United Steelworkers of America, Local 6991

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 6991 United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 6991, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and Auburndale Freezer Corporation Local 6991, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and Minute Maid Company. Cases 12-CC-513-1 and 12-CC-513-2 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER On February 20, 1968, Trial Examiner William W. Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents, United Steelworkers of America and its Local 6991, had engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. Since on or about October 15, 1967, Respondents have been engaged in a labor dispute with Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc.,' at its Eloise, Florida, place of business. Since on or about October 17, 1967, and continuing until on or about October 21, 1967, Respondents picketed at the truck entrance and the railroad entrance to a cold storage warehouse in which Cypress stored its product. This warehouse was owned by Auburndale Freezer Corporation.: Respondents' pickets carried signs which read as follows: Employees of Cypress Gardens Citrus Products are ON STRIKE. We have no dispute with any other employer. United Steelworkers of America, Local 6991, AFL-CIO. The instant case arises out of the picketing at the Auburndale warehouse. Cypress is engaged in the business of processing citrus fruits and products. Auburndale, at all times material herein was obligated to Cypress to furnish storage space for up to 300,000 cases of citrus concentrate (approximately 10 percent of the storage space) at a specified rental. The warehouse is staffed 'Hereinafter referred to as Cypress. The dispute between Cypress and its employees arose out of contract negotiations. 'Hereinafter referred to as Auburndale. 791 by three Auburndale employees, a senior managing official, a building maintenance man, and a secretary, and approximately 30 employees of Minute Maid Company' who, pursuant to a contract between Auburndale and Minute Maid, perform all warehousing services. No Cypress employees perform work at the warehouse, and there is no common ownership or control of operations (personnel or labor relations) between Cypress and Auburndale or between Cypress and Minute Maid. When the Cypress truck, loaded with concentrate and driven by a Cypress employee, comes onto the warehouse facility from the Cypress plant, the Minute Maid employee drives onto the truck, removes the product and places it in storage. A receipt is given the Cypress driver who then leaves the warehouse facility. Upon the sale of the goods by Cypress, which sales are nonretail, instructions are given Auburndale to ship the product, which is then loaded by Minute Maid employees onto the designated common carrier's facility. The Auburndale operation is seasonal, the busiest period being from March to July with the peak in June. During this period Cypress trucks arrive at the warehouse continuously. During the picketing (October 17 to 21) no Cypress trucks came to Auburndale. Furthermore, no Cypress product was shipped from Auburndale during this period. The Trial Examiner found, on the above facts, that the picketing took place at the plant of the secondary employer, and that Auburndale, conducting an independent business wholly distinct and separate from that of Cypress, was entirely unconcerned in the dispute between Cypress and Respondents. Relying primarily on Warehouse Union Local 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (Hershey Chocolate Corporation), 153 NLRB 1051, and citing for additional support Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Mercer Storage Conipany, Inc.), 156 NLRB 67, Western States Regional Council No. 3 International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Priest Logging, Inc.), 137 NLRB 352, and Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen (Fein Can Corporation), 131 NLRB 59, the Trial Examiner concluded that the picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Then, assuming arguendo that the warehouse presented a common situs situation, the Trial Examiner concluded that, because no Cypress trucks approached or arrived at the warehouse and because Cypress was not engaged in its normal business during the time of the picketing, the picketing did not meet all the conditions prescribed by Moore Dry Dock. Contrary to the Trial Examiner we find that the cases relied on are not controlling. In Hershey, 'Hereinafter referred to as Minute Maid. 'Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547. 177 NLRB No. 108 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mercer, and Priest the diapositive issue was whether or not the secondary employer was performing struck work and was thus an "ally" of the primary; the issue of common situs was not discussed. In Fein the primary employer' s premises, which were also used by a separate trucking company, were found to constitute a common situs but the issue was not discussed with respect to a separate warehouse used by the secondary employer. The Trial Examiner noted that no employees of the primary worked at the warehouse and concluded that the picketing there was unlawful. In determining whether or not the Auburndale warehouse is a common situs the question is whether or not there is sufficient "presence of the primary" at the secondary site, or, to put the matter another way, whether the evidence is sufficient to establish " .. that direct and immediate relationship between the picketing and the object picketed necessary to a finding of purely primary picketing."' In this sense "presence of the primary" is a term of art and refers to a multitude of factors' that are to be evaluated in light of the union's presumably permissible "primary" objective of bringing about a complete cessation of the primary employer's operation' so long as its efforts are confined to a location of that operation, and of the additional and sometimes countervailing policy of the Act which seeks to protect neutral employers from being pulled into the dispute involving the primary employer. In the present case, we note the following facts which seem to us relevant to establish the "presence of the primary" at the Auburndale location: (1) Cypress first began storing its product at Auburndale in 1956 under a general warehousing agreement; (2) Cypress and Auburndale executed a 5-year contract in January 1967, whereby the latter agreed to furnish to the former space for 300,000 cases of concentrate; (3) during the picketing Cypress had 150,000 cases of concentrate stored at the Auburndale warehouse; (4) Cypress trucks deliver concentrate to Auburndale in the regular course of business, and during the season, March through July, do so continuously; (5) Cypress drivers remain at Auburndale until they are given a receipt for the concentrate; and (6) the concentrate is shipped from the Auburndale warehouse by common carriers in accordance with instructions given by Cypress. 'International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Drivers Local Union No. 807 (Sterling Beverages, Inc.), 90 NLRB 401 The presence or absence of the primary employer's employees at the secondary site is merely one factor and is prima facie relevant to both the question of whether or not the secondary site is a common situs and of whether or not the picketing is in conformity with the Moore Dry Dock standards. See Seafarers International Union (Salt Dome Production Co J v N L R B. 265 F.2d 585 (C.A.D C.). 'See and compare Local 761. International Union of Electrical Workers /General Electric!. v. N.L R B. 366 U S. 667, and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO /Carrier Corp J v N L.R B. 376 U.S. 492. These facts indicate that the concentrate, while stored at the Auburndale warehouse, is, for all practical purposes, under the control of Cypress, that the warehouse is the place where common carriers receive Cypress goods for delivery to Cypress' customers, that there is substantial contact between Cypress, its employees, and the Auburndale warehouse, and that the storage of the concentrate at the warehouse, which practice has been continuous since 1956, constitutes an integral part of the Cypress production process," To the extent that the Auburndale warehouse is a part of the Cypress operation, we conclude that the warehouse constitutes a common situs. We conclude further that Respondents' picketing of the Auburndale warehouse conformed in all respects with the Moore Dry Dock requirements for legitimate common situs picketing.' In view of our finding that the Auburndale warehouse constituted a common situs because of the continuous "presence" of the Cypress operation at that location, it follows that it was, at all material times, a situs of the dispute. Further it appears from the facts set out above and in the Trial Examiner's Decision that the picketing was as close as possible to the situs and was, by its terms, directed solely to the primary employer, Cypress. While no Cypress trucks came to the Auburndale warehouse during the picketing, the Board pointed out in Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New Power Wire and Electric Corp.), 144 NLRB 1089, that ". . . the absence of the primary employer's employees is merely one of the factors to be evaluated in determining . . . whether the primary employer is then engaged in his normal business at the site," and considered ". . . it significant in this case that the absence of company employees was attributable to the fact that a majority of them were on the picket lines . . . '"" We find it significant here, as we did in New Power Wire and Electric Corp., supra, that the whole Cypress plant was out on strike. However, even if the picket line were viewed, because of the absence of the striking employees from the site, as essentially an appeal to such common carrier employees as might approach the warehouse to pick up Cypress' products, such appeals would, under the circumstances, constitute legitimate primary action." Accordingly, having found that the Auburndale warehouse constitutes a common situs and that Respondent's picketing was in accord with the requirements of Moore Dry Dock, we shall order that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.1z 'Cf. N L R B v. Servette . 377 U.S. 46, wherein the term "produce" was given a broad meaning in the context of another portion of Sec 8 (b)(4). 'Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547. "New Power Wire and Electric Corp, 144 NLRB 1089, 1093, 1094. "Local 761. International Union of Electrical Workers v N L.R B., supra, United Steelworkers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO v. N L R B., supra "We are not called upon here to, and do not, decide whether or not Respondents lawfully could have appealed to the Auburndale and Minute UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 6991 793 ORDER We cannot agree that this is so. We believe it to be apparent that, expressed in simple terms, the Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor "presence" of the primary employer postulated by Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor our colleagues can mean nothing else, in this case, Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint than the simple presence of that primary employer's herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety . product on the separate premises of a neutral employer independently engaged in the business of CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBER BROWN, providing cold storage and warehouse services to its dissenting: We would affirm the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondents' picketing of the Auburndale warehouse violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of Act. Although we agree with the reasoning of the Trial Examiner, further comment is necessary with respect to the majority's departure from established principles in diminishing the protection from direct pressures afforded neutrals under the secondary boycott provisions of the Act. The picketing of Auburndale was in furtherance of Respondents' primary labor dispute with Cypress, a processor of citrus fruits and products. Auburndale is independently owned and operated and is engaged in furnishing warehouse services on its own separate premises to various citrus fruit processors, one of whom is Cypress. Employees of Cypress perform no functions at Auburndale's premises, other than the delivery of Cypress' products to those premises by truck. Neutral employees perform the task of unloading the trucks and perform all other warehousing tasks, including those related to the ultimate removal of products from storage and their shipment by rail or motor carrier. The picketing of Auburndale occurred not only at the truck entrances but at the railroad siding as well. During the period of picketing no trucks of Cypress were dispatched to make deliveries to the Auburndale warehouse. The Trial Examiner concluded primarily that the Auburndale premises were not a situs of the Union's dispute with Cypress and for that reason rejected the asserted applicability, as precedents, of decisions involving picketing at the premises of employers directly involved in a dispute with the striking union. Alternatively the Trial Examiner reasoned that, assuming that a common situs might be involved, one of the criteria established by Moore Dry Dock" for lawful picketing at such a situs, i.e., that the primary employer must be engaged in its normal business at the situs, was not satisfied because Cypress neither made deliveries to, nor was engaged in its normal business at the site when the picketing took place. Our colleagues would reverse both of these conclusions, finding that the Auburndale premises were a common situs and that the Moore Dry Dock standards were satisfied, basing both of these conclusions on the single supposition that there existed a "presence of the primary" employer at the Auburndale warehouse site such as to justify Respondents' picketing, in pursuance of its primary dispute with Cypress, at that site. customers. Here the employees of the primary employer, Cypress, perform no function at all in connection with the warehousing services, and the storage of Cypress' products provides but a minor portion of the business of Auburndale, the warehousing enterprise. The Board has not hitherto held, as the majority does here, that the mere presence of a primary employer's goods on the premises of a neutral employer, pursuant to an established business relationship, is sufficient in and of itself to convert the picketing of such neutral premises from unlawful secondary to lawful primary picketing.' That such is indeed our colleagues' holding here must not be obscured by their reference to precedent to demonstrate that the presence or absence of a primary employer's employees from the premises picketed is not in itself determinative of the validity of the picketing. With that proposition we agree. But we nevertheless cannot agree that it has any applicability to this case. Our understanding of the decision cited" and similar precedents]' is that they have reference to situations in which employees of the primary employer are normally engaged in tasks at the picketed premises but are absent because of a strike, because the primary employer has withdrawn them to avoid the effect of picketing, or because of a workbreak, or for some other similar reason. Here no employees of Cypress, the primary employer with whom Respondents had their dispute, had ever performed tasks at the picketed premises." Such employees were not simply "absent." They never were there. In this situation, the only possible thrust of Respondents' picketing appeal must have been directed to the neutral Auburndale, to the neutral "Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547, cited by the majority at fn . 4, supra. "See, a g., Warehouse Union Local 6, et a! (Hershey Chocolate Corporation), 153 NLRB 1051; Western States Regional Council No 3, International Wood- Workers, (Priest Logging, Inc ), 137 NLRB 352, enfd. 319 F 2d 655 (C A 9); Local 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators (Fein Can Corporation), 131 NLRB 59. Cf. National Maritime Union of America, et aL (Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association), 152 NLRB 1447, 1457-58, enfd. 367 F.2d 171 (C.A 8); Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 279 (Wilson Teaming Co), 140 NLRB 164. We distinguish, of course, such cases as those involving "struck work" or an "ally" relationship, where the employer asserted to be neutral would not normally handle or work on the products of the primary employer were it not for the existence of a strike at the primary employer's plant. We understand that that type of situation is not involved here. "New Power Wire and Electric Corp, 144 NLRB 1089. "See, e.g., Seafarers International Union v. N.L R.B.. 265 F 2d 585, 590, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al (Plauche Electric Inc), 135 NLRB 250 "As noted above, the drivers who brought the Cypress products to the Maid employees not to handle the Cypress product. 794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees engaged in warehousing tasks, or to the neutral employees of Auburndale's other customers. This is the classic example of the secondary boycott proscribed by the statute. Auburndale warehouse did no more than drive their trucks to the dock, wait for neutral employees to unload them, obtain a warehouse receipt, and depart. We do not understand Respondents to contend that it was engaged in ambulatory picketing of the trucks . But even if it were, the Board would require that such picketing be strictly limited to the trucks, and not extended in any manner to Auburndale or other neutrals. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was heard at Tampa, Florida, on November 21, 1967,' with all parties participating pursuant to due notice upon a complaint issued by the General Counsel on November 7,r alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 6991, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to individually and collectively as Respondents. The complaint, in substance, alleges that Respondents unlawfully picketed the truck entrance and a railroad siding to the premises of Auburndale, an object thereof being to force Auburndale, Minute Maid, and other persons to cease handling the products of Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc., herein called Cypress, and to cease doing business with Cypress. Respondents contend that the picketing was directed solely at employees furnishing day-to-day delivery service essential to Cypress' regular operations, that the picket signs were explicit, and that their dispute was solely with Cypress, and that, therefore, they were engaged in lawful primary activity. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. The General Counsel and Respondents filed briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE Auburndale, a Florida corporation , is the sole owner and operator of a cold-storage warehouse located at Auburndale, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of public cold -storage warehousing . In the course and conduct of said business operations, it annually causes citrus products valued in excess of $50,000 to be shipped from its warehouse to points located outside the State of Florida. Minute Maid, a Florida corporation, owns and operates a plant at Auburndale, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of processing fruits and juices, and annually sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Florida . At all times material herein, Minute Maid leased about 50 percent of the space in 'All dates hereafter refer to the year 1967 unless otherwise noted 'Based upon a charge filed on October 19 in Case 12-CC-S13-1 by Auburndale Freezer Corporation, hereafter called Auburndale, and a charge filed on October 20 by Minute Maid Company, hereafter called Minute Maid. Auburndale's warehouse for the storage of its citrus products. Cypress, a Florida corporation with a plant and principal place of business located at Eloise, Florida, is ;engaged in the business of processing citrus fruits and products, and annually ships such products valued in excess of $50,000 to points located outside the State of Florida. Respondents admit, and I find, at all times material herein, that Auburndale, Minute Maid, and Cypress were engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondents admit, and I find, that, at all times material herein, they have been labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOIj PRACTICES A. Background Auburndale' s premises have two entrances , a truck entrance (also used for ingress and egress of employees) and a railroad siding entering its premises about 400 feet from its warehouse . It warehouses products (mostly citrus) for about 20 customers, including Cypress and Minute Maid . In its operations it directly employes only three individuals, consisting of the general manager, a maintenance man, and an office secretary, but has an arrangement with Minute Maid pursuant to which about 30 Minute Maid employees, supervised by their superintendent (who receives his orders from Auburndale's general manager), perform the work of unloading incoming deliveries and placing their contents in storage, and also service outgoing shipments by removing products from storage and loading them on trucks, or freight cars.' At all times material herein , Auburndale was obligated by contract with Cypress to furnish storage space for up to 300,000 cases of citrus concentrate, which approximated about 10 percent of the warehouse space, at a specified rental scale . The products of Cypress and other customers are not co-mingled, nor was any designated space reserved for such storage purposes. B. The Facts The facts concerning the issue herein are not in dispute. Cypress, which is located at Eloise , Florida, about 5 or 6 miles from Auburndale, was struck by Respondents about October 15, following a breakdown in their bargaining negotiations. At no time material herein have Respondents been engaged in any labor dispute with Auburndale or any of its customers other than Cypress. In furtherance of their labor dispute with Cypress, Respondents on about October 17 began picketing the truck entrance to Auburndale, and also on occasion at the railroad siding where it enters the premises of Auburndale.' The picket signs carried by the pickets read 'Ordinarily, Cypress sent its products for storage in its own trucks to Auburndale's truck platform where they were unloaded and placed in storage by the Minute Maid employees Occasionally Cypress sent its trucks to the warehouse to return some of its products to its own plant for further processing. When Cypress sold any of its storaged products, it instructed Auburndale to ship them via a designated common carrier, and Auburndale would make delivery to that carrier The picketing continued for 2 weeks, until called off pursuant to a UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 6991 Products are ON STRIKE. We have no dispute with any other employer . United Steelworkers of America, Local 6991, AFL-CIO."' Picketing occurred during such times as the Minute Maid employees were working at the warehouse . At first, about 15 pickets appeared, milling around the truck entrance, but toward the end only two pickets appeared . On the first day of picketing, Auburndale's general manager approached the picket line to inquire as to the reason for picketing , and was told by one of the pickets , "well, you got our product in there." It also appears that Cypress did not send any of its trucks to Auburndale during the picketing . Nor does the record show that Auburndale shipped any of Cypress' products via a common carrier while the picketing took place. C. The Issue Involved Respondents justify the picketing as lawful on the ground that it was directed solely at employees furnishing day-to-day services essential to Cypress' operations at a "partial" situs (on the premises of Auburndale) of the dispute between the primary employer (Cypress) and the Unions.' In support of their position, the Unions claim that the facts of the instant case fall within the ambit of Local 761, I.U.E., v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667 (popularly known as the General Electric case), and United Steelworkers v. N.L.R.B., 376 U.S. 492, (usually referred to as the Carrier case). In General Electric, that company was the primary employer engaged in a dispute with its own employees at its own plant. A number of subcontractors were Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by its picketing of performing various services for General Electric at the the gate. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court, supra, plant's site. Separate gates were clearly designated for the approved the Board's application of the standards set exclusive use of these subcontractors , whose work was of forth in General Electric so as to permit, as legitimate different types, consisting of routine maintenance services, - which at times were performed by General Electric's own employees - and occasionally specialized work of a capital-improvement nature. Because of unsettled grievances, the union struck General Electric and picketed all entrances to its premises, including the gate reserved for the subcontractors' employees. The Board held that the picketing at the reserved gate was to enmesh the employees of the neutral subcontractors , and therefore violated former Section 8(b)(4)(A) (now, in pertinent part, 8(b)(4)(B)) of the Act. The circuit court of appeals enforced the Board's order. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the Board and the circuit court and ruled that picketing at a gate utilized exclusively by employees of independent contractors who work on the struck employer's premises is lawful primary activity unless the following conditions exist: There must be a separate gate, marked and set apart from other gates; the work done by the men who use the gate must be unrelated to the normal operations of the employer, and the work must be of a kind that would not, if done when the plant were engaged in its regular operations, necessitate curtailing those operations.' stipulation entered into by the parties in an unjunction proceeding commenced in the United States District Court , pending adjudication of the issue by the Board 'Although the picket signs bore only the name of the local, the answer of each Respondent admitted the picketing. 'In their opening statement , Respondents disclaimed any defense based on the "allied" doctrine or that they were following or picketing a product. 'Local 761, WE [General Electric Co.] v. N.L.R B , supra. 366 U.S. at 631. 795 The Court further indicated that, if there was a "mingled use" of the reserved gate, the picketing would be primary, unless the work of the independent contractors not meeting either of the latter two conditions, referred to above, was "so insubstantial as to be treated by the Board as de minimis." Inasmuch as the record theretofore made failed to show the extent to which the reserved gate had been used by the employees of the independent contractors in the performance of "conventional maintenance work necessary to the normal operation" of General Electric, the case was remanded to the Board. The Board, upon remand to determine whether the conditions set forth by the Supreme Court were satisfied, found (138 NLRB 342) that the work (other than conveyor work) scheduled to be performed by the subcontractors was necessarily related to General Electric's normal operations and constituted more than a de minimis amount, and it, therefore, held that the picketing was lawful primary picketing and dismissed the complaint. In Carrier, that company was engaged in a dispute with its employees, at its own plant. The union's picketing in question took place at the gate on a railroad spur track, owned by the railroad, which was cut through a fence surrounding the struck employer's premises. This gate was used exclusively by neutral railroad employees entering the struck premises to make delivery of supplies to, and removal of manufactured products from, Carrier. The Board held (132 NLRB 127) that the railroad's services were rendered in connection with Carrier's normal operations, and that, therefore, the Union did not violate primary action, the involved picketing. Unlike General Electric and Carrier, both of which involved picketing at the premises of a struck employer, the picketing in the instant case occurred at the plant of a secondary employer (Auburndale), located some 6 miles from Cypress' plant, the situs of the dispute. Auburndale was conducting an independent business wholly distinct and separate from Cypress, in which none of Cypress' employees were employed . Moreover, Auburndale was entirely unconcerned in the dispute between Cypress and Respondents, and sought only to carry on its regular normal operations. In these circumstances, I find that General Electric and Carrier are sufficiently distinguishable as not to be applicable herein . The instant case closely resembles Warehouse Union Local 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (Hershey Chocolate Corporation), 153 NLRB 1051. There, the Board held that the involved union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by picketing (with signs disclosing the identity of the primary employer) an independent warehouse which stored goods of the primary employer since the picketing induced employees of a neutral employer not to handle the primary employer's products, an object thereof being to force the neutral employer to cease doing business with the primary employer. See also Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Mercer Storage Co., Inc.) [Mid-County Buick Inc.], 156 NLRB 67; Local No. 810, Steel, Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, etc. (Fein Can Corporation), 131 NLRB 59; and Western States Regional Council No. 3, International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO et al. (Priest Logging Inc.), 137 NLRB 352. 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I, therefore, conclude that the picketing at Auburndale (1) induced and encouraged individuals employed by Auburndale and other secondary employers to cease performing services for their respective employers, and (2) coerced and restrained Auburndale, an object thereof being to force or require Auburndale to cease doing business with Cypress in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Even assuming, arguendo, that common situs' picketing is involved herein, as Respondents appear to assert, I would, nevertheless, also find the picketing violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). For, if the picketing occurred at a common situs, then all the conditions' prescribed in Moore Dry Dock Company (92 NLRB 547) must be observed. It appears, however, that no trucks of Cypress approached or arrived at the premises of Auburndale, nor was it engaged there in its normal business, at any time while the picketing was in progress. Thus, in Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 279 (Wilson Teaming Company), 140 NLRB 164, where the union picketed with signs identifying the primary employer (Wilson; a trucker) at the premises of the secondary employer (Morehouse) after the employees of Wilson left a trailer truck there for the delivery of merchandise, and departed (as was their usual practice), and while the secondary employees began to unload the truck, the Board held that when the primary employer left the premises, his work was complete until the time to haul the empty trailer away, and that under the Moore Dry Dock criteria the primary employer was not engaged in normal business at the site of the secondary employer and his work was not being picketed, but the secondary employer's work of unloading was. The Board, therefore, concluded that the union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) since the union picketed the secondary employer while the primary employer was not engaged in his normal business at Morehouse. A fortiori, in the instant case, Cypress neither made deliveries to nor was engaged in its normal business at Auburndale when the picketing took place. Accordingly, I conclude that even assuming that Auburndale's premises was a common situs, the picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) because it failed to satisfy the Moore Dry Dock criteria. IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of Auburndale, Minute Maid, and Cypress, 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. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in these cases, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Auburndale, Minute Maid, and Cypress are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Auburndale and other secondary employers to cease performing services for their respective employers, with an object of forcing or requiring Auburndale to cease doing business with Cypress, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. 3. By coercing and restraining Auburndale and other secondary employers with an object of forcing or requiring Auburndale to cease doing business with Cypress, Respondents have 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. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain action to effectuate the policies of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in these cases, I recommend that Respondents, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 6991, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing and encouraging any individual employed by Auburndale Freezer Corporation or by any other employer, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to perform any services with an object of forcing or requiring Auburndale Freezer Corporation or any other employer to cease doing business with Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. (b) Threatening, coercing , or restraining Auburndale Freezer Corporation or any other employer , with an object of forcing or requiring Auburndale Freezer Corporation to cease doing business with Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office, meeting halls, and other places where Respondent Local 6991, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, customarily posts notices, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12 shall be posted by the Union, after being duly signed by a representative of each Respondent, immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. 'A common situs is where two or more employers are performing separate tasks on common premises 'They are (1) the picketing is strictly limited to the times when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises, (2) at the times of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the srtus, (3) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the locations of the srtus, and (4) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer "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." UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 6991 797 (b) Furnish to the said Regional Director copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Auburndale Freezer Corporation , if it be willing , at places where it customarily posts notices to its employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent Local 6991, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, has taken to comply herewith. " "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 12, 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 UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND LOCAL 6991 , UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AUBURNDALE FREEZER CORPORATION. with an object of forcing or requiring Auburndale Freezer Corporation or any other employer to cease doing business with Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Auburndale Freezer Corporation, with an object of forcing or requiring Auburndale Freezer Corporation to cease doing business with Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. Dated Dated 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 any individual employed by Auburndale Freezer Corporation or any other employer, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform any services UNITED AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) By (Representative) (Title) By LOCAL 6991, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (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 have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 223-7711.