General Truck Drivers Local 315

56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers & Automobile Employees Union Local 315, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers of America and Insured Trans- porters, Inc. Cases 20-CC-1094-1 and 20-CC-1094-2 January 25, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On July 21, 1971, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. There- after, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein. doing business with International, or to force or require Pacific Intermountain Express (P.I.E.), I.M.L., Gar- rett, Consolidated Freightways, Gilmore Steel, Fox- worthy, Shell Oil, or any other employer to cease doing business with Insured to force or require Insured to cease doing business with International." 2. Delete paragraph 1(b) and substitute therefor the following: "Threatening, coercing, or restraining Insured, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an indus- try affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require Insured, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with International, or to force or require Pacific Intermountain Express (P.I.E.), I.M.L., Garrett, Consolidated Freightways, Gilmore Steel, Foxworthy, Shell Oil, or any other em- ployer to cease doing business with Insured to force or require Insured to cease doing business with Interna- tional." 3. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Ex- aminer's notice. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby or- ders that General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers & Automotive Employees Union Local 315, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its officers, agents, representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order with the fol- lowing modifications: 1. Delete paragraph 1(a) and substitute therefor the following: "Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the em- ployees of Insured, or any other employer, except In- ternational, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Insured, or any other employer or person, to cease ' Counsel for General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's inadver- tent failure to specify in his recommended Order the neutral employers which were forced by Respondent 's picketing to cease doing business with Insured Inasmuch as we find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions, we hereby amend the Order accordingly WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any in- dividual employed by Insured Transporters, Inc., or any other employer, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require Insured Transporters, Inc., or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with International Harvester Company, or to force or require Pacific Intermountain Express (P.I.E.), I.M.L., Garrett, Consolidated Freightways, Gil- more Steel, Foxworthy, Shell Oil, or any other employer to cease doing business with Insured to force or require Insured to cease doing business with International. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain In- sured Transporters, Inc., or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require Insured Transporters, Inc., or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with International Harvester Company, or to force or require Pacific Intermountain Express (P.I.E.), I.M.L., Garrett, Consolidated Freightways, Gil- more Steel, Foxworthy, Shell Oil, or any other employer to cease doing business with Insured to force or require Insured to cease doing business with International. 195 NLRB No. 8 GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 315 GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, HELPERS & AUTOMOTIVE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 315, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, P. O. Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding was heard before me in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 1971, on the complaint of General Counsel, as amended, and the answer of General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Help- ers & Automotive Employees Union Local 315, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein referred to as Respondent.' The complaint alleges violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) effecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, (61 Stat. 136; 65 Stat. 601; 73 Stat. 519; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. The parties waived oral argument and briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered.' Upon the entire record,' and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: A charge was filed on February 17, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B), and a separate charge was filed, on the same date, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), of the Act A consolidated complaint was issued on March 5, and amended at the opening of the hearing herein All dates herein, unless otherwise specified, are 1971. Respondent filed a statement of authorities in letter form The transcript is corrected at p 43, 1 14, to read "Del Webb's Towne- house " FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS 57 Insured Transporters, Inc., herein referred to as Insured, is a California corporation, with a place of business in San Leandro, California.4 Insured is a licensee, under grants by the Interstate Commerce Commission, engaged in business as a common carrier of freight by motor truck, and more specifi- cally engaged in the transportation and delivery of motor trucks. During the year preceding the issuance of the com- plaint, a representative period, Insured received in excess of $50,000 for the transportation of freight in interstate com- merce, from its facilities in California to points outside the State of California. International Harvester Company, herein referred to as International, is a New Jersey corporation, with a place of business in San Leandro, California, where it has been en- gaged in the manufacture and sale of motor trucks. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, a represent- ative period, in the course and conduct of its business opera- tions, International sold and shipped, from its facilities in the State of California, products valued in excess of $50,000, directly to purchasers located outside the State of California. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Insured and International are, each, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II RESPONDENT IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges , the answer admits, and I find that Respondent, at all times material , is and has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Issues The principal issues raised by the pleadings and litigated at the hearing are whether the Respondent engaged in conduct in contravention of the provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) by picketing Insured's San Leandro facility, on Febru- ary 2, or on February 12, and continuing until February 22. Respondent, by answer, admits picketing Insured's facility, but denies that its alleged object was to force or require Insured to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in International's products or to force or require Insured to cease doing business with International. Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practice. Agency The complaint alleges and the answer admits that Vincent Aliose is a business representative of Respondent. The agency of Aliose, alleged in the complaint, is denied For reasons explicated infra, I find that Aliose, who by his own admission is business agent of Respondent, was acting as an agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act relative to the matters complained of, and that the pickets' activity set forth in the complaint was authorized by and pursuant to the direction of Aliose. Accordingly, said pickets were agents of said Re- spondent. ' While the evidence herein establishes that Insured has other facilities, we are herein concerned only with its facility in San Leandro 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Background The San Leandro facility of Insured is located at 1944 Williams Street, where it has its principal office, and truck dispatch terminal. The property approximates eight acres of land, and has a depth from Williams Street of approximately 1,500 feet, in the direction of Davis Street . Davis Street runs parallel approximately 4,500 feet from Williams Street. International operates a truck assembly plant on Davis Street, in San Leandro, described as being approximately 1,000 feet wide, and between 2,500 to 3,000 feet deep.' There are three entrances to the International plant on Davis Street, two for employees and one for materials. Lawrence Berry is executive vice president of Insured. He described his corporation as being wholly owned by his family, who own no stock in International . Berry described Insured's operation, in San Leandro, as including a terminal for the combining of trucks built by International , Mack and Peterbilt for 3-way or 4-way combinations , for delivery to customers. The Mack plant is located in Hayward , which is adjacent to San Leandro, while the Peterbilt plant is located at Newark, which is 14 miles south . The present operations of Insured have remained the same since its commencement, in 1963. At the rear of the International property, adjacent to the rear of Insured's property, there is a gate, not visible from either Williams or Davis Street, which is normally locked on both sides. This gate was not used by International em- ployees, prior to the events related herein . However, this gate is normally opened twice each business day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon, to permit Insured's truck- driver employees to drive International's trucks over into Insured's property, preparatory to coupling them with other trucks for delivery to customers both in and out of the State of California.b Jnsured's truckdriver employees, and a classification iden- tified as yard employees , are represented by Teamsters Local 468. The yard employees do the "decking" of trucks, and loading of railroad cars. "Decking", as described by Berry, is preparing a "piggyback" or "saddle", placing one unit on the back of another unit, requiring special equipment . The yard employees also park trucks and fuel them. Vince Aliose is business agent for Respondent, and related that he was chief negotiator during the negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement , covering the employees in the parts depot at International 's facility in Richmond. It appears undisputed that, as a result of these negotiations, a strike began on January 29, and terminated, after conclusion of an agreement, on April 14. During the strike, the San Leandro facility of International was picketed . The P and M employees of International , at San Leandro, are represented by U.A.W. The Picketing of Insured's Facility and Related Events On Tuesday, February 2, Berry was in his office. He credi- bly related that, about 11 a.m., he observed two men carrying picket signs, entering Insured's property, through a fence, which separates a parking lot for Insured employees, facing ' We are not herein concerned with the fact that a part of the frontage of International is on Timothy Street rather than on Davis Street ° Leadman Reece of Insured and an International employee unlock the gate, on each side, at a predetermined time Reece then drives a pickup truck to the International plant, signs for the trucks to be transferred, returns to Insured's premises and obtains the number of drivers needed to complete the transfer, and transports them to the delivery area of International. on Williams Street from Insured's yard and buildings.' Charles Norris, dispatcher for Insured, reported the pickets intended to place themselves at the International gate. Norris advised them this was private property. The pickets then returned to the Williams Street entrance of Insured, and proceeded to picket. Pursuant to a phone call, initiated by Berry, Manny Joseph and Tom Kennedy, secretary-treasurer and business repre- sentative, respectively, of Local 468, arrived at Insured's premises at 11:30 a.m. The pickets and representatives of Local 468 then met with Berry and Norris. Joseph then con- ferred, by telephone, with Aliose. Joseph advised Berry that Aliose had stated that if Berry continued to receive units from International they would have 15 men on the picket line in front of Insured's place of business.' Aliose identified the picket captain as Dale Hagger . Aliose acknowledged that Hagger, on February 2, had advised Ali- ose that he had talked to Manny Joseph and Berry, and that Insured had agreed they would keep the International gate closed. Aliose acknowledged advising Hagger, "If that was the agreement, if they closed the gates, to get out." Accord- ingly, I find Hagger to be an agent of Respondent. It is undisputed that the picketing ceased, on February 2, at 1 p.m.' It appears undisputed that no International trucks were moved from the San Leandro facility of International to the San Leandro facility of Insured during the balance of the week, which commenced on February 1. On Monday, Febru- ary 8, Berry advised Joseph that Insured was running out of business and that he would have to start laying off some of his Teamsters represented employees. Joseph suggested a meeting with Aliose. Berry related he and Harry Cordall, labor relations manager for Insured, met with Aliose at Del Webb's Townehouse on Tuesday, February 9. Berry advised Aliose that Berry would have to start laying men off as he was not obtaining the essential units to continue his normal opera- tions. According to Berry, Aliose responded that if there were no International employees on Insured property, Respondent could not picket Insured. Berry responded that at no time were International employees on Insured's property, that In- sured picked up the units from International. Aliose then advised Berry, "We don't want that. We don't want any Teamsters on their property." Berry then inquired as to what method could be used to have the units brought to Insured's property. Aliose advised Berry, "Well, they can bring them in, but your men cannot pick them up." Berry then inquired as to when this might be done and was advised by Aliose to wait until Thursday.10 ' It is undisputed that the legend on the signs read: International Harvester On Strike Unfair Teamsters Local 315 Contra Costa County ° Aliose acknowledged that the purpose of placing the pickets at the Williams Street entrance to Insured's property, on February 2, was to stop delivery of International trucks, and that he had so advised Berry, at a meeting on February 9 I find it unnecessary to set forth instructions issued to Reece, leadman for Insured, in the presence of the two pickets, at lunch time, on February 2. Reece acknowledged that he is shop steward, as well as leadman Reece asserted Joseph instructed him, and the others present not to go through the gate to International property In view of the Respondent's contention that there is no evidence that Joseph had authority to act for Respondent, I find it unnecessary to reach that issue '° Aliose acknowledged having a meeting with Berry at Del Webb's Townehouse Aliose denied that any specific day was mentioned for the delivery of International trucks to Insured's property Aliose asserted he (Cont) GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 315 59 Pursuant to his conversation with Alfose, Berry talked to Bill Smith , plant manager of International , on February 9, and arranged for the U.A.W. represented employees of Inter- national to deliver trucks to Insured's property, through the gate, on Thursday night." Approximately 75 units were so delivered at that time. Previously, an average normal daily delivery approximated 20 units. The following day, Friday, February 12, picketing identical to that described above was resumed in front of Insured's property on Williams Street. There were five pickets that day. It is undisputed that picket- ing continued until Monday, February 22.12 At the request of Berry, Joseph arranged a meeting with Aliose, in Oakland" at 5 p.m. Berry related that he called the attention of Aliose to the fact that picketing had been resumed. Berry quoted Aliose and explaining that they were having problems with the rank and file who were not follow- ing requests made by the union officials. Aliose asserted they would have a meeting on Sunday, February 14, and he would attempt to get it resolved. When Berry inquired as to what would happen if Aliose did not get it resolved, Aliose advised Berry that Berry would have to do his own thing. Aliose's explanation of the restoration of the picketing of Insured was that one of Respondent's roving pickets advised that there was a lot of International tractors in Insured's yard. Aliose asserted that he immediately informed the picket captain, "To get down there and start picketing." Aliose asserted he did not know how the tractors (trucks) had been moved from International to Insured's property.'4 On Tuesday, February 16, Insured filed the unfair labor practice charges herein. According to Berry, the picketing ceased on February 22, as a result of an arrangement through Joseph, with either the Western Conference of Teamsters or directly with Local 315, that the pickets would be removed with the stipulation that Insured's drivers would not pick up the units on Interna- tional's property for transfer to Insured's property, as had been the custom in the past. This condition continued until the termination of the strike, on approximately April 22, when normal conditions were restored. Jack Wigholm is safety and personnel director of Insured. Wigholm credibly related that common carriers, whom he identified as PIE, Sterling, IML, Garrett, and Consolidated Freightways, who deliver saddle equipment and supplies, Gil- more Steel who deliver steel supplies, Foxworthy who deliver automotive parts, and Shell Oil who deliver fuel oil, did not make deliveries during the period when pickets were present from February 12 to February 22. Wigholm related that gen- erally the trucks of these firms turned away instead of going through the picket line to make delivery. advised Berry, "You try and get it done when there are no pickets there " Since it is undisputed that there were no pickets at Insured 's property between February 2 and February 12, Aliose's memory is patently faulty I do not find him a credible witness to the extent his testimony is at variance with that of Berryy. " Roger Bartholow, industrial relations manager at Harvester, cor- roborated this recitation of Berry " An additional 50 trucks were transferred in the same manner, on Thursday, February 18 " While Berry described others present as Cordall , Insured's labor rela- tions manager , and Jackson , Insured 's vice president of operations , neither appeared as a witness 1° The denial of Alfose that he had been advised by Berry that the trucks would be moved by the U A W employees of International is not credited Ahose's explanation of the inability of the union officials to get the rank and file to follow their suggestions was that they were not showing up for picket duty Berry asserted that Manny Joseph advised him, on Febru- ary 22 or February 23, "The pickets are gone. They are going to stay gone. We do not want any of our men on Interna- tional's property as long as they are on strike."" I find that Joseph was acting as an agent of Respondent in issuing these instructions, in view of the testimony of Aliose as to an object of Respondent in picketing Insured. Bartholow credibly related that Harvester employees deliv- ered the trucks, to Insured, through the gate, twice a day, commencing February 22 and continuing until the termina- tion of the strike on April 13. Berry asserted that Insured had to wait until there were no pickets before the drivers would move International trucks away from Insured's premises. He described waiting until 4 a.m., on one occasion." Contentions of the Parties and Concluding Findings The assertion of Respondent , in its brief, that picketing at Harvester's San Leandro plant is primary and lawful , and the fact that such picketing may result in neutral employees not crossing a picket line and thus cause business interruptions, is not relevant to the issues presented herein. The reliance, of Respondent, on Auburndale Freezer" is misplaced. After vacation of its Order, by the Circuit Court," the Board accepted the Court's remand and adopted the trial examiner's findings of violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. United Steelworkers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO, and Local 6991, (Auburndale Freezer Corporation), 191 NLRB No. 3 (June 9, 1971). The initial question to be resolved is whether the picketing herein was primary or secondary. I find it was secondary. General Counsel accurately cites the finding of the Su- preme Court that Congressional policy was to preserve the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in contro- versies not their own. N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building Trades Council (Gould and Preisser), 341 U.S. 675, 692. The Supreme Court, in the same case, held: At the same time that Sections 7 and 13 safeguard collective bargaining, concerted activities and strikes between the primary parties to a labor dispute, Section 8(b)(4) restricts a labor organiza- tion and its agents in the use of economic pressure where an object of it is to force an employer or a person to boycott some one else. Id., at 687. In the General Electric case" the Court approved the Board's distinction between a gate used by independent work- ers performing tasks unconnected to the normal operation of the struck employer, usually construction work on buildings, and a separate gate devised for regular plant deliveries. The Court noted a barring of picketing at the latter location would be a clear invasion on traditional primary activity of appeal- " Leadman Reece related that he was advised by Manny Joseph not to enter International's property, through the gate to pick up trucks during the strike Reece was also the Union's shop steward 16 However, this condition existed only when Insured sought to move International trucks " United Steelworkers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO and Local 6991 (Auburn- dale Freezer Corporation), 177 NLRB No 108 " Auburndale Freezer Corporation and Minute Maid Company v NL R.B., 434 F 2d 1219 (C A 5) (December 3, 1970) " Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, (General Electric Company) v N.L.R.B, 366 US 667, 680-681 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing to neutral employees whose tasks aid the employer's ev- eryday operations. In the Carrier case20 the picketing was at a railroad en- trance to the plant, owned by the railroad but adjacent to the struck employer's premises, and used exclusively by railroad personnel for deliveries to Carrier and three other independ- ent and unrelated manufacturers. This gate was used to deliver empty boxcars to Carrier, and for the pick up of loaded boxcars from Carrier. The Court found the railroad's operations for Carrier were in furtherance of Carrier's normal business. The Court found the picketing employees made no attempt to interfere with any of the railroad's operations for plants other than Carrier. The Court held the picketing was designed to accomplish no more than picketing outside one of Carrier's own delivery entrances might have accomplished. (Id. at 499-500.) It is patent from these and numerous other decisions of the Board and courts that the Union herein would not be violat- ing the proscriptions of Section 8(b)(4) in picketing any gate which afforded access to the San Leandro plant of Interna- tional, used either by the employees of that plant or neutral employees whose tasks aid International's everyday opera- tions. The movement of the plant product, trucks, from Inter- national's property, must fall within the latter category. The gate used for such transfer of the trucks was on private prop- erty, used only by Insured and its employees, and inaccessible to others, including Union pickets. I find unnecessary consideration of whether the Union had a right, by persuasion, to appeal to the employees of Insured not to remove the trucks from the property of International, through the common gate, to the property of Insured. The undisputed fact is that the employees of Insured did not move the trucks, through the common gate, from the outset of the strike, February 2, until after termination of the strike, on April 13.21 Thus, unlike Carrier, we are not here concerned with movement of the trucks from the property of the pri- mary employer. Respondent, while disclaiming responsibility, did not take issue with the recitation of Reece that Joseph instructed him, and other Insured drivers, on February 2, not to go through the gate. Aliose admitted his pickets had advised him the gate would be locked. I have found that Aliose acknowledged an object of the picketing was to prevent the movement of International trucks. Aliose ordered the picketing resumed, on February 12, when he was advised, by a roving picket, that there were 75 International trucks on Insured's property. This picketing continued until February 22, and as I have found, supra, resulted in a failure and refusal of driver employees of neutral firms to make deliveries to Insured of supplies needed by this neutral employer in the conduct of its business. The picketing also caused a failure or refusal of Insured's drivers to under- take their normal duties of delivering International trucks, from the property of Insured to numerous customers within and without the State of California, when pickets were present. The evidence establishes an object of the picketing was to force or require Insured to cease handling, transport- ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of International. I find the conduct of Respondent, set forth supra, constituted threats, coercion and restraint of Insured. The remaining question is the applicability of the proviso to this section." It is undisputed that no International employee, normally, performed any function on the property of Insured, or had any occasion to be on the property of Insured. Normally, International employees did not enter the property of In- sured, particularly not through the gate which was adjacent to the property of both firms. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the picketing was related, in time, to the move- ment of trucks from International property to Insured prop- erty. In fact, there was no picketing, on February 11, when 75 trucks were moved late at night, giving rise to a restoration of picketing on February 12. Except for a delivery of some 50 trucks late on the night of February 18, at which time it is reasonable to infer there was no picketing, no International employees were on the property of Insured during the entire period of picketing from February 12 to and including Febru- ary 22. It follows that an object of the picketing was to prevent the movement of International trucks from the prop- erty of the secondary employer, not the primary employer. I so find. In the Auburndale Freezer case, supra, the Court said, inter alias "We hold that the real, indeed the only substantial, object for the picketing at Auburndale, by means of a picket line away from the true situs of the controversy, was to shut down operations at a frozen food storage warehouse in which the stored products of the primary employer then constituted only 5% of the total capacity of the facility and could never have exceeded ten percent. Inescapably, the purpose was to halt the operations of other employers who were entitled to use not less than 90% of the space and who were total stran- gers to the whole controversy ... " The picketing was prohib- ited by the plain terms of the statute. Id., at 1222. The Supreme Court has held that the words "induce or encourage" are broad enough to include in them every form of influence and persuasion. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501, et al. (Samuel Langer) v. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694. While Insured was engaged in the fulfillment of an agree- ment to deliver the trucks produced by International, as well as Mack and Peterbilt, it was an independent contractor and a neutral in the dispute between Respondent and Interna- tional. I have found, supra, the activities of Insured, which were picketed, were not day to day activities of International, but were the activities of a neutral employer engaged in com- merce and in an industry affecting commerce. Accordingly, I find the picketing herein complained of was secondary, not primary.23 Having found that: Respondent has induced and en- couraged individuals employed by neutral employers, en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to fail or refuse, in the course of their employment, to transport, deliver, or otherwise handle commodities and to perform services, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i); that In- sured, a person engaged in commerce, was threatened, re- strained and coerced by Respondent, within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii); that an object of the said conduct in each and every such instance, was to force or require Insured to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of International, a producer or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with International, within the meaning " United Steelworkers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO, [Carrier Corp ] v NLRB, 376 U S 492 31 Respondent did not dispute the recitation of Berry that the pickets were removed, on February 22, as the result of a stipulation that Insured's drivers would not pick up units on International 's property " I e , "Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing " " Compare National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, et al (Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association), 152 NLRB 1447 GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 315 of Subsection (B) of said Section; I find the described conduct of Respondent was violative of the provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Insured set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial 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 thereof. V THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent, General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers & Automotive Employees Union Local 315, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, has en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers & Automotive Employees Union Local 315, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Insured Transporters, Inc., and International Harvester Company are each employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By the conduct set forth in section III, supra, Respond- ent has induced and encouraged individuals employed by Insured, and by other employers, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their employer, and has restrained and coerced Insured, with an object," in each instance, of forcing or requiring In- sured to cease doing business with International , and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER24 General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers & Au- tomotive Employees Union Local 315, International Brother- " In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein 61 hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its officers , agents, representatives , successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of Insured, or the other employer, except International, to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require Insured, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with International. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Insured, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require Insured, or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with International. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office and meeting hall, and at all other places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked Appen- dix." Copies of said notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of the Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail, to the Regional Director for Region 20, sufficient copies of said notice for posting by Insured Trans- porters, Inc., at all locations where notices to the employees, of said Employer, are customarily posted, if said Employer is willing so to do. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Deci- sion, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.26 It is further recommended that unless, on or before 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, Respondent shall notify said Regional Director, that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Re- spondent to take the aforesaid action. shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes " In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " " In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith "