Local 254, Bldg Service Employees

280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 254, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, and Its Business Agent Eldridge Buffurn and United Building Maintenance Corp.' and Lechmere Tire and Sales d/b/a Lechmere Sales. Cases 1-CC-503 and 1-CC-504 October 24, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On August 7, 1967, Trial Examiner William W Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal thereof. Re- spondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. 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 National Labor Relations 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 excep- tions and beefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent they are consistent with this Decision and Order, and for the reasons elaborated herein. United Building Maintenance Corp., herein referred to as United, is engaged in providing rubbish removal, cleaning, and porter services for its customers. Re- spondent Union was engaged in a labor dispute with United and in furtherance of this dispute it picketed certain locations where United performed services. Lechmere Sales, Brookline Hospital, and Chelsea Hospital were picketed intermittently during the period of May 11 through May 26 of 1966. The picketing at Lechmere took place from 9 a.m. to about 2 to 4 in the afternoon.' However, virtually all of the employees of United worked at Lechmere during the hours of 9 p.m. through 1 a.m. The only United employee who worked at Lechmere during the hours of picketing was a day porter who was removed at the request of Lechmere on the first day of picketing. The Respondent Union was informed of this removal, but continued to picket during the day. The record also reveals that on Saturday, May 14, 1966, a day when the day porter was not scheduled to work, the pickets tripled in number and patrolled in such a manner that ingress and egress to and from Lechmere's entrance and parking lot were seriously impaired. 1. The Trial Examiner found that one object of the picketing at Lechmere and the Brookline and Chelsea Hospitals was to force or require them to cease doing business with United, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. We agree, but only insofar as this finding applies to the Lechmere situation. Since United's employees work on the premises of United's customers, a common situs situation is presented. Although picketing at such a situs is usually considered in the light of the Moore Dry Dock standards," the Trial Examiner did not discuss the relevancy of these standards. At Lechmere, the Respondent did not comply with the standards of Moore Dry Dock, due to the removal of the day porter after the first day of picketing. Respondents rely on Brownfield Electric Co., 145 NLRB 1163, in order to show that the absence of primary employees at the common situs during the picketing did not create a violation of the Moore Dry Dock requirement that the primary employer be engaged in his normal business operations at the site. The rationale of the Brownfield case does not apply because of the scheduled and known absence of the day porter during the times of the picketing.' Even if there had been literal compliance with the standards of Moore Dry Dock, the inference that the 1 The caption has been amended to reflect the correct name of United Building Maintenance Corp., one of the Charging Parties herein. 2 Respondents urge that the Trial Examiner 's issuance of a decision in this case after the lapse of a substantial period of time and his failure to dismiss the matter pursuant to an alleged settlement agreement constitute a fatal lack of due process. We do not agree According to the Trial Examiner , a motion to approve withdrawal of the charges in the present case was prepared by the General Counsel and submitted to counsel for the Respondents for his concurrence . However, the motion was never made, apparently because Respondents ' counsel failed to sign and forward the motion . Thereafter , the Regional Director withdrew his formal approval of the Charging Party's request to withdraw the charges. In any event , the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Section 102 9, explicitly state that , after commencement of the hearing and until the 173 NLRB No. 49 case has been transferred to the Board , a charge may be withdrawn only upon motion and with the consent of the Trial Examiner Since the requisite motion was never made and the Trial Examiner never consented , the case remained open for the Trial Examiner 's determina- tion. 3 The placards read as follows "Local 254, AFL-CIO on strike against UBM at this location for a living wage " On May 21 , the wording "UBM" on the picket placard was changed to "United Building Maintenance." 4 See Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547 5 Plumbers Local Union No. 519 (H.L. Robertson's Associates, Inc , 171 NLRB No . 37. See also Painters District Council No 38 (Edgewood Contracting Co ), 153 NLRB 797 LOCAL 254, BLDG SERVICE EMPLOYEES dispute is of a primary nature would not be conclu- sive, but could be negated by other relevant evidence disclosing Respondent Union's true objective to be the enmeshment of neutral employers or employees into the dispute.' In this connection, the record reveals that Buffum, Respondent Union's director of organization, indicated to Lechmere's manager, Golden, that there would be picketing at Lechmere within 48 hours. When Golden asked whether Buffum wanted him to get rid of United, Buffum replied to the effect that there were other cleaners available. In a subsequent telephone conversation, Golden asked why Respondent Union's pickets had returned. The previous day, Respondent Union had agreed to remove the pickets after being informed by Golden that United's day porter had been removed. Respon- dent Union's agent Sullivan replied that all United's employees had not been removed and the picketing would continue. This answer construed in the light of the previous conversation leaves little doubt that one of Respondent Union's objectives in picketing Lechmere was to force Lechmere to cease doing business with United. The secondary objective of the picketing is also evident from the character and quantity of the picketing on Saturday, May 14. On that day, the number of pickets tripled and patrolled in such a manner that ingress and egress to and from Lech- mere's entrance and parking lot were seriously im- paired, causing cars to back up on the street for several blocks, and making it necessary for Lechmere to request a police detail. The record reveals that none of United's employees was ever scheduled to work on Saturdays during the day at Lechmere. Although the record does not reveal whether the Union had knowledge of this fact; there is surely no evidence that Respondents believed United would have more employees than usual at Lechmere on that day.' We deem it significant that Respondent Union chose to exert its greatest pressure on this day, a Saturday, when Lechmere would be expected to be the busiest, and in a manner that would have the greatest effect on Lechmere-blocking of its entrances and exits. In our view, the character of Respondent Union's picketing on this occasion, in combination with the aforementioned conversations, clearly indi- cates that the picketing at Lechmere was designed to put pressure on Lechmere with the proscribed objec- tive of forcing Lechmere to cease doing business with United. Thus, we conclude that the foregoing conver- sations constitute unlawful threats and that the 6 Carpenters Local Union No. 944 (Gulf Construction Company), 159 NLRB 563, Local 895, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters (Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc ), 153 NLRB 993. 7 As indicated , the only United employee that would work during 281 picketing itself represents unlawful coercion and restraint within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by its picketing of the Brookline and Chelsea Hospitals and by making certain threats to Honeywell, Inc., and American Science and Engineering Company. While an agent of the Respondent Union called the above customers of United and asked whether any of United's employees performed services at these loca- tions, and, in some cases, indicated there might be picketing, these conversations could, on their face, reasonably be construed as an effort to ascertain whether the primary employer or its employees were engaged in normal operations at the sites and times of the picketing. The record shows little else, except there is a stipulation that picketing occurred intermit- tently during the period of May 11 through May 26 of 1966 at the Brookline and Chelsea Hospitals. At Brookline Hospital, the only location as to which there is evidence on this point, the testimony shows that the Union had reasonable cause to believe that employees of United were present at all times during the picketing, indicating probable compliance with the Moore Dry Dock standards. In our opinion, the evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of 8(b)(4)(h)(B) with regard to the Brookline and Chelsea Hospitals, Honeywell, Inc., and American Science and Engineering Company, and the complaint is dismissed as to these alleged violations. 2. The Trial Examiner found that the picketing of United's customers neither induced nor encouraged nor was intended to induce or encourage the employ- ees of the picketed customers of United to engage in strikes or refusals to perform services for their respective employers. We agree. The evidence indi- cates that, at Lechmere, the only location as to which there is specific evidence concerning the picketing, the picketing was aimed at the customers rather than the employees of Lechmere. There is no evidence of a work stoppage or any inducement of employees except for the picketing itself.' No unlawful object has been found with regard to the picketing of United's other customers. We therefore dismiss the complaint insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). 3. We shall revise the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, deleting specific reference to cus- tomers of United other than Lechmere. In the circumstances of this case, where only one customer of United has been found to have been unlawfully any day was the day porter, and the Respondents had been informed of his removal. 8 See Minneapolis House Furnishing Co , 132 NLRB 40. 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD picketed, we do not believe an order prohibiting all secondary picketing, regardless of the primary em- ployer, is warranted.9 We shall, however, in accor- dance with normal Board practice, prohibit the picketing of any other secondary employers where an object is to force or require them to cease doing business with United 10 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent Union, Local 254, Building Service Employees Inter- national Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, including Respondent Eldridge Buffum, shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or, restraining Lechmere Tire and Sales d/b/a Lechmere Sales, or any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require them to cease doing business with United Building Mainte- nance Corp. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectu- ate the purposes and policies of the Act: (a) Post at Respondent Local 254's business of- fices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."11 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent Local 254, or its authorized representative, and by Respondent Buffum, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 1 for posting by Lechmere Tire and Sales d/b/a Lechmere Sales, if it is willing, at its facilities where picketed and threatened. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith. MEMBER FANNING , concurring. While I agree with my colleagues' finding that Re- spondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by its picketing at the premises of Lechmere Sales, I do not adopt their view that a finding of an illegal secondary object may be predicated upon evidence unrelated to the picketing itself.12 My conclusion is instead based upon evidence that in the circum- stances, here present, Respondent chose to conduct its picketing at times best suited to achieving the maximum impact upon the secondary employer, Lechmere Sales, even though Respondent was fully aware of the fact that the employees of the primary employer, United, were not regularly scheduled to work during these hours and in fact were not present on the jobsite when the picketing was being conduc- ted. By picketing in such a manner, Respondent has in my judgment failed to comply with the Board's Moore Dry Dock" requirements for legitimate com- mon situs picketing and, accordingly, it must be held accountable for the impact such conduct had upon the secondary employer, Lechmere Sales. In all other respects, I adopt the views expressed by my col- leagues in this Decision. 9 Board Member Zagora would , in accordance with the General Counsel's exceptions , change the Recommended Order by adding "any other employer " in addition to United Budding Maintenance Corp as the object of Respondent Union's illegal activity Respondent Union has engaged in similar conduct found in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act in Local 254, Building Service International Union (University Cleaning Co), 151 NLRB 341, enfd. 359 F 2d 289 Although normally one additional violation might not justify such a broad order, the Respondent Union was adjudged in civil contempt on April 10, 1967, by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, for violating its order. N.L.R.B. v. Local 254 Building Service Employees, 376 F.2d 131 (C.A. 1). In Member Zagoria 's opinion, the necessity of the contempt proceedings in University Cleaning Co demonstrates a contemptuous disregard for Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B) of the Act justifying the broad order. 10 International Brotherhood of Electric Workers v N.L.R.B., 341 U.S 694 (1951) See also Plasterers ' Protective and Benevolent Society (Royal Rin Builders), 158 NLRB 1608, 1619 11 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order." 12 See my separate statements of position in General Telephone Company of California, 151 NLRB 1490, fn. 4, and Northern California District Council (Joseph's Landscaping Service), 154 NLRB 1384, in. 3. 13 Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our members that WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce Lechmere Tire and Sales d/b/a Lechmere Sales, or any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require them to cease doing business with United Building Maintenance Corp. LOCAL 254, BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION , AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) LOCAL 254, BLDG SERVICE EMPLOYEES 283 Dated By (Representative) (Title) ELDRIDGE BUFFUM Dated By (Business Agent) 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. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & New Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts, 02203 Telephone 617-223-3300. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE C ASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner. This matter, a pro- ceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard at Boston, Massachusetts, on June 24, 1966,i with all parties except United Building Maintenance Corporation, one of the Charging Parties, participating pursuant to due notice upon a complaint issued by the General Counsel on June 8,2 alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) by Local 254, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO and its business agent, Eldridge Buffum, hereafter collectively referred to as Respondents. The complaint, in substance, alleges that Respondents by threats to and picketing of Lechmere and other named customers of United, engaged in or induced or encouraged employees of said employers to engage in strikes or refusals to perform services, and threatened, restrained, and coerced Lechmere and other employer customers of United, all with an object of forcing or requiring Lechmere and other customers of United to cease doing business with United in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act Respondents in their duly filed answer denied engaging in the charged violations, and affirmatively alleged that Respondent Union has been I All dates hereafter refer to the year 1966 unless otherwise noted. 2 Based upon a charge and an amended charge filed in Case 1-CC-503 on May 10 and 11, respectively, by United Building Maintenance Corp., hereafter referred to as United , and a charge filed in Case 1-CC-504 by Lechmere Tire and Sales d/b/a Lechmere Sales, hereafter called Lechmere. 3 The long delay in issuing this decision was brought by the following circumstances : Shortly after the hearing was concluded the Chief Trial Examiner of the Board was requested by the General Counsel to suspend further processing of the proceeding pending the submission of a joint motion to the Trial Examiner to approve withdrawal by the Regional Director of the charges filed herein following settlement negotiations . Although said motion was submitted to counsel for Respondents for his concurrence on September 13 it was never returned to the General Counsel. On May 23 and 25, 1967, respectively , the Regional Director revoked his approval of the withdrawal request previously granted in the cases herein. In a motion filed on May 24, 1967, and amended on June 20, General Counsel moved for the issuance of a decision by the Trial Examiner, and also engaged in lawfully publicizing a labor dispute with United pursuant to Section 8 of the Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. Thereafter, General Counsel and Respondents submitted briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following.3 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE United, a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts, is engaged in providing rubbish removal, cleaning, and porter services for various customers located in the greater Boston area as well as in the State of New Hampshire. United annually performs services in the State of New Hampshire for which it receives compensa- tion in excess of $50,000 Lechmere, the operator of two retail department stores, one of which is located at Cambridge and the other at Dedham, Massachusetts, has annual sales in excess of $500,000 and annually purchases and receives large quantities of manufactured products which are transported in interstate commerce from and through various States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I find that United and Lechmere are employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondents admit, and I find, that at all tunes material herein, Respondent Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and that Respondent Buffum has been an agent of said labor organization. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background At all times material herein, United has been engaged in providing cleaning services to the following, among others: Lechmere at its store in Cambridge, Brookline Hospital at Brookline; Chelsea Memorial Hospital at Chelsea, Honeywell, requested leave to file a supplemental brief to cite the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, adjudging Respondent Union in civil contempt on April 10, 1967 (376 F.2d 131), for violating its order enforcing a Board order in which the Union was found in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act against employers not involved herein. In view of the contempt adjudication and the requested findings of violation in the instant cases , the General Counsel seeks a broad form order herein. Respondents opposed the motion on the ground that the parties had adjusted the matter herein and the charges had been withdrawn , and that the citation of the contempt adjudication is an attempt to introduce evidence after the hearing herein had been closed. Inasmuch as Respondents failed to consumate their settlement arrangements, I find that the matter herein has not been disposed of and remains open for determination . I find further that it is unnecessary for General Counsel to supplement his brief to include the aforementioned contempt adjudication citation because administrative notice may be taken thereof. The motion otherwise is disposed of as indicated herein. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Inc., at Brighton; and American Science and Engineering Company at Cambridge, all in Massachusetts. At all times material herein, Respondent Union has been engaged in a labor dispute with United, which began shortly prior to the events which are related hereafter, when the former collective-bargaining agreement in effect between Uni- ted and the Union expired, and the parties were unable to agree upon a renewal thereof. The Union admitted that it was not directly involved in a labor dispute with any of the customers of United. B. The Incidents Giving Rise to the Alleged Violations On or about May 6 Respondent Buffum, the Union's director of organization, telephoned Henry Golden, Lechmere's manager, advised him of the labor dispute between United and the Union, and informed him that the executive board of the Union was going to meet soon to determine which locations of United's customers would be picketed. At or about the same time Buffum also telephoned American Science and Engineering and Honeywell, Inc., and advised them to the same effect. On or about May 9, Buffum visited Lechmere's Cambridge store and in a discussion with Charles Murray, the assistant store manager, inquired as to the status of United's employees who might be working at that time at the store. Buffum then informed Murray that a strike vote had been taken by his Union against United, that investigating committees had been appointed by the Union's executive board to investigate the locations where United was per- forming services, and that the executive board would then determine which locations would be picketed. On or about May 10, Buffum spoke again with Golden by telephone and informed him that there would be picketing within 48 hours. When Golden asked whether Buffum wanted him to get rid of U.B.M. (United), Buffum replied to the effect that there were other cleaners available. On May 11, pickets commenced patrolling the sidewalk immediately adjoining the entrance to Lechmere's Cambridge store carrying placards reading: Local 254, AFL-CIO on stake against UBM at this location for a living wage4 On May 11, John McMahon, assistant business agent of Respondent Union, called representatives of Brookline Hospi- tal and Chelsea Memorial Hospital, advised them of the labor dispute between the Union and United, and that the Union was going to strike and that its executive board would determine which customer locations of United would be picketed. The picketing at Lechmere on May 11 continued through- out the day and during that afternoon. According to the testimony of Business Agent Sullivan of the Union, Golden telephoned him and asked whether the picketing would continue if no porters from United were working there. When Sullivan replied that the picketing would stop, Golden advised him that the day porter supplied by United was no longer in the building. Sullivan thereupon stated that the pickets would be removed, and they, in fact, left shortly thereafter.5 The next day Golden called back to state that the picketing had been resumed and asked why. Sullivan replied, "You advised me that there were no longer... any employees of U.B.M. there, and I told you that as long as there were no U.B.M. employees there we wouldn't picket you," to which Golden responded that he meant that there were no longer any day employees. Sullivan then stated that this was not his under- standing and that they would continue to picket.6 Jerry Dorman, the porter employee of United, worked at Lechmere's Cambridge store until May 12.7 He then was assigned to work at Brookline Hospital starting on May 13. Thereafter, he continued to work there and at other customer locations of United, but never returned to Lechmere's Subsequent to Dorman's transfer, Lechmere performed the porter services with its own employees. However, United's employees continued to perform cleaning services at Lechmere from 9:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. Lechmere' s remained open for business until 9 p.m. The picketing occurred from 9 a.m. until 2 to 4 in the afternoon, with two or four pickets except that on Saturday, May 14, there were three times the number of pickets present, who patrolled the entrance to Lechmere's in such manner that ingress and egress to and from Lechmere's entrance and parking lot was seriously impeded, causing cars to back up on the street for several blocks. As a result, John Grant, Lechmere's supervisor of security and guards and parking attendants, requested and received a police detail from the City of Cambridge Police Department to expedite the passage of cars to and from Lechmere's parking lot. With police assistance, the picketing was changed so as not to obstruct the entrance to or exit from Lechmere's. The record also shows that United was assigned a stairwell at Lechmere's Cambridge store where it kept its equipment and cleaning supplies (mops, soap, etc.) used in performing its services, and that such equipment and supplies were delivered to the store's receiving clerks by United's truck or by a regular delivery carrier. United also supplied trash removal services as well as cleaning services at Brookline Hospital, and its em- ployees performed services at the hospital from 8 30 a.m. to 9 or 10 at night. C. Conclusions Respondents deny committing any violations, and urge several affirmative defenses. Particularly, Respondents contend 4 It was stipulated that such picketing also began on May 11 at entrances to Brookline Hospital and Chelsea Memorial Hospital, as well as at Lechmere, and continued intermittently until May 26 On May 21, the wording "UBM" on the picket placard was changed to "United Building Maintenance " As a result of injunction proceedings brought by the Board in the United States District Court for Massachusetts, the picketing was discontinued on May 26 pursuant to a stipulation entered into in that proceeding. 5 Golden, in substance , corroborated this testimony. 6 Golden testified that in this conversation , Sullivan accused him of reneging after, he, Golden, stated that he had meant "porters" and not other employees of United in the preceding day's conversation. In appraising the contradictory testimony of Sullivan , I credit his testimony relating to his conversation on May 11 to the effect that the removal of the porter would terminate the picketing. 7 On that day, Glickman, a representative of Lechmere , advised John McMahon , the Union 's assistant business agent, that Lechmere had dispensed with the services of the day porter. 8 The porters supplied to Lechmere by United performed their regular routine services, but were also subject to orders from Lechmere with respect to emergency work such as cleaning up spilled liquids or broken glass . Although Lechmere 's contract with United provided for two day porters, only one, Dorman , was involved at all tunes material herein, the other being out on sick leave. LOCAL 254, BLDG SERVICE EMPLOYEES 285 that consumer or publicity picketing of customers of United is protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution and is permissible under the decisions in the Tree Fruits and Servette cases.9 I find that reliance on these cases is misplaced. In the Tree Fruits case the court held that picketing which is used merely to persuade customers not to purchase a product of the primary employer is closely confined to the primary dispute and is not unlawful. The picketing herein was not sufficiently identified with a primary product (or a service) to be considered as an attempt "to persuade customers not to buy a struck product."1 0 "[I] t was aimed at the neutral premises generally, and therefore did `threaten, restrain and coerce' the neutral employers within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B) of the Act."i i Moreover, Respondents failed to take reasonable precautions to meet the Tree Fruits re- quirement that the picketing have a reasonable direct impact on the primary employer and not be designed to inflict general economic injury on the business of the neutrals.1 2 Or, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in N.L.R B v. Building Service Employees International Union, Local No 105 [Indus- trial Janitorial Services, Inc.], 367 F.2d 227, enfg. 151 NLRB 1424 (a case strikingly similar to the instant case involving cleaning services performed for a bank) Broadly stated, the evil to which the 8(b)(4) amendments [the 1959 amendments to the Act] are directed is secondary union activity which does not encompass some direct action against the primary antagonist.... The court stated further in distinguishing the Tree Fruits case that "the picketing did not follow a product (or service) so as to continue as a primary dispute, but was specifically divorced from the primary employees' activities and thrust directly at the Bank's physical properties, its employees and customers, and during banking hours...." In the instant case, the object of the picketing was to force or require Lechmere, and Brookline and Chelsea Memorial Hospitals to cease doing business with United. The pre- picketing conversations with these customers of United con- tained threats of picketing, either specifically or inferentially, which buttress that conclusion, especially with respect to Lechmere, when Buffum clearly indicated to Manager Golden that other cleaners were available in response to Golden's inquiry as to whether he should get rid of United. See University Cleaning Co.,13 where Respondent Union was involved in similar conduct against other employers in connec- tion with its labor dispute with University Cleaning Co. Although there is no evidence indicating picketing by Respondent Union at Honeywell, Inc., and American Science and Engineering Company, the conversations between the Union's agents and representatives of those customers of United contained veiled prospective threats to picket them because they were doing business with United. I find that such threats also constituted coercion of neutral employers within the meaning of and in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).14 I find, however, contrary to the contention of General Counsel, that the picketing neither induced or encouraged nor was intended to inrTuce or encourage the employees of the picketed customers of United to engage in strikes or refusals to perform services for their respective employers. 15 In con- formance with the result reached in University Cleaning, supra, under substantially similar circumstances, I conclude that Respondents did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B), and shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleges violation of that subsection of the Act. D Other Defenses Raised by Respondents Respondents also urged in defense of their conduct that the operations of United and its customers are tied in or integrated because of the inherent nature of the services performed by United. Therefore, it is contended, presumably, that action taken against United's customers is, in effect, action taken against United. I find no merit in this contention. The record is barren of any evidence indicating that the usual factors establishing integration between businesses is present herein. Thus, there is no evidence of interchange of employees, common ownership, common management or control,16 or similarity of work, the usual indicla of integration. I find that there was nothing more than the usual business interrelation- ship existing between Lechmere, a purchaser of cleaning services, or the other customers of United involved herein, and United, a supplier of such services. Their respective operations were entirely different and unrelated. United performed no work on or enhanced in any manner the products or merchandise sold by Lechmere. I also find no merit in Respondents' contention that their activities, insofar as Lechmere was involved, were protected under the Act under the "ally" doctrine Under this doctrine an employer who undertakes to perform work for a struck employer, which would ordinarily be done by the striking employees, allies himself with the struck employer and may be picketed in the same manner as the struck employer., 7 Presumably, this reference is to the day-porter work which Lechmere began performing with its own employees after United's porter left. In support of their position, Respondents cite Brewery Workers Union No. 8 (Bert P. Williams, Inc ), 148 NLRB 728. That case is clearly distinguishable in that there the struck primary employer engaged another company to perform the delivery services which it previously performed. In 9 N.L.R.B. v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760 [Tree Fruits Labor Relations Committee, Inc.], 377 U.S. 58; N.L.R.B v Servette, Inc., 377 U.S. 46 10 Tree Fruits, supra, p. 72 11 Laundry Dry Cleaners & Dye House Workers, Local No. 259 (Morrison 's of San Diego, Inc), 164 NLRB No. 55. 12 Laundry Dry Cleaners & Dye Workers, supra 13 151 NLRB 341, enfd. 359 F.2d 289 (C.A. 1). 14 See Building Service Employees, International Union, Local No. 29, (Columbus Services of Pittsburgh , Inc.), 163 NLRB No. 128. 15 Nor is there any evidence to show that the picketing resulted in any work stoppages or refusals to perform services by secondary employees. 16 The minor nature and extent of the supervisory control exercised by Lechmere over United's day porter in emergency situations hardly suffices to establish the joint or common control envisaged in integrated operations Nor does the use of a stairwell at Lechmere's to store United's equipment and supplies or the receipt of such supplies by Lechmere's receiving department demonstrate integration of operations. They were only conveniences granted to United in the performance of its services. 17 See N L.R.B. v Business Machine and Office Appliance Mech- anics Conference Board, Local 459 (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F.2d 553 (C.A 2). 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the instant case, United, the struck employer, did not engage any other cleaner to perform services on its behalf for Lechmere. Lechmere merely discontinued United's day porter, and thereafter performed the services with its own employees. If Lechmere had subcontracted its day-porter work to another cleaner not involved in a labor dispute with Respondent Union, that subcontractor would not have become "allied" with United within the meaning of the "ally" doctrine. It would follow that if Lechmere performed the work with its own employees its position with respect to the "ally" doctrine would be no different than its agent or subcontractor who performed such work. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in these cases, I make the following conclusions of law 1. United and Lechmere are employers engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Lechmere, Brookline Hospital, Chelsea Memorial Hospital, Honeywell, Inc., and American Science and Engineering Company, with an object of forcing of requiring them to cease doing business with United, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices [affecting commerce] within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondents have not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii) (B) of the Act, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain action desig- nated to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the similar violations heretofore found to have been committed by Respondent Union in the University Cleaning Co. case, supra, and the recent decree, supra, of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit adjudging Respondent Union in civil contempt of its enforcement order issued in that case, I shall recommend an order restraining Respondents from engaging in similar viola- tion against any neutral employer. Inasmuch as the record affords no basis to suspect that Respondents will violate other provisions of the Act, I will deny the General Counsel's request for a broad form order enjoining all unlawful action. See N.L R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 433, where the Court stated' It would seem equally clear that the authority conferred on the Board to restrain the practice which it has found the employer to have committed is not an authority to restrain generally all other unlawful practices which it has neither found to have been pursued nor persuasively to be related to the proven unlawful conduct. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]