Meat Cutters Local 540

MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 540, AFL-CIO (Kroger Meat Plant) and Packerland Packing Company of Texas, Inc. Case 16-CC-505 July 22, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On April 15, 1975, Administrative Law Judge James T. Barker issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Charging Party filed an answering 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 at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 540, AFL-CIO, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action as set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Administrative Law Judge, in that portion of his Decision entitled "Conclusions," referred to the testimony of one Bethel, an employee of Kroger, which revealed Respondent's stewards had instructed some of its members not to unload Packerland meat. The record, which by stipulation of the parties consists of the record developed in the 10 ( l) action brought in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, reveals that Bethel did not testify in that proceeding . The Administrative Law Judge apparently inadvertently based his conclusions as to "Bethel's testimony" on the testimony of General Counsel's witness Buergler, who related the facts surrounding the conversation which occurred immediately prior to the mass walkout of employees on the morning of October 17, 1974, in which Bethel was a participant . Because Buergler's testimony as to what Bethel said was not contradicted we conclude, in agreement with the Administra- tive Law Judge, that stewards had instructed some of Respondent's mem- bers, who were performing "lugging" tasks, not to unload Packerland meat. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 331 JAMES T. BARKER, Administrative Law Judge: This case is before me upon an all-party stipulation dated December 10, 1974.' By virtue of the stipulation, a further hearing before me was waived, and it was agreed by the parties that the record previously developed on December 4, in the case of Edwin Youngblood, Regional Director of the Six- teenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, The Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 540, AFL-CIO, Civil Action No. C-3-74- 1131-F, heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, would serve as the basis for his decision on the issues raised by the allega- tions of the complaint and notice of hearing which the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 16 had issued on November 13, pursuant to a charge filed on October 17 by Packerland Packing Compa- ny of Texas, Inc., hereinafter called Packerland. By the terms of the stipulation, the parties preserved their right to seek review of the decision to be issued by me upon the proper filing of exceptions. Each of the parties timely filed briefs with me. Upon the entire record in this case,' I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Packerland Packing Company of Texas, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Packerland Packing Company, Inc., of Green Bay, Wisconsin. At the Green Bay, Wisconsin, facility is maintained a complete beef slaughtering, fabri- cating, and boning operation. Subsidiary operations are maintained at Pampa, Texas, and at Chippewa Falls, Wis- consin. At the Pampa, Texas, facility is maintained a beef slaughtering operation. In the course and conduct of its operations, Packerland annually receives meat and meat products from outside the State of Texas valued in excess of $50,000, and annually ships products outside the State of Texas valued in excess of $50,000. The Kroger Company, hereinafter called Kroger, is a corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, and has its principal office in Cinncinna- ti, Ohio. Kroger maintains and operates retail food stores in sev- eral States of the United States, including the State of Tex- as; and at relevant times has operated a meat warehouse located in Irving, Texas, from which meat is distributed to i Unless otherwise specified, all dates refer to the calendar year 1974. 2 The transcript of the December 4 court proceedings reveals that William Brynda, John Buergler, and John Rodriquez appeared and testified as wit- nesses. Additionally, by virtue of their written stipulation, the parties agreed that Fred W. Tilson and Willie Lopez appeared in the United States District Court on Decembet 4 and were at that time sworn to testify as witnesses. The record before me indicates that neither Tilson nor Lopez was actually called to the witness stand to testify 219 NLRB No. 46 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD points throughout the State of Texas and to other States of the United States. In the operation of its business, Kroger annually receives goods and materials consisting principally of meats and grocery products from outside the State of Texas, valued in excess of $50,000, and annually ships products outside the State of Texas valued in excess of $50,000. Upon the foregoing evidentiary and stipulated facts of record, I find that, at all times material herein, Packerland Packing Company of Texas, Inc., and The Kroger Compa- ny have been employers engaged in commerce and in oper- ations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 540, AFL-CIO, herein called Re- spondent or the Union, is now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The principal issue in this case is whether Respondent may be held to have engaged in a secondary boycott in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by rea- son of the alleged refusals by its members on October 17 and 18 to process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on meat products of Packerland scheduled and available for delivery at the Irving, Texas, meat warehouse of Kro- ger. A subsidiary issue is whether Respondent may lawfully be held responsible for inducing and encouraging its mem- bers employed by Kroger to engage in said refusal or whether said refusal resulted from the spontaneous deci- sion of the employees themselves. B. Relevant Facts 1. The setting At material times the Respondent has been certified as the collective-bargaining representative of employees em- ployed at the Irving, Texas, meat plant of Kroger. The Irving facility is the only meat processing plant operated by Kroger in the State of Texas. Meat is supplied from the Irving plant to approximately 110 retail facilities of Kroger situated primarily within the State of Texas. Meat products from supplier are received at the Irving plant for pro- cessing and for reshipment to Kroger stores. The Irving facility is under the immediate direction of Plant Manager William Brynda. At relevant times, approx- imately 90 employees who are members of Respondent were employed on the day shift, in job categories responsi- ble for the unloading, handling, and processing of meat which comes into the Kroger Irving facility. Three mem- bers work in the box cooler and do not -perform duties relating to the unloading, handling, and processing proce- dures. On October 17 and 18 two shifts were being worked, but only the day shift, which terminates at 4 p.m., was involved in the incidents pertinent herein. In October Fred Tilson was serving as business represen- tative of Local 540 and John Rodriquez was serving in the capacity of acting chief shop steward. Willie Lopez was assistant to Rodriquez and both Rodriquez and Lopez were employed as rank-and-file employees by Kroger. Respondent and Kroger have been parties to a collec- tive-bargaining agreement at all times pertinent herein. The agreement contains, inter alia, the following provision: The company recognizes the right of the Union to des- ignate a chief steward and a steward in each depart- ment to handle such union business as from time to time may be delegated to them by the Union so long as their duties do not interfere with their regular work assignments. Local 540 has no contractual relationship with Packerland. Each shipment of meat coming into the Kroger plant is accompanied by a shipping invoice. It is normal procedure for the driver of the delivery vehicle, upon arrival at the Kroger plant, to bring the shipping invoice into an office area to which Rodriquez, the union steward, has access. Additionally, each meat carcass contained in a shipment is stamped with an identifying number visible to any experi- enced individual handling the meat shipment. The Butcher Workman is published monthly by the Butcher Workman Educational and Benevolent Associa- tion, Inc., an affiliate of the International Union. The constitution of the International designates the Interna- tional secretary-treasurer as the editor and publisher of its official journal, and the constitution directs that the official journal must be edited in "conformity" with the principles of "the International Union." In the October 1974 issue of The Butcher Workman, em- phasis and highlight were given to a strike of Local 444 members against Packerland at its Chippewa Falls, Wis- consin, plant. Textual and pictorial material appears in the two-page article which contains the following statement at- tributed to the secretary of Local 444: We want you to know that without your financial and moral support, we on the picket line would have been dead long ago. We hope that you will continue your unselfish support of our militant strikers, not only fi- nancially but most of all, you can help us by boycott- ing the scab Packerland meat products, as well as Packerland hides and by-products in your area. Accompanying the article and prominently highlighted was the following; SUPPORT BOYCOTT AGAINST PACKERLAND PRODUCTS Packerland Scab Produced products bear the following USDA Inspection Numbers: Green Bay, Wis. 562 and 562-B Chippewa Falls, Wis. 562-A Pampa, Tex. (Western Beef Packing) 2267 MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 333 2. The events of October 16 At approximately 10 a.m. on October 16 a shipment of meat from Packerland's Pampa, Texas, plant arrived at the shipping dock of Kroger in Irving, Texas. The meat con- tained the identification mark of the Pampa plant of Pack- erland. Soon after the arrival of the meat at the Kroger plant, John Rodriquez and Willie Lopez came to the office of William Brynda, and Rodriquez informed Brynda that the employees would not touch the meat. Brynda asked the reason for this and Rodriquez stated that the meat was from Packerland. He asserted that the Union had a con- tract dispute with Packerland. Brynda asked Rodriquez to find out the location and nature of the trouble or labor dispute, and whether it applied to the Pampa establishment and involved the meat shipment under discussion. Rodri- quez responded by giving Brynda the identification num- bers of three of Packerland's plants, including the Chippe- wa Falls plant. The Packerland plant at Pampa, Texas, was not included in the identification numbers given Brynda by Rodriquez. Rodriquez was not more explicit. At this point in time, Rodriquez left Brynda's office for the ostensible purpose of making a telephone call. Brynda went out into the yard and caused the seal on the truck bearing the shipment to be opened. Brynda inspected the carcasses contained therein and they bore the identifica- tion number of the Pampa, Texas, plant of Packerland. Thereupon, Brynda called Rodriquez back into his office and informed Rodriquez that the carcasses bore the identi- fication stamp of the Pampa, Texas, establishment, and noted that that identification number was not listed among those which Rodriquez had earlier given him identifying the Packerland plants enmeshed in the labor dispute with Meat Cutter Locals. Rodriquez responded that this did not matter. He stated that Packerland was involved in a labor dispute, and no matter where the dispute was, the meat could not be unloaded. Lopez was present and registered no dissent. Brynda informed Rodriquez and Lopez that he would get in touch with the Cincinnati office of Kroger. Brynda contacted the Cincinnati office and was instructed to await instructions.3 During the course of the morning, Brynda contacted Fred Tilson, business representative of the Local 540. Til- son came to the plant and spoke with Brynda in the pres- ence of Rodriquez, Lopez, and Holmes, a rank-and-file employee and member of the union negotiating committee. Brynda informed Tilson that the shop steward had told him that the employees could not "touch the meat" be- cause of some labor dispute that Packerland had with the Union. Brynda suggested that since the shipment of beef was already on the premises that it be unloaded and that discussions be undertaken with the "general office" about purchasing meat supplies for Kroger from another packing house in order to avoid any further labor problems. Tilson asked Brynda if he could guarantee that the discussions 3 In the meantime, Brynda called the trucking concern and informed the trucker that the seal of the truck had been broken and it was agreed that Brynda would reseal the truck. would be successful and Brynda asserted that all he could do was make the request. At this juncture in the meeting, the conversation turned to some grievances involving the absence or tardiness of three employees. Holmes interjected a grievance covering the suspension of a fourth employee. Each grievance per- tained to incidents antedating the Packerland meat deliv- ery problems. At this point, the union representatives left Brynda's of- fice and Brynda placed a call to the general office inform- ing his superiors about the meeting and the proposal which he had made. Brynda also asserted that the meeting had featured the discussion of certain grievances which were pending. Brynda was instructed not to discuss grievances in connection with the issue pertaining to the unloading of the Packerland meat. At the completion of the call Brynda went out into the plant and conveyed his instructions to Tilson, Rodriquez and Lopez. Brynda again suggested that the meat be un- loaded and promised that he would again submit to the buying department of Kroger the suggestion to purchase meat from a packer other than Packerland. The union rep- resentative made no response to Brynda and the matter rested there. At this point in time, the truck containing the Packerland meat had been backed up to the loading dock and was in a position to be unloaded. No mention of a walkout by employees was broached and no further refer- ence to the pending grievances was made at this time. On the afternoon of October 16, Rodriquez approached Brynda and inquired what the Company was going to do with the load of meat. Brynda stated that he was awaiting instructions from the general office. Brynda did not hear from the general office until late in the evening, and in the meantime, no effort was made to unload or otherwise re- move the meat from the truck. Later, at approximately 10 p.m., Brynda received instructions to go forward with the unloading of the meat the following day. During the night the loaded truck remained on the premises but was re- moved from the dock area. 3. The events of October 17 Early on the morning of October 17, Brynda and John Buergler, attorney for Packerland, met in Brynda's office. In substance, Buergler asked Brynda what determination had been made with respect to the meat delivery, and Brynda informed Buergler that the employees had refused to touch the meat. Brynda gave Buergler a summary of the events which had transpired between him and the union steward. Brynda assured Buergler that he knew nothing that would indicate that the meat did not conform to qual- ity specifications or was in any manner unfit for delivery. Brynda also informed Buergler that he had been instructed by his superiors to have the meat unloaded. Soon thereafter, Rodriquez and Lopez came to Brynda's office seeking to converse with Brynda. Brynda invited them into his office. Present were Buergler and some fore- men of the Company. Rodriquez and Lopez inquired what the Company was going to do with the Packerland meat. Brynda stated that he had been instructed to unload the meat and he added that he intended to see that this instruc- 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion was carried out. Rodriquez and Lopez answered that they could not touch the meat. They characterized the meat as "scab meat." Brynda stated that the meat had to be unloaded. Rodriquez and Lopez reiterated that they would not touch the meat. At this point in the meeting, Buergler introduced himself to Rodriquez and Lopez and identified himself as the attorney for Packerland. There- upon, Buergler asked if he was correct in his understanding that Rodriquez and Lopez were refusing to unload the Packerland meat. They stated that his understanding was correct and asserted that the meat was "scab meat." There- upon, Buergler again asked if he correctly understood that they were refusing to touch or process or handle the Pack- erland meat. Rodriquez and Lopez again stated that his understanding was correct and asserted that they would not touch the meat. In context with this discussion, Buer- gler inquired if Local 540 had a dispute with Kroger. Lopez and Rodriquez assured Buergler that the local had none. Thereupon, Buergler stated that, in his opinion, they were engaging in a secondary boycott and that, if they persisted, he would file an unfair labor practice charge. Buergler add- ed that Rodriquez and Lopez should call Tilson and in- form him what they were doing. Rodriquez and Lopez an- swered, in substance, that this would be unnecessary because the matter had already been discussed. The meet- ing ended and no immediate effort was made to unload the supply of meat. However, in the meantime, the truck containing the Packerland meat had been backed into position at the dock and was available for immediate unloading. After an elapse of time, Brynda went to the dock foreman and in- formed him that the truck containing the Packerland meat should be the next truck to be unloaded. At this point in time, Rodriquez passed by and Brynda asked him if he had called Tilson. Rodriquez answered that he had not done so and again inquired what was going to be done with the Packerland beef. Brynda stated that the meat was going to be unloaded and Rodriquez again asserted that "we can't touch the meat." Brynda answered that the meat had to be unloaded and that if the employees did not undertake to unload it, disciplinary action in the form of suspension would be taken . Rodriquez was adamant in his assertion that the employees could not undertake to unload the meat. By this time, all was in readiness to accomplish the unloading task and Brynda gave the direction to go for- ward with the unloading. Rodriquez and Lopez were both present and knew that the order had been given. Addition- ally, Bethel, a lugger-a member of the Union-was stand- ing by and heard the direction.4 The lugger asked what would happen if the meat was not unloaded and Brynda reiterated his statement that disciplinary action in the form of suspension would be undertaken. Bethel responded, "The shop stewards told us not to unload the meat." Thereupon, Bethel, Rodriquez, and Lopez walked off the dock. As they departed, one of them whistled loudly and one of them said, "Let's go." Immediately thereafter, ap- proximately 90 employees left the building and only three employees, whose normal duties did not include the han- ° Luggers perform unloading functions at the dock. dling or processing of the meat, remained. Rodriquez, Lo- pez, and Bethel had circulated among the employees be- tween the time they left the dock and the time the walkout was accomplished. As the employees left the building, they were orally informed that disciplinary action would be tak- en against them if they left. This did not deter them. No immediate disciplinary action was taken against any indi- vidual. Soon after the walkout, Brynda called Tilson and in- formed him that the employees had walked out. Tilson re- sponded that he had told them not to do anything of that nature. He inquired into the whereabouts of the employees and Brynda stated that he assumed that they had gone to the union hall. Tilson answered that as soon as he could locate the employees, he would instruct them to return to work. Tilson stated he saw no need for disciplinary action to be taken by Brynda and asserted that he expected Bryn- da would take none. Brynda did not answer. Within ap- proximately 2 hours, the employees returned to the plant, and by 1 p.m. nearly all of them had come back to the plant premises . However, none of them commenced imme- diately to perform work tasks. In the meantime, the timecards of all employees who had walked out had been pulled. Pursuant to instructions, foremen were designated to return the timecards to em- ployees who approached them and made-a request for their return. By 2 p.m., approximately 4045 of the 90 employees had picked up their timecards. The balance of the contin- gent of 90 remained off duty until the following day. However, in the interim, during the early afternoon of October 17, Brynda read to the employees a prepared statement to the effect that Rodriquez, Lopez, and the lug- ger, Bethel, would be suspended as a result of their role in the walkout. At this point approximately 40 of the employ- ees present again walked out. As a result, Brynda called Tilson and told him the nature of the disciplinary action which he had announced and informed Tilson that approx- imately 40 employees had again left the plant premises. Tilson responded that he had sent the employees back as- suming there would be no disciplinary action. He asserted that Brynda had given him that assurance. Brynda stated that he had not done so, but that he, Tilson, had suggested discipline be withheld. Tilson indicated his agreement with Brynda's version. Thereafter, at approximately 3 p.m. the Packerland meat was unloaded by approximately four employees, two of whom had participated in the initial walkout. At approximately 3:30 pm. Brynda again spoke with Til- son. Tilson had come to the plant parking area accompa- nied by Rodriquez and Lopez. Upon learning of Tilson's presence, Brynda invited Tilson into his office, but did not invite Rodriquez or Lopez to enter upon plant premises. Tilson refused to meet with Brynda unless Rodriquez and Lopez were present, and, in due course, they too were invit- ed to Brynda's office. A meeting transpired which was at- tended by Tilson, Rodriquez, Lopez, the chairman of a committee of Local 540, and a business representative of Local 540. The topic of the discussion was the disciplinary action which Brynda had undertaken. Tilson asserted that he could not agree to Brynda's actions and the discussion of the lengthy meeting centered around that topic. During MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 the course of the meeting a representative from the Company's divisional office joined the meeting, and the disciplinary action, and the events leading up to it, were again discussed in detail . As the parties discussed matters, Brynda asked Tilson if he had instructed "his people" to unload the meat. Tilson answered in the affirmative and Brynda asked why they did not do so. Tilson responded, "They are the people, they are the union." 4. Further relevant evidence On October 18, all employees returned to work except for Rodriquez, Lopez, and Bethel, who remained on sus- pension. At the time of the hearing, no deliveries of Packer- land meat other than that of October 16 had been received at the Kroger facility in Irving, Texas. There is no indica- tion in the record that, in point of fact, Kroger had placed further orders with Packerland. John Buergler credibly testified that in his capacity as attorney for Packerland, and as an outgrowth of his in- volvement in the nationwide labor negotiations on behalf of Packerland, he had knowledge of a labor dispute involv- ing Local 540 and Safeway in Dallas, Texas. It was Buergler's credited and undisputed testimony that this dis- pute was a direct outgrowth of the inability of Packerland and the International, and its affiliated local in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin , to agree upon economic issues during the course of the contract negotiations . Buergler further credi- bly testified that he had direct knowledge of two other la- bor disputes involving difficulty in the supply and delivery of merchandise, arising in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania and involving affiliated locals other than Local 540. There is no evidence of record to suggest that the dispute between Packerland and the Meat Cutters in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, was other than a disagreement arising over economic issues during the course of collective-bar- gaining negotiations. Conclusions Section 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor prac- tice for a union: (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any indi- vidual . . . to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, pro- cess, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to per- form any services ; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or re- strain any person . . . where in either case an object thereof is: 11 (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, .... Provided That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any . . . primary pick- eting. 335 These provisions reflect "the dual congressional objec- tives of preserving the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in controversies not their own." N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Coun- cil, 341 U.S. 675, 692 (1951). The mere showing of a refusal to handle goods, absent encouragement or direction by a union agent is not sufficient to sustain the burden of the General Counsel in a Section 8(b)(4)(B) case, N.L.R.B. v. Local 815, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent: (Montank Iron & Steel Corp.), 290 F.2d 99 (C.A. 2, 1961). However, the words "induce and encourage" are broad enough to include in them every form of influence and persuasion, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501 v. N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694 (1951) 701-702, and it is well established that union involvement in a proscribed activity may take various tacit and subtle forms and be as effective as forthright intervention in achieving unlawful or improper objectives; see e.g., United States v. International Union, United Mineworkers of America, 77 F.Supp. 563, 566 (D.C.D.C.). Similarly well established is the principle that a union may be found responsible for the actions and con- duct of its stewards if the union acquiesces in a pattern of conduct undertaken by its stewards in furtherance of over- all union objectives, and if the conduct of its designated officials is such as to have the effect of ratifying said ac- tions. See Local 545, International Union of Operating Engi- neers, AFL-CIO (Joseph Saraceno & Sons, Inc.) 161 NLRB 1114, 1119 (1966); Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Com- pany) 162 NLRB 703, 718-719 (1967); N.LR.B. v. Local No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Co.), 477 F.2d 260 (C.A. 2, 1973); Western Contracting Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 322 F.2d 893 (C.A. 10, (1963) ). Applying the above enunciated principle, the ultimate issue in this case resolves to whether the Respondent may be held legally liable for a work stoppage and refusal of its rank-and-file members to unload, process, or otherwise handle the meat products of Packerland scheduled for de- livery to Kroger. Upon the entire record, I find that this question must be resolved adversely to Respondent. Ac- cordingly, I find Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. The record establishes the existence of a labor dispute involving Packerland and a sister local of Respondent. There is no suggestion that Respondent Local 540 was in- volved as a principal in that dispute; nor is there any con- tention that the action of the membership in refusing to handle or process the Packerland meat arose out of a pri- mary labor dispute between Respondent and Kroger. The role of Respondent's designated stewards in articulating the determination not to handle or process the Packerland delivery was, on the record before me, an active one, whol- ly consistent with and supportive of the policy of the Inter- national as announced in the publication The Butcher Workman to carry out an effective boycott against Packer- land through appeals to rank-and-file solidarity and sup- 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD port. It begs the question here to contend that nothing in the bylaws of the Respondent, or nothing in the defined duties of stewardship attaching to Respondent's designated stewards, authorized Rodriquez or Lopez to give leadership to unlawful activity for the purpose of implementing a boy- cott against Packerland. The facts, nonetheless, as devel- oped in the record, establish that, upon being directed to unload and otherwise process the packerland meat deliv- ery, the stewards, Rodriquez and Lopez, articulated their refusal and initiated the walkout of the membership which gave meaning and dimension to the refusal.5 The testimony of Bethel, the lugger, reveals that the stewards had instruct- ed at least some members whose normal duties would have required them to do so not to unload the meat. While there is evidence of record suggesting that, once the walkout had transpired, Tilson, the business representative of Respon- dent, orally indicated his displeasure with the decision of the stewards and the rank-and-file to leave their jobs, the record is devoid of any evidence that Respondent, through Tilson or any other official, took effective disciplinary or other corrective action designed to countermand the deci- sion. Neither is there any evidence of any official disavow- al of the action. Indeed, Tilson's actions both prior and subsequent to the walkout suggested tacit union support of the activities which had been given leadership by Rodri- quez and Lopez. It is to be remembered that on the day prior to the walk- out when Brynda in consultation with Tilson was seeking an interim solution to the problem arising from the pres- ence of Packerland meat on Kroger premises by suggesting that unloading of the present delivery be undertaken with the understanding that subsequent purchases of Packer- land meat would be discouraged, Tilson remained entirely passive and abstained from giving any encouragement to Brynda of a type or character which would suggest that a resolution was possible or that the earlier declarations of Rodriquez and Lopez to the effect that the meat would not be touched did not command official support from the Re- spondent. Then, later, after the initial walkout, instead of issuing an official reprimand to the stewards for their parti- cipation in the walkout, Tilson gave them tacit support and encouragement in the form of assurances to the effect that there would be no subsequent refusal to enter into authori- tative discussions with Brynda outside the presence of the stewards for the purpose of reaching a final resolution of the disciplinary issue involving the stewards. This conduct by Respondent's agent Tilson, assessed in its entirety, must be viewed as a less than subtle form of acquiescence and involvement, constituting union support and ratification of the actions of its stewards. The sum of the record evidence reveals, and I find, that the refusal of the membership of Respondent to unload, process, or otherwise handle the Packerland meat prod- ucts; that Rodriquez and Lopez in their position of stew- 3 The record does not definitively establish whether or not it was Rodri- quez, Lopez, or the lugger, Bethel, who gave the oral directive and accompa- nying signal which initiated the walkout , but the matter is not of signifi- cance. It is clear that these things transpired in the presence of Rodriquez and Lopez and they were active participants . Indeed, they participated in circulating through areas of the plant for the purpose of summoning em- ployees-rank-and-file members of Respondent-to join the walkout. ards for Respondent, in the face of Brynda's directive to unload the meat, gave official voice to instructions to mem- bers not to do so; that the stewards coordinated and direct- ed the refusal and accompanying walkouts which gave meaning to the policy insofar as the employees of the Kro- ger establishment were concerned; that the statements and conduct of the stewards in these latter regards constituted "inducement and encouragement" of employees of Kroger to cease work; that Tilson, an admitted agent of Respon- dent, gave support and tacit approval to the actions of the stewards and of the membership; and that, in light of the foregoing, Respondent must be held legally responsible for the unlawful activities which transpired, and which consti- tuted violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. See Local Union No. 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (George P. MacDougall Co., Inc.), 190 NLRB 127 (1971). IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the companies described in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relationship 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 has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Kroger Company and Packerland Packing Com- pany of Texas, Inc. are employers engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 540, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging the employees of The Kroger Company to engage in work stoppages or otherwise to refuse to perform services for The Kroger Company, including their refusal during the course of their employ- ment to unload, handle, or otherwise process a delivery of meat products from Packerland, and by threatening, coerc- ing, or restraining Kroger, with an object of forcing or re- quiring Kroger to cease doing business with Packerland, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices with- in the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER6 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 540, AFL-CIO, Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, and representatives shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individ- ual employed by The Kroger Company, or by any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting com- merce, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, or articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any serv- ices ; or threatening, coercing, or restraining The Kroger Company, or any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require The Kro- ger Company to cease doing business with Packerland Packing Company of Texas, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) , Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and in all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent' s representatives, shall be post- ed by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous 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) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for posting by The Kroger Company and Packer- land Packing Company of Texas, Inc., those companies willing, at locations where notices to their employees are customarily posted. 337 (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 7 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain The Kroger Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing of requiring any such person to cease doing business with Packerland Packing Company of Texas, Inc. WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage indi- viduals by The Kroger Company, or any other person engaged in commerce, or in an industry affecting com- merce, to engage in a strike or work stoppage or to refuse in the course of their employment to perform any services, where an object of said strike, work stop- page, or refusal is to force or require The Kroger Company, or any other person, to cease doing busi- ness with Packerland Packing Company of Texas, Inc. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 540, AFL-CIO