ILA, Local 1526

438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1526, AFL-CIO and Tropical Shipping & Con- struction Co., Ltd. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1526, AFL-CIO and Birdsall Construction Com- pany. Cases 12-CC-632-1 and 12-CC-632-2 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On April 20, 1970, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled cases, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Charging Parties filed exceptions to the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner together with supporting briefs, in which they asserted that the Recommended Order is unduly narrow and requested, accordingly, that the said Order be ex- panded in certain specified respects. Respondent then filed with the Board a statement declaring that it had no objections to changes in the Recom- mended Order consistent with the exceptions of General Counsel and the Charging Parties. 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 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 in light of the limited ex- ceptions filed by the General Counsel and the Charging Parties, the statement of Respondent Union in response thereto, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,' con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex- aminer with the additions in the Recommended Order set out below. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below2 and hereby orders that Respondent, Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, Local 1526, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Insert the words "or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce" in paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended Order after the words "Eller & Co., Inc.," and again after the words "Birdsall Construction Company." 2. Insert the words "or any other labor organiza- tion" in paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) of the Recom- mended Order after the words "AFL-CIO." 3. Delete the words "in Port Everglades, Flor- ida," from paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended Order. 4. Insert the words "Tropical Shipping & Con- struction Co., Ltd., and Birdsall Construction Com- pany or" in paragraph 1(b) of the Recommended Order after the words "to cease doing business with each other or with." 5. Delete the words "or any other stevedoring employer at Port Everglades, Florida," from the first full paragraph of the Appendix, and substitute in their place the word "or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce." 6. Delete the words "those companies" in the second full paragraph of the Appendix and sub- stitute in their place the words "Tropical Shipping & Construction Co., Ltd ., and Birdsall Construc- tion Company." ' No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's violation findings s The modifications are in accord with the request respectively made by General Counsel and the Charging Parties and consented to by the Respon- dent TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION SIDNEY D. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: The facts in this case are not in serious dispute: the question for decision is whether the employees' work stop- page herein was only to compel their employer to adhere to the terms of the collective-bargaining contract, or whether it was to force a cessation of business between certain persons and, therefore, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). The complaint herein,' under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act), alleges that, on dates in July and August 1969,2 Respondent induced employees of Eller & Co., Inc., a stevedoring company at Port Ever- glades, Florida, to refuse to load trucks of the charging parties because it was engaged in a labor dispute with them. Respondent answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint, and the issues so raised came on for trial before me at ' Issued September 22, 1969, on charges filed August 6, 1969 T All dates herein , not otherwise designated , are 1969 184 NLRB No. 48 ILA, LOCAL 1526 Miami, Florida, on November 19, 1969. All parties were represented, afforded an opportunity to ad- duce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue on the fact and the law. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and by counsel for Respondent have been carefully considered 3 Upon the entire record4 herein, including my ob- servation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The parties The allegations of the complaint on this subject are admitted by the answers and, together with un- disputed testimony, show the following: Tropical Shipping and Construction Co., Ltd. (Tropical), incorporated under the laws of Nassau, Bahamas,6 is engaged in the transportation of goods by sea, on a regular schedule, from the United States to Nassau, Freeport, and other points in the Bahamas , deriving annual gross revenues of more than $50,000 from such operations. As reflected in this record, the goods are carried in completely loaded trailers, owned by Tropical or others, which are rolled aboard its ships at Riviera Beach, which is the port of Palm Beach . When the overseas destination is reached , the trailers are rolled off and either unloaded at the port or hauled by local truckers to the consignees. This system is called "containerized freight." Birdsall Construction Company (Birdsall), a Florida corporation, is engaged in the motor hau- lage of goods and materials from several locations in the State of Florida to Riviera Beach, Florida, under certificates of the Interstate Commerce Com- mission. Its principal function is to haul trailers, be- longing to Tropical and others, to Riviera Beach for loading on ships of Tropical. These operations con- stitute a link in interstate commerce and in com- merce between the States and a foreign country and Birdsall derives annual revenues from them ex- ceeding $50,000. Although the trailers have the name "Tropical Shipping" painted on their sides and the tractors have the name "Birdsall" on their doors, both companies are wholly owned by John S. Birdsall, Jr., and integrated in operation. Ac- ' After the main briefs had been filed , counsel for Respondent made a motion to strike portions of the General Counsel 's brief on the ground that it analyzed , in depth , a contract provision which had not been made the subject of any testimony or argument during the course of the trial Alter- natively, the motion requested leave to file a reply brief to meet this par- ticular argument and a proposed reply brief was attached During the trial, reference had been made to the complexity of the collective-bargaining agreement and the difficult issues of law arising from its application, as ar- gued by Respondent, to the facts of the case In this connection the Trial Examiner had suggested that it might be advisable , for the full development of legal arguments on both sides, that reply briefs be filed, promising sym- pathetic consideration for any such application Accordingly, by order dated February 5, 1970, the motion to strike portions of the General Coun- sel's brief was denied and Respondent's reply brief was received Although Respondent 's motion was served by mail on all parties on January 27, the General Counsel's opposition was not received until late in the day on 439 cordingly , any reference to either of these compa- nies, unless otherwise stated, includes the other. Dant and Russell , Inc. (Dant), a Nevada corpora- tion engaged in a multistate business of manufac- ture and wholesale distribution of lumber and wood products , maintains a Florida branch at Port Ever- glades which annually receives , from points in other states, and ships, to points in other states and out- side the United States, goods valued at more than $50,000. Eller & Co., Inc. (Eller ), a Florida corporation engaged in stevedoring operations at Port Ever- glades, Florida, provides loading , unloading, and handling services in the port area. It also acts as general agent for shippers and other companies en- gaged in interstate and foreign commerce and an- nually derives revenues of more than $50,000 from such services. Respondent is a labor organization representing all the employees, except checkers, handling goods at Port Everglades , including their movement on and off ships as well as in the warehouse and storage areas . John Edward King is its president and business agent: The checkers at this port are represented by another local of the International Longshoremen 's Association (I.L.A.). Local 1680, I.L.A., is also a labor organization representing longshore and warehouse employees in the Palm Beach area, and Earl Gibson is its pre- sident and business agent . Another I.L.A. local represents longshore and warehouse employees at the port of Miami. 2. Method of operation The goods involved in this case consist of lumber, produced by Dant on the West Coast and shipped to Port Everglades in Dant 's ships . The lumber, strapped in bundles, is removed from the ships and stored in a designated section of the port area, called the lumber yard, where lumber belonging to other lumber companies is also stored . Dant has no employees at Port Everglades, except some clerical and management personnel , and all the handling of its lumber, including removal from the ships to the dock , from the dock to the lumber yard, from place to place within the lumber storage area and, ulti- mately, aboard trucks or trailers for transportation to customers , is performed for Dant by Eller. February 5, after the order granting the motion had been issued and dispatched to the parties Nothing in either the General Counsel's opposi- tion to Respondent's motion or in his subsequent motion for reconsidera- tion (except the references to an administrative determination by the Re- gional Director for Region 22) appears to carry sufficient weight to justify rejection of the reply brief Accordingly , the motion for reconsideration will be denied but no consideration will be given to that portion of Respon- dent's main brief which refers to an administrative determination by the Regional Director for Region 22 of the Board " Motions by the General Counsel and Respondent to correct typo- graphical errors in the transcript of record were unopposed and, by order dated March 31, 1970, were granted 3 The answer , as filed, denied any knowledge or information concerning Eller or the Charging Parties but, at the trial, Respondent conceded the al- legations of the complaint concerning them Since 1969, the Commonwealth of the Bahama Islands 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD When lumber is sold by Dant, a copy of the sales order is sent to the Dant office in the port area. This memo sets forth the material sold, the date when it is to be picked up at the port lumber yard, and the carrier which has been designated by the customer to pick it up. The carrier's driver coming to pick up the lumber first reports to the Dant of- fice, where he is given an order describing the material to be loaded; he takes this order to the of- fice of Eller and an Eller employee instructs the driver where in the lumber yard to take his truck for loading. Since the lumber is in bundles, flatbed trucks or trailers are generally used and the loading is done from the side by forklift operators and other employees of Eller, the stevedoring company, after which the carrier's employee drives his truck or trailer out of the port area for delivery to the customer or to a connecting carrier. 3. Background of the dispute Tropical does not recognize any labor organiza- tion as a representative of any of its employees. On July 2, John H. Birdsall, III, the son of the owner of Tropical and its vice president in charge of traffic to Nassau, was visited by four men. Three identified themselves as representatives of the I.L.A. locals in Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale (Port Everglades), and Miami, respectively; the fourth stated that he represented the Brotherhood of Longshoremen in Nassau. After some conversation concerning the labor situation on the Nassau water- front, Gibson, president of the Palm Beach local, picked up the statement of one of the others who had asked Birdsall to use "union labor", asked Birdsall whether he would "talk with them" and whether he would permit Tropical's employees to talk with them. Birdsall said that the employees were free to talk with whomever they wished and, as far as the company was concerned, he gave Gib- son the name of Tropical's labor counsel, saying that the union officials could communicate with that attorney and arrange a meeting.' On July 29, Tropical received, from the same attorneys who represent Respondent, a letter stating that a majori- ty of Tropical's employees in Palm Beach and Dade County (Miami) had designated I.L.A. Local 1680 as their collective-bargaining representative and that that Local demanded recognition as such representative. The classifications of employees claimed to be represented were set forth, and r Respondent objected to receipt of any testimony showing statements made by these men as not binding on Respondent and the testimony con- cerning this meeting was accepted subject to connection with Respondent Thereafter, John E King, president of Respondent, admitted that he "worked very close with Turner (one of those at the meeting) in Miami" and that Turner told him that he, Turner, was "trying to acquire a contract for Tropical for the West Palm Beach local " King's testimony, that he knew nothing about this meeting or any demand on Tropical by Local 1680 until after the charges herein were filed-more than a month later-is rejected as incredible in view of his testimony that he learned about the meeting from Turner, with whom he "worked very close" and from his own mem- bers, whose inquiries concerning Tropical, he testified , tnggered his activi- separate units were specified for the Palm Beach and Dade County employees. 4. The work stoppages Sometime in July, the Grand Bahamas Millwork and Building Supply Company purchased six trailer loads of lumber from Dant and specified that they were to be delivered, from the lumber yard on specific dates, to Tropical as its designated carrier. On July 22, the general manager of Dant called Tropical and requested that two trailers be sent in to pick up the lumber ordered for delivery on that date. Tropical brought in the trailers on the 23rd and they were loaded and dispatched without in- cident. At about noon on the following day, James Ag- nini, the assistant terminal superintendent of Eller, saw Respondent's president and business agent, John Edward King, in the port area in front of El- ler's office. As a result of a report he had heard concerning the loading of Tropical's two trucks the previous evening, he asked King whether it was true that Respondent was requesting "ship pay" for loading the two Tropical trucks the previous even- ing. King said "yes" and, to Agnini's further question concerning why Respondent wanted the men paid at ship rates, King answered that the trucks belonged to Tropical Shipping , a nonunion company, and that the men would either be paid for loading them at ship rates or they would not be loaded. King also said: "We are not going to shake hands with any trucking outfit that is affiliated with Tropical." Agnini testified that King then left and that as soon as King was gone, he gave instructions to his dispatcher that any truck that came to the yard to be loaded was to be loaded without discrimination. King's version of this conversation was that he told Agnini that his members had asked him "to check out the possibility of getting shipside pay for loading Tropical trucks because under our present contract we were entitled to it." Although he claimed, while testifying, that the fact that Tropical was nonunion had nothing to do with the stoppage and cited the provisions of the contract calling for ship pay for the loading of trailers to go directly aboard ships, his only clear reference to his talk with Agnini was an admission that the fact that Tropical was nonunion "was brought out in the course of the conversation." Most of King's state- ties Accordingly, there is a sufficient connection between Respondent and the statements at the meeting, as reflected in Birdsall 's testimony, to establish that there was a labor dispute between Tropical and the Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association dating back at least to July 2, and that Respondent's president knew about it no later than a few days after that date 6 The collective-bargaining contract , discussed further hereafter, pro- vides two scales of pay, although the work involved may be performed by the same employees The one called "ship pay" is, generally, for loading or unloading ships, and the other , called "warehouse pay" or "terminal pay," is for handling goods in the storage area The "ship" rates are higher than the "terminal " rates. ILA, LOCAL 1526 ments on the witness stand consisted of opinion and argument concerning the employees' rights under the contract to ship pay for loading Tropical's trailers, but it does not appear from his testimony or that of Agnini that he raised that question or made any of those arguments in his conversation with Agnini. On the testimony of Agnini and King, as well as their demeanor while testifying, I find that the conversation between them on July 24 was accurately reflected in the testimony of Agnini and that King demanded that Eller's employees be paid for loading Tropical's trailers at ship rates because Tropical was nonunion. King's statement about not shaking hands with any trucking outfit "affiliated with Tropical" applied, I find, to Birdsall. On July 24, Dant's general manager called Tropi- cal and requested that a single trailer be sent in on Monday, the 28th, to pick up a load of lumber, part of the same order. The trailer was brought in but it was not loaded and there is evidence that Eller's forklift operator and his helper refused to load the Tropical trailer.' Dant's manager reported the refusal to Tropical and gave it until Wednesday "to straighten the matter out" or he would call another carrier. On Wednesday, the 30th, he called Alco Shipping, a carrier transporting goods to the Bahamas via its own trucks, trailers, and ships from the port of Miami, and Alco picked up the trailer load of lumber without incident. Despite the July 28 occurrence, Dant continued to follow its customer 's shipping instructions and, on August 1, again requested Tropical to send in a single trailer for loading on the 4th. Tropical delivered the trailer to the lumber yard for loading but again it was not loaded and Dant shipped the lumber via Alco on the 6th. On August 4, when the Tropical trailer was brought in to pick up the load of lumber and Eller's employees refused to load it, E. K. Graham, Eller's terminal superintendent, telephoned King and told him that the loaders in the lumber yard had refused to put the lumber on the Tropical truck unless they received "ship time." King answered: "That's right." Graham insisted that the contract called for terminal pay on the operation but King said: "You can go ahead and load the truck, but you are going to pay ship time." Graham repeated his refusal to pay ship time and King said: "Well, that's it," end- ing the conversation. Graham testified that the only mention of the contract in this brief exchange was his own reference to it and King did not testify at all concerning this telephone conversation. Ac- cordingly, I find that it occurred as Graham described it. 5. The contentions of the parties The General Counsel contends that the evidence 9 Tropical's driver testified to conversations with Eller's checker and forklift operator on July 28, in which they said they had "called Miami" and that they would not load a Tropical truck in view of the testimony of 441 adequately establishes: (i) that Respondent was responsible for the refusal by Eller's employees to load Tropical's trucks and for the threats, directed to Eller, that those trucks would not be loaded ex- cept at a higher rate of pay; and (ii) that an object of this conduct was to force or require Eller or Dant to cease doing business with Tropical and to compel Tropical to recognize an uncertified I.L.A. local as the representative of its employees. Respondent, although it contends that the General Counsel has failed to establish that Respondent was responsible for the refusal of El- ler's employees to load Tropical trucks, also con- tends that Respondent's involvement in the matter was only a controversy between it and Eller over the proper rate of pay for those services as established by their collective-bargaining contract. 6. Discussion and conclusions To establish the violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) alleged in the complaint, proof is required in two specific areas: (a) that Respondent caused the work stoppages and made the threats, and (b) that an object of its conduct was to disrupt or alter the business relationship among Eller, Dant, and Tropical or, alternatively, to force Tropi- cal to recognize an I.L.A. local as the representa- tive of its employees, although neither Respondent nor any other I.L.A. local has been certified as such representative. a. Threats and inducement While there is no direct evidence in the record that, prior to July 24 and thereafter, Respondent in- duced or encouraged Eller's employees to refuse to load Dant lumber on Tropical's trailers except at ship pay, it has been found that King's flat state- ment to Agnini on that date was that " . . . they de- manded deep sea pay for loading the trucks, either deep sea pay or they wouldn't load them." This statement is, by its terms, a threat by Respondent directed to Eller that, unless something special were done, its employees would not perform their customary duties. Followed, as it was, by the refusal of the Dant employees, members of Respondent, to load the trucks, these two factors constitute adequate circumstantial evidence that the refusal was induced or encouraged by Respondent and I so find.10 An additional threat, as well as an admission of Respondent's inducement of Eller's employees, is contained, I find, in King's brief conversation with Eller's terminal superintendent, on August 4, when the loaders again refused to place the Dant lumber on the Tropical truck which was there for that purpose. The quantity of evidence on this point may not Respondent's president and business agent, however, no findings need be made on the basis of this testimony "ILA Locals 1224, et a! (Jess Edwards), 160 N LRB 732, 736-737 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be overwhelming, but my estimate of it may be ex- pressed in the words of Mercutio, assessing his fatal wound: 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door; but `tis enough, `twill serve: b. Objects With respect to Respondent's object in the threats and inducement, the General Counsel's ar- gument is properly based upon the facts disclosed by the record: that Respondent's action in prevent- ing Eller from loading Dant's lumber on Tropical's trailers was in aid of the effort by another I.L.A. local to obtain recognition from Tropical or, at the very least, to interfere with the business relation- ship between Dant and Eller while Eller was doing business with Tropical. The contract argument advanced by Respondent as a defense is, in my opinion insofar as this case is concerned, an afterthought. This is not to say that the contract might not be construed as justifying a claim for ship pay for loading the Tropical trailers if properly presented to an appropriate tribunal," but on the evidence in this record I am convinced that the contract was not even present in King's mind when he made the threat and induced the work stoppages in this case-much less that it was the sole reason for his conduct, as is assumed throughout Respondent's briefs.12 As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia succinctly phrased it in a recent case, dealing with an em- ployer's motive in taking certain action against em- ployees: . the actions of the Company's agents are to be judged in the context in which they took place in the plant and are not to be controlled by the characterization that counsel seeks to engraft upon them in subsequent legal proceedings. is An additional reason for my conclusion that the contract was not the basis for these activities is that the claim is not nearly so clear as Respondent's counsel 's argument would have it appear . In addi- tion to the testimony of Agnini , Merrill, and Graham that ship pay was required only where a trailer was filled for loading on a ship to sail the same day,"' King conceded that ship pay was not demanded of Eller for the loading of the Alco trailers, although Alco's operation in actually trans- porting the Dant lumber involved was identical with that which Tropical 's would have been : i.e., the fully loaded trailers were hauled from Port Ever- glades over the highway to a port less than 50 miles away , where they were placed aboard its own ships. 15 The difference , as King pointed out to the discomfiture of Respondent's counsel , was that in the case of Alco, I.L.A. members in Miami would handle the cargo at ship rates by driving the trailers onto the ships there and securing them for the sea voyage.16 To accept Respondent's argument, moreover, would require a finding that the I.L.A. effort to ob- tain recognition from Tropical played absolutely no part in motivating Respondent 's threats to Eller and its inducement of the work stoppages by Eller's em- ployees. In view of my finding that the conversation between Agnini and King was accurately reflected in Agnini 's testimony , and of King 's admission that reference was made in it to the fact that Tropical was nonunion, it is impossible to make a finding that the union campaign against Tropical was totally irrelevant . Accordingly , if Respondent's ac- tions were motivated, even in part , by this cam- paign, it must be concluded that at least "an ob- ject" thereof was to force or require Dant or Eller to cease doing business with Tropical and to force Tropical to recognize an I.L.A. local," and the fact that those actions might also have had some basis in a contract dispute is insufficient , under the circum- stances, to neutralize the presence of the unlawful object."' Respondent 's argument that its actions were not to force or require Eller to cease doing business with either Dant or Tropical , but only to force Eller to pay additional wages for the work involved, must also be rejected . The Board has long held that an " Resolution of this controversy, according to Respondent 's counsel, is to be submitted to arbitration under the contract This is the proper procedure in the noted "Warrior and Gulf trilogy " ( United Steelworkers v Warrior and Gulf Navigation Co, 363 U S 574 , United Steelworkers v American Mfg Co, 363 U S 564, and United Steelworkers v Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp , 363 U S 593) cited in Respondent's reply brief, the Supreme Court endorsed this method of determining disputes in the ad- ministration of collective-bargaining contracts and pointed out that the policy of the national labor laws encouraged the submission of grievances to arbitration rather than forcing them into a mold of litigation The argu- ment which Respondent makes herein on the basis of these cases , however, eludes me since it appears to be an attempt , in this unfair labor practice case, to obtain a construction of the contract-precisely what the Supreme Court recommended be not done in conventional litigation Moreover, the rule of those cases cuts both ways and, as I see it , itself condemns Respon- dent's actions in this case It is to be noted that the Court wrote, at 578, that "Here [ in labor disputes ] arbitration is the substitute for industrial strife" but Respondent nevertheless, by its threats and work stoppages , chose "in- dustrial strife " "Compare Teamsters Local 716 ( Norman Contractors ), 169 NLRB 156, where the Board found , as a matter of fact, that enforcement of the con- tract rate of pay was the sole reason for the union's activities and that no part of its object was to bring about a cessation of business between any of those involved " 1 U E ,Local 806 [ SNC Manufacturing Co ] v NLRB , 434 F 2d 473 (1970) i' Tropical's ships sail according to a fixed schedule and there is no evidence that the trailers carrying Dant lumber were intended or required to be placed aboard ships sailing the same day that the trailers were loaded at Port Everglades 16 Tropical would have hauled them 30 miles north to Riviera Beach, the port of Palm Beach , whereas Alco hauled them 25 or 30 miles south to Dodge Island , the port of Miami i" Any implication that fully loaded trailers might be required to be un- loaded and reloaded before being placed aboard the ships was nullified by King's testimony that this never occurred except in rare situations where "a checker gets a bad count " " Bangor Building Trades Council, 123 NLRB 484, 489, enfd 278 F 2d 287 (CA 1, 1960) i" Bangor Building Trades Council, supra, Local 1976, Carpenters v NLRB , 357 U S 93,105-107 ILA, LOCAL 1526 443 effort to compel a change in the established method of doing business between two persons constitutes an effort to force them "to cease doing business" with each other as that phrase is used in Section 8(b)(4)(B).19 I find, in short, that Respondent's refusal to load Tropical's trucks except at ship pay was not because that rate of pay was the proper one under the contract but because the requirement for a higher than normal rate of pay for the operation would prevent Eller from loading Tropical's trucks. 7. The effect of the unfair labor practices upon commerce The activities of Respondent set forth in section 4, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions of Dant, Eller, and Tropical described in sec- tions 1 and 2, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several states and between the states and a foreign country, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow thereof. 8. The remedy Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recom- mend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair labor practices and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record herein, I state the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1526, AFL-CIO, Respondent herein, and In- ternational Longshoremen's Association, Local 1680, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. Dant & Russell, Inc., Eller & Co., Inc., Tropi- cal Shipping & Construction Co., Ltd., and Birdsall Construction Company are employers or persons engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Eller & Co., Inc., to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing said employers and per- sons to cease doing business with each other and with an object of forcing or requiring Tropical or Birdsall to recognize an uncertified labor organiza- tion as the representative of its employees, Respon- dent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of 19 Bangor Building Trades Council, supra, Local 3, IBEW (N Y Telephone Co ), 140 NLRB 729 S0 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 Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Eller & Co., Inc., and Dant & Russell, Inc., with an ob- ject of requiring them to cease doing business with each other and with Tropical or Birdsall, or with an object of forcing or requiring Tropical or Birdsall to recognize an uncertified labor organization as the representative of its employees, Respondent has en- gaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER20 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that International Longshoremen 's Association , Local 1526, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing , or encouraging in- dividuals employed by Eller & Co., Inc., to engage in, strikes or refusals in the course of their employ- ment to process , transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles , materials , or commodi- ties, or to perform any services , where an object thereof is to force or require their employer, or Dant & Russell , Inc., Tropical Shipping & Con- struction Co., Ltd., or Birdsall Construction Com- pany to cease doing business with each other, or to force or require Tropical or Birdsall to recognize any local of International Longshoremen 's Associa- tion , AFL-CIO, as the representative of its em- ployees, unless and until such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such em- ployees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. (b) Threatening , coercing, or restraining Eller & Co., Inc ., Dant & Russell, Inc., or any other em- ployer or person engaged in commerce in Port Everglades, Florida , with an object of requiring them, or any of them , to cease doing business with each other or with any other employer or person engaged in commerce , or with an object of forcing or requiring Tropical or Birdsall to recognize any local of International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-CIO, as the representative of its employees, -unless and until such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is hereby found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in each of the Respondent's business offices , meeting halls, and other places in Port Everglades and Fort Lau- 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 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD derdale, Florida, where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Re- gional Director for Region 12, for posting by Eller & Co., Inc., and Dant & Russell, Inc., said em- ployers or persons being willing, at all locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.22 _' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "- Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals En- forcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " " 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all parties were given an op- portunity to present evidence and argument, the National Labor Relations Board has decided that we violated the law by committing certain unfair labor practices and has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT engage in a strike, or induce or encourage the employees of Eller & Co., Inc , or any other stevedoring employer at Port Everglades, Florida, to engage in a strike or a refusal, in the course of their employment, to load lumber or other goods on trucks or trailers of Tropical Shipping and Construction Co., Ltd., or Birdsall Construction Company, where an object thereof is to force or require Dant & Russell, Inc., Eller & Co., Inc., or any other person or employer to cease doing busi- ness with those companies or with each other or where an object thereof is to force or require Tropical Shipping and Construction Co., Ltd., or Birdsall Construction Company to recognize any local of International Longshoremen 's Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , as the representa- tive of its employees , unless and until such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain Eller & Co., Inc., Dant & Russell , Inc., or any person engaged in commerce , where an object thereof is to force or require Dant & Russell, Inc., Eller & Co., Inc., or any other person or employer to cease doing business with those companies or with each other or where an ob- ject thereof is to force or require Tropical Shipping and Construction Co., Ltd., or Bird- sall Construction Company to recognize any local of International Longshoremen 's Associa- tion , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion , as the representative of its employees, un- less and until such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such em- ployees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. WE HEREBY withdraw and cancel any orders and directions heretofore issued by us incon- sistent with the above commitments and we hereby notify our members that we have no objection to their full performance of their du- ties in connection with the loading of Tropical or Birdsall trailers or trucks. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1526, AFL-CIO (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 Board 's Office, Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 813-228-7227.