Truck Drivers Local 649, Teamsters

580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Truck Drivers Local 649, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc. Cases 3-CC-797 and 3-CP-219 May 13, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On December 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge John G. Gregg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings and conclusions 1 of the Administrative Law Judge as modified herein. The General Counsel has excepted to the Adminis- trative Law Judge's failure to find that Respondent's picketing violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, as well as Section 8(b)(4)(B). We find merit in this exception. According to the credited testimony of Bell, vice president and general manager of one of the neutral employers picketed by Respondent, Wayne Wood- head, a business representative of Respondent, accused him of violating his contract by renting a "nonunion" truck, or renting a mixer from a "nonunion" operator, and said that Respondent was in the process of trying to get a contract with Forest Rowan. In addition, Harvey, another business agent for Respondent, told Hall, another neutral contrac- tor, that Hall would be picketed if he bought concrete from Forest Rowan, but he could buy concrete from either of two union concrete compa- nies in the area without having any problems. These statements by admitted agents of Respondent as to the nature of its dispute with Forest Rowan were never disavowed by Respondent. We find that these statements clearly reveal that an object of the picketing herein was to force or require Forest i No exceptions were filed to the Administrative Law Judge 's finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(i ) and (uXB) of the Act. However, in adopting those findings we do not adopt or pass on his rationale for distinguishing this case from International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc), 135 NLRB 250 2 The Building and Construction Trades Council of Philadelphia and Vicinity (Samuel E. Long, Inc.), 201 NLRB 321. Member Jenkins, to support the 8(b)(7)(C) violation, does not rely on Harvey's statement to Hall that the latter would be picketed if he bought 210 NLRB No. 80 Rowan to recognize and bargain with Respondent as the representative of its employees.2 As Respondent's picketing continued for more than 30 days, and no petition for an election was filed , we find that the picketing violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Truck Drivers Local 649, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Falconer, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, where an object thereof is to force Lakewood, Bell, or any other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., or to cease doing business with Forest Rowan. (b) Establishing or maintaining pickets at the jobsites of Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, or appealing to individuals employed by Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, to refuse to perform services for their employer, where in either case an object thereof is to force Lakewood, Bell, or any other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., or to cease doing business with Forest Rowan. (c) Picketing, causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket or cause to be picketed Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., or any other employer, where an object thereof is to force or require Forest Rowan to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the repre- sentative of its employees, where Respondent is not certified as such representative, and where such picketing has been conducted for more than 30 days without the filing of a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office and meeting hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the concrete from Forest Rowan, but could buy concrete from two union employers without having any problems. This statement shows, of course, the secondary objective which we have found to violate Sec. 8(bX4)(B), and nothing more Nothing in the statement or the context in which it was made indicates the Union had any interest at this point in being recognized as the bargaining agent for Rowan's employees All the statement shows is that the Union's object was to stop Lakewood's purchases from Rowan-the violation we have found. 3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 649, TEAMSTERS 581 Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 3 signed copies of said notice for posting by Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., and W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., if they be willing, at all locations where notices to employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX not certified as such representative, and where such picketing is conducted for more than 30 days without the filing of a petition for an election. TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 649, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND 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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Ninth Floor, Federal Building, 111 West Huron Street, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100. NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, where an object thereof is to force Lakewood, Bell, or any other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., or to cease doing business with Forest Rowan. WE WILL NOT establish or maintain pickets at the jobsites of Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, or appeal to individuals employed by Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce, to refuse to perform services for their employer, where in either case an object thereof is to force Lakewood, Bell, or any other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., or to cease doing business with Forest Rowan. WE WILL NOT picket, cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., or any other employer, where an object thereof is to force or require Forest Rowan to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of its employees, where we are DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN G. GREGG, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Buffalo, New York, on October 30, 1973, based on charges duly filed and a consolidated complaint issued October 5, 1973, alleging that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and 8(bX7) of the Act. The Respondent denies any violations of the Act. For the reasons explicated more fully hereinafter I find and conclude that the Respondent did indeed violate the Act as alleged in the complaint as to Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXB). Upon the entire record in the case, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and careful consideration of the briefs filed by the parties I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the State of New York. At all times material herein, Forest Rowan has maintained its principal office and place of business at South Work Extension, in the city of Falconer, and State of New York, herein called the Falconer facility , and is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged at said place of business and location in the manufacture , sale and distribution of concrete and aggregate products. During the past year, Forest Rowan , in the course and conduct of its business operations , caused to be manufac- 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tuned, sold, and distributed at said Falconer facility, products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were furnished to among others, Amadoria Construction Co., Inc., Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., herein called Lakewood, and G. L. Olson Contractors, Inc.; each of which enterprises annually receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 at its New York location directly from points outside the State of New York. W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., herein called Bell, is engaged in the sale and trucking of concrete, and pursuant to an agreement with Forest Rowan, rents trucks from Forest Rowan. Lakewood is engaged in the building supply and construction business and, pursuant to an agreement with Forest Rowan, purchases concrete from Forest Rowan for use at its various New York jobsites. Forest Rowan, Bell, and Lakewood are now and have been at all times material herein, employers and/or persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) and (7) of the Act. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges essentially that through Frank Harvey and Wayne Woodhead the Respondent threat- ened, restrained, and coerced Lakewood and Bell in furtherance of the Respondent's dispute with Forest Rowan; that the Respondent in furtherance of its dispute with Forest Rowan authorized, established, and main- tained pickets at Lakewood's various New York josties where Forest Rowan delivers concrete to its customers; and in furtherance of said dispute ordered, instructed, requested, and appealed to individuals employed by Lakewood, Bell and other persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce to refuse to perform services for their employers and threatened, coerced and restrained Lakewood, Bell and others with the object of forcing the aforesaid to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of and to cease doing business with Forest Rowan, all in violation of 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Additionally the complaint alleges essentially that the Respondent has demanded that Forest Rowan recognize and bargain with Respondent as representative of certain of Forest Rowan's employees employed at its Falconer facility, and that in furtherance of the aforesaid demand for recognition and bargaining, Respondent, has picketed or caused to be picketed Forest Rowan at its Falconer facility, and at places where Forest Rowan was delivering concrete to its customers, said picketing conducted for more than 30 days without the filing of a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act for the Board election, that an object of said picketing was to force Forest Rowan to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the represent- ative of certain of Forest Rowan employees at the Falconer facility notwithstanding that the Respondent is not currently certified as representative of such employees, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. Forest Rowan president of Forest Rowan Concrete testified that on July 1, 1973, a picket appeared at the South Work Extension jobsite where Rowan was delivering concrete with a sign indicating that Forest Rowan Concrete Company "by not paying the rates, wages and conditions of this Local Union is breaking down our conditions and forcing our men out of work, Truck Drivers Local 649." Rowan testified that Rowan Concrete, Inc., does not now have nor did it have in the past a collective- bargaining relationship with Respondent Teamster Local 649. Rowan testified that the picketing on July continued from 8 o'clock in the morning until 4 in the afternoon 5 days a week Monday through Friday. Rowan stated that on September 27, 1973, the Company had occasion to deliver concrete to Lakewood Supply Corporation at the Chrysler building where at 9 in the morning Rowan observed a picket walking back and forth along the roadway picketing the job. At that time Forest Rowan trucks were there. Rowan testified further that while picketing at the South Work Extension jobsite had ceased there was a picket who from time to time follows the Forest Rowan mixer trucks to jobsites and sometimes the jobsite is picketed and sometimes not. Rowan said that this was done at random. Rowan stated that some pours of concrete undertaken by his company were interrupted by the picketing for short times although whatever concrete there was to pour was poured or laid. Jerry Hall, President of Lakewood Supply Company Inc., and of Chautauqua Steel Building Company Inc., testified that on July 1, 1973, he had occasion to talk to Frank Harvey, business agent for Respondent Truckdri- vers' Local 649, at Harvey's office in Falconer, New York. Hall had gone to see Harvey at his office to discuss the pouring of concrete using Forest Rowan Concrete and Hall wanted to find out if he was going to have any problem with the local union. According to Hall, Harvey told him that on any of Lakewood Supply's jobs he, Harvey, would picket Lakewood if Lakewood used Forest Rowan Concrete. Hall asked Harvey if Harvey could get his problem straightened out with Rowan and not picket Lakewood as he did not want Lakewood's jobs shut down. According to Hall, Harvey told him that there were two union concrete companies in the area and that Lakewood could purchase concrete from them and by doing so would have no problem. Hall explained several reasons why he would not buy concrete from the two union firms. Harvey then told him that he was representing the Teamsters concrete truckdrivers, that he had his job to do, and he would picket Lakewood wherever Lakewood used Forest Rowan Concrete. Hall testified further that on July 18, 1973, he had occasion to be on the Lakewood Supply jobsite in Little Valley, New York. At 8 a.m. he observed a picket carrying a sign as previously described in the area where the concrete trucks were entering the jobsite in such position that trucks would enter to the left of the picket's car so that the sign did not confront a truck as it entered the jobsite. TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 649, TEAMSTERS 583 At the time the picket was standing beside his car displaying the sign. Hall left the jobsite and returned in the afternoon at approximately 3 o'clock when he observed the same picket in approximately the same position displaying the sign as previously described. At that time, according to Hall, Forest Rowan was not on the jobsite and at the place of the concrete pour the cement finishers were running steel trowels and putting the final finish on the concrete. The picket was still there approximately a half hour later when Hall left the jobsite. Hall stated that none of the crafts that were working on the job at the time would cross the picket line on July 18, that he talked to the electrical foreman on the job in the morning who told him that he could not cross the picket line and asked if the picket line would be on the job the following day. Hall also talked to the plumber foreman at the same time . According to Hall during his time on the jobsite in the morning and afternoon he saw no electrical workers or plumbers working. Hall testified further concerning the Lakewood Supply jobsite at the Chrysler Building in Lakewood, New York, and stated that on September 27 he had occasion to be at that particular jobsite that day, and that toward the middle of the afternoon at approximately between 2:30 to 3 he observed a picket in front of the jobsite displaying a sign as previously described. At that time the picket was sitting in his car, the sign was leaning up against the car . Hall stated that Forest Rowan was not on the job at that time. When Hall left 30 minutes later the picket was still there. Hall stated that the next day, September 28, he was at the jobsite again and he observed a picket located in approximately the same place as the prior day doing the same thing, sitting in his car with the sign leaning up against the car with the same wording previously de- scribed. Forest Rowan was not on the job at that time. Hall testified that on the jobsite at Salamanca, New York, on October 2, 1973 at approximately 3:30 in the afternoon he observed a picket sitting in his car across from the building with a picket sign lying face up on the hood of the car. The picket was stationed right across the street from the material entry, and Forest Rowan was not on the jobsite at that time. Hall stated that, while the sign on the hood of the car was not readily observable as it was lying face up on the hood, it was observable to someone who approached or walked past the car. He did state that the entrance to the jobsite however was across the street from the car. In further testimony Hall stated that Lakewood Supply is a member of the Southern Tier Builders Association, which has an agreement with Truckdrivers Local 649 which includes a provision stating as follows: Article 14 "The employer agrees to refrain from using the services of any person who does not observe the wages, hours and conditions of employment established by the Union having jurisdiction over the type of service performed. Site work shall be defined as all work done on the site proper and all hauling from an area outside the project area to the project area which outside area is operated and maintained by the prime contractor for use in conjunction with the project. The employer agrees that the wages and hours and working conditions provided for by this agreement shall encompass the entire work covered by this agreement thereby applying equally to any subcontract let by the employer on the work covered by this agreement. According to Hall, Lakewood was not signatory to this agreement, and in his discussion with Harvey on July 1, 1973, at Harvey's office this agreement was not mentioned. Hall stated however, that the wages paid by Forest Rowan Concrete were mentioned and were discussed. Donald Baker, President of D. L. Baker, Inc., testified that on July 18, 1973, he was on the Little Valley jobsite doing some work for Lakewood pouring and finishing concrete. At 7:45 in the morning as Baker drove the jobsite he encountered a picket standing in the driveway with a sign. The picket asked Baker if he was going to go through and Baker said "yes." According to Baker he told the picket that he did not have previous knowledge of the picketing, that he had several yards of concrete ordered, which he was liable for, that he was going to pour because he had not been given 24 hours' notice. According to Baker the picket let him through, telling him he now had a 24- hour notice. Baker stated that he did not read the picket sign and he crossed the picket line. William Bell, vice president and general manager of W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., stated that his truckdrivers are employed by the Respondent Local and the Company has a bargaining relationship with the Local. According to Bell in May 1973 Bell and Forest Rowan agreed to work their trucks back and forth, rent them from each other with a driver. Bell testified that on August 21, 1973, he had occasion to talk with Wayne Woodhead, representative of the Respon- dent Teamsters Local 649 in Olean, New York. Bell stated he had received information that Woodhead was at the plant in the process of setting up a picket line, so he went out to the plant to see what was going on. When he arrived at the plant he found Woodhead there, and asked him what was going on. According to Bell, Woodhead stated that he understood that Bell had a rented truck from Forest Rowan, out of Jamestown, and it was in violation of the contract, and that Woodhead was going to have to put a picket line up, that he had spent the money for two pickets and signs and they were in the process of setting up a picket. Bell testified that he asked Woodhead if he got rid of the truck would Woodhead refrain from picketing, and Woodhead said that he would. According to Bell, he then told Woodhead that when the truck came back from the present pour he would send it back. Woodhead said that Bell was in violation of his contract in renting a nonunion truck or renting a mixer from a nonunion operator, that Local 649 was in the process of trying to get a contract with Forest Rowan, and spent a lot of money on pickets and time and so forth, and that Bell was more or less being detrimental to the whole situation there . So according to Bell he agreed to send the truck back and did so, and has not since August 21, 1973, rented trucks from Forest Rowan. 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In his testimony Bell stated that his agreement with Respondent Local 649 included a provision as follows: Article V Subcontractors: The employer agrees that the wage, hours and working conditions provided in this agreement shall encompass the entire work covered by this agreement thereby applying equally to any subcontract let by the employer and work covered by this agreement. All employees including these employ- ees are the subcontractor shall be paid directly by the Employer. However when mutually agreed between the Employer and the Union a subcontractor shall be allowed to establish its own payroll. Frank Harvey, business agent and secretary-treasurer of the Respondent Local for 18 years, testified that Hall called him and asked to come over to Harvey's office to talk About a problem. There he asked Harvey if he could use Rowan Ready-Mix on his jobs at Washington Street and at Lakewood without having a problem with Harvey. Harvey then told Hall that Rowan Ready-Mix at that time was paying $4 an hour and the union rate was $5.65 plus benefits, which placed union employers in a deficit position as far as hours per employee was concerned. This competition, according to Harvey, he told Hall was causing his employers to lay off the Respondents' members and he was concerned about it. According to Harvey, Hall then asked him if he was going to picket if Hall used Forest Rowan, and Harvey told Hall "Look, I'm going to advertise wherever and whenever I can, that Forest Rowan Ready-Mix is knocking my brains out as far as competition is concerned. We can't compete." Harvey testified that prior to that time he had permitted Hall to pour concrete with Forest Rowan and he was not bothered, but that in the future wherever he possibly could he was going to tell everybody what his problems were. "I'm going to advertise through picketing that Forest Rowan is breaking down my membership and my people are being laid off." Harvey testified further that prior to the meeting discussed above he had called Hall and made him aware that Hall had a nonunion subcontractor on his job and "under the terms of our contract with him that the truck would be manned by a Teamster under the contract." According to Harvey, Hall then discussed with him that the man was a subcontractor and what he was doing. Harvey then went down, took a look at the job, talked to the man on the truck, and found out that the truck was engaged the majority of the time in digging footers and Harvey didn't believe it was necessary to put a teamster on at that time. Harvey testified that he directed that picket signs be placed "wherever we heard Rowan was pouring concrete." Harvey stated his instructions to the picket was to picket when the truck was on the jobsite, and when the truck pulled off the picket signs were to be pulled in. The picket was to wait for another truck to come and when another truck came the picketing was to be resumed . Harvey stated that he had a picket following the trucks on a random basis. Harvey stated that the purpose of the picketing was to advertise. Harvey specifically denied that in his conversation with Hall on July 1, 1973, he said that he would picket Lakewood Supply, but stated that he would picket Forest Rowan. Harvey stated he was not familiar with the picketing conducted in Lakewood as he wasn't there, but that the picket operated under the same instructions as previously discussed, that when the truck came he picketed and when the truck left he withdrew . Harvey stated that the same instructions were given to the picket at Lithe Valley where Wayne Woodhead and two other people did the picketing. Q. Isn't it a fact that you asked Mr. Hall to consider using other concrete drivers in your conversa- tion with him. A. Yes, I did. I told him they were available to him. Q. And you asked him to use them. If he would use them to consider using them? A. I'm not too sure about that. Wayne Woodhead, business representative of the Res- pondent Local in the Olean area, testified concerning the conversation with Bell on or about August 21, 1973. Woodhead stated he went to the jobsite on another matter, and was talking to a steward when he saw a Forest Rowan truck and he asked the steward what he was doing and the steward said they were short of trucks. According to Woodhead, Bell was pouring concrete. Later on, while Woodhead was in the area Bell came over to him and they discussed Rowan. Woodhead said that he told Bell that in the contract they were supposed to have the same wages and hours. Bell told Woodhead that he could not get the trucks. Woodhead told Bell that they had been "advertis- ing Rowan up in Falconer and it wasn't right for Bell to bring Rowan in there with these union people ." According to Woodhead, Bell then said to him "why don't you organize them" or something like that, to which Woodhead responded "We don't want them." Woodhead denied specifically that he said he was going to picket Bell. Woodhead stated that he would not picket Bell because he had a contract with him and he'd have to go through the grievance procedure. Woodhead stated that in connection with the picketing in Little Valley on July 18, 1973, he had two or three pickets ,there to picket Forest Rowan . Harvey instructed him to picket just when Forest Rowan was there and when Forest Rowan was not there to take the signs off, which Woodhead stated they did. Woodhead did state that "When we took them off, we stood around and laid them against the tree. They could have been against the tree face in or face out.- We didn't walk when Forest Rowan wasn't there." Woodhead stated that when Forest Rowan was there they walked up and down when the trucks came in until the trucks left. According to Woodhead the pickets arrived at the jobsite at 6:30 a.m., stood around talking with the signs against a tree until about 8 a.m. when they walked up and down with the signs. On cross-examination Woodhead stated that when he talked to the steward and asked what the truck was doing there he did not tell the steward to stop working but told him that he, Woodhead, had to think it over, to continue working in the meantime. Q. Isn't it a fact that you told the steward that he shouldn't be working with the Forest Rowan truck? A. I don't know whether I actually said, no, I TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 649, TEAMSTERS didn't stop him or anything. I said I had to decide what I was going to do .. . Q. Was that your testimony in front of the United States Magistrate? A. I'm not sure what I said there. When I was actually talking to him there, I don't know what I said, actually that he don't be doing it or not, I didn't tell him to stop doing it, lets put it that way. Q. But you might have said he shouldn't be doing it. A. Right. Woodhead's version of his discussion with Bell was as follows: I said, how come you got Forest Rowan down here, we have been advertising him down in Falconer. He said I'm short of trucks and 1 can't get them anywhere else. I said, according to the contract you're not living up to the contract because of the wages, hours and condi- tions and they're not Union. He says, well I couldn't get trucks anywhere else. So then I said, that I was going to have to advertise him or something like that. He said, well there isn't much more, and he'll leave. A. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B),• Analysis, Findings and Conclusions Turning first to the allegation that on or about July 1, 1973, Harvey threatened, restrained, and coerced Lake- wood in furtherance of the Respondent's dispute with Forest Rowan. I am convinced and I find that Harvey did in fact threaten Hall of Lakewood that he would picket Lakewood, in furtherance of the Respondent's dispute with Forest Rowan. In so finding based on my observation of the demeanor of Hall as he testified I have credited the testimony of Hall who testified in a convincing manner, and who impressed me with his straightforward and uncontrived testimony. On the other hand I do not credit Harvey's version of his discussion with Hall and his denial that he told Hall he would picket Lakewood and his statement that he told Hall he would picket only Forest Rowan. In addition to not crediting Harvey's version of his discussion with Hall I am persuaded from an analysis of Harvey's testimony in its totality that his object was clearly to picket wherever and whenever he could and in so informing Hall he made it clear that Lakewood would be picketed. Turning to the allegation that on or about August 21, 1973, Woodhead threatened and restrained Bell in further- ance of Respondent's dispute with Forest Rowan I am convinced and I find that the Respondent did thereby threaten, coerce, and restrain Bell. Based on my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witness Bell as he testified I was impressed by his straightforward testimony, his prompt and uncontrived responses and his sincerity and I credit his testimony and find that Woodhead told Bell that Bell was in violation of his contract with the Respondent by using Rowan's trucks and that because of that he was going to picket Bell. Based on my observation of the demeanor of Woodhead as he testified I do not credit his version of the foregoing discussion nor his denial that he threatened to picket Bell. Additionally, inherent in Woodhead's testimony concern- 585 mg his statement to Bell was a clear threat that he would "advertise" or picket Bell if Bell continued to use Rowan trucks. It is clear from ample credited testimony of record that the Respondent picketed Lakewood Supply Co. jobsites on July 18, 1973, in Little Valley, New York, and on September 27 and 28 at Lakewood, New York, and on October 2, 1973, at Salamanca, New York, with signs reading: The Forest Rowan Concrete Company by not paying the rates, wages and conditions of this Local Union is breaking down our conditions and forcing our men out of work. Truck Drivers Local 649 There is ample evidence to persuade me and I find that such picketing at the aforesaid jobsites was conducted at the site not only when Forest Rowan men and trucks were engaged in delivering and pouring concrete but prior to and subsequent to the arrival and presence of Forest Rowan at the jobsite. In this connection based on my observation of the witness Forest Rowan as he testified I credit his testimony which was given in a straightforward and sincere manner. In addition, credited testimony of record by Hall and Bell, establishes that picketing was indeed conducted at the jobsites at times when Forest Rowan was not present. I have also given weight to exhibits of record indicating that Forest Rowan was off the affected jobsites before 12:30 p.m. on the dates in question. Accordingly, I find the picketing under the circumstances herein not in conformance with the requirements of Moore Dry Dock. Additionally, crediting the testimony of Hall it is clear from the record that the Respondent's unlawful picketing resulted in a work stoppage by other" trades. The Respondent relies heavily on International Bhother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local 861 (Plauche Electric, Inc.), 135 NLRB 250 (1962). Plauche is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand in that in Plauche the picketing continued while the employees of the primary employer were on a lunch or coffeebreak. There the Board held that the picketing was not thereby rendered unlawful as the primary employer was manifestly engaged in its normal business at the situs even though its employees temporarily departed the site for lunch or coffeebreak. In the case at hand this rationale is not applicable. In Plauche the employees of the primary employer were engaged in the performance of work of a continuing nature requiring their presence on the job from the time they left the primary employers premises and entered the jobsite until they departed at the end of the day. In the case at hand the normal business of the primary employer Forest Rowan was of an intermittent nature . From time to time a truck would enter the premises, pour, and depart. In any event having found that the picketing took place at times when the Forest Rowan trucks were not present at the jobsite and having found that Rowan's activity was conducted in the morning and completed sometime around noon, in my view when the picketing continued after such activity had ceased it no longer conformed to Moore Dry Dock. 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is also clear, crediting the version of Hall in his discussion with Harvey on July 1, 1973, that Harvey asked Hall to stop using Forest Rowan concrete and urged the use of union ready-mix employers in lieu of Forest Rowan, a clear indication of the Respondent's intent to induce Lakewood to cease doing business with Forest Rowan. Additionally I reject the Respondent's contention that Lakewood and Bell are not neutral employers herein inasmuch as they had agreements with subcontracting clause with the Respondent Local which protected the union wage. Aside from a question as to whether or not Lakewood was indeed bound contractually with the Respondent, it is well settled that such subcontracting clauses may be enforced only through appropriate legal channels and not by threats, coercion, or restraint proscribed by Section 8(bX4) of the Act. Centlivre Village Apartments, 148 NLRB 854 ; Ets Hokin Corporation, 154 NLRB 839; Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, [Sand Door & Plywood Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 357 U.S. 93 (1958). Accordingly I am convinced and I find, as alleged in the complaint, that through Harvey and Woodhead the Respondent threatened, restrained, and coerced Lakewood and Bell in furtherance of the Respondent's dispute with Forest Rowan , that the Respondent in furtherance of said dispute authorized, established, and maintained pickets at Lakewood's various New York jobsites when Rowan delivered concrete to its customers, and that the Respon- dent in furtherance of said dispute instructed , requested, and appealed to individuals employed by Lakewood, Bell, and others to refuse to perform services for their employers all with the object of forcing Lakewood , Bell, and others to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of and to cease doing business with Forest Rowan in violation of Section 8(bX4)(i) and (iiXB) of the Act. B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act The complaint alleges essentially that the Respondent since July 1, 1973, has demanded that Forest Rowan recognize and bargain with it as representative of certain of Forest Rowan employees at the Falconer facility; that in furtherance thereof the Respondent has picketed Forest Rowan at its Falconer facility and at places where Forest Rowan was delivering concrete to its customers, the aforesaid picketing conducted with the object of forcing Forest Rowan to recognize or bargain with the Respondent and said picketing conducted for more than 30 days without the filing of a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act. There is no dispute as to the fact that the Respondent is not currently certified as the representative of any of Forest Rowan's employees. It is also clear from credited testimony of record by Forest Rowan that the Respondent picketed Rowan's South Work Extension jobsite continu- ously from July 1 to September 18, 1973, and at various other jobsites where Rowan was delivering concrete to its customers. The basic question herein is to determine the true nature of the picketing, for if this be recognitional or organiza- tional picketing the Act is violated. As stated by the Board, unlawful motive in picketing situations is not often proved by admission, but rather, the motive for the act in question must be ascertained from all the attendant circumstances. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (Coed Collar Company), 137 NLRB 1698. Analysis of the circumstances herein leads me to find and conclude that the picketing herein was not conducted for recognition and organization as alleged in the com- plaint. In this connection while I have credited the testimony of Bell who stated that in his discussion with Woodhead on August 21, 1973, Woodhead told him that the Respondent was in the process of trying to get a contract with Forest Rowan, and spent a lot of money on pickets and time, and that Bell was a detriment to the whole situation, and while I do not credit Woodhead's denial, I simply do not find in such statement a sound basis for finding as a fact that the Respondent's picketing was for the object of gaining recognition or organization, rather than for the object of advertising that Rowan did not pay union wages. In this connection, the record establishes that the picket signs did not indicate a recognitional or organizational object but were in fact advertisement. There is insufficient evidence of record to persuade me that the picketing was indeed for the proscribed object. Accordingly, that portion of the complaint alleging a violation of Section 8(bX7XC) by the Respondent is hereby dismissed. III. THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., and W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., 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. IV. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent, Truck Drivers Local 649, has violated Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB) of the Act, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Truck Drivers Local 649, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Forest Rowan Concrete, Inc., Lakewood Supply Co., Inc., and W. E. Bell & Sons, Inc., are each engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 649, TEAMSTERS 587 3. The Respondent, by threatening Lakewood and Bell in furtherance of the Respondent's dispute with Forest Rowan; by establishing and maintaining pickets at Lakewood's various New York jobsites ; by appealing to individuals employed by Lakewood and Bell to refuse to perform services for their employers ; all with the object of forcing Lakewood, Bell, and others to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of and to cease doing business with Forest Rowan, has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(bX4Xi) and (iiXB) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]