S. F. Typographical Union 21

542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21 , Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO; Freight, Construction, General Drivers & Helpers Union Local 287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America; and Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and California Newspaper, Inc. d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal . Case 20-CC-965 December 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On August 17, 1970, Trial Examiner Allen Sin- sheimer, Jr., issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en- gaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, the Charging Party filed an answering brief, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed limited cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in 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, cross-exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications: In the limited cross-exceptions filed by the General Counsel and joined in by the Charging Party it is pointed out that by apparent oversight the Trial Examiner failed to find that when Montano of Teamsters Local No. 85 induced drivers of a neutral employer not to cross the secondary picket line of Respondent Typographical Union No. 21, and thereby involved the Teamsters Local No. 85 in the process of shutting down the pier, such conduct constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) as well as 8(b)(4)(ii)(B); 1 and, in the case of Respondent Teamsters Local 287, he failed to include in his recommended order a remedial provision aimed at its 187 NLRB No. 71 violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). We find merit in these cross-exceptions and shall revise the remedial provisions accordingly. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and hereby orders that the Respondents, San Francis- co Typographical Union No. 21, International Typo- graphical Union, AFL-CIO; Freight, Construction, General Drivers & Helpers Union Local 287, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America; and Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as modified below: 1. Renumber paragraph B, 1, as paragraph B, 1, (a), and add the following as paragraph B, 1, (b): "(b) Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining Star, Garden City, Powell, or Globe, where an object is to force or require Star, Garden City, Powell, Globe, or any other person to cease doing business with the Journal or with each other, to compel any of them to cease doing business with the Journal." 2. Renumber paragraph C, 1, as paragraph C, 1, (b), and insert, immediately preceding it, the follow- ing as paragraph C, 1, (a): "(a) Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Globe or by Garden City to refuse to pick up or deliver goods, wares, or merchandise at Pier 46A of the port of San Francisco destined for the Journal or to refuse to perform any other services where an object thereof is to force or require Globe or Garden City to cease doing business with the Journal, or with Powell, Star, or with any other person for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with the Journal." 3. In footnote 9 of the Trial Examiner's Decision substitute "20" for "10" days. 4. Substitute the attached notice as Appendix B for that recommended by the Trial Examiner. 5. Substitute the attached notice as Appendix C for that recommended by the Trial Examiner. I A violation of Section 8(bX4XiXB) was not specifically alleged in the complaint as against Teamsters Local No. 85, but the evidentiary facts underlying this additional finding are admitted by Montano himself. S. F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Garden City Transportation Compa- ny, Ltd., to refuse to pick up or deliver goods, wares, or merchandise at Pier 46A of the port of San Francisco destined for San Rafael Independ- ent Journal or to perform any other services where an object thereof is to force or require Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd., to cease doing business with San Rafael Independent Journal or with Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., Star Termi- nal Company, Inc., Globe-Wally's Forklift Serv- ice, Inc., or any other person for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with San Rafael Independent Journal. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Star Terminal Company, Inc., Garden City Transpor- tation Company, Ltd., Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., or Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., where an object is to force or require Star Terminal Company, Inc., Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd., Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., or any other person to cease doing business with the San Rafael Independent Journal, or with each other to compel any of them to cease doing business with the San Rafael Independent Journal. FREIGHT, CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL DRIVERS & HELPERS UNION LOCAL 287, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. 543 APPENDIX C NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Star Terminal Company, Inc., where an object is to force or require Star Terminal Company, Inc., to cease doing business with Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., or any other person to compel any of them to cease doing business with the San Rafael Independent Journal. WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals employed by Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., or by Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd., to refuse to pick up or deliver goods, wares, or merchandise at Pier 46A of the port of San Francisco destined for the San Rafael Independ- ent Journal or to refuse to perform any other services where an object thereof is to force or require Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., or Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd., to cease doing business with the San Rafael Inde- pendent Journal, or with Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., Star Terminal Company, Ltd., or with any other person for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with the San Rafael Independent Journal. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS & AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL No. 85, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-3197. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALLEN SINSHEIMER, JR., Trial Examiner: This proceeding was heard at San Francisco, California, on May 6, 7, 8, and 13, 1970. The complaint herein issued on February 17, 1970, based on a charge filed January 20, 1970, alleges violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) (ii)(B) of the Act by virtue of certain picketing and other conduct engaged in by the Respondents.' The issues will be more fully set forth hereafter. Upon the entire record including my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondents, I make the following: 2 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY The complaint alleges, the Respondents admit, and I find that the Charging Party is engaged in the publication of a daily newspaper of general circulation in San Rafael, California, that during the past year it derived gross revenue in excess of $200,000 from its newspaper operation and that during said year it received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of California. It is further alleged, admitted, and I find that the Charging Party, the California Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal, herein called The Journal, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, Internation- al Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Typo- graphical Union 21, Freight, Construction, General Drivers & Helpers Union Local 287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called Teamsters Local 287, and Brother- hood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called Teamsters Local 85, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Admissions The Journal purchases from Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., herein called Powell, newsprint, which is shipped by Powell from Canada to the port facility operated by Star Terminal Company, Inc., herein called Star, at pier 46A of the port of San Francisco, where the newsprint is stored while awaiting delivery to The Journal. There are also i On April 10, 1970, this case was consolidated for hearing with Case 20-CB-2205 The hearing opened May 6 and was continued to May 7 due to unavailability of Respondent counsel On May 7, 1970, pursuant to motion of Respondent's counsel, the Trial Examiner severed the above case from Case 20-CB-2205 Hearing in that case was conducted following conclusion of the above case 2 The General Counsel on June 22 and July 22, 1970, filed a motion to stored, in various locations at the pier, rolls of newsprint to be delivered to many newspapers in the area other than The Journal . These have no required or fixed place of storage although they may be stored at the same place. Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd., herein called Garden City, has performed services for Powell in the hauling of rolls of newsprint from Star's port facility to various customers of Powell including The Journal. Its employees are members of Teamsters Local 287. Globe- Wally's Forklift Service , Inc., herein called Globe, has been engaged in the business of loading and unloading cargo by means of forklifts from motor carriers including Garden City on and from their trucks at various port facilities including that operated by Star at pier 46A. Its employees are members of Teamsters Local 85. It was admitted and I find that at all times material Jack Black has been a business agent of the Respondent Teamsters Local 287 and that Henry Montano has been an organizer for Respondent Teamsters Local 85. Donald Abrams testified that he is and at all material times was a representative for Typographical Union 21 and I so find. B. Complaint and Issues The complaint alleges as follows: (a) Since on or about January 19, 1970, Respondent Typographical Union has picketed at the entrance to, and on, the Star port facility at Pier 46A of the Port of San Francisco, where there was a shipment of newsprint to be delivered to The Journal's San Rafael plant. (b) On or about January 21, 1970, Respondent Typo- graphical Union, by its various pickets, names unknown, at Pier 46A of the Port of San Francisco, physically obstructed, and prevented the departure of, a Garden City truck loaded with newsprint to be transported to The Journal's San Rafael plant. (c) Since on or about January 20, 1970, Respondent Teamsters Local 287, by its agent Black, has instructed and appealed to its members, employed as truck drivers by Garden City, to honor the picket line of Respondent Typographical Union at Pier 46A and to refuse to pick up, haul, deliver or otherwise handle the newsprint cargo shipped by Powell and awaiting, at Pier 46A, delivery to The Journal's San Rafael plant. (d) On or about January 21, 1970, Respondent Teamsters Local 85, by its agent Montano, at Pier 46A, threatened Star with a shutdown of all operations at Pier 46A where there was newsprint to be delivered to The Journal's San Rafael plant. These allegations are denied by the Respondent. The issues with respect to the allegations will be spelled out more fully after stating the facts relating to each. Essentially they involve the contention by Respondents that the picketing by Typographical Union 21 at the pier was primary and not secondary, while the Charging Party correct the record in certain specified respects No opposition thereto has been filed I have checked each of the proposed corrections and, except for the proposed correction at p. 425, line 7 of "outside" to "inside" which is not clear to me, find that all of the others are proper and should be granted The motion to correct the record is accordingly granted except as indicated and the transcript of proceedings is hereby corrected S F TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 545 and the General Counsel contend that it was secondary. The respective Respondents also contend that the action of Black was proper in any event , and that Montano did not threaten a shutdown as alleged. C. Resume of the Facts On January 7, a strike was commenced by the Typographical Union 21 against The Journal which has its main location at San Rafael , some distance to the north of San Francisco . On January 19, about 10 :30 or 11 a.m., the Typographical Union commenced picketing at the pier where Star conducted its operations at the port of San Francisco . This pier is leased by Star from the port of San Francisco. At that time several pickets appeared with two (or more) of them carrying signs headed: TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION AFL-CIO ON STRIKE INDEPENDENT-JOURNAL UNFAIR The picket line was established by Abrams, a representa- tive of the Typographical Union . A driver for Garden City, John Perkov, who had earlier that day delivered newsprint from the pier to The Journal plant in San Rafael returned to pick up more newsprint but observing the pickets of Typographical Union Local 21 at the pier did not do so. The pickets stopped a number of Garden City trucks (including Perkov's) which arrived at the pier , inquired whether the driver was seeking to pick up newsprint for The Journal , stated they were on strike against The Journal, and that the Garden City trucks coming to the pier could pick up newsprint for any other paper but weren 't to pick it up for The Journal . Perkov, called his dispatcher and was told to pick up newsprint for another newspaper . Another driver, Edward Moisa, drove to the pier on January 19, was stopped by the pickets, and was told it was all right to go through since he was not picking up cargo for The Journal. Herbert Blatt, executive vice president of the Star, went outside to talk to Abrams who testified he identified himself and told Blatt that he was placing pickets outside the pier and "that their sole and limited extent was to restrict the cargo that belonged to The Independent Journal that was on the pier." Moore , Star's president, subsequently went outside and spoke to Abrams who testified he told Moore the picketing was limited to the cargo designated for The Journal. Abrams said Moore indicated during an ensuing discussion he thought this was a secondary boycott and that he shouldn't be involved. Abrams also admitted that day he told Jess Prince, a supervisor for Garden City, he did not want to interfere with Garden City's operations except they were asking him not to haul cargo to The Journal. Sometime in the day or night of January 19, Jack Black, a business representative of Local 287, received a phone call from an unidentified person stating that two members of Local 287 had crossed the picket line. Black wasn't too clear as to what picket line was referred to but the next morning, Black arose at 5 a .m., which was 2 hours earlier than his normal time, and went to a lunch counter adjacent to Garden City's locale. There he talked to two persons, one of whom is not identified and the other, Clifford Goddard, is Garden City's safety director and was its dispatcher. Goddard testified that Black asked who had crossed the picket line the day before and Goddard told him nobody had. Black asked to talk to the drivers involved. At that point they then went to the dispatch office and Goddard asked for the two drivers, Jack Miner and John Perkov, who had driven newsprint to San Rafael the day before. Black asked them if they crossed the picket line at San Rafael ; both said no. They stated they had taken the trucks into San Rafael and turned their trucks over to personnel from The Journal. According to Goddard, Black told them that the picket line at the pier was an "ambulatory picket line and that it would be observed." Goddard also testified Black said the picket line was strictly for The Independent Journal and no one else . Black told Perkov that it was all right to get a load for other papers but not The Journal and that he was to honor the picket line for The Independent Journal if it were there . Both drivers nodded in agreement. Subsequently, Ralph Dequine , Garden City's operations manager, spoke to Black by phone and told him that the picket line was not primary and "you have instructed your drivers that they were to evade the picket line ." According to Dequine, Black answered that he had been told by Al Winters (the "number one" business agent of Local 287) that it was an ambulatory picket line and a legitimate one, and that Black then said that he would recheck with Winters and if what Dequine was saying was correct "why he would revoke his instructions." According to Goddard after calling Winter, Black again told the drivers the picket line "would be observed." Black testified he told Goddard that it was a primary picket line and he had "already told the people what their rights are under the contract...." Black denied stating that the picket line "would be observed." Black testified he told Perkov on the morning of January 20, I told him it was a primary picket line, that he was protected under the contract, that he had a perfect right to refuse to cross that picket line , and he was protected under the agreement . He wouldn't be fired. and Perkov replied , "That's all I want to know." Black further testified after he spoke to Winter, I told-yes, I did. I told Mr. Goddard it's a primary picket line, and I've already told the people what their rights are under the contract ; there's nothing else I can do, I'm going to leave, which I did. Perkov testified that Black said to him: Well, I asked Mr. Black if it was legal in what I was doing, and he says, it was, but he says to honor- I've got a right to honor the picket line, which he was referring to Pier 46A, that is the picket line referring to 46A of the Independent Journal. Black further testified he told Goddard "it was a primary picket line, it was the people's right to respect that picket line if they so choose and they were protected under the contract." Black denied he said anything about instructions 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and said he didn't give any instructions to the people, "This was a choice they're entitled to make for themselves." Later that day according to Dequine, he and Black met at a grievance session and Dequine told Black, ". . . well, I see that- that you stuck by your guns and instructed the drivers to honor the picket line...." Black in turn smiled and answered, "You know that's a legal picket line." Black's version of the foregoing was as follows: All he could recall was that Dequine told him he was wrong and he could fire the drivers. He responded, ". . . Ralph, you do whatever you think is the right thing to do." The picketing had been on a 24-hour day basis whether or not there were any trucks or any employees or anyone else there. On January 21, at 8 a.m. when Moore arrived, there were about six pickets on the outside with about four carrying signs. Sometime that morning, a Garden City truck driven by Moisa arnved at the pier to pick up newsprint assigned to The Journal. When he drove inside, one of the pickets asked him what papers he was picking up and Moisa told him The Journal. The picket said that the drivers were honoring their picket. Moisa responded that he was sent by his dispatcher who told him "the paper was all cleared to be picked up." Moisa then commenced loading the truck with a forklift driven by an employee of Globe. The picket who had spoken to him earlier asked Moisa if he would "do him a favor and not leave until he (the picket) got a hold of someone . . . a Business Agent or something." Moisa said he had plenty of time as he had to load the truck and tie it down. Moisa tried a number of times to reach his agent, Black, who was not in but he did speak to another business agent, unidentified, who told him he "had the right [not]3 to cross the pickets." As the loading of the newsprint was being completed, Abrams arrived, told the pickets to move inside, and stationed one in front of the truck. Abrams did not immediately see Moisa but he was pointed out to him. According to Moisa, Abrams angrily demanded, "What the hell I was picking up the paper for." Abrams said he told Moisa that he couldn't understand why Moisa had allowed his rig to be loaded with The Journal cargo, that other Garden City drivers had come on the pier on the 19th and 20th, been requested not to pick up Journal paper and had loaded for other papers and left the pier without difficulty. Abrams also asked if Moisa had tried to get hold of his business agent. Moisa called his dispatcher, Goddard, to tell him the pickets were in front of the truck and wouldn't let him off the pier. Goddard contacted Dequine. Dequine instructed Goddard to call the police .4 After the truck was loaded, Abrams told the pickets to get in front of Moisa's truck which they did. At that point the truck could have been moved, according to Moisa, "if I run over them." Abrams confirmed that the picket was standing in front of the cab and testified: Q. So in order for that load to get out, either the picket would have to get out of the way or the rig would run over him, is that right? A. At that point in time what you say is correct. Moore testified he observed the pickets standing around the truck, walked over to the area and told them that he had tolerated their line in front of the terminal but that they were now trespassing and they should leave. The pickets stated, according to Moore, they were there to prevent The Journal cargo from being moved and they couldn't understand why Moore "couldn't leave them inside the pier." Moore told them to get out and the pickets then returned to the entrance of the pier with the trucks remaining inside. While the pickets were outside, one of Star's supervisors reported that certain Teamsters officials were out in front and were threatening to shut down the pier. Vice President Blatt and President Moore went out to talk to the Teamsters officials particularly Henry Montano who identified himself. Moore testified he asked Montano about the threat that had been relayed to him, to close the pier because of the loading of newsprint for The Journal. According to Moore, Montano responded that the newsprint was "hot cargo" that Moore was allowing a scab organization to transport the cargo to a plant which was in dispute with their brothers. Moore said Montano stated in conclusion that ". . . they were going to shut the piers down if this [Moisa's ] truck continued to move out, and not let any trucks come in and out whatever destination they were destined for." Moore testified that he said Montano's threat of shutting down the pier meant that he would be throwing Local 85 drivers out of work for dozens of other consignees, that Montano responded that if that was the way Moore felt Montano was "going to shut the pier down," and prevent trucks from coming in or out. Moore then asked what do I have to do "to get this operation going." Moore said Montano responded that the pickets should be allowed inside the pier and around the cargo and the truck. Moore then agreed to accept two pickets inside the pier at the cargo on the condition that the representatives call the presidents of their local union or other representatives and advise them that all pickets, all organizers and everything else connected with their unions be removed completely from in front of the premises. Thereafter Montano returned to Moore and told him his conditions were agreed to. During this time from about I to 2 p.m., while Moore and Montano were intermittently arguing, all trucking activity on the piers stopped. Trucks could neither enter nor leave. The principal difference in testimony between Moore and Montano as to the above relates to Moore's direct testimony that Montano threatened to shut down the pier before Moore let him move the pickets inside by the cargo. After so testifying, Moore on cross-examination was asked: Q. Now, with respect to your conversation with Mr. Montano, didn't he express a fear to you, or concern to you that unless the picketing was limited by bringing the pickets inside and stationing them right by the newsprint, that the result might be to close down the pier, and he wouldn't be able to avoid that one way or another, or nobody could avoid it? A. I'm sorry, sir. You're putting words in my mouth. He did not say they would be, he said he would 3 At p. 155 of the transcript 1 7, the word "not" does not appear intended and I am so concluding and finding However, the transcript at p 177 11 14 through 18 make it clear that such 4 The police arrived but left after observing no actual physical restraint insertion of the word "not" between the words "right" and "to" was at the time S. F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 547 close down the pier if we would not allow pickets inside, and pickets around the cargo. [Emphasis supplied ] Q. They, is that the word that he used, they? A. That's correct. Q. And he was referring to the pickets? A. He was referring to Local 85 and their trucking union, that they would stop all of their own truckers from going in and out. Q. Did he say that we will stop our own truckers? Are those the words he used? A. I don't remember the exact words he used, but remember that I testified that I told him that he would stop all, by throwing a picket line, and joining in this, he would stop and prevent work from all the truckers not concerned with this. Q. That was your remark? A. He said that made no difference. Q. That was your remark? A. That's my remark, and his remark was it made no difference, he was going to shut down the pier. TRIAL EXAMINER: Just what did he say? THE WITNESS: He said he was going to prevent any trucks from coming in and out of the pier [Emphasis supplied.] Montano's version of the foregoing is that he received a call from his office about a problem at pier 46A and went down to investigate it. Montano said he spoke to drivers who told him as long as there was a picket line in front of the pier, they weren't going in. Montano further testified he spoke to Moore who said he had a picket line in front and he had moved the pickets outside, and "Now we've got the whole pier tied up." According to Montano: And I told him, I says, "Well, I can see why you have. " I says, "Why don't you let the pickets go where the commodity is and do the picketing and get the pickets away from the front of the entrance and the business will go back to normal again. " Montano added Moore argued the pickets had no business inside and then testified: So I concluded that I couldn't do much good there because there was a picket line and my people were observing it, and I'm not about to tell them how to exercise their rights other than inform them what their rights are. [Emphasis supplied.] - Then I said, "Well, I might as well go back to the office, I'm not doing any good here." And he says, "No, wait a minute," he says, "What can we do? What can we do about this thing? We've got everything tied up." I told him exactly what I said, "Take your pickets in, let them go inside the building, picket the commodity and they'll get away from the front of the door, and the men will go back to work again." So he says, "Okay," he says, "but I want only two pickets inside of the building and nobody else; dust two pickets, one on the truck and one standing next to the commodity that is on the dock." Montano was also asked and testified as follows: Q. Did you make any statement during your conversations with Mr. Moore at any time with respect to Local 85 or you specifically shutting down the pier? A. No, sir. I didn't say anything. Q. Did you make any statement to the effect that you or Local 85 would not permit any trucks to move until the newsprint problem with the IJ had been settled? A. No, sir. Q. Can you recall any-anything else in your conversations with Mr. Moore that you have not yet described to us? A. Just that Mr. Moore accused us of tying up this pier, and I told him, "You're mistaken, Mr. Moore, because you're the one that has the pier tied up." And he says, "Well, they're your trucks and they're your members, so what are you going to do about it?" I told him I can't do anything about it, it's not my picket line, and our members will not go through picket lines. [Emphasis supplied.] Montano also testified: At anytime during the-your stay at the-during the period that you were at Pier 46A did you instruct or tell any driver of a truck not to go through the line? A. No, sir. He then testified there was a line of trucks tied up at the entrance . He was asked about conversations and testified drivers asked what the situation was. Montano was also asked: Q. And did any of these drivers talk with you? A. Yes. They asked me what the situation was, and I told them, "There's a picket line over there and you have your right to observe it by the contract, and I'll see what else I can find out, what's going on." [Emphasis supplied.] Montano was subsequently again asked about his discus- sion with Moore and testified: And I told him that the teamsters were not involved. It's a picket line on the I.J. And I said, "If you want to resolve this thing, you should take the pickets and let them picket where they're [sic] truck is, and get them away from the entrance , and the business would go back to normal again." He wouldn't accept this, and he was very adamant in keeping the pickets off the private property, because they were trespassing, and I told him so long as they're standing out in front where my people can see them, they're not going to go into the pier. [Emphasis supplied.] Vice President Blatt testified as a rebuttal witness as follows with regard to this incident. On direct examination, he testified that Moore and Montano engaged in a conversation and that Montano said: "Didn't we know that was scab cargo , hot cargo, or scab cargo," or something; words to this effect, that, "How come we were allowing this thing," and Mr. Moore asked him what he meant . And they kept at each other. I think they both got a bit excited in the process, and about the only thing I can really recall beyond that is Mr. Montano finally says, "Well, I can't get any place with you people . Fink management, and all this business, I might as well just close the pier down, or shut the operation down," or words to this effect. [Emphasis supplied.] 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On cross-examination, Blatt testified: Q. Don't you recall Mr. Montano saying that Moore was the reason? That his activities and what he had done is the reason that the pier was being shut down by not letting the picketing inside? A. That may have been said. I don't really recall, but I wouldn't deny it, but then again I wouldn't say that it was. I think that he said something of that nature, that if he didn't allow the pickets in there. I'm not sure that this was put at that time or as Mr. Moore came back in later when they had left, walked out to themselves, I went in the office, and I was made aware of the agreement that they made, and whether this was part of it, leading up to it beforehand, I'm not sure. Q. It's true, isn't it, that Montano was accusing Moore of being responsible for what was happening? A. I think he did accuse him of that, yes Q. And Moore undoubtedly was accusing Montano for being responsible? A. I think Moore was using the word, "What do you mean, what do you mean," because we had no-our business had no part of that. Q. And you heard the words "shut down the pier," or some reference made to the pier shutting down? A. Yes. Q. And that was made by Mr. Montano? A. Right. Q. And wasn't he accusing Mr. Moore of being the one who was going to have to be responsible for that? A. Yes. [Emphasis supplied.] And on redirect examination: Q. (By Mr. Berke) And was this because Mr. Moore did not want pickets on the inside of his property? A. I believe this was what Mr. yeah, this was what Mr Montano was accusing, because Mr. Moore was not cooperating with him. He was going to be responsible for whatever happened. [Emphasis supplied.] While the foregoing discussion between Montano and Moore was taking place, Moisa was doing nothing about the truck which he said he was afraid to move. During one of the interruptions in the discussions between Moore and Montano, Moisa testified that Montano advised them they had the right not to cross the picket lines. Moisa told Montano he didn't want to cross the picket lines and that he'd get a hold of his business agent. Moisa tried and couldn't reach Black and Montano also tried to telephone Black. Later Moisa saw Montano, Moore, and Abrams talking outside the pier. According to his recollection when they finished talking, he was told to unload the paper. Moisa called his dispatcher Goddard to get the permission to unload and informed Goddard the pier was getting tied up and he couldn't get the truck off the dock. Montano was with Moisa during the phone call and also spoke to Goddard. According to Goddard, Montano told him that a lot of problems were building up at the pier and that if we wanted him to take the truck off the pier with our driver he could do so but he could not guarantee the safety once we left the pier and he (Montano) would rather that we didn't. Montano denied making any statement about guaranteeing the safety of the Garden City truck or trucks or about them getting off the pier. When Montano left the pier, Moisa's truck was still loaded. Thereafter, Garden City's Dock Supervisor Prince arrived. He saw the truck with five or six pickets about 6 or 8 feet ahead of it. Moisa told him he was scared and the pickets weren't going to let the truck off the pier. Prince told Moisa to stand by while he called his superior. Shortly thereafter Abrams came over. According to Abrams who said his memory was vague as to the conversation he told Prince they did not intend to interrupt the operation as far as Garden City was concerned but they were asking them not to haul the cargo to The Independent Journal. Abrams, according to Prince, said that he didn't want Moisa's truck going off the dock and if it did he wasn't sure it would get to San Rafael or not. Abrams denied the latter statement. Prince called Dequine who had been informed of the events by Goddard. When Dequine was told by Prince that Moisa was worried about getting off the dock, Dequine said, "Hell unload it, don't let anybody get hurt." Prince then went out and told the forklift operator to unload the truck. No attempt had been made to move the truck while it was loaded with the newsprint destined for The Journal. The truck did not leave although there was more than a load of newsprint to be delivered. From January 21, for about 3 weeks until a temporary restraining order was issued, two pickets remained by the cargo. During that time no newsprint was moved from the pier to The Journal and pickets continued to ask Garden City drivers what cargo was being loaded whenever their trucks approached the pier. The pier gates were closed during the night and after the pickets were allowed inside they were there only during the day at the place where the newsprint was located. During the night the signs remained but the pickets left. D. Additional Findings and Conclusions as to the Picketing by and Conduct of Typographical Union 21 The Respondent argues that the picketing by Typograph- ical Union 21 at the pier, which commenced January 19, 1970, was so restricted and limited as to have the effect of legally persuading employees not to make deliveries to or cross a legitimate primary line at the struck premises of The Journal in San Rafael. Respondent recognizes picketing involves more than words alone but contends that it was so designed and limited herein as to be indistinguishable from oral or written effect. Whether or not oral or written appeals might be legal, it is evident that the picketing was not, and that it both in theory and in fact here had and caused effects over and above those which could ordinarily be anticipated from nonpicketing appeals. It is also evident from the facts that the manner and method of picketing herein does not come within any of the concepts applicable to primary picketing. The picketing by Typographical Union 21 occurred directly at the premises of a neutral, the Star Terminal Company, and involved not only that company but also other companies including Garden City, Globe, Powell, as well as The Journal. This picketing occurred 24 hours a day at first and was outside the pier, S F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 549 then moved inside near the rolls of newsprint, then outside again and then finally inside adjacent to the rolls. The picketing in no way meets the requirements of Moore Dry Docks since there were neither trucks nor employees of The Journal present,6 and the picketing was at first continuous for 24 hours even when the pier was closed and after the pickets were moved back inside the picketing at the rolls was throughout the day and picket signs were adjacent to the rolls at night. Neither it does not fall within the ambit of the Auburndale Freezer case (177 NLRB No. 108), where the majority (in a three-to-two opinion) found a common situs even though employees of the primary were not present because of the alleged "presence of the primary." Accepting the majority finding as controlling, the case is clearly distinguishable. There are numerous significant differences including the fact that the primary there controlled the goods picketed at the secondary location which it does not here. The warehouse was a place where common carriers received the goods of the primary to deliver to its customers and the storage at the warehouse was a basic part of the production process of the primary. Deliveries to the warehouse by the trucks and drivers of the primary were made regularly and during the season, March to July, continuously. Here, there isn't even a definite location for the goods to be kept. At no time are employees or equipment of the primary at the pier. Other than the fact that the paper is one of the items needed by the primary, there is no direct connection with the primary. The picketing was designed to induce employees of other employers not to handle the newsprint destined for The Journal with an object of causing Garden City, Globe, Powell, and Star not to do business with one another or with The Journal. This is a typical secondary location and situation, and should be so treated. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the picketing at pier 46A of the port of San Francisco by Typographical Union 21 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.7 The evidence set forth, supra, additionally reflects that pickets placed by Abrams were so located about Moisa's truck as to have made it necessary "to run over" one or more if Moisa were to have left the pier with the truck. This is clear both from Moisa's testimony and also from Abrams, who conceded that at one point in time ".. . either the picket would have to get out of the way or the rig would run over him...." It is also evident that Moisa was frightened by the situation which included not only the above but also the turmoil and cessation of operations at the pier caused by the sequence of picketing, supra, from outside to inside, then outside again and finally inside. It is clear and I find that both by its illegal picketing and the manner and conduct thereof, Respondent Typographical Union additionally violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act as alleged by preventing the departure of Moisa's Garden City truck on January 21, 1970. 3 92 NLRB 549 6 Nor even of Garden much of the time. r See Printing Specialties and Paper Convert U v Le Baron, 171 F.2d 331 (C A 9) E. Additional Findings and Conclusions as to the Alleged Violation by Teamsters Local 287 The foregoing consists primarily of the conduct of Black who got up at 5 a.m. to meet with and tell drivers Perkov and Miner that they had a right not to cross the picket line as set forth above. Black admitted that he told the people what their rights are under the contract and specifically that he told Perkov it was a primary picket line and "he was protected under the contract, that he had a perfect right to refuse to cross that picket line and he was protected under the agreement." Perkov testified to similar effect that Black told him he had a right to honor the picket line while Goddard testified Black had told them that the picket line was an "ambulatory picket line and that it would be observed." Black said he told Goddard it was a primary picket line and he had "already told people what their rights are under the contract" and denied saying that it "would be observed." Moisa, as set forth, had been told pursuant to a phone call to the union office that he "had the right not to cross the picket." The General Counsel asserts that Black obviously had given "instructions" to the drivers that they were not to cross the Typographical picket line and that this in essence was what he told Goddard as set forth. I am of the opinion that this in substance was told to Goddard for the reason that it appears unlikely that Black would have arisen so early to go over to inform the pickets of their "rights" unless he was interested in aiding the action at the picket line and that Black conveyed this "interest" more emphatically than a mere recitation as to the "rights" of the drivers to observe the picket line. It also appears that the drivers Perkov and Miner so understood and manifested their assent by "nodding." I am accordingly crediting Goddard's testimo- ny that Black stated that the picket line "would be observed" and finding this amounted to an "instruction" to the drivers.8 Further, the result would be the same even if Black's statements to the drivers were not considered to be "instructions." For there is no question these would induce the drivers not to cross the picket line. The latter was not protected by either law or contract since the Typographical picket line as found was a secondary and not a primary or legal picket ltne.9 Accordingly, even if Black's statements were not instructions, Black was illegally inducing employ- ees not to cross an illegal picket line, thereby violating Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) both by inducing them not to perform work in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and in so doing restraining and coercing the various employers (other than The Journal) named herein in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). F. Additional Findings and Conclusions as to the Alleged Violation by Teamsters Local 85 This involves first the question of whether Montano threatened he would shut down the pier. The testimony as to this has been set forth in detail, supra. It appears clear 8 Further basis for this finding is Dequine's testimony , supra, which I credit, that Black said he "would revoke his instructions" if wrong. 9 The Teamsters are parties to a contract affording certain rights to cross "primary" picket lines 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that there was a heated discussion between Moore and Montano and in the course of the discussion that Montano told Moore that the pier would be shut down. It is not reasonable to expect Moore to separate from this discussion whether Montano said that his Local 85 would shut it down or whether that would be the effect of Moore's leaving the pickets outside. Moore could reasonably conclude from Montano's statements that Local 85 was shutting the pier down, whatever Montano may have intended. The testimony of Blatt (relied on by Respondent) does not change this. Blatt does say Montano was blaming Moore but he did not retract his testimony that Montano said, "I might as well just close the pier down, or shut the operation down," or words to this effect. I conclude from all the testimony that Montano caused Moore to justifiably and reasonably believe he would shut down the pier and thereby restrained and coerced Star in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Further Montano and Teamsters Local 85 cannot contend otherwise in the face of Montano's statements to the drivers including Moisa, as set forth that they had a right not to cross the picket line. By so stating, Montano was bringing Teamsters Local 85 into the process of shutting the pier down and was illegally inducing drivers not to cross the picket line and a causal factor in the drivers unwillingness to cross the picket line. Montano had told the drivers what was not legally correct and was thereby inducing them to refuse to handle goods of the various employers involved thereby restraining and coercing all of the named employers herein (except The Journal) in violation of 8(bX4)(ii)(B). Accordingly, although I have found and concluded that Moore, from the discussion, reasonably could and did believe that Montano was directly threatening to shut down the pier, I additionally find that by Montano' s statements to the drivers he and Teamsters Local 85 were contributing to the continuation of the temporary shutdown which occurred and were a contributing factor in inhibiting its resolution. Finally, I find that by participating and causing the moving of the pickets inside, where they were not legally entitled to be, Teamsters Local 85 had further involved itself in and aided the illegal conduct of Typographical Local 21. I further conclude and find that by the foregoing conduct Teamsters Local 85 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 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 operations of Respondent 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents engaged in certain 10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that they be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. California Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a San Rafael Independent Journal is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. As found above, the Respondent, Typographical Union, 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. 4. As found above, Respondent Teamsters Local 287 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act. 5. As found above, Respondent Teamsters Local 85 has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(bX4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 6. The 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 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Board enter an order that: A. Respondent Typographical Union No. 21, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging by picketing at Pier 46A of the port of San Francisco or otherwise inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Garden City , Globe, Star, Powell, or persons other than The Journal , to refuse to perform services where an object thereof is to force or require Powell, Garden City, Globe, Star, or any other person, to cease doing business with The Journal, or with each other for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with The Journal. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Star, Garden City, Powell, Globe, or any other person (other than The Journal), where an object is to force or require Powell, Garden City, Globe, Star, or any other person, to cease doing business with The Journal, or with each other for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with The Journal. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls , and in all places where notices to members are customarily posted , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."10 Copies of said notice, on forms the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the S. F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 551 provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by a representative of Respondent thereunto duly authorized, shall be posted by it 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 displayed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." B. Respondent Teamsters Local 287, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Garden City to refuse to pick up or deliver goods, wares, or merchandise at Pier 46A of the port of San Francisco destined for The Journal or to perform any other services where an object thereof is to force or require Garden City to cease doing business with The Journal, or with Powell , Star, Globe, or any other person for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with The Journal. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and in all places where notices to members are customarily posted , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by a representative of Respondent thereunto duly authorized, shall be posted by it 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 displayed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.13 C Respondent Teamsters Local 85, its officers , agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or restraining Star where an object is to force or require Star to cease doing business with Powell, Garden City, Globe, or any other person to compel any of them to cease doing business with The Journal. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and in all places where notices to members are customarily posted , copies of the attached notice findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " marked "Appendix C." 14 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by a representative of Respondent thereunto duly authorized, shall be posted by it 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 displayed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.15 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith " 12 13 14 15 Footnote 10, supra Footnote 11, supra Footnote 10, supra Footnote 11, supra APPENDIX A NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT induce or encourage by picketing at Pier 46A of the Port of San Francisco or otherwise indice or encourage individuals employed by Garden City Transportation Company Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., Star Terminal Company, Inc., Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., or persons other than the San Rafael Independent Journal to refuse to perform services where an object thereof is to force or require Powell River Alberni Sales, Garden City Transporta- tion Company Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., Star Terminal Company, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing business with the San Rafael Independ- ent Journal, or with each other for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with the San Rafael Independent Journal. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Star Terminal Company, Inc., Garden City Transportation Company Ltd., Powell River Alberni Sales, Ltd., or any other person (other than the San Rafael Independent Journal), where an object is to force or require Powell River Alberni Sales, Ltd. Garden City Transportation Company Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., Star Terminal Company, Inc., or any other person, to cease doing business with the San Rafael Independent Journal, or with each other for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them with the San Rafael Independent Journal. SAN FRANCISCO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No. 21, INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 552 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050 Federal Bldg., 450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335