General Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local Union 563

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Drivers and Dairy Employees , Local Union 563 and Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc. Case 30-CC-105 November 20, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On July 17, 1969, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig '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 Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and brief and '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, cross-exceptions and briefs, and,the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the, findings,' conclusions," and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility resolutions made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) 'We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the true objective of the Respondent's picketing from November 21 until December 5 was to enmesh neutral employers in its primary dispute with C & P In so finding, we rely, in addition to the Trial Examiner's rationale, upon the fact that, throughout this period, the Union picketed exclusively at gate I, the gate reserved for Leach and neutrals serving Leach, while failing to post pickets at gate 2, the entrance reserved for C & P In this connection, we note that the "freight haulers" referred to by the Trial Examiner, were all neutral employers doing business with Leach By -thus confining its picketing to gate I, it is,clear that the Respondent's intention could not have been to appeal to C & P employees who were using gate 2, but, rather, it must have been seeking to force neutral employers, using gate I, to cease doing business with Leach, another neutral employer, so that the latter would cease doing business with C & P 'The Trial Examiner inadvertently omitted from his Recommended Order and the "Appendix" attached thereto any provision to remedy the Respondent's violation of Sec 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act In addition, the Trial Examiner's proposed "Appendix" inadvertently fails to provide the broad language recommended by him in "The Remedy" section of his Decision We shall therefore amend the Order and conform the Appendix ' 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, General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified: 1. The Trial Examiner's Recommended Order is hereby amended by renumbering the first paragraph thereof to read "1, (a)" and by adding the following new paragraph immediately thereunder: "1. (b) Cease and desist from 'threatening, coercing, or restraining Leach Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or requiring it to cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc., with any other member of 'Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc., or with any other employer or, person." 2. The notice is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph thereof and substituting the following: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employee of any supplier or motor freight carrier to refuse to,make any pickup or delivery at Leach Company, or any other employer, with an object of forcing or requiring the employer to cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc, with any other member of Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc., or with any other employer or person. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Leach Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or requiring it to cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc., with • any - other member of Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc., or with any other employer or person TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner. This case was tried at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on June 3, 1969, pursuant to a charge filed on November 29, 1968,' by Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc , herein called the Association, against the Respondent, General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563, herein called the Union, and pursuant to a complaint issued May 7, 1969. The Union engaged in picketing at a common situs, where the primary employer, Courtney & Plummer, Inc , herein called C, & P (a member of the Association), was doing construction work for a neutral employer, All dates, unless otherwise indicated, are in 1968 179 NLRB No. 109 GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION 563 651 Leach Company, herein called Leach The main issue is whether the picketing was for an unlawful secondary objective, of enmeshing neutrals in the Union's dispute with C & P and the Association, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Association, and the Union, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION INVOLVED C & P, a Wisconsin corporation located in Appleton, Wisconsin, is engaged in furnishing building materials to the building and construction industry and also is engaged in building and construction work It annually sells products and furnishes services valued in excess of $1 million to enterprises which are themselves -employers engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce The Union admits, and I find, that C & P is an employer engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Separate Gates C &' P, acting as general contractor and materials supplier, began on November 14 constructing a truck parking lot at the rear of Leach's Oshkosh plant, where Leach manufactures garbage truck bodies and refuse containers. C & P's trucks, which were being used to haul away excavation fill and to return with crushed stone, -were driven through the plant's main entrance (located on Harrison Street Road at the southeast side of the plant), through the east parking lot, and along the north side of the plant to the construction area On November 19, the Union began picketing near the main entrance, using signs, which read on one side, "Employees of Fox , Valley Materials _ Suppliers Association, members of Teamsters Local 563, on strike," and on the other side, "Our only dispute is with Fox Valley Materials Suppliers Association." The Union had no dispute with Leach, but had been on strike against C & P (a member of the Association) since July The Union had engaged in ambulatory picketing at a number of jobsites when C & P trucks, driven by nonstriking and replacement drivers, were making deliveries Soon after the picketing began, C & P established for its own use a separate gate on Harrison Street Road about 460 feet southwest of the main entrance, and constructed a new road from gate, around the south and west sides of the plant property, to the construction site. Thereafter, while work was being performed at the jobsite, it posted reserved gate signs at the two entrances. The sign at the C & P entrance read, "GATE NO 2 This gate reserved exclusively for use of employees & suppliers of COURTNEY & PLUMMER, INC All other persons May Not use this gate." The sign at the main entrance first read GATE NO. 1 This Gate May Not be used by employees & suppliers of COURTNEY & PLUMMER, INC. As discussed hereafter, this sign was later reworded B Picketing After Separate Gates Established Upon posting the reserved gate signs , C & P instructed the employees at the jobsite to use only Gate 2. However, some drivers who were not present at the jobsite at the time continued to use Gate I - despite the sign - until they received the instructions to go past that gate (upon approaching the premises from the northeast) and to use the second gate to-the jobsite Union picket Walter Kautz credibly testified that after the regular drivers "found out what they were supposed to-do, they all came in Gate 2 " That afternoon, the Union stopped picketing early, and resumed the picketing the next morning at Gate 2 The next day, November 20, some new drivers - not having received instructions to use, the second gate - entered through Gate 1, past the reserved gate sign (The number of times this occurred is-not clear Picket Kautz was the only witness who observed all the picketing. He did not keep any written notes, and he was evidently confused concerning dates - recalling the picketing to have begun on November 18, a day before other witnesses credibly testified it began ) The General Counsel did not offer any explanation for the new drivers failing to respect the reserved gate sign at Gate 1 No photograph of the sign was offered in evidence, and.no description was given of the size of either the. sign or the r printing on it However, the wording on the sign-is quoted in an exhibit with "COURTNEY & PLUMMER, INC " written in all capital letters, as heretofore indicated. Evidently -the, new drivers, as well as some of the regular drivers the day before, were confused by the prominence of the name on the sign. Upon being informed by Kautz that C & P trucks were still going through the main entrance, the Union instructed Kautz to picket.again at Gate 1. 1 The next morning, Thursday, November 21, the picketing resumed at the main entrance to the Leach plant. Sometime during the day, Leach Traffic Manager George Brennan walked out to the pickets' car, and (in Brennan's words), "I asked them why they were picketing the main gate, instead of the Courtney & Plummer gate. They replied that it was because of the Courtney & Plummer sign sitting at the driveway " Brennan reported this conversation to Leach's president, and suggested that the sign be replaced with a "Leach sign." Leach and C & P representatives met the following day and discussed the "wrong" sign, bearing Courtney & Plummer's name. The sign was then changed, as, suggested by Leach's. president and C & P's counsel, by deleting the contractor's name, in order that "people approaching the sign would not think that this was for Courtney & Plummer people." The new sign read GATE NO I This gate, may only be used by employees, job applicants and,suppliers of LEACH COMPANY All other persons use Gate No 2 Also on November 21, C & P formally notified the Union and the pickets, by letters delivered to them, that separate gates had been established, that the signs (as originally worded) had been posted, and that all "contractors and suppliers" had been ,so advised The letter requested 652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD immediate notice of any violations of the separate gates (but, I note, made no mention of new drivers being notified to use only Gate 2). The following day, November 22, when picketing continued at Gate I, C & P wrote the Union a second letter, delivered Monday, November 25, advising the Union of the change in the wording of the Gate I sign, complaining about the pickets appealing to and turning away suppliers, and requesting the Union to instruct the pickets to refrain from such appeals and to inform suppliers that the Union would take no detrimental action against them for delivering to Leach. The letter also requested the Union to inform C & P immediately of "information relating to the violation of either of the gates " The record is not clear whether some of C.& P's new drivers entered Gate I on Thursday, November 21, when the'Union resumed picketing there (This was the third day of picketing, and picket Kautz testified that on the third day - which he recalled as Wednesday --- there were "two of them that went through." However, he also testified that on Thursday - which he recalled as the fourth day of picketing -- C & P "had pretty much the same trucks," implying that there were no new drivers that day I also note that November 20 was the last day C & P hired a competitor's trucks, with drivers, to assist on the project The evidence does not reveal if any of these drivers had entered Gate I ) No C & P trucks entered Gate-1 on November 22, the date the sign was changed However despite this fact, and the fact that the Union was formally advised on November 25 that the Gate I sign had been reworded, the picketing continued near Gate I on November 25, 26, 27 and 29, and December 2, 3, 4, and 5, when the job was completed There was no picketing at Gate 2 at any time after November 20, even though a large number of C & P trucks was entering there daily. On November 29, the day after Thanksgiving when C & P was working on the site but Leach was closed, the Union picketed for a while at Gate I - at a closed plant - rather than at Gate 2, where C & P trucks were entering Picket Kautz admitted that no C & P trucks entered Gate I after November 21, except on December 4 (when some C & P engineering department employees tried to enter through that gate as the job was being completed, and all or all but one were turned back by the Leach guards before reaching the jobsite - this occurring after continued picketing of the neutral gate for nearly 2 weeks) Apart from the conflicting evidence concerning the pickets' appeals to truckdrivers of neutral employers not to cross the picket line at Gate 1, picket Kautz gave some revealing testimony concerning the Union's motive in picketing at the neutral gate He testified that he would park on the shoulder of the road about 15 to 20 feet southwest of Gate • 1, and would place one picket sign on the back window of his car and another sign against the front bumper Answering questions by the General Counsel, he testified that when motor freight trucks would approach Gate l (from the southwest), "I would get out [of my car] and take our picket sign . . I would go in front of the gate . . And the trucks would stop, freight haulers They would ask me what the trouble was, and I'd tell them [that] Courtney & Plummer is in here and they belong to the Fox Valley Association, and the drivers would not cross ' . After the truck was gone, I'd .get in the car and sit down." He later testified, when called as a defense witness Q Now, was there any reason, any other reason that you selected that particular spot to normally park you car9 'A I thought I had a better chance to stop the trucks from going in there, freight haulers and stuff Concerning his conversation with one motor freight driver at Gate I, Kautz testified that a Motor Express driver gave him "a little rough time" "He asked me if that was legal picketing there And I says, `I don't know, but I was told to be here And if you want to find out anything else, you either call Local 563, or see your business agent.' The next day, he came back and he apologized and he says he called his business agent and he told him to stay out if there was a picket sign " No motor freight trucks entered Gate I when the Union was picketing at that gate. Concerning the allegation in the complaint that the Union picketed at Gate l at times when no C & P employees were present at the construction site, the General Counsel and C & P rely on the testimony of one of General Counsel's witnesses, Leach Traffic Manager George Brennan, who testified that the union pickets were at Gate I until 4 30 p m on November 25, 26, 27, and December 2 and 3, although C & P quit working at 3 p m. on those days However this testimony is disputed in part by the testimony of another General 'Counsel, C & P Construction Engineer Daniel H Howman, who admitted that the pickets left about 3 p m. on November 25, about 3 40 p m. on November 26, and about 3 15 p m. on November 27 1 discredit Brennan's testimony about the length of time the pickets remained at Gate I daily, and credit picket Kautz' testimony that he took down the picket signs when C & P removed the reserved gate signs, and left in his car when all the C & P employees were gone Concerning the General Counsel's contention that Kautz' car was used as a signal to neutrals, there is no evidence in this record to support the assertion Gate 2 was near the Leach employees' credit union building During the picketing, some of these employees entered Gate 2 when going to the credit union C Concluding Findings When C & P posted the reserved gate signs on the neutral Gate I and the primary Gate 2, it did not take adequate steps to avoid violations of the reserved gates It gave instructions to the drivers already at the jobsite to use only Gate 2, but did not notify its other regular drivers and its new drivers before they reached the jobsite As a result, on the first 2 or 3 days of picketing (November 19-21), some of the construction drivers entered Gate I instead of Gate 2 to reach the construction site - after the reserved gates had been established (The evidence does not disclose when the primary employer, Leach, instructed its guards to begin turning back C & P drivers entering Gate 1') Meanwhile, C & P waited until the third day of picketing to notify the Union in writing about the arrangement for separate gates, and then did not mention any steps being taken to eliminate violations by new drivers who had been entering the jobsite through the neutral gate on their first trip to the jobsite Finally, at the suggestion of Leach's president and C & P's counsel, C & P changed the wording on the Gate 1 sign - deleting the name, "COURTNEY & PLUMMER, INC ," to, eliminate the confusion to truckdrivers approaching the Leach plant - and so notified the Union in writing on Monday, November 25 On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 19, when C & P's uninstructed, regular drivers were still going through Gate I until notified on the jobsite to start using Gate 2, GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION 563 653 the Union continued to picket near Gate I The next day, Wednesday, the Union picketed at the gate reserved for C & P's drivers, and did not picket at Gate 1 However, while picketing at Gate 2, the pickets observed new drivers violating the reserved gates and entering the jobsite through Gate I The next day, November 21, the pickets returned to Gate 1, and complained to a Leach representative about "the Courtney & Plummer sign sitting at the driveway " However, the Union no longer picketed at Gate 2, where a large number of C & P trucks were entering daily, and continued picketing at Gate I - even after receiving formal notice of the changed sign on November 25, and after the violations had ceased. In the meantime, on_ and after November 21, the Union picketed near Gate' 1, and specially appealed to the drivers of neutral motor freight haulers not to enter. The picket or pickets would sit in their car until a motor freight truck would approach Then the pickets would get out of the car and start carrying the picket signs in front of the gate. The motor freight driver would stop and ask about the picketing The picket would advise him that C & P was working inside, and that C & P belongs to the Association (whose members the Union had been striking for months), - thereby inducing the freight hauler not to enter. "After the truck had gone, I'd get in the car and sit down " Union picket Kautz further admitted that he was picketing near Gate I because "I thought I had a better chance to stop the trucks from going in there, freight haulers and stuff " As also demonstrated by the pickets' failure to picket at Gate 2 after November 20, and by the Union picketing on the morning of November 29 at the closed Leach plant rather than at Gate 2 where C & P trucks were entering, the Union was appealing to the drivers of the neutral truck lines to honor the picket line, rather than appealing to C & P's nonstriking and replacement drivers No motor freight drivers entered the Leach premises while the Union was picketing Gate I The General Counsel contends that when the Union resumed picketing at the neutral Gate I on November 21, it failed to comply with one of the standards set forth in the Moore Dry Dock case, Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Co ), 92 NLRB 547, 549, that the picketing be "limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs " However, under the circumstances of this case, I find that during the first 4 days of picketing, "the method and manner in which the primary entrance was designated was not such as to warrant circumscribing the area of permissible common situs picketing." International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 640, AFL-CIO (Timber Buildings, Inc ), 176 NLRB No 17 (1969), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 441, AFL-CIO (Suburban Development Co ), 158 NLRB 549 (1966) C & P, the primary employer, permitted the reserved neutral gate to be violated repeatedly by failing to instruct all its drivers which gate to use before they arrived at the jobsite, and posted a sign which was apparently misleading or confusing to drivers approaching the Leach premises In its brief, C & P argues that even if the Union pickets had remained at Gate 2, the asserted violations "would not have substantially prejudiced the Union," in view of the limited number of violations when compared to the hundreds of C & P truck crossings at Gate 2, and in view of the fact that the violations would occur only on the drivers' first trips to the jobsite. I find. though, that when the Union honored the reserved signs, moved the picketing to the primary gate, and then observed the violations continuing, it had no way of knowing how long or how frequently the violations would be permitted , and it had the right to make its legitimate , direct appeal to the C & P drivers on their first trip to the jobsite The primary employer failed to provide reasonable assurances to the Union at the time that the reserved gates would be honored by the employer 's own drivers By Monday , November 25, the situation had changed C & P had changed the reserved gate sign at the primary gate, it had given written notice to the Union of the change , and the violations by its own drivers had ceased for at least one workday I therefore find that by picketing at Gate I on November 25 and thereafter, rather than picketing at the reserved primary gate, the Union failed to comply with the Moore Dry Dock requirement that it picket reasonably close to the situs of its dispute with C & P, and violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) of the Act -(Although some of Leach ' s employees used the primary Gate 2 when going to the nearby credit union building, that fact did not justify the Union appealing to other neutral employees by continuing to picket at neutral Gate I ) Moreover, apart from the Moore Dry Dock standards, there was evidence disclosing that the true objective of the picketing was the unlawful enmeshment of neutrals from November 21 until December 5, as alleged in the complaint The only times the pickets carried the picket signs and patrolled at the entrance to the Leach plant were when motor freight trucks ' approached Although the picket signs clearly disclosed that the dispute was with the primary employer, the pickets was specially appealing to the motor freight drivers not to cross the picket line - while not even picketing at the primary gate and Union picket Kautz admitted picketing at the neutral gate because he thought he had a "better chance" there of stopping the "freight haulers" from entering . I therefore find that the picketing at Gate I had the purpose and effect of inducing employees of neutral motor freight carriers to refuse to deliver and pick up freight at the Leach plant , and coercing Leach, for an object of forcing Leach to cease doing business with C & P. Accordingly, I find that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B) of the Act from November 21 through December 5. In its brief, the Union argues that "the Union had no legal obligation to comply with the so-called reserved gates system as a matter of law "; that Building and Construction Trades Council of New Orleans, AFL-CIO (Markwell and Hartz, Inc ), 155 NLRB 319, enfd 387 F.2d 402 (C A 5), was erroneously decided, and that the Act "does not authorize the Board to make one rule with respect to the scope of the right to strike for factory workers and another, far more restrictive rule [the Moore Dry Dock standards ] for building trades or truckdrivers " However, even if the principles expressed in the General Electric case, Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (General Electric Co ) v N L R B., 366 U S. 667, were applicable here instead of the Moore Dry Dock standards, neither the operation of the Leach plant nor the motor freight deliveries and pickups at the Leach plant would be related to C & P's construction of the new truck parking lot, and picketing at the neutral gate reserved for Leach and its suppliers would still be for a proscribed secondary object CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By picketing from November 21 through December 5 at the Leach plant entrance with an object of forcing 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Leach to cease doing business with C & P, the Union engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) and Section 2(6),and (7)'of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct, and to take affirmative action, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effect of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of-the Act . Because of the Union's earlier violations of the secondary boycott provisions in the Act, as found by the Board in General Teamster, Warehouse and Dairy Employees, Local No 126 (Courtney & Plummer, Inc ), 175 NLRB No 86, and General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union 563, et al (Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc ), 176 NLRB No 51, 1 shall recommend the issuance of a broad order Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and on the entire record, I recommend pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following. ORDER Respondent, General Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563, its officers; agents, representatives, and successors, shall. 1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any employee of any supplier or motor freight carrier to refuse to make any pickup or delivery at Leach Company, or any other employer, with an object of forcing or requiring the employer to cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc , with any other member of Fox Valley Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc , or with any other employer or person. In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "This Notice is Posted by Order" shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to 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 the United States Court of Appeals, there shall be added after the words "An Agency of the United States Government" the words "as Enforced by the United States Court of Appeals " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " , 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's offices, meeting halls, and all other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Upon request of the Regional Director, the Respondents shall supply him with a sufficient number of signed copies for posting by Leach Company and by Courtney & Plummer, Inc , at all locations where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted, if they desire to do so (b) Notify the Regional Director of Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith ' IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS Pursuant to the Recommended Order ,of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board an Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket at any plant gate which is reserved for employees and suppliers of Leach Company or any other employer, with a purpose of stopping freight haulers from entering the plant in order to force the employer to quit doing business with Courtney & Plummer or any other company. GENERAL DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION 563 (Labor Organization) Dated By (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. Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to the Board's Regional Office, Second Floor Commerce Building, 744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-272-3861.