove into the terminal. The trailer was not to be unloaded but was to be hauled over-the- road to its ultimate destination by an Express tractor, so no unloading of cargo by Express dock- men was required. Within about 10 minutes the Reilly driver had dropped the trailer at the dock, had his bills of lading signed in the terminal office and had left the premises. After he had left four of Respondent's business agents picketed at the ter- minal entrance.14 The evidence indicates that if " On the occasion of one such general work stoppage in mid -December Business Agent Hammer appeared on the dock saying he was there to ob- serve the Reilly situation It is clear, therefore, that Respondent either directed or ratified the general work stoppages 317 they had asked permission at that time they would have been allowed into the dock area to picket the trailer. On the street outside several incoming Express trucks refused to cross the picket line. About 5 p.m. the union steward, Petroski, talked to Business Agent Fularczyk on the dock. The Express dockmen then little by little stopped work- ing entirely. The general work stoppage lasted about a half hour until the dock foreman hooked up a tractor to the trailer left by Reilly and removed it to another yard. The following morning the union steward indicated to the terminal manager that in the future when a Reilly unit was on the premises or a picket line was out front the Express dockmen would not work, and they would not handle Reilly LTL freight even after it was unloaded. Thereafter the dockmen did in fact handle Reilly LTL freight but only after it was unloaded by supervisors. On subsequent days pickets continued to appear out- side the Express terminal on the occasion of about half of the Reilly deliveries. Whenever pickets appeared, and so long as they remained, the Ex- press dockmen stopped all work. As with other over-the-road carriers, Reilly's use of Express trailers had been an established business practice. Following the events of December 2 and 3, Express refused for a period of time to allow Reilly to use its trailers. Business Agent Hammer testified, without speci- fying any date, that on one occasion Reilly, in haul- ing a loaded Express trailer from Rex Chainbelt to the Express terminal , made interim dropoffs of freight at Cushman and Dohrn before the trailer was finally spotted at the Express dock. Hammer followed Reilly to Express and while the Reilly driver was still on the premises set up picketing at the Express entrance and continued the picketing after the Reilly driver departed. The evidence does not specify if this incident was the same or separate from the incident of December 2 noted above, but I infer from the total evidence that it probably was the same occasion. Respondent offers the justifica- tion that since Reilly was using the trailer for his own dropoffs, i.e., deliveries unrelated to Express, the pickets were entitled to treat it as Reilly equip- ment and could legitimately picket it after it was dropped at the Express dock. As at other terminals, when pickets appeared at Express on the occasion of a Reilly delivery, one of the pickets, usually a business agent, came to the dock and announced that Reilly was there. At Ex- press this was the signal for the dockmen to stop all work. An apt illustration of the full import of the signal occurred on January 22 when a picket told the Express dock foreman to order his dockmen to stop work because Reilly was in the yard. When the " The business agents were Hammer, Fularczyk, Melms, and Wambach They were joined by William Petroski, the union steward at Express, after he went off duty at 5 p in 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD foreman refused, the picket simply walked past him and announced to the dockmen that Reilly was there, whereupon they all ceased working. In response to questions by Respondent's attor- ney, Hammer testified generally that the only union statement made to Express employees was that they did not have to handle freight that was in a trailer brought by Reilly, but that if the freight was put on the dock by supervisors or somebody else, then they would have to handle it. In light of other evidence noted above I do not credit this general denial. I find that overall the union message received by the Express dockmen was to cease all work when pickets appeared. This inducement to stop all work demonstrates the Union's purpose to involve Express and its dockmen in the primary dispute contrary to the requirements of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). I do not deem that Reilly's use on one occasion of an Express trailer to peddle freight to other terminals destroyed Express' status as a neutral in the dispute. 12. The events at Hennis Reilly ordinarily made daily deliveries to the Hennis terminal. Respondent's pickets first ap- peared there about December 2 and continued to appear thereafter about 75 percent of the Reilly deliveries for a substantial period of time.15 On December 3 in a conversation with the terminal manager the dock steward, Donald Janowski, in- dicated that at a recent stewards' meeting he had been instructed that the dock employees were not to handle the freight when Reilly brought it in but that the dockmen could do other work while a su- pervisor unloaded Reilly. During the first week in which picketing occurred this was the way things operated. Beginning in mid-December, however, whenever Reilly made a delivery, the dockmen in accordance with union instructions ceased all work, leaving the dock and not returning until the Reilly delivery was completed. These general stoppages varied in duration from a minimum of 5 minutes to an exceptional incident of 1 hour and occurred ir- respective of whether pickets16 were present or not. On one such occasion in the last week of December when pickets were present Respondent Business Agent Jesinski was on the dock and observed the general work stoppage. The evidence shows that nothing was said between the Union and Hennis with respect to tak- ing Reilly out of turn. On the contrary the evidence indicates that at the time Reilly's deliveries were made the Hennis dock was clear and all shipments could be handled simultaneously. As already found regarding Respondent's con- duct at other terminals , I find that the above- described events at Hennis demonstrate its secon- dary object and I find, therefore, that by its conduct at Hennis Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). I further note that the fact that all deliveries at Hennis could be handled simultane- ously indicates the pretextual nature of Respon- dent's defense, at least regarding the Hennis situa- tion, that general work stoppages were in protest of alleged favoritism to Reilly in promptly unloading Reilly freight. 13. The events at Knox Normally Reilly delivered freight to Knox about once a day. On December 3 Reilly made two deliveries. One was on a Knox trailer loaded with about 40,000 pounds of Rex Chainbelt freight, a full load. The other was about 20,000 pounds of Charter Wire freight, making up about one-half a load, on a Sturm trailer which Knox had on an in- terline basis." Neither trailer needed to be un- loaded by the Knox dockmen although additional freight was scheduled to be on the Sturm trailer. The freight already in each trailer was to remain undisturbed and hauled over the road by Knox in those particular trailers. . The second December 2 Reilly delivery came in about 2 p.m. Within a short time (a maximum of 20 minutes ) the Reilly driver had dropped the trailer, handed over the bills of lading in the Knox freight office, and departed. About that time Business Agents Hammer and Fularczyk arrived and set up picket lines at both the entrance and the exit to the Knox yard. They received no permission to picket inside the yard at the dock and, aside from the blanket request made by Respondent to all carriers in its letter of November 14, no request was made of the Knox management to allow picketing within the yard. The business agents stated to the Knox management that Respondent was picketing the two trailers left by Reilly and that the picketing would continue as long as that freight was present even though no Reilly employees were present and the trailers were not The property of Reilly. In response to this advice a Knox supervisor im- mediately drove the full trailer out of the yard onto the street and parked it there. Knox supervisors then filled the Sturm trailer with additional freight scheduled to go into it and then also drove it out of the yard onto the street. In the meantime some 3 hours' time had passed during which the pickets remained at the Knox entrance and exit. The drivers of incoming trucks of both Knox and other carriers refused to cross Respondent's picket line and were accordingly backed up on the street. Respondent's business agents told these incoming drivers that it was a Local 200 picket line and, ac- 'S The record does not reveal precisely how long the union campaign continued at Hennis 1e The testimony of Business Agent Fularczyk indicates pickets were al- lowed in the dock area at Henms 'r Sturm was another over-the-road carrier not otherwise involved in this case Charter Wire was another shipper of freight TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 319 cording to Fularczyk, "You know your rights in- volving a picket line. Use your own discretion. "18 Hammer testified that he had observed the Reilly driver of one of the trailers making two stops at other carriers' terminals on his way to Knox. From this he concluded that Reilly was using the Knox equipment to peddle other freight than that destined for the Knox terminal and therefore Respondent was entitled to consider the Knox and the Sturm trailers as if they were in fact Reilly- owned trailers which, according to him, could then properly be picketed in the Knox yard even after the delivery to Knox was completed. As a result of the events on December 3 the Knox management terminated its longstanding arrangement of loaning trailers to Reilly. During the balance of Respondent's active cam- paign against Reilly whenever Reilly equipment ar- rived at the-Knox terminal and required unloading, the Knox dockmen refused to unload the freight so long as the Reilly driver was present. If the freight was on a trailer which the Reilly driver dropped at the Knox dock, the dockmen would, however, han- dle the freight after the Reilly driver had left, and so far as the evidence shows, once the freight was placed onto the dock the dockmen handled it the same as other freight, provided no pickets were present. When, however, pickets were present at the Knox gates, which occurred frequently thereafter throughout the campaign, the dockmen on some occasions ceased all work.'9 The terminal manager testified that whether a general work stoppage resulted or not seemed to depend in part upon which men were working at the time the pickets showed up and upon the amount of persuasion the union representatives used on each occasion. In an effort to minimize the impact of the picket- ing and stoppages the Knox management sub- sequent to December 3 endeavored, by using super- visors, to unload all Reilly freight that required han- dling as soon as it was brought into the terminal. The result was that the freight brought in by Reilly did not have to await its turn to be unloaded by the dockmen as did other incoming shipments. According to Fularczyk the Union's instructions regarding not handling Reilly freight were not to handle it while a Reilly driver was on the premises or while it was still in the equipment in which Reilly delivered it even though that equipment might be- long to someone else. However, once the bills of lading were signed and received in the terminal of- fice and the freight was placed on the dock, the dockmen could handle it. In his view, the freight changed hands when the bills of lading were signed. I find that the December 3 picketing at Knox was unwarranted because the Reilly driver and equip- ment had left the terminal . Reilly had no continuing presence at Knox as was the case in United Steel- workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 6991, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Auburn- dale Freezer Corporation), 177 NLRB 791. Neither the trailers nor the freight belonged to Reilly and whatever interim responsibility Reilly had regarding them while providing local cartage ceased upon delivery to Knox. To find otherwise would require a finding that Reilly had a "continuing presence" at all of the multitude of terminals to which it delivered freight. And even if Reilly did use one of the trailers to peddle freight on its way to Knox, Reilly's relationship with that equipment ter- minated upon delivery to Knox. Such peddling was clearly not for the account of Knox. In fact there is no evidence Knox knew it had occurred. Even if there was "peddling," it was only with regard to one trailer and not the other. Such was certainly not, in the circumstances here, sufficient to destroy the neutrality of Knox. On the contrary, I find that Respondent used the situation as a pretext to in- volve Knox, its employees, and those delivering to its terminal , in the Reilly dispute and thereby further disrupt the Knox operation. I find, there- fore, that the December 3 picketing and the busi- ness agents' comments to incoming drivers, which were effective to prevent their entry, were for an object forbidden by, and were in violation of, Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. In the light of the December 3 events at Knox and Respon- dent's conduct at other terminals throughout the campaign, I find further that the picketing at Knox after December 3 was a repeated signal to the Knox dockmen to cease their work for Knox and was likewise violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). 14. The events at Cushman Reilly delivered freight to the Cushman terminal three or four times a week, on some occasions on trailers supplied Reilly by Cushman. In early December Respondent began picketing at both the entrance and exit drives to the terminal whenever Reilly made a delivery. At these times the pickets made no request of the terminal manage- ment to picket immediately around the Reilly vehi- cle nor were they directed by the management to picket on the street. Commencing in late December or early January the Cushman employees on the dock refused to unload the Reilly freight but did continue to perform other work while supervisors unloaded the Reilly freight. 18 As contrasted with the stoppage of incoming freight, during the December 3 incident no effort was made to prevent outbound equipment from leaving the Knox yard and in fact , according to Hammer , several out- bound vehicles did leave the yard during the picketing 18 The record is not clear on how many occasions during the campaign Respondent picketed at Knox However, there were some Reilly deliveries when no pickets appeared and there were a substantial number of other oc- casions when pickets did appear 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD During the week of January 6, Reilly made a delivery of LTL freight to Cushman at a time when three or four Cushman employees were on the dock. There apparently were pickets at that time. All of the Cushman employees left the dock area and refused to perform any work whatsoever. James Cassidy, the dock steward at Cushman, told the terminal manager that the employees would not work. while Reilly was present and that they were told not to (presumably by the Union). Cassidy himself testified that he told the manager they would not work because of the picket line at the entrances. Thereafter and apparently until the time of the hearing general work stoppages continued when- ever Reilly made a delivery and whether or not pickets were present at the time of such deliveries. Pickets were in fact present during virtually all Reilly deliveries until some time in February when the frequency of the pickets decreased and they ap- peared only during about 60 or 70 percent of the Reilly deliveries. Whenever pickets did appear an additional effect was that no traffic either entered or left the terminal during the picketing. On February 3, a Reilly tractor and trailer with a load of freight requiring transfer to a Cushman trailer backed into the Cushman dock. At the time two employees from Welch Cartage Company, another local cartage concern, were moving a piano across the dock. A business agent of Respondent came onto the dock and at the same time picketing began at the terminal entrance. The two Welch em- ployees immediately stopped work and left the dock. About the same time a driver for National Transit, an over-the-road carrier, who was at the terminal to make a delivery, told the Cushman dispatcher he could not unload his freight as long as Reilly was in the yard. Although the evidence does not reveal specifically what, if anything, the busi- ness agent said, I infer from the reaction to his presence on the dock, as well as from what business agents throughout the campaign announced at vari- ous docks, that he announced that Reilly was there and possibly that pickets were out front. The Reilly driver, instead of waiting for his trailer to be un- loaded, dropped the trailer at the dock and left with his tractor, saying he would return later. In the meantime the picketing continued, as did the work stoppages on the part of the Welch and National Transit employees, until the Reilly driver returned some 20 minutes later and removed his trailer, which by that time had been unloaded by Cushman supervisors. Considering all the circumstances at Cushman, particularly the January escalation of general work stoppages, the statements of the dock steward, and what I infer to be the inducement by the business agent of the Welch and National Transit employees 20 On this occasion the load was about 10,000 pounds and was described as one which did not require rehandling at the Clairmont terminal prior to being shipped out to its ultimate destination on February 3 to stop working, I find that the picketing had a secondary object and violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). 15. The events at Navajo Navajo's operations in Milwaukee were smaller than many of the other carriers involved in this matter. They employed 14 members of Respondent including dockmen. Reilly delivered about twice each week to Navajo's dock. None of these were volume loads, all being classed as LTL freight. In the first week of December Respondent's steward at the Navajo terminal, one Leo Wilent, advised the terminal manager that Respondent would be picketing the premises when Reilly delivered freight and that the union people would not be able to unload them. The manager then asked if he himself could do the unloading and the steward advised that he could. Through the balance of December and up until mid-January Respondent picketed at the Navajo terminal during Reilly deliveries on about half a dozen occasions. On one of these the pickets appeared at the doc" but on the remainder they picketed at the terminal en- trance. On such occasions they did not ask permis- sion to picket at the dockside, but it is clear from the testimony of Business Agent Fularczyk that, as at the Hennis terminal , Navajo permitted picketing at its dock. Although the evidence at Navajo is not overwhelming, I find that the picketing there was for a secondary purpose. I base this on the Union's picketing at the terminal entrance when it could have picketed immediately around Reilly vehicles at the dock. Also the widespread secondary activity of Respondent at many other terminals throughout the campaign is some support for the conclusion that it picketed with the same object at Navajo. Ac- cordingly, I find that the picketing there was con- trary to Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). 16. The events at Clairmont Reilly usually delivered freight to Clairmont's ter- minal two or three times each week. On December 9 about 5 p.m. a Reilly-operated tractor pulled into the Clairmont terminal with a Clairmont trailer car- rying a volume load of Rex Chainbelt freight.20 Within about 10 to 12 minutes the Reilly driver had presented his bill of lading in the terminal office, dropped the trailer at the dock, and left with his tractor. According to Business Agent Hammer, pickets arrived during this period of time and com- menced picketing at the entrance which Clairmont shared with Glendenning, an adjoining terminal.21 They did not request permission to picket at the dock. According to Clairmont's terminal manager, 21 Glendenning is not among the over -the-road carriers named in the complaint as involved in this proceeding TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 Edward Franken , he observed Hammer on the Clairmont dock about 5:15 or 5:20 after the Reilly driver had left and that Hammer told the dockmen in a loud voice that they were not supposed to han- dle any freight while Reilly was on the premises. He then told Franken that the dockmen would not work while the offending trailer was at the dock. When Franken asked him how. he could get the men back to work , Hammer suggested that he get the trailer away from the dock , whereupon Franken called the Reilly office to send a Reilly driver for the trailer . It was removed from the Clairmont ter- minal by a Reilly driver , returned to Rex Chainbelt, and later hauled back to the Clairmont terminal by a Clairmont-operated tractor . At the time Hammer was talking to the dockmen engaged in a general work stoppage which continued for a period of about 35 to 40 minutes until the trailer was removed from the dock. Hammer denied that he had directed the Clair- mont dockmen to engage in a general work stop- page . According to him he only told them they should not go onto the trailer to unload it. How- ever, it is clear that they in fact did engage in a general work stoppage not only on this occasion but on subsequent occasions , until about mid- February whenever Reilly came on the premises, and whether or not a picket was present . In some regards Hammer 's testimony about the Clairmont incident was confusing and inconsistent . In view of this and in the light of the entire evidence dealing with that incident I do not credit Hammer 's version of what he said. Respondent endeavors to explain the work stop- page at Clairmont after the Reilly driver had left on the' basis that another Reilly driver came through the entrance to the adjoining terminal at Glen- denning and that new pickets following that driver arrived and set up a second picket line at the en- trance. This explanation is not adequate, however, because the Clairmont work stoppage appears to have been the result of Hammer 's statements to the Clairmont dockmen and manager on the dock rather than solely the result of the presence of the pickets out front. Moreover , there was no reason why he should have condoned the continuation of a work stoppage at Clairmont in response to a picket directed at a Reilly driver in Glendenning. A day or two after the December 9 incident Clairmont discontinued its longstanding practice of permitting Reilly to use Clairmont trailers for volume loads . Franken testified that this was done in an effort to avoid repetition of the December 9 incident. Hammer testified that in the December 9 in- cident he was protesting directions of the Clairmont management to its dockmen to go onto the trailer left by Reilly and unload the freight . I find, how- ever, that this freight was not to be unloaded and required no handling by the Clairmont dockmen. According to Hammer 's own testimony , when he 321 came onto the dock the dockmen were not working on Reilly freight , and while he was talking at least some of them stopped work to listen . According to him that was the second time he was on the dock during that incident, the first time being when the Reilly driver first arrived , and that on this second occasion, by which time the freight had been turned over to Clairmont and the Reilly driver had left, he told the dockmen that none of them had to handle any freight in that trailer. Based on the foregoing , I find that Hammer's statements on the Clairmont dock on December 9, as well as the picketing on that day and thereafter, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B). 17. The events at Advance-United Reilly made daily deliveries of freight to Ad- vance-United. Such deliveries were affected by the Reilly vehicle's backing into the dock, the front of the vehicle then being at or near the public street. Beginning about the second week of December and continuing until late December Respondent picketed such Reilly vehicles by patrolling a distance of 25 or 30 feet on the street in front of the vehicle . On the second day on which picketing occurred a representative of Respondent who ac- companied the picket informed the terminal manager that the dockmen of Advance-United did not have to work behind the picket line. As a result of the picketing the dockmen refused to unload the Reilly vehicles but they engaged in no general work stoppages during the first week . However, the next week the dockmen engaged in general work stop- pages during such picketing , and this reaction was repeated thereafter whenever picketing occurred. The complaint alleges that on or about January 14, Respondent 's president threatened Advance- United with a work stoppage unless it ceased doing business with Reilly . The evidence offered in sup- port of this allegation shows that late in the week ending January 18, Roy Lane, Respondent's pres- ident, teephoned the manager of Advance-United and accused him of having loaned a trailer to Reilly . Such loans had been an established business practice with Advance -United as with almost all of the over-the-road carriers prior to -the dispute. Lane told him that if Advance-United did not stop the loan of trailers to Reilly drastic action would be taken at the terminal . When the terminal manager pressed him as to what he meant by drastic action, Lane refused to elaborate over the telephone. Although the picketing at Advance-United plainly was as close as possible to the Reilly vehi- cles and only during Reilly deliveries , I find that from approximately the second week in December on, because of the inducement of general work stoppages during picketing ( which stoppages were consistent with the union representatives' declara- tion to the terminal manager that the dockmen did not have to work "behind " the picket line), an ob- 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ject of the picketing was to enmesh Advance- United in the primary dispute and consequently violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). I also find that by Lane's January 18 threat of drastic action at the terminal, Respondent further violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). 18. Evidence with respect to Respondent's conduct at O. K. and Murphy Although the complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B) at the premises of O. K. and Murphy, there is insuf- ficient evidence of any such conduct in the record on which to make a finding of a violation. The only evidence relating to these over-the-road carriers is in the testimony of Business Agent Fularczyk to the effect that he and other business agents picketed virtually all of the carriers including these two. But there is no specific evidence as to what occurred at those locations other than a reference that O. K. was one of the terminals where picketing occurred around the Reilly truck at the terminal dock. Ac- cordingly, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent en- gaged in unfair labor practices at the terminal of O. K. and Murphy. 19. Location of picketing at terminals Assuming that while Reilly trucks and drivers were at the over-the-road terminals the Reilly trucks constituted the situs of the dispute for the purpose of applying Moore Dry Dock2 criteria for common situs picketing , it is appropriate to inquire whether Respondent's picketing satisfied the stan- dard which requires that picketing at a common situs be limited to places reasonably close to the lo- cation of the primary employer 's work situs at such premises . At the terminals of Advance-United, Mercury, and Hennis where picketing was in the immediate vicinity of the Reilly vehicles, the stan- dard clearly was met. Where pickets were not al- lowed into the dock area , as at Consolidated Freightways, Eazor, and Hickey-Ryder, and picket- ing occurred at terminal entrances, the standard was also met. At most of the other terminals picket- ing also occurred on the street at the terminal en- trances, but a question exists whether the standard was met or not at these locations because of the Union's letter to all carriers on November 14 alert- ing them to the prospect of ambulatory picketing at their entrances unless the Union received their written permission to picket at their docks. Could the Union by such a single blanket communication shift to the many neutral carriers for the duration of the campaign the onus of providing advance written permission to picket Reilly vehicles at their docks thereby relieving the Union of any further obliga- tion to seek to picket immediately around the Reilly trucks? The evidence shows that at Express and Navajo, where Respondent picketed at the ter- minal entrances, the pickets would have been al- lowed into the dock areas if they had asked permis- sion at the time they picketed, but they did not ask. Likewise at Roadway, Knox, Admiral, Cushman,' Dohrn, and Clairmont where picketing was also at terminal entrances, the pickets did not on any of those occasions ask permission to enter the dock area. The record does not indicate whether they would have been allowed in had they asked. At Consolidated Forwarding, Arkansas, and C. W. picketing was also at the terminal entrances, but the record does not show whether or not they asked or attempted to enter the dock areas. While I do not discount entirely Respondent's November 14 letter to the carriers, considering all aspects of the matter I do not think Respondent was thereby completely relieved of further respon- sibility to place its pickets as close as possible to the Reilly trucks. By the November 14 letter Respon- dent in effect attempted to grant itself a license to picket all terminal entrances except where a ter- minal moved in writing to revoke the license. While it would not have been much of a chore for any of the terminals to invite the Union to picket within the dock area, it was not their responsibility to in- sure the legality of Respondent's conduct. I note that the vast majority of picketing at terminals was at terminal entrances while no picketing at all oc- curred at Reilly's premises. Although the matter is not free of doubt, I find that, except at Con- solidated Freightways, Hickey-Ryder, and Eazor where pickets were not allowed in the dock area, the picketing at terminal entrances did not satisfy the Moore Dry Dock standard of being reasonably close to the location of Reilly's work situs. 20. Respondent's contentions regarding its conduct at the terminals In addition to defense contentions noted else- where herein, Respondent argues that its conduct at the terminals of the over-the-road carriers was protected primary activity because of what it calls the related work doctrine and because the carriers were allies of Reilly. a. The related work argument In Respondent's view its appeals to terminal em- ployees not to unload or otherwise handle freight in trailers delivered by Reilly was protected primary activity within the proviso of Section 8(b)(4)(B) because the services to be performed by them were related to the on-going enterprise of Reilly. The ar- _' Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547 TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 gument is that without such services Reilly could not continue to operate. Respondent argues that it could, therefore, legitimately attempt to halt Reilly operations not only by applying pressure directly to Reilly but also pressure shutting off the flow of freight in Reilly 's local cartage pipeline either at the source before Reilly received it or at the destina- tion of the local haul so that Reilly could not get rid of it. I find no merit in this defense. It is essentially a hot cargo concept which if adopted would permit a disputing union to intercept disfavored cargo be- fore reaching the disfavored employer while still in the hands of an innocent source of freight, and to follow disfavored cargo beyond the control of the disfavored employer into whatever hands it might be delivered. The fact that such an approach would be effective in the highly integrated trucking indus- try does not establish its legal validity. Oil, Chemi- cal and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 4-23 (Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company, division of The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company), 173 NLRB 1244, relied on by Respondent, is inapposite. Respondent's contention goes beyond what the Board found in Local 379, Building Material & Ex- cavators, a/w International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Catalano Bros., Inc.), 175 NLRB 459, to be proper picketing of a roving situs. Here Re- spondent would justify its picketing and other inducement of terminal employees even after the departure of the Reilly driver and tractor. As pointed out earlier, Reilly at that point had no con- tinuing presence at the terminal in the sense of Auburndale Freezer Corporation, supra, and cus- tody and responsibility for the freight delivered, as well as the trailer containing it, had already passed from Reilly to the over-the-road carrier, Under these circumstances inducement of terminal dock- men "not to unload or otherwise handle freight in trailers delivered by Reilly" was not permissible primary activity. Seymour Transfer, Inc., supra. b. The ally defenses With regard to the numerous and extensive general work stoppages by dockmen at many of the terminals, Respondent contends' it was entitled to induce such refusals to work because the over-the- road carriers had allied themselves with Reilly by the loan of trailers, by allowing Reilly to peddle freight from loaned trailers, by engaging in a joint venture with Reilly, and by expediting the unload- ing of Reilly freight. None of these points have merit. Respondent does not contend that struck work was being performed. As pointed out earlier herein, continuation of the established industry practice of supplying empty 323 trailers did not make the carriers allies of Reilly. Seymour Transfer, Inc., supra. As to peddling freight from loaned trailers, Respondent refers only to Reilly peddling freight from trailers of Express and Knox. Consequently the argument is inapplica- ble to the other 16 over-the-road carriers involved herein. And as to Express and Knox, the evidence indicates peddling on only one occasion from trailers. The evidence is wholly insufficient to establish that the management of either terminal condoned or even knew of such peddling. Without finding that knowingly allowing a practice of such peddling from their trailers would make the carriers allies of Reilly, I am of the view that the two iso- lated occasions noted above do not furnish a suffi- cient basis for a finding that Express or Knox became allies of Reilly. Seymour Transfer, Inc., supra. As to the contention that Reilly and the over-the-road carriers were engaged in joint ven- tures, it is patent that they were not. The relation- ships were ordinary ones between trucking con- cerns doing business with each other. And finally, with respect to the argument that expedited unload- ing of Reilly deliveries by terminal supervisors made them allies of Reilly, I have noted earlier herein in discussing the events at Roadway that such argument lacks merit. My rationale regarding Roadway is equally applicable to the situation at other terminals where Reilly was quickly unloaded by supervisors. With regard to the ally defenses I find, therefore, that Respondent has not sustained its burden of establishing that the various over-the-road carriers involved herein allied themselves with Reilly in the primary dispute with Respondent. D. Events at Rex Chainbelt As noted elsewhere Rex Chainbelt operated a large plant in Milwaukee. Much of its supplies and finished products were brought into and shipped out of the plant by motor freight carriers which en- tered and left the plant via an entrance on Green- field Avenue. On November 18 Respondent wrote to Rex Chainbelt asserting that it maintained a close busi- ness relationship with Reilly and that Reilly main- tained an office and dispatcher at the Rex Chain- belt premises on a full-time basis. The letter further went on to say that the Union had a dispute with Reilly and intended to picket the Reilly terminal as well as to picket Reilly trucks, and that "it is also our intention to station a picket at your premises advertising the dispute with Reilly as long as any Reilly personnel are present on your premises." Rex Chainbelt responded by letter of November 21 informing Respondent that Reilly did not maintain an office at the Rex Chainbelt premises and that the Reilly dispatcher was not there on a full-time basis but only subsequent to 12:30 p.m. each work- ing day. 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 22 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 26 Rex Chainbelt set aside for Reilly's exclusive use a separate gate on Mitchell Street and posted the gate with a sign reading "this gate for exclusive use of Reilly cartage ." Thereafter and for the duration of the dispute Reilly used only the Mitchell Street gate and did not use the main gate on Greenfield Avenue. Respondent commenced picketing at the Green- field Avenue entrance on November 27. In the days which immediately followed picketing was inter- rupted by the Thanksgiving holidays and when it resumed on December 2 it was confined to the gate reserved for Reilly on Mitchell Street. Thereafter picketing continued in this manner until January 27 when picketing was resumed at the Greenfield Avenue entrance until February 3. In the meantime on December 2 Respondent by letter to Rex Chainbelt proposed a meeting with that company and again asked if Reilly maintained an office at the Rex Chainbelt Dlant and whether Reilly personnel was present at the premises prior to 12:30 p.m. each day. In response to this letter Rex Chainbelt 's manager of labor relations, its plant manager, and company attorney, on December 5 met with Fularczyk and Jesinski at Respondent 's office and among other things again confirmed that Reilly maintained no office at the plant, that no Reilly personnel was there prior to 12:30 p.m. each working day, and that Reilly was restricted to using the Mitchell Street entrance. The resumed picketing at the Greenfield Avenue entrance occurred on January 27, 28 , 29, 30, and 31, and again during the morning of February 3, a Monday. The complaint alleges this picketing was a violation of the Act. The Greenfield Avenue gate picketing during the period January 27-February 3 was carried on throughout each workday even though no Reilly personnel were present before 12:30 p.m. on each day. Rex Chainbelt protested the picketing by wire to Respondent on January 28 reiterating that Reilly did not maintain an office at the plant nor have any employees present prior to 12 :30 p.m . on any day and pointing out again that the Mitchell Street gate had been reserved "for the exclusive use of Reilly Cartage Company " and that "this gate is the only gate used by Reilly Cartage Company or any- one else related thereto to enter or leave our premises . Our guards have been advised to prohibit Reilly Cartage Company or anyone else related thereto from using any gate other than the above- identified reserved gate and are following our in- structions in this regard ." The wire further noted that a sign had been posted at the Greenfield Avenue entrance stating "this gate is not to be used by Reilly Cartage Company or for any equipment to be used by Reilly Cartage Company ." About the same time the Mitchell Street gate was posted with an additional sign stating "this gate for exclusive use of Reilly Cartage Inc. and equipment to be used by Reilly Cartage Inc. All other equipment must use the Greenfield Avenue main gate ." The follow- ing day , January 29 , Rex Chainbelt sent a wire to all of the over-the-road carriers with a copy to the Respondent stating " you are hereby requested not to pick up any equipment that has been placed on our premises by the Reilly Cartage Company." On January 30 it further advised the carriers with a copy to the Respondent that "in addition to the direction in our prior telegram , you are hereby requested not to leave any equipment on our premises for the Reilly Cartage Company." And finally on January 31 in a letter to Respondent, Rex Chainbelt summarized the steps that it had taken to insulate itself from the Reilly dispute. In the course of this January 27-February 3 picketing the pickets spoke to many of the truckdrivers on incoming trucks bringing supplies to Rex Chainbelt . As a result of the picketing and conduct related to it, between 30 and 35 incoming trucks turned away and refused to cross the picket line. On Monday morning, January 27 , a Lubotsky truck operated by an employee of Lubotsky at- tempted to enter the Greenfield Avenue entrance in order to deliver some forklift tires to Rex Chain- belt. He was told by the pickets he could not go in even though he explained the purpose of the delivery . Later the same day he again attempted to enter and was again turned away . The Lubotsky driver, who was a member of a sister local of the Teamsters, testified that the pickets told him he would be fined if he crossed the picket line. On January 28 an empty Olson truck operated by an Olson driver, which had already made a delivery to Rex Chainbelt , while exiting about 8:15 a.m. through the Greenfield Avenue entrance , was told by one of the pickets "stay the hell out of here or else." In defense of its January 27-February 3 picketing of the Greenfield Avenue entrance Respondent as- serts that delivery of an empty Ryder trailer through that entrance on January 24 gave it reason to believe that Reilly-controlled trailers were using that neutral entrance during that week , and, there- fore, its picketing was proper until it received unambiguous assurances that it would not be so used . In Respondent's view it received such as- surances on Thursday , January 30 . It excuses con- tinued picketing beyond that point on the ground of inadvertent mistake and failure of communication within its own organization. However, Respondent 's justification does not take account of all the facts . Considering all the circumstances regarding the gate situation at Rex Chainbelt, including the fact that the delivery of the January 24 Ryder trailer was an isolated incident, that the driver who pulled it in was a steward of Respondent and the source of Respondent's intel- ligence in the matter , the lack of evidence as to TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 whose decision it was to enter by the neutral gate23 or to whom the trailer was delivered '21 the appeals which the pickets made while at the Greenfield en- trance to drivers who obviously were not supplying Reilly with anything, and the elaborate steps taken by Rex Chainbelt to insure, and assure Respondent of, the neutrality of the Greenfield entrance, I am of the view that Respondent was not justified in picketing there. I find that it seized upon the iso- lated delivery of the Ryder trailer on January 24 as an excuse to move its picketing from the Mitchell Street gate, where Reilly could be reached, to Greenfield Avenue where its impact fell upon Rex Chainbelt and others doing business with it. Even if the Greenfield Avenue entrance in fact had ceased to be an entrance effectively reserved for neutrals and Respondent had been entitled to picket there in accordance with accepted common situs standards, its conduct there during the week of picketing clearly demonstrated its secondary ob- ject. For example, pickets were present throughout each workday although Reilly personnel was present only after 12:30 p.m., they turned away many incoming drivers with freight which plainly was not destined for Reilly but for Rex Chainbelt, and, specifically, they made both appeals and threats to the Lubotsky driver and the Olson driver neither of which had any business whatever with Reilly. So even if there had been no reserve gate, Respondent's conduct would have been contrary to the requirements of Section 8(b)(4)(B). See Catalano Bros., Inc., supra. By Thursday, January 30, Respondent had received what even it considered satisfactory as- surances of the neutrality of the Greenfield en- trance . Yet the pickets remained and, after the weekend, reappeared on Monday, February 3. Respondent would shunt off its responsibility for this continued picketing with the excuse of honest mistake and lack of communication. Even if this were so, Respondent cannot so easily avoid respon- sibility for a continuing unfair labor practice. Accordingly, I find that Respondent's picketing at the Greenfield Avenue entrance during the period January 27-February 3, together with the appeals and threats which accompanied the picket- ing, were violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). E. General Findings Regarding the Campaign Considering the campaign against Reilly overall, it clearly was not aimed directly at Reilly.25 In- stead, in both planning and execution, it was directed at both employees and management of those doing business with Reilly and, on occasion, The driver of the vehicle did not testify Presumably it was delivered to either Rex Chambelt or Reilly (the record does not indicate which ) pursuant to a request from one or the other of them ( the record is not clear which ) Elsewhere in the record at is established that Rex Chambelt employees loaded trailers at its dock, which 325 at employees of tertiaries doing business with them. Because of the overwhelming evidence that Re- spondent's picketing and related activity which were all an inseparable part of its well-organized anti-Reilly program had a secondary object, I find that its admitted inducement of dock employees at the various terminals not to unload Reilly trucks was inducement of neutral employees to engage in partial work stoppages within the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) rather than protected primary activity within the proviso. Seymour Transfer, Inc., supra. By the same token, the numerous union announcements made through dock stewards and business agents that dock employees would not do this work were threats of partial work stoppages banned by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). By this conduct as well as by the other numerous and widespread violations of 8(b)(4)(B) more particularly found elsewhere herein I find that Respondent engaged in, and induced and encouraged individuals em- ployed by persons engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce to engage in, strikes and refusals in the course of their employment to transport and otherwise handle and work on goods, articles, materials, and commodities and to perform services. I further find Respondent threatened, coerced, and restrained persons engaged in com- merce or in industries affecting commerce. I also find that an object of Respondent's conduct was to force or require persons doing business with Reilly, including over-the-road carriers and Rex Chain- belt, to cease handling or transporting freight tendered by, or to be delivered to, Reilly and to cease doing business with Reilly, and to force or require persons doing business with such over-the- road carriers or with Rex Chainbelt to cease hand- ling or transporting freight to be picked up at, or delivered to, or to cease doing business with such carriers or Rex Chainbelt. Insofar as the complaint alleges the commission of unfair labor practices not specifically found herein, such allegations are hereby dismissed. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of Reilly, the over-the-road carriers and Rex Chainbelt described in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and substantial -relationship 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. suggests that the trailer in question did not immediately pass into the cus- tody of Reilly I note also that technically , as to this type of freight service, Reilly had no contractual relationship with Rex Chainbelt 25 Symptomatic is the fact that the Union never sought to reach Reilly or Reilly employees by picketing or other activity at Reilly's own premises 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act. Because its unfair labor prac- tices were aimed at a large number of neutral per- sons not directly involved in its dispute with Reilly, I recommend that broad cease-and-desist provisions be included in such order. See Riss & Company, Inc., 130 NLRB 943, 951, enfd. 300 F.2d 317, 322 (C.A. 3). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record in this case, I make the fol- lowing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Reilly is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The following are persons engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act: O. K., Murphy, Hennis , Navajo, Mercury, Dohrn, Express, Cushman, C. W., Clairmont, Advance, Eazor, Ad- vance-United, Admiral, Arkansas, Consolidated- Freightways, Consolidated Forwarding, Roadway, Knox, Ryder, Hickey, Rex Chainbelt, Olson, and Lubotsky. 3. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. Hennis, Navajo, Mercury, Dohrn, Express, Cushman, C. W., Clairmont, Advance, Eazor, Ad- vance-United, Admiral, Arkansas, Consolidated Freightways, Consolidated Forwarding, Roadway, Knox, Ryder, Hickey, Rex Chainbelt, Olson, and Lubotsky are not allies of Reilly in connection with Respondent's dispute with Reilly. 5. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B) of the Act. 6. Said unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or by picketing at the terminals of motor freight carriers where ReillyCartage, Inc., delivers or picks up freight, including Hennis Freight Lines, Inc., Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., Mer- cury Freight Lines, Inc., Dohrn Transfer Co., Ex- 16 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 press Freight Lines, Inc., Cushman Motor Delivery Co., C. W. Transport, Inc., Clairmont Transfer Co., Advance Transportation Co., Eazor Express, Inc., Advance-United Expressways, Inc., Admiral Merchants-Cole-Dixie, Inc., Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc., Consolidated Freightways, Con- solidated Forwarding Co., Inc., Roadway Express, Knox Motor Service, Inc., Ryder Truck Lines, and Hickey Cartage, Inc., or in any other manner, in- cluding orders, directions, instructions, requests, or appeals, however given, made or imparted, or by permitting any such to remain in existence or ef- fect, inducing or encouraging any individual em- ployed by any of said motor freight carriers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an indus- try affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise han- dle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining any of said motor freight carriers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require any of said over-the-road carriers or any other person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in freight picked up or delivered by Reilly Cartage, Inc., or to cease doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. (b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Fred Olson Motor Service Company, Charles Lubotsky Tire Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other- wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi- als, or commodities or to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Fred Olson Motor Service Company, Charles Lubotsky Tire Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Rex Chainbelt, Inc. or any other person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in freight to be picked up or delivered by Reilly Cartage, Inc., or to cease doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., or to force or require Fred Olson Motor Service Company, Charles Lubotsky Tire Co., or any other person to cease doing business with Rex Chainbelt, Inc., in order to force or require Rex Chainbelt, Inc., to cease doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended: (a) Post at its office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ."2fi Copies of said notice, 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 " TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by 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 by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board signed copies of said notice in sufficient numbers for post- ing by the motor freight carriers named in para- graph 1(a) of this Order and by Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Fred Olson Motor Service Company and Charles Lubotsky Tire Co., and motor freight car- riers and persons other than those named herein with whom Reilly Cartage, Inc., does business in and around Milwaukee, Wisconsin, they being willing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.27 Y7 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 30, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL UNION No. 200 To EMPLOYEES OF HENNIS FREIGHT LINES, INC., NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC., MERCURY FREIGHT LINES , INC., DOHRN TRANSFER CO., EXPRESS FREIGHT LINES , INC., CUSHMAN MOTOR DELIVERY CO., C. W. TRANSPORT , INC., CLAIRMONT TRANSFER CO., ADVANCE TRANSPORTATION CO., EAZOR EXPRESS , INC., ADVANCE -UNITED EXPRESSWAYS , INC., ADMIRAL MERCHANTS-COLE- DIXIE , INC., ARKANSAS BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, CONSOLIDATED FORWARDING CO., INC., ROADWAY EXPRESS , KNOX MOTOR SERVICE, INC., RYDER TRUCK LINES, HICKEY CARTAGE, INC., REX CHAINBELT , INC., FRED OLSON MOTOR SERVICE COMPANY , AND CHARLES LUBOTSKY TIRE Co. To EMPLOYEES OF OTHER COMPANIES WHICH DO BUSINESS WITH REILLY CARTAGE, INC. 327 and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence it has been found that we violated the law by committing unfair labor prac- tices. Accordingly, we post this notice and we will keep the promises that we make in this notice. WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business representatives, business agents, or anyone act- ing for us, whatever his title may be, do any of the following things to force any shipper or motor freight carrier to stop delivering freight to or receiving freight from Reilly Cartage, Inc., or to force any shipper or motor freight carrier or any other company to stop doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc.: WE WILL NOT, ourselves, nor will this Union, call strikes or engage in strikes. WE WILL NOT picket at or in the vicinity of terminals or docks of any motor freight carrier which receives freight from or delivers freight to Reilly Cartage, Inc., or which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. WE WILL NOT picket at or in the vicinity of Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or any other company which delivers to or receives freight from Reilly Cartage, Inc., or which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. WE WILL NOT in any way order, direct, ask, persuade, urge , or influence any member of this Union or any other employee working at the terminal or dock of any motor freight carri- er at which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers freight or which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., or any employee, includ- ing members of this Union, of any other com- pany, including Rex Chainbelt, Inc., which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., or any employee, including members of this Union, of any other company which picks up or delivers freight at Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or at the ter- minals or docks of any motor freight carrier at which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers freight, to strike, or to take part in a work stop- page, or to refuse to do any work. WE WILL NOT in any way threaten, coerce, or restrain any motor freight company at which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers freight, or Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or any other company which does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Dated By Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL UNION No. 200 (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- communicate directly with the Board's Regional tive days from the date of posting and must not be Office, Second Floor Commerce Building, 744 altered, defaced , or covered by any other material . North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, If employees have any question concerning this Telephone 414-272-3872. notice or compliance with its provisions, they may