Intl. Longshoremen's Assn.

INTL. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN. 659 International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen's Association, Local 333, AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen's Association, Local 953, AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen's Association, Atlantic Coast Dis- trict, AFL-CIO and Shipside Packing Company, Inc. Case 5-CC-812-1 ,2, -3, -4 = December 30, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On May 5, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents 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 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 Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- 1 The Administrative Law Judge erroneously identifies Thomas Hart as the business agent for Respondent Local 333. In fact, his name is Michael Hart and he is the business agent for Respondent Local 953 Respondents contend that since Hart is not an agent for Respondent Local 333 and there is no direct evidence of its involvement the complaint allegations should be dismissed as to Respondent Local 333. Respondent Local 333, which represents the employees who seek the disputed work, is a direct beneficiary of the activities of Respondent Local 953, Respondent Atlantic Coast District, and Respondent International found to be illegal herein. Also, the collective-bargaining agreement which is'the basis of the Respondents' claim for the work was negotiated by Respondents International and Atlantic Coast District on behalf of Respondent, Local 333 as well as the other affiliated locals at the Baltimore port. Respondent Local 333's president, Walter Kwarta, is a member of the container committee established by the agreement to enforce the rules on containers, and as such was aware of the activities of the other Respondents. Yet, Respondent Local 333 made no effort to discourage or disclaim those activities. Rather, it was the ILA members of the container committee (presumably including Kwarta) who ordered that cargo packed by Shipside be "scrutinized," causing delays we have found illegal. On the basis of the above, we find that Respondent Local 333 was aware of the activities, knew they were on behalf of the employees it represents, and, therefore, is responsible for the activities found illegal herein. See United Association ofJourneyxmen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 280, et al. (Aero Plumbing Co.), 184 NLRB 398 (1970). 227 NLRB No. 98 ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondents, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO; Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, Local 333, AFL- CIO; International - Longshoremen's Association, Local 953, AFL-CIO; International Longshoremen's Association, Atlantic Coast District, AFL-CIO; their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Law Judge: On October 6, 1975, pursuant -to the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 15, et seq., Shipside PackingCompaiiy, Inc., the Charging Party," filed unfair labor practice charges against International Longshoremen's Association, AFL- CIO, against the Association's Locals 333 and 953, and also against Atlantic Coast District of the Association. The Association, its locals, and the District are herein collective- ly called Respondents. On January 14, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 5 issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that the Respondents had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section (8)(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. On January 26, 1976, the Respondents duly filed their answer denying the commission of unfair labor practices. Upon due notice, a hearing was held before me in Baltimore, Maryland, on February 9-13, 1976. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to introduce and to meet material evidence, and to engage in oral argument. On February 18, 1976, the hearing was closed by order. During the course of the hearing, the complaint was amended over the objection of the Respon- dents to allege additional - unfair labor practices. The Respondent was provided the additional time it requested to meet those allegations. Motion by the Respondents to dismiss the complaint is denied. Briefs were filed by all parties on April 12, 1976, and have been considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Shipside Packing Company, Inc.,, a Pennsylvania corpo- ration which operates facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, and various other locations, is engaged in the business of construction of specialized wooden boxes into which it packs freight for customers for shipment to foreign ports by oceangoing vessels. During the past 12 months, a represen- tative period, Shipside has, shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 in interstate commerce to points outside the State of Maryland. - Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc. (herein called STA) is an organization composed of - various steamship lines and steamship agencies doing business in 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Baltimore, Maryland, port area. It exists for the purpose, among others, of bargaining collectively on behalf of its employer member with labor organizations, including, but not limited to, Respondents, concerning wages, hours, working conditions, and other conditions of employment of the employees of its employer-members. Among the em- ployer-members of STA are I.T.O. Corporation of Balti- more (herein called I.T.O.) and Atlantic Container Lines, Inc. (herein called Atlantic). Prudential Grace Lines, Inc., and Atlantic are corpora- tions engaged in the transportation of cargo, including containerized cargo, in interstate and foreign commerce, by oceangoing vessels. I.T.O. is a Maryland corporation engaged as a contracting stevedore in the loading and unloading of oceangoing vessels. During the past 12 months, a representative period, employer-members of STA received in excess of $1 million from the transportation of cargo in interstate and foreign commerce. - At all times material herein, Shipside, employer-members of STA, and Prudential, and each of them has been an "employer" as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in "commerce" and in operations "affecting commerce" as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, respectively. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS At all times material herein, Respondent International, Respondent District Council, Respondent Locals 333 and 953, and Petroleum, Construction, Tankline Drivers and Allied Employees Local Union No. 311, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and each of them has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Council of North Atlantic Shipping Associations (CO- NASA) is an organization of employer shipping groups, of which STA is one, which, at all times material, was a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO (ILA), covering longshore work performed for employer-members of CO- NASA at ports along a portion of the United States east coast, including the Port of Baltimore, Maryland. STA consists of steamship lines, steamship agencies, and con- tract stevedoring companies operating in the Baltimore Port area. STA, ILA, ILA's Atlantic Coast District, and various ILA locals in the Baltimore Port area, are also under collective-bargaining contract, both through the agreement between CONASA -and ILA, and supplementa- ry agreements affecting Baltimore. The various local contracts are effective October 1, 1974, through September 30, 1977. As a consequence of the CONASA agreement, members of STA and constituent bodies of the ILA in Baltimore are also bound by the CONASA-ILA rules on containers, explained hereinafter. I.T.O: Corporation, a stevedoring company, is a mem- ber of STA and bound by the terms of the contracts. Shipside is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lavino Shipping Company. Lavino is a member of STA, and accordingly also a party to the collective agreement. B. Shipside's Business Shipside is an export packer. Its business in Baltimore is the construction and packing, off the piers, of specialized wooden boxes and crates for its customers for the purpose of having the customers' goods transported overseas from the Port of Baltimore by shipping companies. Shipside is not a member of STA and is not a party to the CONASA or STA collective-bargaining agreements. Shipside's employ- ees are represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by IBT Local No. 311, pursuant to contract effective May 1, 1974, and expiring April 30, 1977. Shipside boxes both general cargo and machinery. The boxes it constructs are of assorted sizes, varying from a few to thousands of cubic feet, depending upon the nature of the shipment. Each box or crate is constructed by Shipside from scratch to accommodate the particular shipment. The goods of only one customer are inserted into a box. The boxing or crating, and the packing, are prepared in accordance with the shipping and climatic conditions to which the shipment may be expected to be exposed during the journey, and perhaps for a substantial period of time after arrival at its destination. This preparation may include the use of desiccants and other preservatives. The boxes or crates are never used again by Shipside. Shipside's customers are secured through its own sales staff. The goods to be shipped are sent directly to Shipside, either by the customer or by the persons from whom the customer has purchased them. After packing, the boxes or crates are delivered to a pier where longshoremen, members of ILA, load them onto a ship or pack them into a larger container for shipment. Selection of the shipping company which will transport the goods from the pier to the ultimate port is made by Shipside's customer. Shipside provides a bill of lading and a dock receipt, which are later transmitted by Shipside to the customer, along with an invoice. Shipside's customer is listed on the dock receipt as the shipper. - Shipside is also a licensed public warehouse. Shipside has been engaged in this business at the Baltimore Port since April 1, 1968, when it purchased the facilities of George Transfer and Rigging Co., which performed the same type of work. At least one other employer in the Baltimore area, Davidson Transfer and Storage Company, has performed the same type of work as Shipside for the past 20 or more years. C. The Container Rules The development of "container rules" in U.S. east coast shipping is described in detail in the Decision of the Board and of the Administrative Law Judge in the case of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO (Con- solidated Express, Inc. and Twin Express, Inc.) 221 NLRB 956 (1975). That history, as to the east coast in general, may be summarized as follows: INTL. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN. 661 Prior to World War II, break-bulk or general cargo which was shipped for export was loaded onto ships by longshore- men piece by piece. During World War II, the U.S. military moved material overseas in boxes prepared by itself. Thereafter, private shippers and carriers began to utilize large containers, generally reusable, for the shipment of goods, frequently intermixing the goods of more than one shipper in a particular container. The use of such containers reduced the number of units that longshoremen loaded on ships. A strike in the Port of New York in 1959 protesting the use of containers resulted in an agreement giving employers there the unrestricted right to use containers. However, subsequent increase in the utilization, and size, of containers following 1959, including the development of ships specifically designed to carry large containers, con- tributed to further decrease in unit handling by longshore- men. Disputes resulted, during which containers in the New York Port were stripped and restuffed (unloaded and reloaded) by longshoremen. Ultimately the ILA and CONASA entered into a collective-bargaining agreement containing rules and conditions covering handling of containers, known as the container rules, which gave the ILA the right to strip containers which were less than full, or containers containing consolidated loads (those contain- ing the goods of more than one shipper), where the consignor was not the beneficial owner of the outgoing cargo and it originated at a point within a 50-mile radius of the port. The container rules are applicable to the Port of Balti- more. In the Port of Baltimore there appears to have been no substantial use of containers until the early sixties. Until then, individual items sent to the pier for export were placed by longshoremen on a pallet, dish, or in a net, hoisted into the hold of the ship, and then individually stowed., In 1975 longshoremen in Baltimore began to exert pressure to secure certain export packing work for the longshoremen. D. The Issues The basic issue is whether the ILA can legally require general (or break-bulk) cargo, now packed for export off the Baltimore piers by Shipside, to be packed by longshore- men on the Baltimore piers. There is also issue as to whether Shipside, as a subsidiary of Lavino Shipping Company, is contractually bound by the container rules. Additionally, there is issue as to whether the stoppage by the ILA of certain shipments of Shipside constituted permissible detention to ascertain whether the shipment complied with the container rules. In summary, the contentions of the General Counsel and Shipside are that the Respondents unlawfully sought to acquire new work; the Respondents' defense is that their activities constituted permissible work preservation. The shipments which are the subject of the dispute involve only general cargo packed in the wooden boxes, 1 A dish is a flat wooden device with holds on each comer for lifting. A pallet is a similar rectangular device. 2 The facts as to this incident are considered only for background and not the crating of machinery, or special preparation for the rigors of climate. E. The Incidents 1. March 1975: the Morrison-Knudsen metal containers2 In March 1975, Morrison-Knudsen, a customer of Shipside, sent some 32 empty metal containers to,Shipside to be packed with Morrison-Knudsen goods for export. Shipside packed the containers and delivered them to the pier. After 25 had been loaded aboard ship, the ILA stopped the operation, on the ground that the stevedoring company, Chesapeake Operating Company, a signatory to the collective-bargaining contract, and (like shipside) a wholly owned subsidiary of Lavino, had violated the container rules since the containers were packed by non- ILA labor within a 50-mile radius of the port area. The 25 containers aboard ship were permitted to sail. However, Chesapeake was held by a joint employer-ILA committee, established under the contract to police the container rules, to have violated the rules, and Chesapeake was fined $25,000. The seven containers which had not been taken aboard ship were stripped and restuffed by ILA personnel, and forwarded on the next available ship. 2. Thomas Hart's instructions to Hoefler At some undisclosed time prior to September 25, 1975, but presumably between March and mid-July, Thomas Hart, business agent of Respondent Local 333, instructed John E. Hoefler, chief clerk of I.T.O., and a member of Respondent Local 953, to "hold" any boxes brought to the pier by Shipside Packing. 3. The Morrison-Knudsen wooden boxes In July and early August 1975, other .goods of Morrison- Knudsen, which had been packed by Shipside in wooden boxes, were detained at the pier by the ILA upon the ILA's claim that they were containers built for the purpose of circumventing the container rules. These boxes were subsequently released following issuance of a restraining order by the Federal court. 4. The U.S. Lines shipment On August 9, 1975, a United States Lines ship carrying some 20 steel containers owned by United States Lines arrived in the port of Baltimore. Inside these containers were goods of the York-Borg-Warner Company, which had been shipped by York from the west coast to Shipside for export packing in wooden boxes. As intercoastal shipments, these containers were exempt from the container rules. However, upon arrival in Baltimore the containers were detained by the ILA. The ILA's contention was that, since the goods were to be packed for export, the movement was now foreign commerce and no longer domestic, and that in such a circumstance the container rules did not permit purposes. The incident itself occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge. See Sec. 10(b) of the Act. 662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shipside to perform the packing. This shipment was ultimately released as a result of the - issuance of the restraining order referred to above with respect to the Morrison-Knudsen cargo. From then until November 1975 a number of York-Borg- Warner-shipments by Shipside were held on the piers on orders of ILA officials, under circumstances to be de- scribed. The Respondents assert that the purpose of these detentions was to determine whether they involved goods from the August 9 shipment via United States Lines, whose packing by other than ILA labor would, in the Respon- dents' view, violate the container rules. 5. The York-Board-Warner export shipments a. The September 5 Stonewall Jackson incident On September 5, 1975, a York-Borg-Warner shipment packed by Shipside was sent to Pier 11, Canton in Baltimore. The shipment consisted of a number of cartons and crates of medium size, at least two large wooden boxes, and two drums of freon. The shipment was held up at the pier on orders of ILA's business agent, Hart. This informa- tion was not conveyed to Shipside until September 15. The shipment was scheduled to be loaded on the Stonewall Jackson, a Waterman Steamship Company vessel. The disposition of this shipment is discussed later. b. The September 10, 1975, meeting between Shipside and the ILA As a result of the above-described Morrison-Knudsen and York-Borg-Warner incidents, representatives of Ship- side and of the_ ILA met, at Shipside's request, on September 10, 1975, to discuss the situation. Shipside was represented by its president, Muldoon, and its vice presi- dents, Schwemmer -and Wilson. International Vice Presi- dent Kopp and Representative Richardson represented the ILA. Kopp told the Shipsde representatives that the ILA did not claim the work of crating machinery, building boxes, or preparing the shipment for the climatic or other adverse conditions at the point of destination. However, Kopp said that the work of placing general cargo into boxes constituted work which had traditionally been done by longshoremen at the pier. Muldoon disputed this. There is some difference of opinion, of no material consequence, as to the outcome of the meeting.3 c. The meeting of September 15 or 16 Shipside learned of the detention of the Stonewall Jackson shipment on September I5. Thereafter, on or about September 17 or 18, 1975, a meeting concerning the problem was held on the pier attended by William Brown, vice president of I.T.O., ILA Business Agent Hart, and William Dorsch, general manager of Mar Shipping, the steamship agent for the-Stonewall Jackson. In this meeting Hart immediately released all the ship- ment except the two large wooden boxes. As to those, Hart made two contentions: (1) that they involved goods which were part of the intercoastal shipment of August 9, and (2) that they were containers packed with consolidated cargo subject to the container rules, constructed by Shipside in order to circumvent the rules. Inspection. of the documenta- tion of the shipment disclosed that it was not part of the intercoastal shipment. However, Hart persisted in the ILA's second objection, contending that the wooden boxes should have been packed by ILA men. Eventually, after some argument, Hart released the wooden boxes "under protest." d. The September 26 Santa Barbara incident On September 26, 1975, three wooden boxes packed by Shipside for York-Borg-Warner, containing air-condition- ing parts, were detained at Pier 11, Canton, pursuant to ILA orders. This shipment was scheduled for the Santa Barbara, a Prudential Grace Line ship, to be loaded by I.T.O. employees. The boxes were accepted at the pier, but on September 29, when the Santa Barbara sailed„they were not aboard due to the refusal of the ILA to load them. e. The September 29 Chieh Shing incident On September 29, 1975, a similar York-Borg-Warner shipment by Shipside, consisting of one wooden box scheduled for loading aboard the Chieh Shin& a Waterman Steamship Company vessel, was delivered to the pier without incident, for loading aboard ship by I.T.O. employ- ees. The box was held at the pier by the ILA and not released until after the Chieh Shing sailed. Unwilling to wait for the next Waterman ship, York-Borg-Warner rebooked the shipment and it was carried on an Evergreen Line vessel at a later date. f. The Sam Houston incident During the period from September 25 to October 6, 1975, 63 wooden boxes constructed and packed by Shipside, containing air-conditioning parts for York-Borg-Warner, were delivered to Pier 11, Canton, for loading on the Sam Houston, a Waterman vessel, by ILA employees of I.T.O. On October 6, 1975, Dorsch, Mar shipping manager, advised Shipside that the boxes were detained on order of Business Agent Hart, for determination as to whether they involved cargo from the United States Lines intercoastal shipment. After Dorsch established to Hart's satisfaction that they were not, Hart released them and the boxes were carried on the Sam Houston. g. The November 6, 1975, Atlantic Crown incident The last incident of which there is definitive evidence in the record occurred on November 6, 1975, and involved another shipment of wooden boxes constructed and packed by Shipside for York-Borg-Warner. These were delivered to the pier on October 31, 1975, for transport aboard the Atlantic Crown, a vessel of the Atlantic Container Lines. The Atlantic Crown is a container vessel. ILA member- 3 Schwemmer and Wilson testified that the meeting ended inconclusively, it to the pier, where the box would be packed by ILA labor. Kopp further with Muldoon telling Kopp that the matter should be settled "in court," testified that, sometime later, Muldoon telephoned him, suggested a while Kopp testified that Muldoon tentatively agreed that Shipside would compromise which Kopp would not accept , and then withdrew his tentative accede to Kopp's position and bring the box and the articles to be packed in agreement. INTL. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN. 663 employees of I.T.O. refused to place the boxes in containers on the Atlantic Crown, and as a consequence the shipment missed the sailing date. CONCLUSIONS The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the Respondents' conduct constituted secondary action prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. The Respondents' basic contention is that they were engaged in work preservation, a course of conduct autho- rized by National Woodwork Manufacturers Association et al v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612 (1967), and Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. N.LR.B., 386 U.S. 664 (1967). The premise of that contention is that the work done by Shipside in packing general cargo is work historically done by stevedores on the dock, and that-pursuant to what the Respondents contend is a proper construction of the container rules-Shipside was circumventing those rules and performing work which should properly have been performed by ILA members on the Baltimore piers. Alternatively, the Respondents contend that Shipside, as a subsidiary of Lavino Shipping Company, which is a signatory to the Baltimore contract, is bound to have its packing work performed under the contract by ILA employees on the pier. As to the various stoppages of York- Borg-Warner shipments, the ILA contends that, under routine waterfront practice, the loads were merely detained until their origin could be checked. It is my conclusion that the complaint is sustained by the evidence. The facts disclose that the work performed by Shipside, and which the Respondents claim, is work of a nature never previously performed by longshoremen at the Baltimore piers, either as a matter of practice or custom. We have seen that historically, and prior to the develop- ment of containerization, general cargo, in various forms of packaging, was brought to the Baltimore piers by shippers, and placed by longshoremen on dishes, pallets, or in nets, loaded aboard ship, and stored in the hold in individual fashion. The work now claimed by the ILA is the placing of those individual items in large boxes or containers where that work has been performed by a company such as Shipside on behalf of a customer, and within a 50-mile radius of the pier. The Board has held that in the case of shipping out of the Ports of Norfolk, Virginia, and New York City such export packing was not historically per- formed by longshoremen. International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1248, et al. (U.S. Naval Supply Center), 195 NLRB 273 (1972); International Longshoremen's Associ- ation, AFL-CIO (Consolidated Express Inc. and Twin Express, Inc.), 221 NLRB 956 (1975). The facts in the instant case require a similar conclusion as to the Baltimore Port. It is therefore found that the claims of the Respon- dents respecting the work done in Baltimore by Shipside constituted attempts to acquire work, not attempts to retain or preserve it. The National Woodworkers and Houston Insulation cases, and other cases cited by the Respondents, are inapposite here.4 The various . incidents related above concerning the detention at the piers of cargo from -Shipside constitutes overt conduct designed to enforce the Respondents' claims. While the Respondents argue that their-monitoring of the York-Borg-Warner shipments by Shipside was only for the purpose of determining whether the shipments were cargo from the intercoastal shipment of August 9, the evidence discloses that that was not the sole reason for the action. The credited testimony establishes that the detention was also pursuant to the claim of the Respondents that the boxes constituted containers and were therefore subject to packing at the pier by ILA labor. The Respondents contend that the action which they engaged in did not as a matter of law constitute a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). The Board, however, has held to the contrary. In the U.S. Naval Supply Center case, supra, the ILA engaged in conduct at Norfolk indistinguish- able in principle from that engaged in here. That conduct was found by the Board to constitute a violation of Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. And in the Consolidated and Twin Express case, supra, the Board found refusals by the ILA to handle cargo because it had been packed off-pier by export packers to constitute restraint and coercion of employers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act. It follows that similar fmdings must be made here, unless the Respondents are correct in their contention that, by reason of Shipside's status as a subsidiary of Lavino Shipping Co., Shipside was under the same obligation as Lavino to have the work which it performed done on the pier using ILA labor. We turn now to that contention. A substantial number of the officers and directors of Lavino hold similar positions in Shipside. Shipside's general day-to-day operations are directed by its general manager, John Ferguson. Shipside and Lavino are separate corpora- tions -and there is no interchange of hourly employees between the- two. Shipside does its own hiring, its labor relations policies for hourly employees are established separately from those of Lavino, and there is no apparent mingling of function or management, other than as noted, between Shipside and Lavino. In the case of American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Washington-Baltimore Local, AFL-CIO (Baltimore News American Division The Hearst Corporation), 185 NLRB 593 (1970), and in the case of Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Local 69, et al. (San Francisco Examiner, Division of the Hearst Corporation, et al.), 185 NLRB 303 (1970), the Board held that different divisions of the Hearst Corpora- tion, each separately and independently managed, should not be treated as a single entity for the purpose of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the Act. The instant case, involving not merely different divisions of the same corporation, as in Hearst, but separate and independent corporations, ap- pears to me to be governed by the same rule. I therefore find the Respondents' contention in this respect not sustained. That the detentions represented only a small percentage of the overall cargo shipped by Shipside is not a defense. The incidents were not fragmentary or isolated. There were 4 At the time of writing, the Consolidated and Twin Express case was the correctness of the Board's ruling. In the interim the Board's decision is pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for determination as to binding on me. World Carpets of New York, Inc., 188 NLRB 122 (1971). 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a number of them, and they represented a consistent course of conduct in the enforcement of an illegal policy. On the basis of the foregoing findings, I conclude that the Respondents induced and encouraged employees to refuse to handle shipments of goods packed by Shipside, and coerced and restrained Shipside, I.T.O., and other employ- ers to cease handling such shipments. It is further found that by such conduct the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondents International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, International Longshoremen's Association, Local 333, AFL-CIO, International Longshoremen's Asso- ciation, Local 953, AFL-CIO, International Longshore- men's Association, Atlantic Coast District AFL-CIO, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist: (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Atlantic Container Lines, Inc., I.T.O. Corporation of Baltimore, Mar Shipping, Prudential Grace Lines, Inc., Shipside Packing Company, Inc., United States Lines, Waterman Steamship Company, or other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining any of the above-named employers or any other person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require any of the above-named employers, or any other 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 Shipside Packing Company, Inc., or any other person. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify members of International Longshoremen's Association, Locals 333 and 953, that Respondents have no objection to loading or unloading cargo that has been packed by Shipside Packing Company, Inc. (b) Notify members of International Longshoremen's Association, Locals 333 and 953, that any previous instruc- tions, requests, or appeals which Respondents have made against loading or unloading cargo for or from Shipside Packing Company, Inc., have been withdrawn. (c) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondents' business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents represen- tative, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 5 sufficient signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Atlantic, I.T.O., Mar, Prudential, Shipside, United States Lines, and Waterman, those companies willing, at all places where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. 5 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. 6 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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." INTL. LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSN. 665 APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT (a) engage in, or induce or encourage employees of Atlantic Container Lines, I.T.O. Corporation of Baltimore, Mar Shipping, Prudential Grace Lines, Inc., Shipside Packing Company, Inc., United States Lines, Waterman Steamship Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or. a refusal in the course of their employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, or (b) threaten, coerce, or restrain any of the above-named employers or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require any of the above-named employers, or any other person, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the product of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer or to cease doing business with any other person or with Shipside Packing Company, Inc. WE HEREBY cancel and withdraw any orders or instruc- tions given our members or any other individuals not to load or unload shipments to or from Shipside Packing Company, Inc. WE HEREBY notify our members, and any other employ ees or individuals, that we have no objection to their loading, unloading, or otherwise handling shipments to or from Shipside Packing Company, Inc. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LocAL 333, AFL-CIO; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 953, AFL-CIO; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION ATLANTIC COAST DISTRICT, AFL-CIO