Drivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees, Local 75

530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Drivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees, Local No. 75 and Seymour Transfer, Inc. Case 30-CC-91 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION June 10, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On February 10, 1969, Trial Examiner Alvin Lieberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions. 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Drivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees, Local No. 75, Green Bay, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: Delete paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and reletter paragraphs to read 2(a), (b), and (c), respectively. ' For the reasons indicated in General Telephone Company of California, 151 NLRB 1490, In 4, Member Fanning would not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that even if the Respondent had observed all of the Moore Drydock standards in its picketing at premises of Seymour's interlining carriers, its picketing lost the protection which it otherwise might have had by the Respondent's violative appeals to the carriers' employees and threats to their employers STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALVIN LIEBERMAN, Trial Examiner: The trial in this proceeding, with all parties represented, was held before me in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on September 17, 18, and 19, 1968, upon a complaint of the General Counsel,' dated August 23, 1968,2 and respondent's answer.' In general, the issue litigated was whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Particularly, the questions for decision are as follows: 1. Have the employers with whom Seymour Transfer, Inc. (herein called Seymour), does business so conducted themselves in connection with Respondent's strike against Seymour as to become Seymour's allies in the context of Section 8(b)(4)(B)?4 2. Did Respondent in support of its strike against Seymour induce or encourage individuals employed by persons with whom Seymour does business to refrain from performing services for their respective employers? Subsidiarily, did respondent engage in lawful ambulatory or common silus picketing at premises of employers with whom Seymour does business? 3. Did Respondent, in further support of its strike against Seymour, threaten, restrain, or coerce persons who do business with Seymour? 4. Assuming an affirmative answer to the propositions included in question 2 or 3, above, did an object of Respondent's conduct fall within the proscriptions of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act? Upon the entire record, upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying , and upon careful consideration of the arguments made and the able briefs submitted by the General Counsel and respondent,' I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Seymour, a Wisconsin corporation whose principal office and place of business is located in Seymour, 'The complaint was issued on a charge and an amended charge filed, respectively, on July 31, 1968, and August 22, 1968, by Seymour Transfer, Inc. 'All dates referred to in this Decision fall within 1968. 'During the trial the complaint was amended in several respects. Donald Tilkens - Business Representative was added to the list of names and designations appearing in paragraph 4. Paragraph 7 was amended to add the following in the appropriate columns: July 5, 1968 - Green Bay's Terminal - Blowhowiak -- Green Bay July 25, 1968 - Green Bay's Terminal -- Gerstner Green Bay. Paragraph 8 was amended to add, in like manner, the following: Blowhowiak - July 11, 1968 -- Gateway. Finally, paragraph 13 was amended by striking the word "and" between the numerals " 10" and " II" and adding the expression "and 12" after the numeral " II." Upon the amendment of the complaint as set forth above the answer was amended to admit that Donald Tilkens is a business representative and agent of respondent and to deny the complaint's other revisions 'The subsequent questions are posed on the assumption that the employees with whom Seymour does business have not allied themselves with Seymour, but have remained in such a neutral status in the dispute between Seymour and respondent as to be entitled to the protection afforded by Section 8(b)(4XB ) of the Act. 'Seymour, the charging party, did not submit a brief 176 NLRB No. 69 DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE & DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 75 Wisconsin, is engaged as a motor carrier of freight. Although Seymour does not normally receive or deliver goods outside the State of Wisconsin, it regularly interlines freight with several interstate carriers. Seymour's annual revenue from this portion of its business exceeds $50,000. Accordingly, I find that Seymour is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) is warranted H P 0 Service, Inc., 122 NLRB 394, 395. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Iii. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction Briefly, this case concerns itself with the measures taken by Respondent in support of its strike against Seymour and those taken by Seymour to avoid the strike's impact on its business. Among the former are Respondent's picketing at premises of carriers with whom Seymour interlines freight,° appeals to employees of those carriers to refrain from performing services for their respective employers, and threats made to officials of the carriers involved that this type of conduct would be continued and intensified unless they stopped interlining with Seymour. Among the measures taken by Seymour are changes in the manner of passing freight between Seymour and the interlining carriers. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's course of action respecting the interlining carriers and their employees in support of its strike against Seymour was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.' Although in its answer Respondent denies that it engaged in the conduct broadly described above, it does not, as appears from its brief, seriously stand on this denial. It argues, rather, that the conduct was privileged on three grounds. Thus, Respondent's principal position is that the carriers with which Seymour interlines freight are not neutral to its dispute with Seymour, but allies of Seymour. Alternatively, Respondent contends that its picketing at the premises of the interlining carriers was permissible and in accord with the ambulatory or common situs doctrine enunciated by the Board in Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, 549. Finally, Respondent asserts, on brief, that its appeals to employees of the interlining carriers not to perform services "were not violations, for [Respondent] was only advising its members [employed by the carriers] of their legal rights." 'Interlining freight has been defined by the Board as "receiving freight from interstate motor carriers for delivery to its destination, or delivering freight to such carriers for further transportation." McAllister Transfer, Inc., 110 NLRB 1769, 1770. It has also been referred to in regulations issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission . See 49 CFR 1051 I(b) and 1052.3. 'Sec. 8(b)(4XB), commonly referred to as the Act's secondary boycott provision, reads as follows: Sec 8.. (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents. . (4Xi) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce B. Preliminary Facts and Conclusions 1. The strike at Seymour 531 On June 26 Respondent struck Seymour., In support of its strike Respondent picketed at Seymour's Green Bay, Wisconsin, terminal and at terminals of carriers with which Seymour interlines freight. 2. The relationship between Seymour and the carriers with which it does business Seymour operates as a common carrier of freight in accordance with certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Except with respect to some special commodities, Seymour is authorized to serve a relatively small quadrangular area in northeastern Wisconsin, the points of which are Green Bay, Oshkosh, Wautoma, and Stevens Point. Notwithstanding Seymour's limited territorial authority some 65 percent of the freight which it carries is consigned to, or shipped from, points outside the area in which it operates. This is accomplished by interlining with other carriers at Green Bay. Under the interlining procedure prevalent in Green Bay, the originating carrier, in its own equipment operated by its employees, delivers the freight to be interlined directly to the terminal of the destination carrier. There, unless the trailer containing the freight is to be interchanged it is jointly unloaded by employees of the two carriers. Each interlining carrier receives a pro rata share of the total fee charged for moving the freight from point of origin to destination based on the distance of the carriage by each participant. As indicated above, not only do carriers in Green Bay interline freight with each other, but they also interchange trailers used for hauling the interlined freight. This is done to eliminate the time and effort involved in unloading and reloading freight when it is of such a volume as to occupy an entire trailer. In such a situation the originating carrier may turn over its full trailer to the destination carrier for haulage to the delivery point. While there is an obligation on the part of the destination carrier to return the trailer thus used to the originating carrier as promptly as possible after delivering the freight, the destination carrier sometimes uses the trailer turned over to it for its own purposes.' The originating carrier may follow an alternative procedure in connection with the interchange of trailers. to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is: (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person . . Provided. That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing; 'This strike appeared to have still been in progress at the time of the trial 'As will appear below, a per diem charge is payable to the owner of the interlined trailer if it is not returned within a certain period 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Instead of using its own equipment it may request the destination carrier to furnish the trailer.'" Upon obtaining the trailer the originating carrier takes it to the shipper's premises for loading, following which it is returned the destination carrier to be hauled, intact, to the point of delivery. The Interstate Commerce Commission has issued regulations (49 CFR Part 1057) governing the interchange of equipment between motor carriers The practice is also the subject of a contract known as the National Equipment Interchange Agreement (herein called Interchange Agreement) to which a substantial number of carriers are parties. This agreement sets forth the daily fee payable by carriers using interchanged equipment beyond specified initial days of grace for which no charge is made. Disputes arising under the Interchange Agreement are arbitrable by the Equipment Interchange Association, a national trade association, which also promulgates rules for the interchange of equipment. The carriers with whom Seymour interchanges equipment are parties to the Interchange Agreement Although Seymour is not a signatory, when it participates in a trailer interchange the provisions of the Interchange Agreement are followed Seymour does more interlining, and consequently interchanges more trailers with Green Bay-Chicago Lines (herein called G.B -C.), than with any other carrier. One of the reasons for this, as G B.-C 's president suggested, is G B -C 's active solicitation of shippers dealing with Seymour whose freight is consigned to points beyond Green Bay to instruct Seymour to interline with G.B.-C. rather than its competitors. G.B.-C similarly solicits shippers in localities served by other short line carriers. Before Respondent struck Seymour, the movement of freight between Seymour and its interlining carriers in Green Bay followed the procedure described above. Because drivers employed by those carriers refused to cross Respondent's picket line at Seymour's Green Bay terminal and because they wanted to avoid picketing at their own terminals alternative interlining methods were arranged upon consultation with Seymour The carriers involved in these new arrangements, each of which will be separately described, were Gateway Transportation Co., Inc , Glendenning Motorways, Inc , C. W Transport, Inc., Olson Transportation Company, Motor Transport Company (herein respectively called Gateway, Glendenning, C. W, Olson and Motor), and G.B.-C Gateway: Unlike the procedure which was followed before the strike when Gateway would deliver to Seymour freight which Seymour was to carry to its destination, after the strike started Seymour sent its trucks to Gateway's terminal to obtain the freight Except for one instance, freight moving from Seymour to Gateway followed the same course after the strike as it did before. Seymour's drivers continued to bring that freight to Gateway and they continued to assist in its unloading. On the single deviation from the prestrike practice Seymour's driver left Gateway's terminal without helping to unload the freight he had brought there, leaving the entire operation to be performed by Gateway's dockman. Glendenning: After Seymour was struck Glendenning, like Gateway, stopped delivering freight to Seymour for further carriage. Instead, just as in the situation respecting Gateway, Seymour sent its trucks to Glendenning's premises for the freight. -Such a request , as a trucking company executive testified , is granted "nine times out of ten " C W: Seymour and C.W. made two poststrike arrangements for interlining freight. Under the first, which was availed of only once, C.W. loaded its trailer with freight for Seymour and parked it on the street in front of its terminal From this point the trailer was hauled by a tractor owned and driven by an employee of Seymour to its dock where the trailer was unloaded and reloaded with freight to be delivered by C.W. The loaded trailer was then returned by Seymour to the street in front of C W 's premises where it had originally been parked. Under the second and more complex arrangement, which was continued in effect until C.W stopped doing business with Seymour, C. W loaded freight for Seymour on one of its trucks which was driven by an employee of C. N. to the picket line at Seymour's premises. From that point it was taken across the picket line to Seymour's dock either by a C.W. supervisor or a Seymour employee. After being unloaded by Seymour's employees, sometimes alone or sometimes assisted by the C.W supervisor," the truck was again taken across the picket line by a C W supervisor or a Seymour employee and turned over to the waiting C.W driver, who returned it to C.W 's terminal. On one occasion during the strike freight traveling from Seymour to C.W was carried in a C.W. truck driven by an employee of C.W This was a departure from the pattern followed before the strike under which this delivery would have been made to C.W. by one of Seymour's employees. Olson: Following Respondent's strike against Seymour, Olson discontinued its usual practice of delivering freight directly to Seymour's terminal. Instead, like C.W.'s first poststrike arrangement with Seymour, Olson's trailers were loaded with freight for Seymour and then moved to a point across the street from its dock. Motor: Following the establishment of Respondent's picket line at Seymour's premises Motor's terminal manager, himself, delivered freight to Seymour instead of Motor's continuing its prestrike practice of having that work done by drivers in its employ. C.B.-C: After the strike G.B.-C followed an arrangement with respect to handling freight for Seymour similar to the method already described in connection with Gateway and Glendenning. Thus, like Gateway and Glendenning, G.B.-C. discontinued delivering freight directly to Seymour's terminal. Instead, freight to be carried to its destination by Seymour was left on the trailer in which it arrived at G.B.-C.'s dock. From there the trailer was hauled to Seymour's premises by a tractor owned by Seymour and driven either by its president or one of its employees Respondent contends, principally because of the foregoing poststrike interlining arrangements, that the participating carriers became allies of Seymour.12 These arrangements aside, Respondent argues, additionally, that the business of G.B -C. and Seymour is "so entwined" that G.B.-C. "is allied with Seymour in a straight line freight operation." A person does not become an ally of a struck employer by continuing a prestrike business relationship. Friden, Inc., 134 NLRB 598, 599, 607-608. He does, however, "It will be remembered that pursuant to the prestrike interlining practice not only did the originating carrier deliver the freight involved directly to the terminal of the destination carrier, but the originating carrier's employees also assisted the destination carrier's employees in unloading the truck "The burden of proof in this respect rests on Respondent Marsh Foodtiners , Inc, 114 NLRB 639, 642 DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE & DAIRY EMPLOYEES , LOCAL 75 533 become an ally of the struck employer when he "knowingly does work by arrangement with a struck employer which would otherwise be done by the striking employees of that employer."" Patton Warehouse Inc., etc., 140 NLRB 1474, 1483;" enfd. in this regard, 334 F.2d 539 (C.A.D C.). Testing the poststrike position of the interlining carriers by this criterion [ find that they did not become allies of Seymour. The arrangements whereby they continued to do business with Seymour after it was struck did not require them to do, nor except in two instances to be discussed below, did they do, any struck work; i.e., work which but for the strike would have been done by Seymour's employees. Rather, the opposite is true. Seymour's employees did not do less work by reason of the poststrike interlining methods. By being required in most instances to go to the terminals of the interlining carriers for the freight destined for delivery by Seymour instead of that freight's being brought to Seymour by those carriers, as was the practice before the strike, and by being obliged to unload that freight at their terminal themselves instead of with the assistance of employees of the interlining carriers, which was also the prestrike practice, Seymour's employees were, in fact, doing more work pursuant to the poststrike interlining procedure than they did before the strike. As the General Counsel pithily commented in his brief, "The situation posed herein is the exact opposite or reverse of struck work." There were two instances of the performance of struck work by interlining carriers. The first of these consisted of Gateway's employees, on one occasion, unloading a trailer left at Gateway's terminal by Seymour's driver without his assistance, which would have been given before the strike. The second involved C.W.'s single carriage of freight from Seymour's premises to its own, which before the strike would have been done by Seymour. In agreement with the General Counsel, however, I am of the opinion that these two isolated incidents do not furnish a sufficient basis for a finding that Gateway and C.W. became allies of Seymour. As noted above, Respondent argues that even without reference to poststrike interlining arrangements G.B.-C. is an ally of Seymour because their business is "so entwined" that they conduct "a straight line freight operation." The specific basis for this contention is not given. The evidence, insofar as it bears on the relationship between Seymour and G.B.-C., shows that Seymour interlines more freight and interchanges more trailers with G.B.-C. than with any other carrier. The evidence further establishes that G.B.-C. solicits shippers who do business with Seymour and other short haul carriers to instruct them to interline with G.B.-C. rather than its competitors. Interlining freight and interchanging trailers are so prevalent in the motor freight industry as to be the subject of regulations issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission and of a contract to which a substantial number of carriers are parties. To say that two carriers "The work involved in an arrangement of this type is commonly called struck work. 4 "'N.L.R.B. v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, etc., 228 F.2d 553 (C.A. 2); Oliver Whyte Company. inc.. 120 NLRB 856; and General Metals Corporation, 120 NLRB 1227, the authorities cited by the Board for this well -settled proposition, which had its genesis in Douds Y. Metropolitan Federation of Architects. 75 F Supp. 672 (S. D.N.Y ), are included in the cases relied on by respondent to establish its ally argument. are "so entwined" as to be allies because they engage in these common practices to a greater extent between themselves than with others would be to exempt a large segment of the trucking industry from the protection afforded by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. The very language of that section, which, among other things, speaks in terms of transporting goods negates this proposition. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Seymour and G.B.-C. are not "so entwined" as to be allies because of the volume of freight which they interline with each other or the number of trailers which they interchange. Nor does the fact that G.B.-C solicits shippers who deal with Seymour to direct Seymour to interline freight with G.B.-C. rather than its competitors require a finding that G.B.-C and Seymour are "so entwined" as to be allies. G B.-C. acts on its own behalf rather than Seymour's in its solicitation, and Seymour, which would carry the freight involved even absent G.B.-C.'s solicitation , does not benefit by it. Respondent's final point, in this connection, is that G.B.-C. and Seymour are allies because they conduct a "straight line freight operation." To the extent that Seymour and G.B.-C. participate through interlining in the carriage of particular freight from shipper to consignee they are engaged in a "straight line freight operation." But, as Irwin-Lyons Lumber Company, 87 NLRB 54, 56, which also involved a "straight line operation" teaches, more is necessary on this score than is present here to convert G B.-C and Seymour into allies. In Irwin-Lyons the additional factors on which the Board relied in concluding that an ally relationship existed was the common ownership and managerial control of the two corporations involved in the "straight line operation" there under scrutiny. No evidence of either being present insofar as G.B.-C. and Seymour are concerned, I find that they are not allies, because of their participation in a "straight line freight operation." Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent has not sustained its burden of establishing the existence of an ally relationship between Seymour and the carriers with whom it does business by reason of the poststrike arrangements for interlining freight. I also conclude that respondent has not established any other basis for finding that G.B.-C. is an ally of Seymour. C. Facts Concerning Respondent's Alleged Unfair Labor Practices The facts as to Respondent's conduct in support of its strike against Seymour are not in dispute.15 The evidence in this respect establishes, and I find, that- 1. Respondent picketed at the Green Bay terminals of carriers with whom Seymour did business with signs calling attention to its strike against Seymour. At the beginning of the strike respondent's picketing at these places coincided with the presence there of Seymour's employees and trucks. As the strike wore on, however, Respondent's picketing at carriers' premises was extended to times when neither employees of Seymour, nor its "I have already noted in the introductory section of this Decision that although in its answer Respondent denied many material allegations of the complaint, it does not in its brief argue that it did not engage in the conduct claimed by the General Counsel to be violative of Sec 8(bX4)(B) of the Act . Respondent argues, instead , that in the circumstances of this case its conduct was privileged . Accordingly, my findings of fact , in this regard, will be stated somewhat more summarily than would have been the case had there been substantial evidentiary conflicts or had Respondent seriously stood upon the denials appearing in its answer 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD equipment were there . On one occasion picketing occurred at G.B.-C.'s terminal in the absence of any employees of Seymour , but while a loaded Seymour trailer was there awaiting haulage to Chicago by G.B.-C. This trailer had been brought to G.B.-C. by Seymour, whose driver, having no further work to do at G.B.-C.'s premises in connection with that trailer , departed upon the trailer's delivery to G.B.-C. Picketing under similar circumstances also took place at terminals of other carriers. 2. Respondent appealed to its members employed by carriers with whom Seymour does business, under penalty in several instances of their being fined or having their "card pulled," not to handle or work upon freight delivered by, or to be delivered to, Seymour ; to refrain from all work for their employers , to sit down, or leave their employers' premises, during the progress of the picketing described above ; and not to cross the picket lines. Officials of some carriers urged employees , who had stopped working in response to respondent's appeals here set forth , to resume their duties. 3. Respondent threatened officials and representatives of carriers at whose premises picketing and work stoppages had occurred , as described above, that this state of affairs would be continued , resumed , or intensified unless they discontinued their business relationship with Seymour. As a result of Respondent's foregoing activities several carriers stopped doing business with Seymour . I find that the achievement of this result , as respondent 's threats to the carriers makes clear, was an object of its conduct. D. Contentions and Concluding Findings Concerning Respondent 's Alleged Unfair Labor Practices As I stated at the conclusion of the' trial , except for Respondent's defenses , as to the merits of which I was not then making a judgment , "this case seems to me to [present] , from the evidence [adduced], a situation where Respondent has engaged in conduct which would normally [constitute ] unfair labor practice[s] within the meaning of 8(b)(4)(B)." Respondent raises three defenses . Its main contention is that the carriers with which Seymour does business became its allies after the strike . Respondent's other two defenses, as I have previously noted , consist of assertions that its picketing at premises of Seymour's interlining carriers comported with standards for lawful ambulatory or common situs picketing first enunciated in Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, 549, and that its appeals to its members employed by the carriers constituted legal advice which it could rightfully give . I have already rejected Respondent's ally defense . Upon evaluation of Respondent's other defenses I am of the opinion that they, too, must be rejected. The Moore Dry Dock standards for lawful common or ambulatory situs picketing, as the Board made plain in Plauche Electric, Inc., 135 NLRB 250, 255, "are not to be applied on an indiscriminate 'per se' basis, but are to be regarded merely as aids in determining the underlying question of statutory violation ." Where there is ostensible compliance with the Moore Dry Dock yardstick coupled with direct appeals to "[secondary ] employees to cease work, with an object of causing their employers to cease doing business with primary employers . the direct appeals to secondary employees . . . have in effect negated the conditions required in Moore Dry Dock to justify the picketing and have therefore exceeded the limits of permissible 'primary' activity and [constitute ] violations of [Section 8(b)(4)(B)] of the Act." Riss & Company, Inc , 130 NLRB 943, 949-950, enfd. 300 F.2d 317 (C.A. 3). To the same effect, see T & D Roofing Co., Inc., 173 NLRB No. 188. Applying these precepts to the instant case it is clear that even if Respondent had observed all of the Moore Dry Dock standards in connection with its picketing at premises of Seymour' s interlining carriers, which is not the case," its picketing lost the protection which it otherwise might have had by Respondent's violative appeals to the carriers' employees and threats to their employers. Respondent's picketing having become tainted in this manner, its defense here under consideration, in my opinion , is not well taken. Finally Respondent, on brief, justifies its appeals to its members employed by the carriers with which Seymour does business as legal advice to counteract their employers' orders "to load and unload trailers which are part of the primary situs of the dispute." Like its other defenses, I feel that this, too, lacks merit. Assuming that Seymour's trailers wherever found, constitute the situs of Respondent's dispute with Seymour, i' as Respondent contends, its appeals to its members employed by the carriers went far beyond loading and unloading them. They encompassed, as I have found, requests and directions to refrain from all work for their employers while picketing was in progress. Furthermore, Respondent's "legal advice" to its members, which resulted in work stoppages by them, preceded, rather than followed, their employers' urging that they resume their duties. Its defenses having been rejected, I find that Respondent has engaged in, and has induced and encouraged individuals employed by persons with whom Seymour does business, who are interstate freight carriers, to engage in, strikes and refusals in the course of their employment to transport, and otherwise handle and work on goods, articles, and commodities and to perform services . I further find that respondent threatened and coerced persons with whom Seymour does business who are engaged in the interstate carriage of freight. Finally, I find as an object of respondent's foregoing conduct the forcing and requiring of persons with whom Seymour does business to cease handling and transporting freight tendered by, or to be delivered to, Seymour and to cease "Respondent repeatedly picketed at terminals of interlining carriers while neither Seymour nor its employees were there engaged in Seymour's normal business of delivering freight. Notwithstanding this, respondent argues, in reliance upon Ingram Barge Company, 136 NLRB 1175; and Plauche Electric, Inc., 135 NLRB 250, that those locations could be picketed despite the absence of Seymour's employees because they were places where Seymour and the terminal occupants regularly exchanged freight However, the picketing in Ingram and Plauche occurred under circumstances not present here . In both, although employees of the struck employer were absent from the picketed site, there was work for them to do there while the picketing was in progress . Here there was not The work of Seymour's employees at the picketed premises ceased upon their departure, even though, in some instances, Seymour's trailers remained there after they left Accordingly, the controlling authority is neither Ingram nor Plauche, but Wilson Teaming Company, 140 NLRB 164, 167, in which the Board expressly distinguished Plauche in the manner suggested In Wilson the picketing of an unmanned trailer owned by a struck employer was held to be violative of Sec 8(b)(4XB) of the Act for the reason that when its driver "left his trailer . and departed his work was completed." Therefore, the picketing was unlawful, the Board went on to say, because the owner of the trader "was not engaged in his normal business at the [picketed] site," as required by the second Moore Dry Dock criterion for permissible common or ambulatory situ picketing "But see fn 16, above DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE & DAIRY EMPLOYEES , LOCAL 75 doing business with Seymour. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Seymour 's operations described in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, my Recommended Order will direct respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the Act . Because Respondent's unfair labor practices were aimed at several employers with whom Seymour does business broad cease-and-desist provisions will be included in my Recommended Order . See, in this connection, Riss & Company, inc., 130 NLRB 943, 951, enfd . 300 F.2d 317 (C.A. 3). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Seymour is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The carriers with whom Seymour interlines freight or exchanges trailers, including G .B.-C., Olson, C.W., Motor, Glendenning, Gateway, and Clairmont Transfer Company (herein called Clairmont), are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. G.B.-C., Olson, C.W., Motor, Glendenning, Gateway, and Clairmont are not allies of Seymour in connection with Respondent 's strike against Seymour. 5. By engaging in, and inducing and encouraging individuals employed by G.B.-C., Clairmont, Olson, C.W., Motor, Glendenning , and Gateway to engage in, strikes and refusals in the course of their employment to transport and otherwise handle and work on goods, articles, and commodities and to perform services and by threatening and coercing G.B.-C., Clairmont, Olson, C.W., Motor, Glendenning, and Gateway, an object thereof being to force or require G.B.-C., Clairmont, Olson, C.W., Motor, Glendenning, and Gateway to cease handling and transporting freight tendered by, or to be delivered to, Seymour and to cease doing business with Seymour, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 6. The unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, as set forth in Conclusion of Law 5, above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 535 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case , I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Drivers, Warehouse & Dairy Employees, Local No. 75, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or by picketing at premises of motor freight carriers with which Seymour Transfer, Inc., interlines freight or interchanges trailers, including Green Bay-Chicago Lines, Clairmont Transfer Company, Olson Transportation Company, C.W. Transport, Inc., Motor Transport Company, Glendenning Motorways, Inc., and Gateway Transportation Co.; or by threatening to impose fines, to revoke membership cards, or to take any other form of disciplinary action, or by effectuating any such threat; or in any other manner, including orders, directions, instructions, requests, or appeals, however given, made or imparted, or by permitting any such to remain in existence or effect, inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Green Bay-Chicago Lines, Clairmont Transfer Company, Olson Transportation Company, C.W. Transport, Inc., Motor Transport Company, Glendenning Motorways, Inc., Gateway Transportation Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or in any manner or by any means threatening, coercing, or restraining Green Bay-Chicago Lines, Clairmont Transfer Company, Olson Transportation Company, C. W. Transport, Inc., Motor Transport Company, Glendenning Motorways, Inc., Gateway Transportation Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Green Bay-Chicago Lines, Clairmont Transfer Company, Olson Transportation Company, C.W. Transport, Inc., Motor Transport Company, Glendenning Motorways, Inc., Gateway Transportation Co., or any other person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in freight tendered by, or to be delivered to, Seymour Transfer, Inc., or to cease doing business with Seymour Transfer, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended: (a) Withdraw and rescind, in a manner acceptable to the Regional Director of Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board, any and all orders, directions, instructions, requests, or appeals, including threats to impose fines, or to revoke membership cards made or given to any individual employed by motor freight carriers with which Seymour Transfer, Inc., interlines freight or interchanges trailers, including Green Bay-Chicago Lines, Clairmont Transfer Company, Olson Transportation Company, C.W. Transport, Inc., Motor Transport Company, Glendenning Motorways, Inc., and Gateway Transportation Co., to induce or encourage him to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services for the purpose of forcing or requiring Green Bay-Chicago Lines, Clairmont Transfer Company, Olson Transportation Company, C.W. Transport, Inc., Motor Transport Company, Glendenning 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Motorways, Inc , Gateway Transportation Co., or any other person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in freight tendered by, or to be delivered to, Seymour Transfer, Inc., or to cease doing business with Seymour Transfer, Inc. (b) Post at its office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board signed copies of said notice in sufficient number for posting by Green Bay-Chicago Lines, Clairmont Transfer Company, Olson Transportation Company, C W. Transport, Inc., Motor Transport Company, Glendenning Motorways, Inc., Gateway Transportation Co., and other motor freight carriers and persons with whom Seymour Transfer does business in and around Green Bay, Wisconsin, they being willing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." "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 in 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 " "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provisio., 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE & DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL No 75; TO EMPLOYEES OF GREEN BAY-CHICAGO LINES, CLAIRMON7 TRANSFER COMPANY, OLSON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, C.W. TRANSPORT, INC., MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY, GLENDENNING MOTORWAYS, INC., AND GATEWAY TRANSPORTATION CO.; TO EMPLOYEES OF OTHER MOTOR FREIGHT CARRIERS WHICH INTERLINE FREIGHT WITH SEYMOUR TRANSFER, INC.; AND TO EMPLOYEES OF OTHER COMPANIES WHICH DO BUSINESS WITH SEYMOUR TRANSFER, INC. 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: After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence it has been found that we violated the law by committing unfair labor practices. Accordingly we post this notice and we will keep the promises that we make in this notice. WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business representatives, business agents, or anyone acting for us, whatever his title may be, do any of the following things to force any motor freight carrier to stop interlining freight with Seymour Transfer, Inc., or to force any motor freight carrier or any other company to stop doing business with Seymour Transfer, Inc.: WE WILL NOT, ourselves, nor will this union, engage in strikes or call strikes WE WILL NOT picket at or in the vicinity of terminals or docks of any motor freight carrier which interlines freight with Seymour Transfer, Inc , or which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc. WE WILL NOT picket at, or in the vicinity of, any other company which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten any member of this union with fines or with having his card pulled or with any other punishment, for working at the terminal or dock of any motor freight carrier which interlines freight with Seymour Transfer, Inc., or which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc., or for working for any other company which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc. WE WILL NOT fine, or pull the card of, any member of this union, or punish any member of this union in any other way for working at the terminal or dock of any motor freight carrier which interlines freight with Seymour Transfer, Inc., or which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc , or for working for any other company which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc. WE WILL NOT in any way order, direct, ask, persuade, urge, or influence any member of this union or any other employee working at the terminal or dock of any motor freight carrier which interlines freight with Seymour Transfer, Inc., or which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc. or any employee, including members of this Union, of any other company which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc , to strike, or to take part in a work stoppage, or to refuse to do any work. WE WILL NOT in any way threaten, coerce, or restrain any motor freight company which interlines freight with Seymour Transfer, Inc., or any other company which does business with Seymour Transfer, Inc., or any official or agent of any such motor freight carrier or company Dated By DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE & DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL No. 75 (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) 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 or employees 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.