Local Union No. 551, Teamsters

LOCAL UNION NO. 551, TEAMSTERS Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind. and Dravo Corporation, As Sponsor Dworshak Dam Constructors. Case 19-CC-393 June 19, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On March 19, 1969, Trial Examiner Herman Corenman 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, 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER 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 that the Respondent, Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind. Orofino, Idaho, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: This case, with all parties represented, was heard in Moscow , Idaho, on November 25 and 26, 1968, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., herein called Respondent or Local 551. The complaint was issued on September 25, 1968, on charges and amended charges 801 filed and served on August 21 and 23 and September 24, 1968, by Dravo Corporation, As Sponsor Dworshak Dam Constructors, herein called Dworshak Dam Constructors or DDC. The complaint alleges that the Respondent by threats to picket the construction site of Dworshak Dam Constructors thereby committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein referred to as the Act. The Respondent's answer asserts that its conduct was lawful primary activity directed to Dworshak Dam Constructors and did not violate section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the Act. All parties were afforded full opportunity to produce evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The General Counsel, Respondent, and Dworshak Dam Constructors have filed briefs with me and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record, including briefs, and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF DWORSHAK DAM CONSTRUCTORS It is established by the pleadings, and I find, that Dworshak Dam Constructors (herein referred to as DDC) with its office at Orofino, Idaho, is a joint venture composed of Dravo Corporation, as sponsor; S. J. Groves and Sons Company; C. H. Leavell and Company; D K C Constructors; and Fishback & Moore, and is engaged in the construction of the Dworshak Dam on the Clearwater River near Ahsahka, Idaho, pursuant to contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. During the past year, in the operation of its business Dworshak Dam Constructors purchased and received for use at the Dworshak Dam, goods and materials from outside the State of Idaho valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Dworshak Dam Constructors is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent, Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. The Issues The Respondent admits that it threatened to picket Dworshak Dam Constructors but contends that its threat to picket grew out of a primary dispute with Dworshak Dam Constructors. The General Counsel contends, however, that Dworshak Dam Constructors is a secondary employer and that the Respondent's primary dispute is with a motor carrier named Railroad and Yellowstone Division of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, herein referred to as Consolidated Freightways. The issue, therefore, is whether Dworshak Dam Constructors is a primary or secondary employer within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4XB); if primary the threat to picket does not violate 8(b)(4XiiXB); if secondary the threat to picket violates 8(b)(4XiiXB). 176 NLRB No. 109 802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Preliminary Statement The chronicle of facts and circumstances preceding the dispute which resulted in the Respondent ' s threat to picket Dworshak Dam Constructors are as follows: Dworshak Dam Constructors is the prime contractor, pursuant to agreement with the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of a concrete dam, located about 2 1 /2 miles from Ahsahka, Idaho. Among other things, large quantities of cement and fly ash will be required to build the dam during the next 3 or 4 years. In August 1966, Dworshak Dam Constructors submitted purchase orders for cement to Lehigh Cement Company and to Ideal Cement Company , to be delivered by railroad F.O.B. to the Northern Pacific rail terminal at Ahsahka, Idaho. In July 1967 , many months before shipments of cement were made , the purchase price of the cement was renegotiated F.O.B. the batch plant on the dam construction site instead of the rail terminal at Ahsahka. This renegotiation of the purchase price was done by Dworshak Dam Constructors so as to avoid demurrage charges from loaded railroad cars remaining on the railroad tract at the Ahsahka terminal. Since the rail terminal at Ahsahka was approximately 2 1/10 miles from the batch plant at the dam construction site, the railroad made arrangements with a motor carrier, Southeast Enterprises , Inc., d .b.a, F & B Trucking , herein called F & B Trucking , to complete the final leg of the haul by motortruck from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the cement receiving hoppers at the batch and mix plant on the dam construction site. To meet the needs of the project, DDC negotiated for and agreed to pay $21,131 to the railroad as part of the cost of building additional rail siding at the Ahsahka terminal to accommodate the railway cars . In order to fulfill its obligation to transport and deliver the cement and fly ash from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the hoppers at the batch mix plant , F & B Trucking erected three silos and a conveyor system at the railroad siding for the purpose of unloading the cement and fly ash from the railroad cars to the silos and again from the silos to their trucks, which would then travel the 2 1 / 10 miles over public roads and Indian land to the project site and by private road in the project to the batch mix plant where the cement or fly ash would be unloaded into the batch mix plant . The empty truck and driver would then return to the Ahsahka rail terminal for another load. F & B Trucking entered into a compliance agreement with Local 551 on March 22, 1968, agreeing to be bound by the AGC construction agreement with the Teamsters to which DDC was a party. F & B Trucking began hauling the cement and fly ash in March until July 1968, when it made arrangements with the Northern Pacific Railroad to be relieved of its obligation because of financial difficulties. DDC purchased from F & B Trucking the silos and loading and unloading conveyor system as well as miscellaneous equipment at the Ahsahka rail terminal which had been used by F & B Trucking in connection with the cement haul, for $ 103,000. In July 1968, DDC representatives invited Consolidated Freightway representatives to look over the cement haul previously performed by F & B Trucking to determine if they would be interested in taking over the haul' and acquiring by purchase or lease the Ahsahka loading facilities. Consolidated Freightways workers agreed with the Northern Pacific Railroad on a division of the freight rate between the two carriers and the tariff bureaus duly published the rates . Pursuant to an understanding between DDC and Consolidated Freightways, the silos and loading facilities at the railroad siding were to be sold or leased to , and placed under the control of Consolidated Freightways . Consolidated Freightways is modifying the loading equipment at the railroad terminal at its own expense. Such mechanical repairs as DDC personnel performed on the conveyor equipment at the railroad siding have been charged by DDC to Consolidated Freightways. There is no arrangement between DDC and Consolidated Freightways in connection with the revenue to be received by Consolidated Freightways for the transportation of the cement and fly ash from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the batch plant or the project site . Inasmuch as the cement is purchased F.O.B. the batch plant at the DDC project site, the freight for such combination rail and truck transportation is paid by the Ideal and Lehigh Cement Companies to the Northern Pacific Railroad which in turn divides the freight revenue with Consolidated Freightways in accordance with their agreement for such division of revenue. Consolidated Freightways, with other motor carriers, is a party to the Teamsters National Master Freight Agreement, as supplemented by the Western States Area Master Agreement and the Washington and Northern Idaho Bulk Commodities Supplemental Agreement. The Respondent, Local 551, as well as other locals is also party to such agreements . At the request of Mr . Bateman, a representative of Local 551 , a meeting was held at the Union's office in Lewiston , Idaho, on or about August 7, 1968. Present at the meeting were Local 551 Representatives Byers and Bateman , and Consolidated Freightways Representatives Dickman, Lindner, and Walker. At this meeting, Consolidated Freightways representatives pointed out that they were parties to the Teamsters agreements mentioned above . Local 551 representative Byers insisted that Consolidated Freightways would have to sign a compliance agreement, agreeing to be bound by the AGC construction agreement, to which DDC was signatory , in order to engage in the cement haul from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the batch plant at the dam site . The Consolidated Freightways representatives refused to sign the proffered AGC compliance agreement contending that they were already covered by the Teamsters Master Freight Agreement and its supplements.' On August 12, 1968, Local 551 sent DDC a telegram reading as follows: THIS WILL SERVE AS TWO CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS NOTICE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 SECTION ONE OF THE HEC [sIC] TEAMSTERS COLLECTIVE AXXXX [SIC] BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4 OF SUCH AGREEMENT THE CEMENT HAUL HAS IN THE PAST BEEN OPERATED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGC-TEAMSTER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ANY PERSON PERFORMING THE CEMTN [SIC] HAUL IS A SUB CONTRACTOR [SIC] WITHIN 'It is common practice for a large shipper to solicit quotes from a common carrier on volume movement. 'The wage rates and fringes of the freight agreement supplements were not as generous as the AGC construction agreement , which also contained an exclusive hiring hall clause LOCAL UNION NO. 551, TEAMSTERS 803 THE MEANING OF ARTICL [SIC] 2 SECTION 3 OF SUCH AGREEMENT ANS [SIC] AS SUCH MUST COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 4 OF THE AGC-TEAMSTER COLLECTIVE GXX [SIC] BARGAINING AGREEMENT WE INTEND TO PRESERVE THE WORK OF THE BARGAINING UNIT AND OF [SIC] THE VIOLATION IS NOT CORRECTED WITHIN THE NEST [SIC] TWO C [SIC] CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS WE WILL TAKE ECONOMIC ACTION CIPIES [SIC] TO ASSOCIATED GNERAL [SIC] CONTRACTORS AND BUILDING RRADES [SIC] Article IV, section 1, of the AGC construction agreement is a union security and hiring hall clause requiring employees to become members within 9 days following the date of employment and an exclusive hiring hall clause requiring union referral of employees. Article II, section 3, of the AGC construction contract provides as follows: Section 3. (A) No contractor or joint venture covered by the terms and conditions of this agreement shall subcontract any work to a subcontractor or employer who is not signatory to or willing to sign this Labor Agreement. When a proposed subcontractor or Employer is not signatory to this Labor Agreement, there shall be a pre-job conference between the Union, the Contractor and the proposed subcontractor. Agreement between these parties regarding this article must be reached before the proposed subcontractor performs any work on the project. A subcontractor is a firm that takes over all or part of the work to be performed in the completion of the job on the jobsite or as specified below. It is expressly understood and agreed by all parties hereto when operations such as quarries, gravel, sand and gravel plants, ready-mix concrete or batch plants or any other operations are established by a contractor, subcontractor, individual or firm and such process is located off the immediate site of the construction project but is established virtually exclusively to meet the needs of the contract or a series of contracts of an integrated project rather than to serve the public generally, the prime contractor covered by this agreement shall be required to see that the terms and conditions of this labor agreement are complied with. (B) When equipment hired, rented, or leased is used on any job, the driver operating the equipment shall be an employee on the payroll of the contractor and come under all legally enforceable terms and conditions of this agreement, including Schedule "A", if not otherwise covered by this agreement. Owner operators will not be on a hiring hall list or subject to the hiring procedures. On the afternoon of August 14, 1968, Local 551 representatives Byers and Bateman met with DDC representatives Roberts and Campbell at the DDC project office at Orofino, Idaho. The August 12 telegram was discussed. Local 551 representatives took the position that Consolidated Freightways was a DDC subcontractor, and that unless Consolidated Freightways signed the agreement and the Montana drivers were removed, Local 551 would picket the main gate of the DDC project and shut down the job. According to the testimony of Roberts, Byers stated "he wanted to protect his hiring hall practice. . that he would `want the drivers working out of Local 551 to operate the trucks and he was attempting to eliminate the Billings [Montana] drivers.' " Roberts told Byers this would be no problem and in Byers' presence, phoned Mr. Morris Lindner, division manager for Consolidated Freightways at Billings. Roberts put Byers on the phone to talk to Lindner about the hiring hall problem, but once on the phone, Byers made it clear to Lindner that Consolidated Freightways would have to work under the AGC construction agreement with its more liberal wages and fringe as well as its hiring hall, and not the Teamsters bulk commodities agreement. A meeting was then set up for the following afternoon, August 15, 1968, at DDC's office. Attending this meeting were Byers and Bateman for Local 551, Campbell and Roberts for DDC, and Lindner of Consolidated Freightways with his attorney, Mr. Jerome Anderson. Byers took pains to point out that his conversation was only with the DDC representatives and not with Consolidated Freightways. Byers presented a compliance agreement (agreeing to be bound by the AGC construction agreement) to the DDC representatives and told them to have Consolidated Freightways sign such compliance agreement. During this three-cornered conversation, Consolidated Freightways' attorney, Jerome Anderson, took the position that Consolidated Freightways was a common carrier and, therefore, not allowed by law to be a subcontractor, and that it could perform its service only as a common carrier under a published tariff. After a short recess, the parties resumed their meeting and it was orally agreed that as a temporary stopgap measure, DDC would furnish its own drivers to man the Consolidated Freightways trucks in the cement haul from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the project batch mix plant until the dispute could be resolved by labor board proceedings or other means. In the meantime, Local 551 agreed it would not picket as long as DDC drivers were used. Accordingly, beginning August 16, 1968, DDC employees operating Consolidated Freightways trucks manned the cement haul operations until November 7, 1968,' but under the supervision of the Consolidated Freightways operation manager. In the meanwhile, DDC was reimbursed by Consolidated Freightways for its additional wage costs in manning the cement haul. On November 7, 1968, following the stipulation in the U.S. District Court, the cement haul was undertaken by Consolidated Freightways with its own drivers, and at the time of the hearing, still were continuing pursuant to Consolidated Freightways' collective-bargaining obligations under the Teamsters National Master Freight Agreement and the supplemental bulk commodities agreement, to which Local 551 and Consolidated Freightways are parties. Discussion of the Issues Local 551 takes the position that its threat to picket DDC and shut down the job was primary action to enforce section 3(A) of its AGC collective-bargaining agreement with DDC. The contention of Respondent Union may, in my opinion, prevail only if its threats to picket DDC can be 'On November 1, 1968, in the 10 proceedings before the U.S. District Court, by Stipulation, Local 551, without conceding that it had violated the Act, agreed not to picket DDC for the object of forcing DDC to cease doing business with Consolidated Freightways , or to enforce art. II, sec. 3, of its agreement with DDC, during proceeding of this matter before the Board. 804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD held for the object of preserving work traditionally performed by DDC employees in accordance with principles set forth by the Court in National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v. N.L.R. B., 386 U.S. 612, Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. N.L.R.B., 386 U .S. 664. It is clear that if Respondent 's threat to picket DDC and shut down the job under the circumstances present, was not to preserve work traditionally performed by DDC employees, it is reasonable to infer, that a foreseeable object of such action would be to force a disruption and cessation of business between DDC, Consolidated Freightways, the cement suppliers, and the railroad. The complaint does not allege that article II, section 3(A), of the AGC contract agreement is violative of Section 8(e) of the Act; its language is permitted by the construction proviso' to Section 8(e) of the Act. But two considerations operate to place the Union's action here within the proscription of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Initially, it should be noted that for the Section 8(e) agreement to be validly applied under the "construction proviso," it must be for work to be performed at the "construction site ." In this case the cement haul performed by Consolidated Freightways' employees amounted to no more than the transportation of dry cement and fly ash from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the DDC batch mix plant . Consolidated Freightways' function was that of a common carrier completing the last leg of a journey by rail and motortruck to the batch mix plant on the construction site . Neither Consolidated Freightways nor its employees engaged in on-site construction. There is even greater reason for holding Consolidated Feightways' activities not to be within the coverage of the construction proviso to Section 8(e) than existed in Teamsters Local 294 (Island Dock Lumber, Inc.), 145 NLRB 484, enfd . 342 F.2d 18 (C.A. 2), or Drivers, Local 695 (Madison Employers ' Council), 152 NLRB 577, enfd. 361 F.2d 547, 552 (C.A.D.C.), where both the Board and the two Courts of Appeals held that the activities of ready-mix drivers in delivering ready-mix concrete on the construction site were not engaged in on-site construction work . In the instant case, the activity of the Consolidated Freightways' drivers at the dam site construction project were more minimal' than the drivers' activities in delivering ready-mix concrete in Island Dock Lumber, Inc., or Madison Employers' Council, supra. But, conceding arguendo, although I find to the contrary, that the work of Consolidated Freightways' drivers was ,.on-site construction" within the meaning of the construction proviso of Section 8 (e), that hypothesis also is of no avail to the Respondent Union as a defense to their threat to picket DDC and shut down the job. A valid Section 8(e) clause within the construction proviso may be voluntarily complied with by the employer but it may not be enforced by economic action or threats thereof by a labor organization for objects within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(iiXB). Northeastern Indiana Building and Construction Trades Council (Centlivre Village Apartments ), 148 NLRB 854. Local 513, Operating Engineers (Zeni-McKinney- Williams Corporation). 163 -117- construction construction proviso to Sec. 8(e) provides as follows: Provided. That nothing in this subsection (e) shall apply to an agreement between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construction, alteration , painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other work. NLRB No. 38; IBEW (Ets-Hokin Corporation , Etc.), 154 NLRB 839, enfd . 405 F .2d 159 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v. Muskegon Bricklayers Union No. 5, 378 F.2d 859, (C.A. 6). It is clear, and I would find, that the threat made to DDC representatives to picket the DDC project had for an object to force the cessation of business between DDC and Consolidated Freightways , in violation of 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), unless it should appear that the conduct engaged in by the Respondent Union can be deemed primary activity to preserve work traditionally performed by DDC employees. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Respondent Union on August 7 directly requested Consolidated Freightways representatives to sign the compliance agreement binding itself to the terms and conditions of the AGC construction agreement . Failing in that, it threatened to picket DDC and shut down the project unless DDC prevailed upon Consolidated Freightways to sign the agreement. Notwithstanding the Union's protestation to the contrary, it is clear that its primary dispute was with Consolidated Freightways upon whom it was seeking to impose the AGC construction agreement, and this, not by direct economic action against Consolidated Freightways, but indirectly by threatening economic action against the prime contractor DDC, unless Consolidated Freightways signed the compliance agreement. It appears that DDC is engaged in building a dam. It is not a common carrier by motortruck . Consolidated Freightways and its predecessor , F & B Trucking, were common carriers, each as linking carriers with the Northern Pacific Railroad in the transportation of cement from the two cement vendors, Lehigh and Ideal Cement Company . The freight for the transportation from the points of origin to the batch plant on the dam construction was being paid by the cement vendors, Lehigh and Ideal, to be divided between the railroad and Consolidated Freightways in accordance with their agreement . Traditionally, from the day the cement haul began in March 1968, this work was not performed by DDC employees . At first the cement haul was performed by F & B Trucking drivers. The truck-drivers employed by DDC on the construction project had not engaged in the cement haul, except in the temporary emergency August 15 to November 7, 1968 , created by the Respondent Union's threat to close down the DDC construction project if Consolidated Freightways continued the cement haul. The Union 's threatened conduct was not to preserve work traditionally performed by DDC employees but to impose the AGC construction agreement elsewhere, namely on Consolidated Freightways . Under the principles pronounced by the Supreme Court in National Woodwork Manufacturers Association , supra, the Union's attempt to enforce the subcontractors clause contained in section 3(A) of the AGC construction agreement , by pressuring DDC, amounted to an illegal secondary boycott within the 'Arriving at the DDC batch plant with a full truckload of cement or fly ash, the Consolidated Freightways' driver spots the loaded trader over the receiving hoppers, and assists in opening the bottom gate on the trailer to allow the contents to flow out by force of gravity into the hopper. When the trailer is emptied, the driver secures the bottom and returns to the Ahsahka rail terminal for another load. In Island Dock Lumber, Inc., supra, the driver arriving at the construction site would set the mixer agitator in motion, to make a 3-minute mix of cement , sand, gravel, aggregate, and water and would then pour the liquid concrete from the truck as directed by on-site employees , either into prepared building forms, into chutes, or into cement buckets. LOCAL UNION NO. 551, TEAMSTERS 805 meaning of 8(b)(4) (ii)(B). But for the construction proviso to Section 8(e) of the Act, article IT, section 3, of the AGC construction contract would be an illegal hot cargo clause. The aforesaid clause does not contain language expressing a purpose of preserving work traditionally performed by DDC employees but is the typical union signatory clause calculated to satisfy union objectives elsewhere. Its attempted enforcement , therefore, by threat of picketing DDC, violates 8(b)(4)(iiXB) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38 (Arden Farms Co.), 338 F.2d 23 (C.A. 9), enfg. 141 NLRB 341; Local Union No. 141, Sheet Metal Workers, 174 NLRB No. 125; Retail Clerks Local 1288 (Nickel's Pay-Less Stores), 163 NLRB No. 112; Columbus Building and Construction Trades Council (Kroger Co.), 164 NLRB No. 79; N.L.R.B. v. New York Lithographers & Photo-Engravers Union, 385 F.2d 551 (C.A. 3), enfg. 160 NLRB 1222. Cf. Teamsters Local 386 (R.P.B. Trucking, Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 102, Retail Store Employees, Local Union No. 876, 174 NLRB No. 67. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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. America, Ind., its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening, restraining, or coercing Dworshak Dam Constructors, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require Dworshak Dam Constructors or other persons to cease doing business with Consolidated Freightways or any other person engaged in connection with the transportation to the DDC jobsite of cement, fly ash and other materials from offsite suppliers. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices, meeting halls , and all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after having been duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representatives, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the aforesaid Regional Director for forwarding to Dworshak Dam Constructors for information, and if they are willing, for posting by them in all locations where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Dravo Corporation, As Sponsor, Dworshak Dam Constructors and Consolidated Freightways are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threats made to representatives of Dworshak Dam Constructors to picket Dworshak Dam Constructors and to shut down the construction site , with an object of forcing Dworshak Dam Constructors to cease doing business with Consolidated Freightways, Respondent Union engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B ) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of n the event 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." 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith." APPENDIX 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 threaten, restrain, or coerce Dworshak Dam Constructors or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is to force or require Dworshak Dam Constructors or any other person to cease doing business with Consolidated Freightways or any other person engaged in the transportation to the Dworshak Dam Constructors jobsite, cement, fly ash and other materials from offsite suppliers. LOCAL UNION NO. 5 51, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AMERICA, IND. or covered by any other material. (Labor Organization) Dated By Persons having any question concerning this notice or (Representative) (Title ) compliance with its provisions, may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Republic Building, 10th This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, Telephone 583-7473.