General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local 563

386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563 and its Agent Robert Schlleve ; Local 139, Internation Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and its Agent Donald Shaw; Local Union No. 3203, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO and its Agent Jerry Jahnke and Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc. Cases 30-CB-221. 30-CB-222, and 30-CC-92 June 4, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On February 4, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent , Unions had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth ip the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief. 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 and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications set forth below. We cannot agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that by Business Agent Shaw's inducement of Moesch to quit work and by his threats to Rouse as to what might happen to his equipment if it were not removed immediately from the Seymour school project Respondent Local 139, Engineers, violated both Section 8(bX4)(i) and (iiXB) of the Act. Although it is uncontradicted that Rouse and his employee Moesch were performing services for primary employer Landwehr which supplanted the work of that company' s striking employees, the Trial Examiner concluded, purportedly under the authority of Royal Typewriter Co.,' that because neither Rouse nor Moesch had any knowledge of the dispute between Landwehr and the Engineers, Rouse was, therefore, within the protection of Section 8(b)(4) and Business Agent Shaw's inducement to Moesch and threats to Rouse constituted the aforesaid violations of the Act. The Trial Examiner found that the employer unknowingly performed struck work, and reads Royal Typewriter as precluding the application of the "struck work" ally doctrine to such situations. We do not agree either with this reading of Royal Typewriter, or with his construction of Section 8(bX4) or his finding that the employer unknowingly performed struck work. It is true that Royal Typewriter holds: . that an employer is not within the protection of Sec. 8(b)(4) when he knowingly does work which would otherwise be done by the striking employees of the primary employer and where this work is paid for by the primary employer pursuant to an arrangement devised and originated by him to enable him to meet his contractual obligations...._ This is not to say, however, that the converse is true, namely, that one who "unknowingly" performs struck work for a given period will thereafter be insulated from pressure from the striking union. Rather, Royal Typewriter emphasizes that it is the nature of the work performed by the employer furnishing services to the primary employer which is critical in determining whether that employer is a neutral or an ally of the primary employer: ... Where an employer is attempting to avoid the economic impact of a strike by securing the services of others to do his work, the striking union obviously has great interest, and we think a proper interest, in preventing those services from being rendered. This interest is more fundamental than the interest in bringing pressure on customers of the primary employer. Nor are those who render such services completely uninvolved in the primary strike. By doing the work of the primary employer they secure benefits themselves at the same time that they aid the primary employer . . . .' Moreover, this interpretation of the ally doctrine was given express approval by the Supreme Court in National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. N.L.R.B.' where the Court stated that neutrals lost their protection "against secondary pressure, where the secondary employer against whom the union's pressure is directed has entangled himself in the vortex of the primary dispute."' The relationship between Rouse and Landwehr constitutes precisely such an entanglement in the present case. Landwehr, an excavating business, was unable to perform the excavating work called for in the contract because its employees were out on strike. Accordingly, Landwehr leased a scraper and operator from Rouse for $25 per hour to assist it in 'N.L.R.B. v Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics, et at, Local 459, LUX. (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F.2d 553, 559 (C.A. 2). cert. denied 351 U.S. 962. 'Id. at 559. 'ld. at 558. '386 U.S. 612. 'Id. at 627. 176 NLRB No. 51 GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 completing the contract assignment. Moreover. Rouse's operator, Moesch, worked under the supervision and control of Landwehr and at the same time that a Landwehr machine was also engaged in grading work. Thus, Rouse was completely entangled in the primary's work, the supplanted work of the striking employees, and for which he received benefits while at the same time aiding Landwehr, thus falling within the principles of Royal Typewriter and National Woodwork. Royal Typewriter would seem to impose upon an employer the burden of determining whether or not he is engaged in neutral or ally type work. In the Royal case, for example, the existence of the strike itself, the receipt of the checks from the primary employer, and picketing in the general area were held to be sufficient notice to the independents there involved to indicate that the work they were doing might well be farmed-out. In the present case, the strike in question had been going on for a week or more at the time Business Agent Shaw attempted his intervention, the strike hgd received wide publicity because of its economic impact upon the community and the stories of violence which were emerging therefrom. Rouse was asked by Landwehr to help complete a project which Rouse admittedly knew Landwehr could not complete with its own employees, and Rouse was advised by Shaw that he was performing struck work. In these circumstances, we conclude that Rouse was finally and adequately advised that he was performing struck work, and that performance of such work made him an ally of Landwehr in its dispute with the Engineers. Accordingly, Business Agent Shaw's attempt to persuade Moesch and Rouse to cease working on the project and to remove their equipment did not constitute proscribed secondary activity. The fact that Shaw may have threatened both Moesch and Rouse in attempting to accomplish his purpose does not alter this conclusion, for the distinction between primary and secondary activity is not determined by the peaceful or violent nature of that activity but by the type of work being done by the employer furnishing services to the primary employer and the relation of that work to the primary employer's work.6 Accordingly, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent, Local 139 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act as a result of Business Agent Shaw's conduct at the Seymour project, and we shall order that the allegations of the complaint respecting that conduct be dismissed.? 'United Steelworkers v. N.L.R.B.. 376 U.S. 492, 501; N.L.R.B. v. International Rice Milling, 341 U.S. 665, 672. It is true , of course, that Shaw's statements to Rouse and Moesch to the effect that if the equipment were not removed from the construction site it might be damaged by having an iron bar thrust through the radiator or oil cooler may well have constituted a violation of Sec. 8 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act. We find it unnecessary to make such a finding, however. Inasmuch as Shaw's statements were. not alleged as such a violation of the Act and because they were similar to other such threatening statements alleged and found as violations of that Section of the Act, such additional findings would only ORDER 387 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders the Respondents, General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local No. 563, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, Robert Schlieve, its secretary-treasurer, Local 139, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, Donald Shaw, its business representative, Local Union No. 3203, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Jerry Jahnke, its businesses representative, all of Appleton, Wisconsin, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete the name "Lee J. Rouse Construction Co." from paragraphs 1(a) and (b) and 2(b) of section A and from paragraphs 1(a) and (b) and 2(b) of section B. 2. Delete the name "Lee J. Rouse Construction Co." from the first and second indented paragraphs of both the Appendix A and B notices attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the complaint to the effect that Respondent Local 139, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ii)(B) of the Act as a result of Business Agent Shaw's conduct at the Seymour project be, and they hereby are, dismissed in their entirety. be cummulative. 'Member Fanning loins his colleagues in dismissing these allegations of the complaint for the reasons given above . He relies also on the fact that the work Rouse contracted to do for Landwehr, at the very least, was related to the normal operations of Landwehr, one of the primary employers involved in the areawide dispute with Respondents . In these circumstances, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Budding and Construction Trades Council of New Orleans. AFL-CIO (Markwell and Hartz, Inc.), 155 NLRB 319, he finds that the appeals directed to Rouse and his employee, Moesch, constituted primary rather than secondary pressures within the meaning of the Supreme Court's decision in Local 761, I.U.E. v. N.L.R B., 366 U.S. 667. For the same reasons, Member Fanning would dismiss the allegations of the complaint that Respondents violated Sec. 8(b)(i) and (i)(4)(B) by engaging in the conduct discussed by the Trial Examiner under the headings The Bloomer Incidents" and "The Kraemer Incidents." In his view, Kraemer and Bloomer were performing work related to the normal operations of Courtney and Plummer, Inc., one of the primary employers involved herein, who had contracted with the State of Wisconsin to construct a highway interchange on U.S. Highway 41, and that, consequently, appeals to Kraemer and Bloomer and their employees asking them td honor the picket lines established in furtherance of Respondents' dispute with Courtney and Plummer constituted primary rather than secondary appeals. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner: This case was heard in Appleton, Wisconsin, on September 24-26, 1968, 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pursuant to charges duly filed and served,' and a complaint issued on September 6, 1968. The complaint, as amended at the hearing , presents questions as to whether the Respondent Unions violated Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) and 8(b)(IXA) of the Act. In their answers, duly filed, the Respondents conceded certain facts with respect to the business activities of the Charging Party and its employer members, but the Respondents denied all allegations that they had committed any unfair labor practices. All parties appeared at the hearing with counsel. They were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence and to argue orally. Oral argument was waived. On October 31, 1968, all counsel submitted thorough and comprehensive briefs. Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association (herein Association ) is a Wisconsin corporation which exists, in part, for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondents on behalf of its employer-members. The latter, seven in number, are known as follows: Badger Highways, Inc. (herein Badger); Calnin & Goss, Inc. (herein Calnin); Courtney & Plummer, Inc. (herein C & P); Landwehr, Inc. (herein Landwehr); H. Schabo Materials, Inc. (herein Schabo ); Twin City Concrete Co. (herein Twin City); and Valley Ready Mixed Concrete Co. (herein Valley). Of the foregoing, C & P alone sells building and construction material valued in excess of $1 million to enterprises which themselves are employers engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce. It was undisputed, and the Trial Examiner finds, that by virtue of their membership in the Association, the seven enterprises named above constitute a single employer for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondents, and each is, individually, an employer engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce. In addition to the foregoing, other employers involved in the incidents which figure in this case, are named below: Concrete Pipe Corporation (herein Concrete Pipe) is a Wisconsin corporation , engaged at Menasha, in that State, in the manufacture and sale of concrete piping. It annually receives materials and supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Wisconsin, and annually sells products valued in excess of $50,000 to enterprises engaged in the building and construction industry . In the normal course of its business, Concrete Pipe purchases and receives building materials from C & P. In addition to its operations as a supplier of building and construction material, C & P has been engaged at all times material herein at Appleton, Wisconsin, as the general contractor, under contract with the State of Wisconsin, for the construction of a highway interchange (herein known as the "Highway 41" Project) for a contract price in excess of $1 million. 'The original charges in all three cases were filed on August 1, 1968. First amended charges were filed in Case 30-CB-222 and 30-CC-92 on August 14. 1968 Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc. (herein Kraemer), a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged at Appleton, Wisconsin, in the building and construction industry, and, at all times material herein , has been engaged as a bridge construction subcontractor of C & P at the "Highway 41 Project" for a contract price in excess of $150,000. John F. Bloomer Co., Inc. (herein Bloomer), a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged at Appleton, Wisconsin in the building and construction industry, and at all times material herein, has been engaged as a grading subcontractor of C & P at the "Highway 41 Project" for a contract price in excess of $300,000. Schwerman Trucking Co. (herein Schwerman), a Wisconsin corporation, is an interstate over-the-road motor carrier and annually receives revenues in excess of $200,000 for transporting goods and commodities across state lines in interstate commerce . In the normal course of its business, Schwerman hauls bulk commodities on behalf of Valley and delivers them to Valley at its ready mixed concrete plant in Appleton. P. G. Miron Construction Company (herein Miron) is a Wisconsin corporation , engaged as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. Miron's annual revenues from employers engaged in commerce, or in industries affecting commerce, exceed $50,000. At all times material herein , Miron has been engaged at Neenah, Wisconsin, as the general contractor for the construction of a plant addition on the premises of the Manhatten Rubber Company (herein called the Manhatten Project) for a contract price in excess of $50,000. Further, in the normal course of its business, Miron purchases ready mixed concrete from Twin City. Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc. (herein Schindler) has been engaged at all times material herein as a subcontractor of Miron at the Manhatten Project and supplies cranes and crane operators to handle and pour ready mixed concrete. Combined Paper Mills, Inc. (herein Combined Paper) is a Wisconsin corporation engaged at Combined Locks, Wisconsin, in the manufacture of paper products. In the course and conduct of its business , Combined Paper annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Wisconsin. At all times material herein , Combined Paper has been engaged in the construction of an addition to its plant, valued at $12 million and called herein the "Papermill Project." Likewise , at all times material , Calnin has been engaged by Combined Paper to perform excavating work at this same project. Fox Valley Construction Co., Inc. (herein Fox Valley) is a Wisconsin corporation engaged as a general contractor in the building and construction industry. Annually, it has revenues in excess of $50,000 for furnishing services and materials to enterprises which themselves are employers engaged in commerce, or in industries affecting commerce. At all times material herein, Fox Valley has been engaged at Appleton as the general contractor for construction work on an addition to the Outagamie County Airport (herein called the Airport Project). Lee J. Rouse Construction Co. (herein Rouse), is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in general excavating and earth moving for the building and construction industry. At all times material herein, Rouse has been engaged in performing earth moving at a school construction project in Seymour, Wisconsin (herein called the Seymour Project). Whether Rouse was a subcontractor to GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 389 Landwehr on this project, or engaged in a joint venture with Landwehr, is an issue in this case. Upon the foregoing facts, the Respondents concede, and the Trial Examiner finds, that all the employer-members of the Association, as well as Concrete Pipe, Kraemer, Bloomer, Schwerman, Miron, Schindler, Combined Paper, Meyer, Fox Valley and Rouse are each employers engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce, as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563 (herein called Teamsters, or, Local 563), Local 139, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (herein called Engineers, or, Local 139 ) and Local 3203, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (herein called Carpenters, or, Local 3203) are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. It was undisputed , and the Trial Examiner finds, that, at all times material herein, Robert Schlieve, secretary-treasurer of the Teamsters, Jeff Curtin and Marvin DeVries, both business representatives of the Teamsters, Joseph Goetz, business manager of the Engineers, Donald Shaw, business representative of the Engineers, Jerry Jahnke, business representative of the Carpenters, and Jack Jacobson , a representative of the Appleton Building and Construction Trades Council, were likewise agents of their respective labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Sequence of Events For several years prior to 1968, Local 563 had an agreement with every member of the Association, whereas Local 139 had a contract with only four members, viz, C & P, Badger, Landwehr and Calnin. On May 1, 1968, the collective- bargaining agreements which the Teamsters and Engineers had with members of the Association expired. After a breakdown in negotiations as to proposed new contractual terms, the dispute culminated in a strike. On July 29,' Local 563 struck the members of the Association. On July 30, Local 139 struck the four members of the Association with which it had had contractual relations. Thereafter, both the Teamsters and the Engineers engaged in picketing and strike activity, which, at the time of the hearing, was still in progress. The Respondent Carpenters did not call a strike against the members of the Association, or engage in picketing. Notwithstanding the strike, the members of the Association continued to operate and to do business. The alleged unfair labor practices involved herein arose out of the ensuing conflict between the economic combatants who are parties to this action. The picket signs used by the Teamsters read: "Employees of Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association Members Teamsters Local 563 on Strike." In some instances the name of the individual employer was inserted. The other side of the placard read "Our only dispute is with Fox Valley Construction Material Suppliers Association." The signs used by the Engineers read "International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139 on strike against the Fox Valley Material Supplier Association." The portion of the sign 'A11 dates here involved occurred in 1968, unless otherwise specified. reading "On Strike" was printed in red and the rest of the lettering was in black. The testimony discloses that picketing occurred daily at the premises of the struck employers with both the Teamsters and the Engineers frequently engaged in point picketing at those sites . Sometimes the picket signs of Local 139 appeared outside the premises of an employer who employed no members of that union, as on July 29, and August 5, when the Engineers picketed Valley Ready Mixed. On other occasions, when only Teamster pickets were on the scene, Business Agent Shaw of the Engineers was the sole business representative present.' On at least one day,' pickets with Engineer signs were at a jobsite in the morning and later, when more pickets arrived, only Teamsters placards were used. Robert Schlieve, the dominant personality in the Teamsters organization, conceded that throughout the strike he maintained close, personal contact with Donald Shaw, principal business agent for the Engineers in the Appleton area. On one occasion, when representatives of the Association met for purposes of negotiations with the Teamsters, and on another occasion when they met with the Engineers, both Shaw and Schlieve were present. Although denied by Schlieve, the record establishes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that throughout the period in question , many of the strike activities of the Teamsters and the Engineers were joint and coordinated. B. Preliminary Statement The Respondent Unions, in an able brief, contend that the secondary boycott allegations here involved are ill founded and without substance. In support of this position, they argue that the situations presented in the various incidents on which the General Counsel relies are different from those involved in Section 8(b)(4) cases which commonly arise in the construction industry. Basically, it is their contention that in this case the secondary boycott charges involved allegedly secondary employers who provided men and equipment to be used in careful and elaborate coordination with admittedly primary employers to such an extent that the former lost their status as neutrals. After an analysis of the facts, more fully set forth later in this decision, the Trial Examiner has concluded that most of the incidents in this case involve the type of coordination between primary and secondary employers which is not unique, or different, but rather one which is characteristic of construction work. N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675. In only two instances is there some merit to the argument pressed by the Respondent Unions in this regard, namely, those incidents which are known in the record as the "Highway 41" and "Seymour" projects. As to them, the applicability of the Respondents' defense is considered in detail later in this decision. The General Counsel concedes that at various times throughout the strike the Teamsters and the Engineers have engaged in lawful primary picketing and, conceivably, lawful ambulatory picketing. Apart from this activity, however, the General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the record abounds in evidence of unlawful Section 8(b)(4) activity on the part of the Respondents and, in several instances, of unlawful 8(b)(1)(A) activity by the Teamsters and Engineers. To the 'As at the Manhatten Project on August 10. At the Kraemer site on July 31. 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD facts in connection with the incidents relevant herein we will now turn. C. Alleged Violations of Section 8(bX4XI) and (iiXB); Findings and Conclusions with Respect Thereto 1. Concrete Pipe Concrete Pipe Corporation, a manufacturer of concrete products, customarily has a complement of about 30 employees. In the normal course of its daily operations it uses a substantial quantity of sand and stone which it purchases from C & P and Landwehr. The Teamsters have a contract with Concrete Pipe which does not expire until April 1, 1969. Prior to the outset of the strike against the Association members, Don Koepke, president of Concrete Pipe, had a conversation with Schlieve, in which Koepke thought that he had secured assurances from the Teamsters that, even if a strike began, his company would be able to secure an adequate supply of materials from C & P and Landwehr. On August 5, however, and shortly after the strike started, Schlieve telephoned the office of Concrete Pipe, where he spoke to Jerry P. Dunham, office manager for the firm. After identifying himself, Schlieve declared "I understand you got a load from Courtney & Plummer this morning." When Dunham replied in the affirmative, Schlieve continued "Well, let it be known that that's the last. . .load of stone you'll get from them, or you're out of business." When Dunham protested that t & P had been their supplier for many years, Schlieve responded "You'll just have to find another source of supplies." Schlieve concluded the conversation by asking that Dunham have President Koepke call him and by adding ". . our argument isn't with you, it's with Courtney & Plummer." That same afternoon President Koepke told the employees that his firm would continue to operate as long as C & P would continue to supply them with their gravel, but that if the employees walked off the job, the plant would be unable to operate and he would have to shut down until the strike ended. Jerome Schoultz, an employee and the steward for Local 563 at Concrete Pipe, went to the union hall at the end of the shift that day and had a conversation with Business Agent DeVries on the question of what the employees should do when pickets appeared. Schoultz testified that DeVries did not state that it was entirely up to the employees as to whether to walk off the job if Teamster pickets arrived at the plant gate . According to Schoultz' credible and uncontradicted testimony, DeVries told him "that if pickets do appear that we actually should walk off." On August 13, Schlieve had a telephone conversation with President Koepke in which the business agent inquired if the Company had secured a supplier in place of C & P. When Koepke replied in the negative, Schlieve told him that if Concrete Pipe continued to do business with C & P, the Teamsters would put up a picket line. He further told Koepke that he would have until noon the next day to find another source of supply or the Union would shut him down. When Koepke protested that such action could constitute a secondary boycott, Schlieve replied, according to Koepke's credible and undenied testimony, "Sonny, you'd better go back to law school before you talk to me about labor law. . . You can't afford to have your men walking off the job every half an hour. And, once we get them off, we have places to take them where it would take you a day to get them back. You can't afford that." Before terminating the conversation, Schlieve also alluded to other economic steps which the Teamsters would take against the company by resort to the health and welfare provisions in their current contract. He concluded with the statement that Koepke would "understand" what he meant by reference to such a sanction.' On August 14, Business Agent DeVries visited Koepke at his office, told him that he was there to find out if Concrete Pipe had found another supplier and warned ". . . if you don't find something by noon we're going to put a 24-hours watch on you and on Landwehr." On August 16, DeVries returned to the plant and sought permission from Office Manager Dunham to address the employees. Dunham acceded and then proposed to accompany DeVries while he talked with the men, but DeVries insisted that Dunham leave the area and the latter did so. William Keeney, an employee who was present at this meeting, testified that DeVries told them that he was certain they knew that C & P was on strike and that their employer was still obtaining stone from C & P. According to Keeney, DeVries advised them that any time a C & P truck was on the premises they could "legally" walk off the job. When one of the machine operators questioned DeVries as to how an employee could walk off the job and leave something hanging in mid-air such as a rotary spindle and a wet pipe, the business agent replied "Well, legally, you can, and they can't do anything about it." DeVries did not tell the employees that it was entirely up to them as to whether they walked off the job when the pickets appeared. Keeney testified that it was apparent to him that since DeVries called the meeting to tell them they could leave the job when C & P trucks appeared, that DeVries wanted them to walk off under those circumstances. This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that only a few days earlier DeVries had told Schoultz, the Teamsters steward at the plant, that if pickets appeared at the premises, the employees should walk off. Under these circumstances, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that this was the same import which the employees could draw from DeVries remarks to them on August 16.1 In a letter dated September 19, Schlieve wrote Koepke that the company had failed to make health and welfare payments on one Robert Schroeder for the months of October and November 1967. Schlieve demanded arbitration of the grievance and went on to state that if Concrete Pipe did not accede, the union would feel free to take whatever action it deemed appropriate. Koepke telephoned the Teamsters' office and spoke to DeVries, Koepke reminded the business agent that the Schroeder matter had been discussed by the parties and dropped in December 1967, that the employee Schroeder had been told prior to the termination of his 30-day probationary period that he would have to get work elsewhere and that he had been allowed to remain for a short while longer only as an accommodation. DeVries, 'The quotations in this paragraph are from Koepke 's testimony. When on the stand, Schlieve did not deny or contradict the testimony which Kocpke gave When asked whether he had ever threatened Koepke that he would shut down Concrete Pipe , Schlieve did not give a direct answer Instead he answered only by stating that he had advised Koepke that the Teamsters would exercise their rights under the Moore Drydock decision (Sailors Union of the Paces (Moore Drydock Co.). 92 NLRB 547) and picket his premises when employees of struck employers delivered material Koepke was a credible witness and his account of this conversation is found by the Trial Examiner to be an accurate summation of what transpired. 'The quotations in this paragraph are from the credible. uncontradicted testimony of Keeney. GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 however, was adamant that the Teamsters intended to adhere to the literal language of the contract in connection with the case. On September 21, Koepke mailed the Teamsters a check for $63.32 to dispose of the Schroeder matter and in an accompanying letter protested that he was doing so, notwithstanding his conviction that the union had raised a stale claim that was not subject to arbitration and for which the company was under no legal obligation to pay. Schlieve's threats to put Concrete Pipe out of business or shut it down unless Koepke quit buying stone from C & P and Landwehr constituted a patent violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Nassau & Suffolk Building Construction Trades Council, (Theresa Garden Apartments, Inc.) 162 NLRB No. 13 (TXD). It was likewise a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act, for Respondent Teamsters, when Business Agent DeVries, in his meeting with the employees of Concrete Pipe, implied that they should walk off the job at anytime that C & P trucks were on the premises. General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union Local 467 (Jones and Jones, Inc.), 171 NLRB No. 90 (TXD).7 2. The Manhatten Project During the summer of 1968, the Manhatten Rubber Company was engaged in the construction of an addition to its plant. The general contractor for the job was P. G. Miron Construction Company. In the course of its work on this contract, Miron rented two cranes and operators from Schindler Equipment Rentals, Inc. The latter began working at the construction site about the middle of July. On August 10, Schindler had two cranes at the Manhatten site , one being operated by Carl Schindler, president of Schindler, and the other by his employee Eugene LeFeber. Both Schindler and LeFeber were members of the Operating Engineers. On this occasion, C & P ready mix trucks were delivering concrete and the Schindler cranes were being used to move the concrete. Overall supervision was being provided by Dave Voss, superintendent for Miron. About 10 a.m., Teamster pickets arrived at the scene, and shortly thereafter, Business Agent Shaw appeared. He went immediately to LeFeber and told him "You're handling strikebound material . . .you know , them guys are on strike for quite a while. . ." Shaw then demanded that LeFeber produce his card in Local 139. When the employee did so, Shaw examined it, wrote down the number of the card, and when LeFeber inquired as to what he was doing, Shaw told him that he was going to try to take the card from him, fine him and kick him out of the Operating Engineers. Shaw then talked with Schindler who was some distance away. According to Schindler's credible testimony, Shaw told him that he was handling strike bound material, that he should let LeFeber go and that he 'The Respondents contend that the meeting at which DeVries made these remarks was confidential and that inquiry as to what the business agent said was precluded by Building and Construction Trades Council of Tampa (Tampa Sand and Material ). 132 NLRB 1564, 1565-66 . In that case the Board held that a business agent's statements to the union membership were not violative of the Act when he reminded them of their rights as individuals not to handle products of primary employers . The protection of that case, however, does not extend to the instant situation where DeVries made the statements here involved in a context which made it clear to the secondary employees that their union expected them to honor the picket lines. 391 should quit himself. Sch(tidler did tell LeFeber to leave the scene and the latter departed. Schindler then talked with Voss, the Miron superintendent, about the prospects of quitting, but Voss told him that that would be impossible because the concrete pour then in progress was for a large, solid concrete slab which had to be completed before operations could cease. Schindler then related this to Shaw. The business agent responded by telling Schindler "...don't say I didn't warn you...you're going to appear before the union court. . .you'll be fined." Thereafter, as he was leaving , Shaw told Voss that "on all your (Miron's)jobs you'll be picketed Monday morning." The incident involving Schindler and LeFeber occurred at a point about 300 feet distant from where the pickets were stationed. At all times material Schindler was under contract with Miron and was using his own cranes. On cross-examination by counsel for the Respondent Unions, Schindler was asked if he believed the picketing was directed against his company and Miron. He replied in the affirmative and when further asked for his reason for such an answer he replied "Well, Courtney & Plummer didn't have any union men there...." Shaw testified that he merely told the Schindler crane operators that there were pickets at the entrance to the premises and that under their contract they were not required to stay on the job. This testimony, however, was totally lacking in any persuasiveness and is not credited by the Trial Examiner. The account of Schindler and LeFeber, on the other hand, was credible and withstood a searching cross-examination by able counsel for the Respondent Unions. For this reason, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the incident in question occurred substantially as related by Schindler and his employee. On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent Engineers, by the actions of Business Agent Shaw described above, coerced Schindler with an object of forcing Schindler and Miron to cease doing business with C & P, thereby violating Section 8(b)(4Xii)(B) of the Act. It was likewise a violation of the same section of the Act, when Shaw, for the same unlawful object, threatened Voss, Miron's superintendent , after Miron had declined to discontinue the concrete pour with materials supplied by C & P, that the Engineers would picket all of Miron's projects the following Monday morning . Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers (Morin Erection Co.), 168 NLRB No. 1; Local 825, Operating Engineers (American Dredging Co.), 168 NLRB No. 34; Laundry, Drycleaning, Industrial, Linen Supply and Dust Control Drivers Union Local 209, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, (East Bay Counties Dry Cleaners Association), 167 NLRB No. 6 (TXD). Finally, the threats which Shaw directed at LeFeber to induce that employee to quit working for Schindler, an object of which action was to compel LeFeber's employer and Miron to cease doing business with C & P, constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. The Trial Examiner so finds. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 1839 (Kroeter Constructior Co.), 160 NLRB No. 1.(TXD).' 'In further support of an earlier finding that the Teamsters and Operating Engineers engaged in a joint and coordinated strategy, it is significant that whereas the picketing at the Manhatten project was conceded by both Shaw and Schlieve to have been conducted solely by the Teamsters, Shaw was the only union official on the scene at the time. Schlieve testified that earlier that morning he had ordered Teamster pickets to report at the Miron site. 'In their brief, the Respondents contend that by such conduct as that of Shaw with respect to LeFeber, and similar conduct as to other members of 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The Airport Project in progress on the plant premises of Combined Paper Mills, Inc The general contractor for this work was C. R. Meyer & Sons. At the time, Combined Paper had approximately 450 production and maintenance employees at the plant, all of them members of the Pulp, Paper & Sulphite Union. Meyer, as the general contractor, had contracts or agreements with numerous building and construction trades unions, including the Laborers, Carpenters, Masons and Cement Finishers and the Teamsters. On August 29, while Meyer was engaged in work at the Combined Paper premises, a crew of workmen for Calnin & Goss arrived on the scene to repair a broken water line. This job was contracted for by the mill and was unrelated to the Meyer project. At the time, Calnin & Goss, of course, was one of the struck employers in the Association. Shortly after the Calnin crew arrived, Elwyn F. Nelson, project engineer for Meyer, received a telephone call from Jack Jacobson whom Nelson knew as a representative of the Appleton Building Trades Council. Jacobson inquired as to whether Nelson realized that Calnin & Goss was working on the site. Nelson replied that he had seen the equipment, but that he did not know for whom Calnin & Goss was working. Jacobson then told Nelson that he did not believe that the Teamsters knew that Calnin & Goss was on the scene, and that he hoped that the men and equipment for that firm would be off the premises before the Teamsters found out. After Jacobson further declared that he did not want any trouble on the job, Nelson suggested that he contact the mill directly. Soon thereafter, John J. Rouman, chief engineer for Combined Paper, received a telephone call from Jacobson. The latter asked Rouman whether he realized that Calnin & Goss was a struck company. After Rouman conceded that he was unaware of any such fact, Jacobson went on to tell him that if the Teamsters were to learn that Calnin & Goss was on the premises, that union would promptly establish a picket line. Rouman stated that Combined Paper was most anxious to avoid any such development because it had been plagued by strikes all summer. He then asked Jacobson what other companies could be secured to replace Calnin & Goss. After Jacobson volunteered the names of three other firms, Rouman assured him that Calnin & Goss would be asked to leave the job by the end of the day. Shortly thereafter, Jacobson again called Rouman, this time to tell him that the Teamsters had learned that a Calnin & Goss crew was on the premises and to question Rouman as to what action he proposed to take. Rouman replied that he had already told Calnin & Goss to finish out the day and then get their equipment off the plant property. Jacobson thereupon stated that he would contact the Teamsters office and that if Rouman himself wanted to contact that union, he suggested that a call be made to Teamsters Business Agent Jeff Curtin. Immediately after concluding his conversation with Jacobson, Rouman telephoned Curtin. The latter indicated to Rouman that he was fully aware of the situation at the plant. Rouman assured him that he had already ordered Calnin & Goss to finish out the day and then get off the premises. Rouman further stated that since there was some prospect that not all of the equipment would be removed that very night, he would like to have Curtin's assurance that the mere presence of the idle equipment would not provoke a picket line the next day. Curtin acceded to this request and concluded the conversation with the warning that "equipment would be all right to be At all times material herein, the Fox Valley Construction Company, not a member of the Association and not involved in a labor dispute with the Respondents, was engaged in the construction of a runway extension at the Outagamie County Airport. In connection with its operations there, Fox Valley had a batch plant on the site which it owned and operated for mixing all concrete used on the project. C & P was the principal supplier of the sand and stone which Fox Valley required at this batch plant. About 10 a.m. on September 6, pickets appeared at the entrance used by the C & P trucks. Soon thereafter, Business Agent Shaw approached Dennis Sorenson, an employee of Fox Valley and a member of Local 139, who was operating an end loader at the time. Sorenson testified that Shaw asked to see his union book and, after that was produced, Shaw questioned him as to whether he realized that he was working behind a picket line. After Sorenson acknowledged that he knew about the presence of the pickets, Shaw took the employee's name and number from the dues book and, upon handing it back, told him "I hope you can keep this." Shaw testified that in his conversation with Sorenson he merely expressed the wish that the employee honor the picket line. This account of what occurred, however, was contradicted by the fact that in a letter dated September 16, the secretary of Local 139 notified Sorenson that Shaw had charged that he had found Sorenson working behind a picket line and that on October 1, the employee would be tried on these charges. Further, at the instant hearing, Shaw explained that he felt the charges were justified because, in his view, the work which Sorenson was doing behind the picket line violated the union's constitution. On the basis of the foregoing, and the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Sorenson was a credible witness, it is apparent that the action of the business agent was violative of the Act. The threats of reprisal against Sorenson voiced by Shaw on the scene and followed by the written charges issued by the Operating Engineers were plainly calculated to induce the employee to cease working for Fox Valley, a neutral in this instance, and thereby compel the latter to cease doing business with C & P. By such conduct Respondent Local 139 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council, (Interstate Employers Association, Inc.), 170 NLRB No. 170 (TXD). 4. The Papermill Project During August 1968, several construction projects were Local 139 which will be detailed later herein , the business agent was simply exerting his rights under the Supreme Court's decision in N.L R B v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. 388 U.S. 175. That case, of course, was concerned with the protection afforded a union under the proviso to Sec. 8(b)(l)(A). The Board, however, has held that the application of that proviso is limited to that section of the Act only. San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18 (Northwest Publications. Inc), 172 NLRB No. 252. Contrary to the Respondent's position, the proviso to Section 8(b)(l)(A) accords no sanction to union membership discipline , such as that involved here , which violates the secondary boycott provisions of Section 8(bx4). Cf. Bricklayers and Masons Local No . 2 (Weidman Metal Masters ). 166 NLRB No 26 (TXD). Glaziers Local Union 1184 (Tennessee Glass Company ), 164 NLRB No. 19; Laundry. Dry Cleaning. etc.. Drivers Union Local 209 (East Bay Counties Dry Cleaners Association, 167 NLRB No. 6, (TXD). GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 393 on the premises, but it better not be operated."10 The testimony of both Nelson and Rouman was credible and uncontradicted. Jacobson was never called to the stand and no explanation was offered for his failure to appear. On the basis of the foregoing findings, it is apparent, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Jacobson was acting as an agent or ally of the Teamsters in endeavoring to compel Combined Paper and/or Meyer to cease doing business with Calnin & Goss. By threatening Rouman with a Teamster picket line if Calnin & Goss remained on the job, Jacobson violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. Since he was acting, in this regard, as an agent or ally of the Teamsters, the latter Respondent must be, and is, found responsible for this unlawful conduct. American Newspaper Guild, Local 11, 151 NLRB 1558, 1564. 5. The Seymour Project Lee Rouse was the operator of Rouse Construction, Inc., a small firm engaged in general excavating. Rouse testified that he had approximately 12 employees in season and from 15 to 20 pieces of equipment. At the time of the incident in question Rouse did not have a contract with Local 139, but by the time of the hearing he had entered into an agreement with the Operating Engineers. Early in August, Rouse was engaged by Landwehr to supply a scraper and an operator on the school construction work known in the record as the Seymour project. At the time, the general contractor on this work was the Huffman Construction Company. Landwehr was one of the subcontractors. About August 15, John Moesch, Jr., a Rouse employee and a member of Local 139, arrived at the Seymour jobsite with a carryall scraper. While the Rouse equipment was in use that morning, a Landwehr employee was operating another machine stripping off the top soil on the site. Moesch testified, credibly and without contradiction, that about midmorning, Business Agent Shaw came on the job and questioned him as to whether he realized that a strike was in progress. When Moesch disclaimed any knowledge of a strike, Shaw told him that Moesch was, indeed, on strike and that he would have to get his machine off the site by evening. According to Moesch, Shaw cautioned him that if the machine was not removed "possibly someone might find out. . .that we'd been working there and there'd probably be some damage to the machine." Moesch thereupon quit work and reported back to Rouse that he had been stopped by the business agent for the Operating Engineers." Rouse testified that after Moesch reported back, he telephoned Shaw for an explanation. According to Rouse, Shaw told him "you know that you're working with Landwehr...[which] is on strike.... We're not allowing any equipment to work on this site.... We also want you to get your machine out of this property. . .today." Rouse testified that up to that time he had no knowledge that Landwehr was on strike. According to Rouse, Shaw concluded the conversation by warning him that the equipment would have to be moved off the property "for your own good. . you don't want to come back there tomorrow. . .and find an iron bar through each one of those radiators and oil coolers." Rouse testified that when he questioned Shaw as to who would wreak such damage, the business agent replied "Well. , you know , when those men are on strike . . .they get pretty desperate. . .you know, ther're carrying guns already.... They're shooting glass out of trucks...."12 On cross-examination by counsel for the Respondent, Rouse testified that when he had been hired by Landwehr the latter had informed him that that firm was under pressure from the Seymour school board to finish the project as promptly as possible . He specifically denied any knowledge of a strike involving the Landwehr employees and testified that when he accepted the contract he had no reason to believe that the work in question had been delayed because of any labor dispute . Rouse's testimony in this connection was completely credible and undenied. The Respondents assert that, during the incident here in question, Rouse was performing "struck" work and, in fact, was an ally of Landwehr . This defense would be available to the Respondents in the present instance if there was proof that Rouse and his employee Moesch had gone to the Seymour jobsite fully aware of the fact that at that time Landwehr 's employees were on strike . As found above, however, there was no evidence in the record that either Rouse or Moesch knew of any dispute between the Engineers and Landwehr , or that they had any knowledge that the Landwehr employees were on strike. Consequently, the Trial Examiner concludes that, under the circumstances here present, Rouse was within the protection of Section 8(b)(4). N. L.R.B. v . Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics , Local 459, I.U.E. (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F.2d 553, 559 (C.A. 2), cert . denied 351 U.S. 962. Further, it must be held, and the Trial Examiner so finds, that by Shaw's inducement of Moesch to quit work, and by his threats to Rouse as to what might happen to the equipment if it was not removed immediately from the Seymour job, Local 139 violated both Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, (Twin County Transit Mix, Inc.), 137 NLRB 858, 866; Teamsters, Chauffeurs; etc. (Editorial Imparcial, Inc.), 134 NLRB 895, 901 ; Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 107 (Riss & Company, Inc.), 130 NLRB 943, 946-948, enfd . 300 F.2d 317 (C.A. 3). 6. Schwerman Trucking Company at premises of Valley Ready Mix Valley Ready Mix, one of the members of the Association which Respondent Teamsters had struck, regularly received supplies of cement from a source in Milwaukee. Schwerman Trucking Company, an over-the-road carrier, regularly delivered the bulk cement to the Valley premises. On August 1, when several Schwerman trucks arrived at the entrance to the Valley plant, there were from 12 to 18 pickets lined up across the driveway, a road that was approximately 30 to 35 feet wide . On this occasion the Schwerman drivers did not attempt to go through the picket line , but waited until their supervisor arrived. When he did so, the supervisor drove the trucks through the picket line and effected delivery that day. On August 5, Schwerman endeavored to make another delivery. About 7 a.m. when the first truck arrived at Valley, there were approximately 6 to 10 pickets at the entrance . By 8:30, however, when two more Schwerman trucks arrived, there were from 25 to 30 pickets at the gate . The trucks had been escorted up to the Valley "The quotation is from Rouman's testimony. "The quotations in this paragraph are from Moesch's testimony. "The quotations in this paragraph are from Rouse's testimony. 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD entrance by the local sheriff and from 8 to 10 deputies. There was credible, undenied testimony that both Schlieve and Curtin were present on the picket line at this time." Joseph Martin, foreman for Schwerman, testified that when he spoke to one of them and stated that he had to try to get a truck across the line, he was told "I'll have more men here within minutes." Martin then started the first truck and attempted to drive through the entrance. According to the credible and undenied testimony of Richard Schouten, an official of Valley who was present, when Martin started the truck, Curtin motioned for the pickets to mass in front of it and lean against the side of the vehicle. Schouten testified that the pickets remained in this position until the sheriff and his deputies physically removed them and allowed the truck to pass. Martin remained on the premises for about 45 minutes. After his truck was unloaded and as he was driving out the gateway, Schlieve jumped on the running board and spol(e to him. According to Martin, the Teamsters' official told him that if he were Martin he would return to Milwaukee with the other two trucks, because if an attempt was made to deliver any more cement he (Schlieve) could not guarantee that there would be no violence. Martin testified that after this declaration by Schlieve he abandoned any further efforts to unload the two other truck loads of cement and returned to Milwaukee. At the time of the hearing no Schwerman trucks had made any deliveries to Valley since August 5." By the threats which Schlieve voiced to Martin, Schwerman's foreman, and to the Schwerman drivers that their equipment would be damaged if they persisted in attempting to enter the Valley premises and that violence might ensue if they did not abandon their efforts to deliver cement to Valley, all of which threats were successful in inducing the Schwerman employees to quit work and to cause Foreman Martin to halt any further attempts to deliver cement to the strikebound premises, the Respondent Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Local 32, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America (Rawls Brothers Contractors, Inc.), 133 NLRB 1077, 1078. By the mass picketing on August 5 which blocked ingress to and egress from the Valley plant, the Respondent Teamsters likewise violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Local No. 3887, United Steelworkers of America (Stephenson Brick & Tile Company), 129 NLRB 6, 7-8, enfd. 290 F.2d 587 (C.A. 5). 7. The Highway 41 Project C & P was the prime contractor for the State of Wisconsin in the construction of a highway interchange on U.S. Highway 41 on the west approaches to Appleton, Wisconsin. The contract was for a sum substantially in excess of $1,500,000 and in its accomplishment, C & P entered into subcontracts with various subcontractors, among them being Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., and John F. Bloomer Co., Inc. The subcontractor with Kraemer provided for the construction of certain bridges for a price in excess of $150,000. The subcontract with Bloomer covered excavation and grading for which C & P was to pay over $300,000. "According to the credible testimony of Richard Schouten. "According to the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Daniel J Garvey, assistant to the manager of Valley, in addition to Schiteve and Curtin, Teamster Business Agent DeVries was also present during the picketing, as was Don Shaw. business agent for the Operating Engineers. A provision in the contract that C & P had with the State of Wisconsin, which was also incorporated in the subcontracts between C & P and the various subcontractors read as follows: (2) . the contractor shall furnish (a) a competent superintendent or foreman who is employed by him, who has full authority to direct performance of the work in accordance with the contract requirements, and who is in charge of all construction operations.... The foregoing is one of many provisions that are required to be incorporated in all agreements involving Federally aided primary highway construction. In conformity with the above provision, C & P designated Allen Rich, as its project coordinator on the Highway 41 project. Rich, a graduate construction engineer, was on the site at all times when any work was in progress. He himself described his general duties as being that of a "go-between" with the subcontractors, the State Highway Commission, and C & P, in assuring that the project was finished in accord with the plans and specifications. In this connection, he frequently checked with the superintendents for Kraemer, Bloomer and the other subcontractors as to the work those firms were performing. Apart from these responsibilities, when any C & P employees were on the site, Rich was empowered to supervise them in detail as to their work performance. Rich described these latter duties as additional work, in contrast with the more general type of supervision which he had over the employees of the subcontractors and which was exercised only through the respective superintendents of the latter. The Respondents contend that by virtue of the provision in the contract which C & P had with the State of Wisconsin, set forth above, the subcontractors on the Highway 41 project were, in fact, joint employers, or allies, in the dispute which C & P had with the Respondent Unions. They further contend that the direction which Rich gave to the employees of the subcontractors, in effect, made them employees of C & P and, therefore, beyond the scope of Section 8(b)(4). The Respondents' contentions in this connection are not supported by the evidence adduced in this case. The facts with respect to Rich's duties establish that, as to the subcontractors, he acted as a liaison man between them, C & P and the State. Insofar as the employees of the subcontractors were concerned, Rich had no direct control over the manner in which they performed their work, not one was on the C & P payroll and no employer-employee relationship was established as to them and C & P. Moreover, there was no evidence that the subcontractors were owned or controlled by C & P other than the control which C & P had by reason of its prime contractor status. Lastly, there was no evidence offered that the bridge building for which Kraemer was responsible, or the excavating for which Bloomer had contracted, was work which would have been performed by C & P or any other struck firms, but for the strike. Applicable to the situation here is the much quoted language of the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 689-690, where it stated: We agree with the Board also in its conclusion that the fact that the contractor and subcontractor were engaged on the same construction project, and that the contractor had some supervision over the subcontractor's work, did not eliminate the status of each as an independent contractor or made the GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 employees of one the employees of the other. The business relationship between independent contractors is too well established in the law to be overridden without clear language doing so. See also : Local 761 I.U.E. v. N.L.R.B., 366 U. S. 667, 678-681 ; Building and Construction Trades Council of New Orleans , AFL-CIO (Markwell & Hartz, Inc.), 155 NLRB 319, 326-328, enfd. 387 F.2d 79 (C.A. 5). Accordingly, and in the light of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the relationship between C & P, on the one hand, and Kraemer and Bloomer, on the other, as set forth in the record of this case, was substantially that of contractor and subcontractor in the conventional sense , with each of these three parties being an independent contractor." a. The Bloomer incidents Francis Bloomer, president of Bloomer , testified that his firm had from 20 to 50 employees throughout the year, that all the machine operators were members of Local 139, and the current contract with the latter organization would not expire until 1970. Bloomer's excavating work on the Highway 41 project was started in 1967 and had proceeded, at intervals, to the time which is material to the present proceeding . In the latter part of July and early in August 1968, Bloomer had from 8 to 12 employees on the project. They were at work in the vicinity of certain new ramps on the interchange which were immediately west of Highway 41. On August 1, Business Agent Shaw appeared at the site and spoke to Bloomer . Present at the time and only a few feet away were Bloomer's superintendent, Herbert Ebert, and four employees . Shaw requested that Bloomer suspend operations at any time a C & P materials truck arrived on the job.'s Bloomer testified that after he declined to accede to the business agent's request, the latter told him that if a picket line was established his employees either, would not or should not (Bloomer could not recall which it was that Shaw said ) cross it. According "Another provision of the contract which C & P had with the State required that the prime contractor perform at least 51 percent of the work covered by the agreement. Apparently, after having sublet substantially in excess of 40 percent of the work involved, and in order to assure compliance with this provision , C & P entered into an arrangement with' Hedrich Construction Company, Inc., for the construction of certain culverts. This agreement was different from that with Karemer and Bloomer, for, in this latter contract, C & P agreed to rent Hednch's equipment and put Hedrich 's men on the C & P payroll. Initially, a paragraph in the complaint related to various alleged unfair labor practices committed as to the Hedrich operations on the Highway 41 project . At the outset of the hearing , however, the General Counsel moved to strike this allegation , on the ground that the complete picture as to the Hedrich-C & P relationship had only then come to his attention and that from this new information he was satisfied that no violation was involved. Over the vigorous objection of the Respondents , this motion was granted. In their brief, the Respondents advert to the Hedrich arrangement with C & P and argue that , in fact, it was little different from that which existed as to both Kraemer and Bloomer. The facts, however, as set forth earlier and as disclosed by the record , are to the contrary . The Hedrich relationship was unique and different from that which Kraemer and Bloomer had with C & P, and the General Counsel was correct in promptly conceding that the original allegations as to the Hedrich situation should be stricken. "Apart from the fact that C & P was the prime contractor on the job. C & P. as noted earlier, was itself primarily responsible for approximately 51 percent of the work involved in the Highway 41 project . In this connection, C & P was also a materials supplier of, among other items , ready mixed concrete. 395 to Bloomer, Shaw told him that this was because of the "rules and regulations...." of the Operating Engineers. The Bloomer employees continued to work at the site until August 5. On that date , pickets from both the Teamsters and the Engineers arrived , and the Bloomer employees announced that they would not work behind the picket line. Bloomer testified that as a result of this incident he did not send any employees back to the Highway 41 project at any time from August 5 to September 4. Late in August, Bloomer called upon Shaw at his office and sought to persuade him that the excavation work should be allowed to proceed because the character of the soil would prevent any operations during the latter part of the fall. Notwithstanding Bloomer's references to the no-strike clause in his agreement with the Engineers, Shaw refused to assure Bloomer that he would be permitted to resume work . Shaw likewise vetoed Bloomer's suggestion that a special , or reserved, gate could be set up for Bloomer 's employees. Thereafter , in an exchange of telephone calls and correspondence with Joe Goetz, secretary-treasurer of Local 139, Bloomer explained that he was anxious to resume operations because of weather conditions and the character of the soil involved and, further, that he proposed to put up a reserved gate for the Bloomer employees. After promising Bloomer that he would consider the latter proposal, on September 3, Goetz finally told him that a reserved gate would not be acceptable to the Engineers. Notwithstanding this veto by officials of Local 139, on September 3, Bloomer wrote a letter to both Goetz and Shaw wherein he stated that on the following day his company would resume work at the Highway 41 site and that his employees would use a special entrance that would be reserved exclusively for them. The letter set out that a sign at this entrance would read as follows: "This entrance is reserved exclusively for employees and suppliers of John F . Bloomer Co., Inc. All other employees and suppliers do not use this entrance." On the morning of September 4, Bloomer erected barricades at the intersection of Casaloma Drive and College Avenue and posted the sign which he had described in his letter to the Engineers . This was at a point approximately one quarter mile west and one quarter mile north of the intersection of Van Dyke and Spencer, where the pickets had stationed themselves at all times prior thereto. Bloomer thereupon directed Lawrence Larson, a dragline operator, to move his dragline up to the intersection and proceed to the excavation site. Bloomer then removed the barricades so as to enable the machine to move through the intersection . Significantly, there were no pickets on the scene as Larson started moving forward. After he had traveled some 400 to 500 feet , however, he was stopped by three pickets with Teamsters signs. Larson asked what would happen if he continued , and the pickets told him that he could be fined or blackballed . After this exchange, Larson stopped his machine, locked it, and told Bloomer that he was quitting because the pickets would not let him continue. From that time until the date of the hearing, Bloomer performed no further work on the Highway 41 project. The testimony of Bloomer and Larson , set forth above, was credible, undenied and uncontradicted . On the basis of this testimony, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Engineers violated Section 8(bx4)(ii)(B) by 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shaw's conversation with Bloomer in which he predicted trouble on the job if the employer persisted in working on the Highway 41 project and warned that if the employees crossed the picket line they would be violating the Engineer's rules and regulations The Respondent Engineers similarly violated the same section of the Act when, late in August, Shaw told Bloomer that he would not be permitted to resume work and on September 3 when Goetz likewise told him that he would not be permitted to work on the Highway 41 project Finally, the Teamsters violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) when it ignored the reserved gate which Bloomer had set up and established a picket line that was directed exclusively at Larson, a Bloomer employee " Local 825 Operating Engineers (Morin Erection Co Inc ) 168 NLRB No 1 (TXD), Local No 1140 Hod Carriers (Gilmore Construction Co ) 127 NLRB 541, 544-545 enfd as to this point 285 F 2d 397, 402 (C A 8), International Hod Carriers Local No 1140 (Economy Forms Corporation) 126 NLRB 488, 489, fn 1, enfd as to this point 285 F 2d 394 (C A 8) Bricklayers Local No 2 (Weidman Metal Masters) 166 NLRB No 26 b The Kraemer incidents On the morning of July 31, Kraemer employees were working near what is known in the record as the Spencer Street Bridge About midmorning and after the C & P ready mix trucks arrived, Shaw and several pickets appeared at the scene Lyle Bodendein a crane operator for Kraemer and a member of Local 139, testified that Shaw came to him, told him to shut off his machine and quit the job When Bodendem remonstrated that he had heard of no strike, Shaw told hum "Well I'm informing you now that they are on strike, and I want you to quit right now " Bodendein, however, refused to quit because he was in the midst of a concrete pour that was only one-half completed Shortly thereafter, while Bodendein was eating lunch with about eight other Kraemer employees, Shaw again appeared and singled out Bodendein This time, according to the employee, the business agent told him, in the presence of his fellow employees, that "if I didn't quit operating that he [Shaw] would see to it I was called up before the rest of the members of Local 139 and would have to answer for not stopping work when he told me to 11 That afternoon, troubled by the various strictures which Shaw had applied to him, Bodendein telephoned the Engineers' office to seek advice According to the employee, at this time he spoke to a union representative whom he did not know, but who was completely cognizant of the situation on the Highway 41 project that day Bodendein testified that in response to his question as to whether Local 139 was on strike against Kraemer, the union representative told him "No Local 139 is not on strike," but that the latter then said to Bodendein "I understand that you have two abutments to pour " When Bodendein acknowledged that this was correct the union representative told him "I'd advise you not to pour the second abutment today " According to Bodendein, the "As to the incident on August 5 when after a joint Teamster Engineer picket line appeared at the site all the Bloomer employees walked off the job the record does not indicate clearly whether C & P employees were present at the time Since if the latter was the situation the picket line could have been prmary in oliaracter so violation is found as to this incident same individual told him he could go back to work when the C & P trucks left the job That same morning, Shaw delivered substantially the same type of ultimatum to James Gruber, another Kraemer employee, as he had given to Bodendein Gruber, operator of an end loader and a member of Local 139, testified that Shaw came up to where he was working and asked "Have you got an extra $300 9" Gruber testified that Shaw then told him that if he did not quit he would be in the same situation as "the operator up on top of the hill," an obvious reference to Bodendein After Shaw concluded, Gruber discussed the matter with Earl Glass, his foreman, and when the latter told him that the Engineers could not require him to quit, Gruber continued to work On the morning of July 31 the first placards displayed by the pickets were Engineer signs Later, and after Shaw spoke with Bodendem, more pickets arrived When this happened, the Engineer signs disappeared and thereafter that day the pickets carried Teamster signs i' On August 1, both Gruber and Bodendein were at work when two pickets arrived, one carrying an Engineer sign and the other a Teamster placard The pickets asked the two employees to honor the picket line The latter stated that they would and thereupon stopped their machines and performed no further work that day One of the pickets identified himself to Bodendem as a business agent for the Teamsters On August 2 when Bodendein was back on the job, Shaw again appeared, this time with two pickets and a camera After he had taken a picture of Bodendem's crane, he told the employee "I thought I told you to quit operating I'll personally see to it that you're scratched from the Operating Engineers Union and that you'll never work for a union contractor again " Bodendein then reminded the business agent that Kraemer had a contract with Local 139 which would not expire until 1970 and that this agreement also had a no-strike clause Shaw's response was the declaration "A lot of these big contractors are going to get hurt A lot of them will be belly up before we get done with them " Shaw then left, after Bodendein had made it clear that he planned to continue working Bodendem testified that at the time of this incident, no C & P trucks were present or engaged in any concrete pour and that the place where he and Gruber were working on this occasion was about a third of a mile from the point where they had been on July 31 The Respondent Engineers did not allow either Gruber or Bodendein to indulge for long in any thoughts that they could flaunt with impunity any of Shaw's orders that they cease work In separate letters, both dated September 18, the Respondent Engineers notified Gruber and Bodendein that they were to appear at a formal hearing on October 1 to answer charges filed by Business Agent Shaw that each of them had violated the union constitution by working behind a picket line and by having failed to cease work after having been requested to do so by Shaw On the afternoon of July 31 the same day that Shaw threatened two Kraemer employees who were members of Local 139, Jerry Jahnke, business agent for the Carpenters, appeared at the site At the tune Kraemer had four carpenters on the job All of them were members of the Carpenters Union, but not of the local which Jal►nke represented Earl J Glass, the Kraemer forem an, testified that when Jahnke arrived, the latter told hire that he did 'Me foregoing fwdagc we based on the esedsbis a ldsesed uslseeoe r of Allen Rich project coordaator for C & P GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 not want any carpenters working while concrete was being poured and that any who did would be subject to a $100 fine. Allen Rich, project coordinator for C & P, testified that at this time he was in the presence of Jahnke when the latter told two of the Kraemer carpenters to get off the jobsite or be fined $100. Rich further testified that on this occasion Jahnke directed one of the two carpenters to carry this message to the other side of the bridge where the two remaining carpenters were working. As a result, all four carpenters quit work immediately and did nothing further that day. On August 5, Glass, who was himself a member of the Carpenters, along with the four carpenters in Kraemer's employ, called on Business Agent Jahnke at his union office. Glass told Jahnke that neither he nor his men had work permits from Local 3203, that they did not like working without them, and that they wanted to get permits. Jahnke refused to issue any. According to Glass, Jahnke told them that "he was using those permits ... to keep the hammer over our heads, to keep us from going to work." As a result of this conversation with Jahnke, Glass returned to the Kraemer jobsite where he told Terry Richards, superintendent for Kraemer, of,the conversation at the union office. Richards thereupon shut the job down. At the time of the hearing, none of the carpenters had gone back to work. All the testimony as to the incidents involving Kraemer employees, given by Gruber, Bodendein, Glass and Rich was credible, undenied and uncontradicted." On the basis of this testimony, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent Engineers violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by threatening fines, union misconduct charges and loss of union membership against Bodendein and Gruber to induce them to quit working for Kraemer and thereby compel their employer to cease doing business with C & P. Moreover, the Carpenters engaged in a similar course of conduct. By the threats which Business Agent Jahnke directed to Foreman Glass and the employees under him that they would be fined and that work permits would be withheld from them in order "to keep the hammer over [their] heads," all obviously designed to compel Kraemer to cease doing business with C & P, the Respondent Carpenters likewise violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Bricklayers and Masons, Local No. 2 (Weidman Metal Masters), 166 NLRB No. 26; Local 370, United Association (Baughan Plumbing and Heating Company), 157 NLRB 20, 21; Lathers Local 252 (I.C. Minium), 159 NLRB 550, 551, fn. I ; I. B.E. W. , Local 441 (Jones & Jones, Inc.), 158 NLRB 549, 554; Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 279 (Wilson Teaming Company), 140 NLRB 164, 166-167. Similarly, since there was undenied testimony that on July 31 there were Teamster pickets present at the scene when Shaw threatened Gruber and Bodendein and, since "One further line of testimony was offered by the General Counsel as background evidence on the objective of the Respondent Unions. Robert Watts, job superintendent for the Boulanger Construction Co., testified that his company had a contract for work on an interchange on Highway 41 at Neenah , Wisconsin . According to Watts, on September 25, he met with Shaw to discuss the problems connected with work on this job. Watts testified that Shaw told him the only circumstances under which Boulanger could work on the job without a picket line would be if C & P were off the job. Watts testified that Shaw then told him that because C & P had deposited strikebound material on the job at the Highway 41 interchange in Appleton (the one here involved ) "that job was shut down until such time as the dispute with C & P was settled." 397 on August 1, these two employees were asked to cease work by Teamster pickets, one of whom described himself as a Teamster business agent, the Respondent Local 563 must share responsibility for the work stoppages and the illegal inducement here involved. Consequently, the Trial Examiner finds that on July 31 and August 1, through the conduct of its pickets, the Respondent Local 563 along with the other Respondents in this case, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.20 D. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(bXI)(A); Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto The General Counsel and the Charging Party allege that the Respondent Unions engaged in numerous violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) during the course of the picketing that occurred in July, August and September. Most of the testimony as to these alleged violations was undenied and uncontradicted. The mass picketing which occurred at the premises of Valley Ready Mixed on August 5 and which prevented the ingress and egress of vehicles driven by employees of the Schwerman Trucking Company has been described earlier herein and found to have been a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by the Respondent Teamsters. The testimony as to the other incidents here involved is set forth below. July 31 Michael J. Garvey, a truckdriver for Valley, testified that on this date he was delivering a load of plaster to a customer in Freedom, Wisconsin. At a point near the Outagamie Airport a car with two men in it passed his truck and when directly in front of him suddenly slowed down to a speed of less than 10 miles per hour. This continued for some time when the car stopped in the middle of the road and compelled Garvey to do likewise. One of the men in the car then came back to Garvey's truck and attempted to pry open the door on the driver's side. By the time this man succeeded in wrenching the door open, despite Garvey's resistance, his associate joined him. According to Garvey, the two men asked "Don't you know that you're hurting us, breaking the strike. . ." and concluded by warning that if he drove his truck anymore they would run him off the road. At this point the two men departed. When Garvey returned to the Valley premises he saw the same two individuals on the picket line in front of the entrance. On the evening of July 31, Thomas Schouten, another employee of Valley, returned to the Valley premises in a company truck. When he found seven or eight pickets at the west entrance to the plant, to avoid trouble, he drove to an entrance on the other side of the premises. Shortly thereafter he was accosted in the middle of the plant yard by Business Agent Schlieve. The latter testified that he walked on to the employer's property to protest to Schouten that the next time he should slow down in the driveway to avoid running over one of the pickets. Schouten testified that after calling him a "no good scab", "Whereas the Respondents rely generally on Sailors Union of the Pacific (Moore Drv Dock), 92 NLRB 547, as support for the type of picketing here involved , the situation presented by the foregoing incident was illustrative of others in this case where the appeal for employee cooperation by work refusal was not limited to primary employees. Consequently, the Respondents can not now escape the finding that such picketing was as much a strike call to the employees of the neutral employers as it was to those of C & P and other primary employers. N L.R.B. v. Service Trades Chauffeurs, Salesmen & Helpers, 191 F.2d 65, 68 (C.A. 2). 398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Schlieve thereupon emitted a volley of oaths and obscenities to which Schouten admitted that he replied in kind. Schlieve then spit in Schouten's face. At this point there were six to seven pickets at the west entrance and behind the business agent." Shortly thereafter the night watchman arrived on the scene, order was restored, and Schlieve left the premises. Schouten then went to another part of the yard where he washed out his truck. After he finished that job, he noticed about five of the pickets moving from the west entrance to the area where the truck was parked. When Schouten got in the truck to drive it to the parking lot, two or three of the pickets picked up rocks off the ground and, as he drove off, several rocks hit the side of his truck. August 1 On the above date, Robert Robbins, a driver working for Calnin & Goss, arrived at the premises of Badger Highways. As he stopped in front of the picket line at the entrance, five or six pickets moved in front of his truck. Several of them asked if Robbins remembered what happened to Schabo's truck. When Robbins told them that he knew nothing of that incident, they told him that the driver of a Schabo truck had his windshield shattered and that the same thing could easily happen to his truck. With that, Robbins backed away from the Badger entrance and made no further effort to enter that day. The incident to which the pickets were undoubtedly referring had occurred about 9:30 that same morning when Robert Eiting, a driver for Schabo Materials, Inc., arrived at the Badger premises. There were from eight to ten pickets at the entrance. it As Elting attempted to enter, some of the pickets gathered in front of the truck and others pounded on his vehicle. Eiting quickly decided that he would back out of that entrance and try another gate to the premises where there were fewer pickets. As he did so, one of the pickets tossed hot coffee at him through an open window of the truck. Eiting managed to enter the Badger yard through the other gate and when his truck was loaded with gravel approximately 30 minutes later, he sought to leave by the same gate . As he drove out, six to eight pickets showered the truck with rocks. Some of the rocks came through the open windows of the truck and one went through the windshield. Daniel Endter, a truckdriver for Twin City, one of the strikebound members of the Association, testified that on "It is likewise relevant , that whereas Schouten was a college student in his early twenties, 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighing 160 pounds , Schlieve was 45 years old. 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighed 220 pounds . At the same time. Schouten. while a witness impressed the Trial Examiner as an immature, opinionated young gentleman who fancied that he could control the encounter with Schlieve by bold references to a nonexistent war record and various techniques associated with karate . Schouten's demonstration of juvenility, however , provided no excuse for Schlieve 's threatening display of temper and bluster. "Eiting testified that some of the pickets carried placards stating that they were on strike against the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association (of which Schabo and Badger were members ) According to Eitmg, there was also one signed carried by a picket which was lettered in red . Schlieve testified that one side of the standard signs used by the Teamsters read "Our only dispute is with the Fox Valley Construction Material Suppliers Association." This sign was in black , whereas Shaw testified that part of the Engineers' sign was lettered in red. It would appear that on the morning in question there were pickets from both Local 563 and Local 139 at the Badger entrance this same day, as he drove his ready mix truck past the Badger premises the pickets there shook their fists at him. A few blocks further down the highway, a car pulled in front of him and blocked the roadway. Two men in the car, whom Endter recognized as striking employees of Twin City, then got out of the car and sought to force open the door to Endter's truck. One of them asked if Endter would like a "roughing up." When the intruders succeeded in opening the door, one of them attempted to pull Endter out. The latter, however, successfully resisted and, when the two men abandoned their efforts, they warned Endter that he "could tell the rest of the bunch the same thing would happen to them."2' September 6 Paul Schmidt, director of safety for C & P, testified that on the above date, after getting a report that a car had blocked one of their drivers who was attempting to make a delivery at the Outagamie Airport, he proceeded to the airport. According to Schmidt, as he followed two C & P trucks on their route to the airport, an automobile which had passed them earlier, slowed down to speeds of from 10 to 25 miles an hour, and stayed directly in front of them. Schmidt testified that he recognized one of the occupants of the car as a picket he had seen at the C & P premises. As the C & P trucks approached the vicinity of the airport another car took over the lead of the slowly moving caravan . According to Schmidt's credible and undenied testimony, this car was driven by Business Agent Shaw. When the C & P trucks finally reached the site of the Fox Valley Construction Company at the airport, pickets blocked ingress by walking slowly back and forth across the entrance. After a considerable period of time the trucks were finally able to get through by inching forward slowly. As the trucks moved along, pickets who were not in front of the vehicles kept pounding on them as they went through the driveway. Schmidt testified that present among the pickets at this time, in addition to Shaw, were Teamster Business Agents Curtin and DeVries. Concluding Findings Earlier herein it was found that the Teamsters and the Engineers, from the outset of the strike, engaged in a coordinated campaign of picketing and other strategems designed to accomplish their objectives. On the basis of the findings of facts set forth above with respect to the incidents which occurred on, or near, picket lines maintained by these Respondents during the period from late July and until September 6, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Respondent Local 563 and Respondent Local 139 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the following acts and conduct. 1. On July 31, by the conduct of pickets in stopping Valley truckdriver Michael Garvey and threatening him with bodily harm. 2. On July 31, by the conduct of pickets in throwing rocks at the truck of Valley driver Thomas Schouten. 3. On July 31, by the conduct of Business Agent Schlieve in spitting in the face of Valley driver Thomas Schouten. 4. On August 1, by engaging in mass picketing and "The quotations in this paragraph are from the credited , undenied testimony of Endter GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 blocking the ingress of Schabo and Calnin trucks attempting to enter the Badger premises, by threatening the drivers of these trucks, and by breaking the windshield on one truck. 5. On August 1, by the conduct of pickets in stopping Daniel Endter, a Twin City driver, assaulting him and threatening him with bodily harm. 6. On September 6, by the conduct of Business Agent Shaw in harassing and blocking C & P vehicles en route to the Outagamie Airport Project. 7. On September 6, by the conduct of Business Agent DeVries and Curtin, along with pickets, in blocking the ingress of C & P vehicles attempting to enter the Airport project. 2° IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the manifold and serious nature of the violations found as to Respondent Local 563 and Respondent Local 139, it will be recommended that, as to those two unions, broad orders be entered. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Badger, Calnin, C & P, Landwehr, Schabo, Twin City and Valley, all of whom are employer members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, and Bloomer, Combined Paper, Concrete Pipe, Fox Valley, Kraemer, Meyer, Miron, Rouse, Schwerman and Schindler, are, and at all times material herein, have been, employers engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the'Act. 2. Respondents Local 563, Local 139, and Local 3203 are labor organizations, and Robert Schlieve, Jeff Curtin, Marvin DeVries, Joseph Goetz, Donald Shaw, Jerry Jahnke and Jack Jacobson are agents, all within the meaning of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed in industries in commerce, or affecting commerce, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring Bloomer, Concrete Pipe, Fox Valley, Kraemer, Rouse, Schwerman and Schindler to cease doing business with the members of the Association, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Bloomer, Combined Paper, Concrete Pipe, Kraemer, Meyer, Miron, Rouse, Schwerman, and Schindler, where an object thereof was to force or require the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with the members of the Association, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section On the evening of August 3, Richard J Schouten, Jr., a salesman for Valley and the son of Richard Schouten, vicepresident and general manager of that company , received a telephone call at his home . The caller did not identify himself, but declared to Schouten : "You better stop hauling concrete out or we 're going to bomb you house ." Neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Party offered any testimony that would tend to establish the identity of the one who made this threat . Under these circumstances, the Trial Examiner will recommend the dismissal of par. 14(g) of the complaint which attributes responsibility for this threat to the Respondent Unions. 399 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents Local 563 and Local 139 have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following: ORDER A. The Respondent, General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local No. 563, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, and the Respondent, Robert Schlieve, its secretary-treasurer shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing and encouraging employees of John F. Bloomer Co., Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation, Fox Valley Construction Co., Inc., Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., or of any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse, in the course of their employment, to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid employers, or any others to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc., or with any other employer or person. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining John F. Bloomer Co., Inc., Combined Paper Mills, Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation, Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., C. R. Meyer & Sons, P. G. Miron Construction Co., Inc., Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing them to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc., or with any other employer or person. (c) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its offices, and meeting halls, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."23 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent Local 563, and by the Respondent Schlieve, shall be posted by the said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent Local 563 for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Promptly after receipt of copies of the said notice "in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words, "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the Regional Director, return to him signed copies for posting by John F. Bloomer Co ., Inc., Combined Paper Mills, Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation, Fox Valley Construction Co., Inc., Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., C. R. Meyer & Sons, P. G. Miron Construction Company, Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., if they be willing, at their places of business, including all places where notices to their employees customarily are posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, as to what steps they have taken to comply herewith.t6 B. The Respondent, Local 139, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, and the Respondent, Donald Shaw, its business representative , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing and encouraging employees of John F. Bloomer Co., Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation, Fox Valley Construction Co., Inc., Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental , or of any other person engaged in commerce , or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid employers, or any others, to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc., or with any other employer or person. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining John F. Bloomer Co., Inc., Combined Paper Mills, Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation , Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., C. R. Meyer & Sons, P. G. Miron Construction Co., Inc., Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental , Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing them to cease doing business with members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association , Inc., or with any other employer or person. (c) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action , which is necessary to effectuate the polcies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its offices and meeting halls, including all places where notices to its members customarily are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."27 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent Local 139, and by the Respondent Shaw, shall be posted by the said Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by Respondent Local 139 for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, where notices to members customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Promptly after receipt of copies of the said notices from the Regional Director, return to him signed copies for posting by John F. Bloomer Co ., Inc., Combined Paper Mills, Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation , Fox Valley Construction Co., Inc., Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc., C. "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith." "See fn. 25, supra R. Meyer & Sons, P. G. Miron Construction Company, Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., if they be willing, at their places of business , including all places where notices to their employees customarily are posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, as to what steps they have taken to comply herewith." C. The Respondent, Local Union No. 3203, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and the Respondent, Jerry Jahnke, its business representative, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing and encouraging employees of Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., to refuse in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid employer to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Edward Kraemer & Son , Inc., with an object of forcing it to cease doing business ith members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc. 2. Take the. following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its offices and meeting halls, including all places where notices to its members customarily are posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C."39 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent Local Union 3203, and by the Respondent Jahnke, shall be posted by the said Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent Local Union 3203 for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Promptly after receipt of copies of the said notice from the Regional Director, return to him signed copies for posting by Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., if the latter be willing, at its place of business, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, as to what steps they have taken to comply herewith.10 (d) Paragraph 14(g) of the complaint is dismissed. "See fn. 26, supra "See fn . 25. supra. "See In. 26, supra. APPENDIX A Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of John F. Bloomer Co., Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation, Fox Valley Construction Co., Inc., Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., or of any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse, in the course of GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL 563 their employment , to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid employers, or any other, to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc., or with any other employer or person. WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain John F. Bloomer Co., Inc., Combined Paper Mills, Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation , Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., C. R. Meyer & Sons, P. G. Miron Construction Co., Inc., Lee J. Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, with an object of forcing them to - cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association , Inc., or with any other employer or person. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of , the Act. Dated By GENERAL DkIVERS AND DAIRY ENn^PtOYEES, LOCAL 5031 (Labor Orrganization) (Representative ) (Title) Dated By (Robert Schlieve) (Secretary-Treasurer) 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, Second Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53203, Telephone 414-272-3861. APPENDIX B Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of John F . Bloomer Co., Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation, Fox Valley Construction Co., Inc ., Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., Lee J . Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., or of any other person engaged in commerce , or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse, in the course of their employment, to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid employers, or any others to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association , Inc., or with any other employer or person. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce , or restrain John F. Bloomer Co ., Inc., Combined Paper Mills, Inc., Concrete Pipe Corporation , Edward Kraemer &7-So-n. Inc., C. R. Meyer & Sons, P. G. Miron Construction Co., Inc., Lee J . Rouse Construction Co., Schwerman Trucking Co., and Schindler Equipment Rental, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce , or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing them to cease doing business with the members of the 401 Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association , Inc., or with any other employer or person. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Dated By LOCAL 139, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) Dated By (Donald Shaw) (Business Representative) 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, Second Floor, Commerce Building , North Fourth Street , Milwaukee, Wisconsin , 53203, Telephone 414-272-3861. APPENDIX C Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., to refuse, in the course of their employment, to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid employer to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce, or restrain Edward Kraemer & Son, Inc., with an object of forcing it to cease doing business with the members of the Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc. Dated By LOCAL UNION No. 3203, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) Dated By (Jerry Jahnke) (Business Representative) This notice must remain posted fo 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, Second Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin , 53203, Telephone 414-272-3861.