General Drivers & Dairy Employees Loc. Un. 563

GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOC. UN. 563 General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563 and Northern Contractors Supply, Inc. General Drivers and Dairy Employees , Local Union 563; Local Union No. 630, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, and Fox River Valley District Council of Carpen- ters and their agent Jerry Jahnke; Bridge, Struc- tural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, and its agent Peter Succa, and Northern Contractors Supply, , Inc. Cases 30-CB-287 and 30-CC-118 June 24, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On February 16, 1970, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en- gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs, and Northern filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases 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, the briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the addi- tions and modifications set forth below. The Trial Examiner recommended only a narrow 8(b)(4)(B) order against each of the three Respon- dent labor organizations, while at the same time recommending that each post a broad notice. In view of his remedy section, we find this inadvertent and that he intended to recommend a broad order only against Local 563. We modify the Recom- mended Order and notices accordingly. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor 1023 Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondents, General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563; Local Union No. 630, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Fox River Valley District Council of Carpenters and their agent Jerry Jahnke; Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, and its agent Peter Succa; and their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Add to paragraph 1(a) the words "or, with respect to the Respondent General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563, with any other employer or person." 2. Delete from Appendixes A and C the words, ", or with any other employer or person," and from Appendix B the line for Succa's signature. 3. Add to Appendix C a line for Succa's signa- ture as deleted from Appendix B; and substitute the words "Labor Organization " for the word "Em- ployer" below the name of the Union. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner: Upon charges duly filed, ' the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 30 (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), is- sued a consolidated complaint on October 22, 1969, against General Drivers and Dairy Em- ployees, Local Union 563; Local Union No. 630, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Fox River Valley District Council of Carpenters and their agent Jerry Jahnke; Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, and its agent Peter Succa, herein called the Respondents or the Unions, alleg- ing that they had engaged in unfair labor practices within Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. In addition, it is alleged that Respondent Teamster Local 563 engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. The Respondents deny the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the com- plaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr in Neenah, Wisconsin, on November 12 and 13, 1969. All ' The original charge and a first and a second amended charge in Case 30-CC-I 18 were filed on September 17 and 18 and October 14, 1969, respectively The charge in Case 30-CB-287 was filed on September 19, 1969 183 NLRB No. 101 1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD parties were represented by counsel and were af- forded full opportunity to adduce evidence, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel, the Respondents, and the Charging Party, and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the fol- lowing:' FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., is a Wiscon- sin corporation having its principal place of busi- ness located at Neenah, Wisconsin, where it is en- gaged in the fabrication of reinforcing steel and the distribution of various building supplies for the building and construction industry. During the 12 months preceding the hearing herein, it purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from sources located directly outside the State of Wisconsin. The Respondents concede, and I find, that Northern is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563 ; Local Union No. 630 , United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Fox River Valley District Council of Carpenters ; and Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers , Local No . 8, AFL-CIO, are labor or- ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., herein called Northern, has a shop on its premises where it is en- gaged in the fabrication of reinforcing steel bars into various sizes and shapes. Employing approxi- mately nine employees at the time material hereto, these include eight production employees and one truckdriver.3 About October 1967, Northern voluntarily recognized Respondent Local 563 as the collective- bargaining agent for a unit comprised of the above employees. Unable to reach a collective-bargaining agreement, Northern's employees at a union meet- Certain errors in the transcript have been corrected One of the production employees is also a part -time truckdriver Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter refer to the year 1969 ' The picketing began on the first day of the strike and continued beyond the period noted above While the record is not clear on the point , Respon- dent 's brief indicates that the picketing ceased about the time of the hear- ing herein ' The pickets in each of the incidents described herein were comprised of Northern's striking employees Christian, who was employed with the ing held on September 4, 1969, voted to go or, strike.4 The strike, an economic one which began on September 4, continued throughout the period material hereto. B. The 8(b)(1)(A) Violations The complaint alleges that Respondent Local 563 violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act during its picketing of Northern's plant premises. The al- leged unlawful conduct occurred on various days between September 13 and 18, 1969, and involved the striking employees on the one hand, and em- ployees who had been hired to replace them on the other.' Since the testimony adduced by the General, Counsel concerning this conduct is uncontroverted and was given by witnesses whose testimony I credit, I find that the following incidents occurred: 1. On September 13, about 8 a.m., Steve Christian drove his car to work and observed a group of sign-carrying pickets at the entrance to the premises.' As he drove into the premises, some of the pickets threw rocks at his car grill while others kicked stones at the side of the car. Picket Harry Kemp came up with a large stick and motioned with it as if to strike the front windshield. He then went to the rear of the vehicle and at this point struck the right taillight of Christian's car with such force that it knocked out the glass. 2. On the morning of September 15 or 16, a group of three or four pickets were present near the plant entrance. One of the pickets hurled a tomato which struck under the rear window of Jerome Eiden's car as he was driving into the premises. 3. On September 15 or 16, Steve Christian ob- served that three or four pickets were standing in the driveway entrance about 3 or 4 feet from each other. Christian slowed down as he approached, an- ticipating that the pickets would step aside to let him through, as they had in preceding days. This time they did not. Accordingly, in order to avoid hitting them, Christian was required to drive around and use a different entrance. That same day Christian parked his car on the plant premises between the warehouse and the shop. When he returned to his car after work, about 1 1 p.m., Christian found that the right front side window of his car had been smashed. He ob- served a large rock on the ground nearby. Clearly, this was no accident. Upon the entire record, in- cluding the other proven incidents in which the pickets were involved, I am satisfied and find that the responsibility for this act of vandalism must lie with the pickets of Respondent Local 563.7 Company for only 3 weeks, identified Harry Kemp and Larry Feistel as being present in the above group Rodney Wussow, another employee who corroborated Christian, identified further pickets as being employees Dixon Jacobson and Edward Weller ' Significantly, the credited and unrefuted testimony of Christian and Rodney Wussow reflects that, whereas the pickets still were present at this hour during the preceding 2 weeks, they had disappeared when Christian came to his car on the evening in question GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOC. UN. 563 4. Jerrold Mulvey worked until his quitting time (8 p.m.) on September 16, at which time his brother, Edward, and Michael Thompson, a friend of Edwards', came to the plant to call for him. Ed- ward and Michael entered the warehouse and waited for Mulvey to punch out. As the three walked past a nearby building toward Edward's car, they observed Kemp and three other pickets stand- ing at a coerner of the building. In the words of Mulvey, the following then occurred: And one guy [subsequently identified as Kemp] came up and grabbed me on the arm and he says, "do you have any job?" And I says, "no." And he says, "well, you'd better find one." And as he was saying that, he was shoving me into a ... trailer or something like that, and he says, "well, you'd better get one. If you come back tomorrow, you get your ass kicked in," and then he let go and I started walking away and I heard him say to my brother, Edward, and Mike that if they come back, they'd smash the windows in his car. 5. On September 17, Rodney Wussow felt something whiz past his head as he was walking to the shop from the office. He thereupon saw a rock land on the ground which came from the direction of the pickets who were at his rear. The entire in- cident was observed from the office by Linda Bur- hans, the secretary-bookeeper for Northern, who identified Larry Feistel as the picket who threw the rock at Wussow. 6. Additional instances of rock throwing oc- curred on September 17 and 18. Thus, on the former date Jerrold Mulvey observed a group of four or five pickets throw stones or rocks at a truck owned by the Hall Company as it was leaving the premises of Northern Contractors. He further testified that he heard these objects strike the sides of the vehicle. On the following day, September 15, Mulvey was performing some work out of doors on the plant grounds with employee Tom Rohr. A number of stones were thrown at these employees from the direction of a group of four or five pickets standing about 60-70 feet away. Although Mulvey did not see who threw the stones, employee Linda Burhans observed and identified Larry Feistel as the one who threw a stone at these employees on this occasion. 7. Employee Burhans also observed a number of instances where the striking employees blocked trucks from entering the plant . Thus , on September 17 she observed Lawrence Driessen come up to the Northern driveway in a truck to pick up a load of steel, at which point picket Larry Feistel drove his car across the driveway so that Driessen could not pass. Pickets Harold Kemp, Edward Weller, and "Thus, Burhans testified "They would stop just about every one of the trucks I'll say ten to fifteen they stopped by walking in front so that the trucks could not get in " "See also Local 379, Building Material & Excavators , IBT (Catalano Bros ), 175 NLRB 459 1025 Dixon Jacobson thereupon came up and stationed themselves in front of the truck. Although Feistel later moved his car, the other pickets continued to block the entrance and would not permit Driessen to enter. Burhans further testified, without contradiction, that during the next 2 weeks she observed 10 or 15 other vehicles which were prevented from entering the premises by pickets who blocked the plant en- trance." Turning to my conclusions with respect to the above conduct, it is true, as Respondents point out, that no officer or official agent of Local 563 was present on the picket line when any of this conduct occurred. However, it is noteworthy that Respon- dents concededly appointed no one to be in charge of the picket line. Robert DeVries, Respondents' business representative who serviced Local 563 at the time material hereto, testified that he came to the picket line several times each day for periods ranging from 15 minutes to 1 hour. Although DeVries conceded that he was in charge of the picketing activities, it is apparent that there were long periods during each day that he was not present on the picket line. As reflected in the evidence set forth above, the conduct here complained of is not of an isolated nature, nor is this the case of an isolated picket getting out of hand. On the contrary, the incidents engaged in were repetitive, they were of a violent and aggravated character, and they were par- ticipated in by a majority, if not all, of the members of Respondent who went out on strike. Respondent Local 563 Union, in part itself comprised of these very members who voted to strike, cannot now avoid responsibility for the unlawful conduct mere- ly because its officers or agents did not happen to be present when it occurred. Thus, in Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, etc., Local 695, IBT (Tony Pellitteri Trucking Service), 174 NLRB 753, the Board adopted the holding of the Trial Ex- aminer who stated as follows. ... all that I hold, is that a union which calls a strike and authorizes picketing must retain control over the pickets in whatever manner it deems necessary, in order to insure that they do not act improperly. If a union is unwilling, or unable, to take the necessary steps to con- trol its pickets, it must then bear the responsi- bility for their misconduct. What the Board held in the above case is con- trolling here.' Accordingly, I find that Respondent Local Union 563 restrained and coerced em- ployees, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, by the following acts and conduct, all of which have been detailed above: (1) assaulting and DeVries testified to the effect that he instructed the pickets there was to be no violence However , " merely forbidding coercive conduct will not suf- fice to -relieve of responsibility therefor " Drivers , Salesmen, Warehousemen , etc , Local 695, IBT (Tony Pellitteri Trucking) 174 NLRB 753, New Power Wire and Electric Corp v N L R B, 340 F 2d 71 (C A 2) 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD threatening employees ; ( 2) damaging vehicles driven to work by employees; ( 3) throwing rocks and other objects at employees and their vehicles; and (4 ) blocking ingress to the plant premises. C. The Facts Pertaining to the Unlawful Secondary Activity At all times material herein Fluor Brothers Con- struction Co. was engaged in the construction of a raw water pumping station on Lake Winnebago, at Waverly Beach , Menasha, Wisconsin . This facility is being built to supply drinking water to the city of Appleton , Wisconsin . Fluor 's employees on this project consisted of three carpenters represented by Respondent Local 630 and the Carpenters Dis- trict Council , three laborers represented by a laborers' union , and an operating engineer represented by an operating engineers ' union. Also on the job at the times material hereto were three ironworker employees of the Hennes Trucking Company represented by Respondent Ironworkers Local 8 . Fluor engaged Hennes as a subcontractor to install reinforcing steel bars in the foundation of the project . The reinforcing steel bars were to be furnished by Northern pursuant to a contractual ar- rangement between Fluor and the Pipkorn Com- pany. 1. The events of September 15 There is no substantial dispute as to what oc- curred on the morning of September 15. About 8 a.m. on this date, a load of reinforcing steel bars manufactured by Northern was delivered to the Waverly Beach jobsite in a company truck driven by Mr. Arntzen, the manager of Northern. The truck, which was followed by picket Dixon Jacob- son who carried a picket sign,10 first stopped at the private driveway entrance leading into the jobsite premises. Arntzen got out, spoke briefly with Jacobson, and then proceeded into the premises on the instructions of Robert Paulsen, the job superin- tendent for Fluor. Paulsen told Jacobson that he was on private property and Jacobson moved back. The truck in the meantime parked near the excava- tion for the pumping station (located in the center of the property where the work had begun), and at this point the crane operator began unloading the `ruck. A few minutes later a second Northern truck (this a semitrailer, as distinguished from Arntzen's straight truck) also loaded with Northern reinforc- ing steel arrived at the premises. This truck was driven by Rodney Wussow, the shop foreman for Northern, and was followed by a second picket, Harold Kemp, who drove a 1961 brown Chevrolet station wagon. Although the semitrailer remained temporarily parked on the entrance driveway, picket Kemp, who also carried a picket sign, got out of the car and walked over to the excavation where he stationed himself on the opposite side from where Arntzen's truck was being unloaded. Arntzen's truck was about three-quarters unloaded when the crane operator observed the picketing. He thereupon refused to unload any further and told Paulsen that he would not work as long as the pickets were on the job. Arntzen and Wussow thereupon proceeded to unload the balance of the truck by hand. When this was completed the truck was driven off the premises and Wussow proceeded to back his semitractor truck into an unloading position alongside the excavation. The trailer then was unhooked from the tractor and Wussow drove away, leaving the loaded trailer on the jobsite." Pickets Kemp and Jacobson thereupon began picketing the trailer by walking around it with their picket signs. This picketing continued until 5 p.m., and no further work was performed on the project that day. Wussow returned to the jobsite about 6.30 p.m. that evening and proceeded to unload the trailer with two part-time employees. Although Kemp and another picket followed Wussow from the Northern premises, they remained parked near the entrance of the Waverly project for only about 5 minutes and departed before the unloading was completed. As of the time of the hearing herein there have been no further deliveries to this job by Northern. 2. Further events of September 15 Three of Fluor's carpenter employees, Domenic Gestaut, Adrian Petit, and Joseph Jansen, all mem- bers of Respondent Carpenters Local 630, reported at the Waverly project on the morning of Sep- tember 15. These employees arrived at the jobsite prior to the above-mentioned picketing and began working in the excavation. It is undisputed that Jerry Jahnke, the Carpenters business agent,12 came down into the pit and spoke to them at this time. According to the uncontroverted and substantially corroborative testimony of Gestaut and Jansen, Jahnke began by telling the employees that there was a picket on the job. Although he followed this with a statement that the employees could use their own judgment about working, he thereupon stated, .. we have a picket out there and good union members honor the picket sign." After a brief discussion among themselves, the three carpenter employees followed Jahnke out, of the excavation. They performed no further work that day. 1" One side of the picket sign stated "Our only dispute is with Northern Contractors Supply " the other side stating, "Employees of Northern Con- tractors on strike, Teamsters Local 563 " All picket signs hereinafter referred to bore this same legend 11 Paulsen testified, "I called Northern Contractors and told them either to pull the truck off the property or send some men out to unload it It was agreed that they would take care of it later on " 12 Respondents' answer concedes the allegation in the complaint that Jahnke is a business agent for Local Union No 630, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and the Fox River Valley Dis- trict Council of Carpenters GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOC. UN. 563 3. The events of September 16 Pursuant to instructions from Business Agent DeVries, picket Harold Kemp drove his brown Chevrolet station wagon to the jobsite about 6:30 a.m. on September 16 and parked on the public road not far from the entrance to the Waverly Beach project." It is undisputed that he remained in this area for the entire working day. Gestaut came to the project about 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of seeing "if anything was settled." Gestaut testified that he observed two pickets out- side the station wagon. One was carrying a picket sign while another sign was propped up against the car. Gestaut thereupon went to the job shack and told Paulsen that he would not work because of the picketing. Joseph Jansen, one of the carpenters, also came to the jobsite that morning. Arriving about 7:45 a.m., Jansen testified that he observed two cars on the road near the project entrance and that two pickets, both carrying picket signs, were walking outside the vehicles. Jansen thereupon went into the job shack. After conferring briefly with Paulsen, Jansen telephoned Business Agent Jahnke, told him that two pickets were on the job, and asked what he should do. According to the credited and unrefuted testimony of Jansen, Jahnke replied "as long as the pickets are on the job, honor the signs." Adner Seelow, an employee of subcontractor Hennes and a member of Respondent Ironworkers Local No. 8, came to the jobsite about 7:30 on Sep- tember 16. Unaware of any picketing, since he had not worked the previous day, Seelow reported to the job shack where he encountered Fluor Superin- tendent Paulsen. When advised by Paulsen that there was a picket outside the jobsite, Seelow went out to look for himself. Seelow testified that at this point he observed a brown Chevrolet station wagon and a man standing nearby and, in addition, that he saw a picket sign so propped up within the vehicle that it was visible through the rear window. Seelow testified that he then returned to the job shack, telephoned the Ironworkers business representa- tive, Peter Succa, advised Succa of the picketing, and asked if he should go to work. When Succa replied that he could not say whether he should or not, Seelow asked if the ironworkers would be sub- ject to a fine if they worked. According to Seelow, Succa told him "it was probably subject to a fine depending on if it was a legal picket or not a legal picket." Seelow testified that, in addition, "He [Succa] told me that if Hennes had any other work that we should probably go on another job and they would try to get things straightened out that day and see what took place." As a result of this con- versation, Seelow did not work that day.14 Concerning the above-related events, there are two matters which are in dispute. The first is a deni- " This was conceded by Kemp, a Respondent witness 10 Seelow testified that following his conversation with Succa he spoke to the other ironworker on the job Seelow said , " I told him what Pete [Suc- 1027 al by Harold Kemp that there was "any other striker from Northern Contractors in his car or near his car that day." Kemp conceded only that he was parked near the jobsite that day and that four or five picket signs were laying in the rear of the vehi- cle between the back seat and the tail gate. Insofar as Kemp's testimony may be taken to deny that there was no picketing on September 16 or that none of the picket signs were publicly displayed, I do not credit it. Employees Gestaut, Jansen, and Seelow were all members of their respective Unions. Not only did they impress me as telling the truth, but I can hardly believe that they would fabricate testimony which they undoubtedly knew was adverse to the interests of their own labor or- ganizations. Accordingly, I credit their testimony as set forth above. Secondly, Succa's testimony differs from the above-related testimony of Seelow. Succa testified that he came to the Waverly jobsite-on September 15 after receiving a call from Seelow who said a picket was on the job. Succa testified that when he came to the job Seelow asked if he would be fined if he went to work. Succa asserted, "I didn't answer him." While not specifically denying that he had any conversation with Seelow on September 16, Succa denied having any conversation with Seelow between September 15-17 during which he in ef- fect told Seelow that he would be subject to a fine if he worked on the project, depending whether the picket line was legal or illegal. Succa did not im- press me as a forthright witness. From my observa- tion of the witnesses, I credit Seelow's testimony concerning the conversation he had with Succa on September 16, as hereinabove related. 4. The events of September 17 The events of September 17 were substantially repetitive of those which occurred on September 16. Although Kemp conceded that he came to the jobsite and parked his station wagon at the spot as he had on the preceding day and that he remained there until noon, he denied that any picketing took place or that any picket signs were displayed. Upon a consideration of the testimony given by Gestaut, Jansen, and Seelow, I am persuaded and find that sporadic personal picketing took place during the morning of this date and that during the morning the picket signs were again openly and publicly put on display. Indeed, Paulsen arrived at the job at 7 a.m. and observed that no picket was present. He promptly called Gestaut and Jansen and advised them to return to work because there was no picketing.15 However, picket Kemp appeared be- fore Jansen and Gestaut arrived. The latter em- ployees observed the picketing upon their arrival and therefore did not go to work until notified that the entire dispute was settled later that morning.16 ca) told me, that we shouldn't go to work and go on a different job Credited testimony of Paulsen " Testimony of Jansen and Gestaut 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 66 1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Likewise, employee Seelow arrived on the job that morning and observed that the picket was still there. Seelow credibly testified that he thereupon telephoned Succa and asked, inter alia, if he would be subject to a fine for working. Succa again told Seelow that whether he would be subject to a fine depended upon whether "it was a legal or illegal picket."" Conclusions as to the 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) Violations Insofar as relevant here, Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) prohibits a union or its agents from inducing or encouraging employees of a secondary employer to refuse to handle goods or perform services and from threatening, restraining, or coercing seconda- ry employers where an object of such conduct is to force or require secondary employers to cease doing business with the primary or disputing em- ployer. As a general rule, picketing activity by a union is primary when it occurs at the situs of the main dispute, which is usually the primary em- ployer's own premises, and seeks no more than to disrupt the normal operations of his business. But, when picketing activity is extended beyond the situs of the primary dispute, as to the premises of a neutral employer, it is, with certain exceptions, or- dinarily secondary. Respondents in effect argue that there are factors present in this case which render the picketing at the Waverly jobsite an ex- ception to the general rule. In this connection, Respondents particularly rely on the Board's deci- sion in United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Auburndale Freezer Corporation), 177 NLRB 791, which they assert "is virtually on point with respect to the question here." In the Auburndale case, Cypress Garden Citrus Products, the primary employer, stored its products (citrus concentrates) at a cold storage warehouse owned by the Auburndale Freezer Corporation. No Auburndales were employed at the warehouse and the conduct complained of involved picketing at the Auburndale premises at times when no Cypress employees were delivering concentrate. In holding this picketing to be permissable under the Act, the majority of the Board, with Members McCulloch and Brown dissenting, stated the factors upon which they relied and then set forth their rationale and conclusions, all as follows: In the present case, we note the following facts which seem to us relevant to establish the "presence of the primary" at the Auburndale location: (1) Cypress first began storing its' product at Auburndale in 1956 under a general warehousing agreement; (2) Cypress and Au- burndale executed a 5-year contract in January 1967, whereby the latter agreed to furnish to the former space of 300,000 cases of concen- trate; (3) during the picketing Cypress had 150,000 cases of concentrate stored a the Au- burndale warehouse; (4) Cypress trucks deliver concentrate to Auburndale in the regu- lar course of business, and during the season, March through July, do so continuously; (5) Cypress drivers remain at Auburndale until they are given a receipt for the concentrate; and (6) the concentrate is shipped from the Auburndale warehouse by common carriers in accordance with instructions given by Cypress. These facts indicate that the concentrate, while stored at the Auburndale warehouse, is, for all practical purposes, under the control of Cypress, that the warehouse is the place where common carriers receive Cypress goods for delivery to Cypress' customers, that there is substantial contact between Cypress, its em- ployees, and the Auburndale warehouse, and that the storage of the concentrate at the warehouse, which practice has been continu- ous since 1956, constitutes an integral part of the Cypress production process. To the extent that the Auburndale warehouse is a part of the Cypress operation, we conclude that the warehouse constitutes a common situs. The factual situation which led the Board to find that the Auburndale warehouse was a part of the Cypress operation, thus constituting a common situs, is clearly and substantially different from the factual situation in the instant case. Without elaborating the obvious differences, suffice it to say that in my opinion the temporary parking of the Northern trailer at the Waverly jobsite cannot be equated with the binding and protracted warehouse arrangement which Cypress had with Auburndale for the storing of its products. I therefore reject Respondents' apparent contention that the parked trailer converted the Waverly jobsite into a so- called "common situs." It is well settled that in determining the objective of alleged secondary picketing, the Board is entitled to look at the totality of the union's conduct, and is not bound by the union's signs or professed object in picketing."Likewise, the place of picketing is to be considered as one circumstance, among others, in determining the object of the picketing.'9 Con- sidering all of the circumstances of this case, I am convinced and find that the picketing at the Waverly project was for the proscribed objective of enmeshing the employees of the neutral employers who were working at this jobsite. Assuming arguen- do that under the ambulatory or roving situs theory " 1 have considered Succa's testimony relative to his talking with Seelow on the morning of this date For the reasons previously stated, I credit Seelow's testimony as stated above '" N L R B v Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Emmett Electric Co ) 383 F 2d 634 (C A 2) '" International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 (Plauche Electric), 135 NLRB 250 GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOC. UN. 563 1029 of picketing the Respondent could lawfully follow Northern's trucks to the Waverly project and remain there while they were unloaded,20 the picketing by Respondent here extended far beyond the period when Northern arguably may have been engaged in normal business at this jobsite. Respon- dent has offered no satisfactory or acceptable ex- planation as to why the picketing at the project continued for almost 2 days after the reinforcing steel bars had been unloaded and the trailer removed from the premises.21 In view of such con- tinued picketing during this lengthy period when neither Northern's equipment or employees were on the jobsite, I can but conclude that the only possible objective of the picketing was to induce .employees of the neutral employers (Fluor Bros., and Hennes) to cease doing business with Northern.22 Accordingly, I find that the picketing was for an unlawful objective and that Respondent Local Union 563, by engaging in such conduct, vio- lated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. I further find that on September 15, Respondent Carpenter's Business Agent Jahnke appealed to Fluor's employees to cease work (by informing them that they were the only ones working and by admonishing them that "good union members honor the picket sign") in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.23 I find likewise violative of this section of the Act the conduct of Peter Suc- ca, business agent of Respondent Ironworkers Local No. 8, in advising an employee of Hennes Trucking on September 16 and 17, under the cir- cumstances previously noted, that he probably would be subject to a fine for working behind the picketing, depending on whether "it was a legal picket or not a legal picket." This clearly con- stituted illegal inducement.24 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of the Employer described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several' States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. The Remedy Having found that Respondents have committed certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of similar flagrant and repetitive unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent Team- sters Local Union 563, 1 shall recommend the is- suance of a broad Order against this Respondent.25 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By restraining and coercing employees of Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 2. By inducing or encouraging employees and persons employed by Fluor Brothers Construction Co. and the John Hennes Trucking Company, Inc., to refuse in the course of their employment to per- form services for their employers, and by threaten- ing, coercing, and restraining the said employers, with an object in either case of forcing each to cease doing business with Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., the Respondents have engaged in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, con- clusions of law, and the entire record in the case, I 20 Cf Local 379, Building Material & Excavators (Catalano Bros ), 175 NLRB 459 Zi New Power Wire & Electric Corp, 144 NLRB 1089, enfd 340 F 2d 71 (C A 2), relied upon by Respondents, involves an utterly different factual situation And unlike the Catalano case, supra, cited by Respondents, the principal work situs of the primary here is not away from its terminal 22 Although Respondent denies that it picketed the jobsite on September 16 and 17 (which is contrary to my finding herein), picket Harold Kemp, when asked why he returned to the jobsite on these dates, testified "Well, I didn't know but what they might haul some more steel out there because they had taken some off Monday and some Monday night, and I was out there just in case they did come out with some " I cannot regard this as a valid reason for the picketing on these days, for it is obvious that Respon- dent could have ascertained any further such deliveries by the simple procedure of following the trucks from the primary situs In fact this is just what happened when the pickets followed Northern's trucks to the project in the morning and again on the evening of September 15 Significantly, on the latter occasion (when the trailer was being unloaded by Wussow and two Northern employees), the pickets remained at the jobsite for only about 5 minutes, departing before the unloading was finished It is noteworthy that no employees of secondary employers were on the project at this time is Carpenters Local No 235, (Howard E Edminsion) 174 NLRB 996, I B E W , Loc al501 (Samuel Langer) v N L R B, 341 U S 694, 701, 702 24 General Truck Drivers and Helpers, Local 467, (J B Electric ), 171 NLRB No 90, New Mexico Building Branch, Association General Contrac- tors of America, 120 NLRB 1658 2" The Board recently issued a fourth decision in which it found this Respondent to have violated the secondary boycott provisions of the Act General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563 and its agent Jeffrey Curtin, et al (Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc ), 179 NLRB 822 See fn I in said decision wherein the Board referred to recent earlier decisions as follows We agree with the Trial Examiner that a broad order is justified in this case because of the Teamsters and Operating Engineers earlier viola- tions of the secondary boycott provisions of the Act, as found by the Board in General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563, et al (Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc ), 176 NLRB No 51 Additionally, we note that broad orders have also issued against these same unions in General Teamsters, Warehouse and Dairy Employees, Local No 126, et al , 175 NLRB No 86 and in General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563 & Fox Valley Construction Materi- als Suppliers Association, Inc, 179 NLRB No 109 1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recommend that the Respondent Unions, their of- ficers, agents, and representatives, and Jerry Jahnke and Peter Succa, shall:26 1. Cease and desist from: 1(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual em- ployed by Fluor Brothers Construction Co., John Hennes Trucking Company, Inc., or any other em- ployer or person, to refuse, in the course of their employment, to perform any services, and from threatening, coercing, or restraining the said em- ployers, or any other employer or person, with an object in either case of forcing or requiring all of the above, or any other person or employer to cease doing business directly or indirectly with Northern Contractors Supply, Inc. (b) Restraining or coercing employees of Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., in the exercise of their right to refrain from joining or supporting any strike called by Respondent General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563, by harm- ing or threatening to harm employees, or by damag- ing or threatening to damage vehicles and property. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their offices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notices marked "Appendix."27 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by an official represen- tative, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondents for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Upon request of the Regional Director, the Respondents shall supply him with a sufficient number of signed copies for posting by Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., Fluor Brothers Construction Co. and John Hennes Trucking Company, Inc., at all places where notices, to their respective employees are customarily posted, if the employers desire to do so. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respon- dents have taken to comply herewith.2" t" Subparagraph (b), below, is not applicable to Respondent Carpenters and Respondent Ironworkers , or their officers, agents , and representatives 11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional 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 " Z" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any in- dividual employed by Fluor Brothers Construc- tion Co., John Hennes Trucking Company, Inc., or any other employer, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any services, nor will we threaten, coerce, or restrain the said employers, or any other em- ployer, where, in either case, an object is to force or require the employers named above, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business directly or indirectly with Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., or with any other employer or person. LOCAL UNION 630, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND Fox RIVER VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Dated By (Jerry Jahnke) ( Business Representative) 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 Board's Office, Commerce Building, Second Floor, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-272-8600, Extension 3861. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., in the GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY exercise of their right not to join or support any strike by us against that Company, by harming or threatening to harm them, or by damaging or threatening to damage vehicles or property. WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any in- dividual employed by Fluor Brothers Construc- tion Co., John Hennes Trucking Company, Inc., or any other employer or person, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any' services, nor will we threaten, coerce, or restrain the said employers, or any other employer or person, where, in either case, an object is to force or require the em- ployers named above, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business directly or indirectly with Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., or with any other employer or person. GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION 563 (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Dated By (Peter Succa ) (Business Representative) EMPLOYEES LOC. UN. 563 APPENDIX C NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1031 An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any in- dividual employed by Fluor Brothers Construc- tion Co., John Hennes Trucking- Company, Inc., or any other employer, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any services, nor will we threaten, coerce, or restrain the said employers, or any other em- ployer, where, in either case, an object is to force or require the employers named above, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business directly or indirectly with Northern Contractors Supply, Inc., or with any other employer or person. BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL, AND ORNAMENTAL IRONWORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 8, AFL-CIO (Employer) 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 Board's Office, Commerce Building, Second Floor, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, Telephone 414-272-8600, Extension 3861. 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 Board 's Office, Commerce Building , Second Floor, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee , Wisconsin 53202 , Telephone 414-272-8600 , Extension 3861.