International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Of America

910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 25, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Boston Deliveries, Inc. Case 1-CC-2094 30 January 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 28 May 1986 Administrative Law Judge Marvin Roth issued the attached decision. The Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in opposition to the Respondent's exceptions and the Charging Party filed an answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board had dele- gated its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the'exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Local Union No. 25, a/w International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. i The Respondent excepts, inter aha, to the judge's conclusion that the filing of grievances by the Respondent under its collective-bargaining agreement with the Charging Party to collect pay in lieu of lost work is unlawful secondary activity The Respondent argues that there is- no direct evidence that it had a secondary object in filing the grievances and that merely attempting to enforce the agreement covering employees it represents cannot constitute proscribed conduct The Respondent does not except, however, to the judge's finding that, if the Respondent were not aware when it filed initial grievances that the Charging Party had no control over the assignment of the lost work, it learned of this soon thereafter The Respondent nevertheless continued to press the Charging Party for pay in lieu by seeking enforcement of an arbitration panel's award on the original grievances, striking and picket- ing the Charging Party, and filing additional grievances. Under these cir- cumstances, we agree with the judge that the Respondent's entire course of conduct violated Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. In so doing, however, we find it unnecessary to pass on whether the Respondent's filing and processing of grievances alone constitute unlaw- ful secondary activity Member Babson additionally does not pass on the judge's discussion of Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight), 278 NLRB 1303 (1986) Michael T Fitzsimmons, Esq., for the General Counsel. Gabriel O. Dumont Jr., Esq., of Boston, Massachusettes, for the Respondent. Robert N. House, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARVIN ROTH, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard at Boston, Massachusetts, on 31 March 1986. The charge was filed on 4 September 19851 by Boston Deliveries, Inc. (Boston Deliveries). The complaint, which issued on 14 November, alleges that Local Union No. 25, a/w, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (the Union or Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii), and the first part of (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, which section proscribes secondary boycotts. The gravamen of the complaint is that the Union, in further- ance of a labor dispute with Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Sears), registered grievances against Boston Deliveries under their collective-bargaining contract, processed such grievances through arbitration proceedings, sought judicial confirmation of an arbitration award, and en- gaged in a strike and picketing against Boston Deliveries. The Union's answer denies the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. All parties were afforded full opportunity to partici- pate, to present relevant evidence, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The General Counsel, Boston Deliveries, and the Union each filed a brief. On the entire record in this case, and having considered the briefs submitted by the parties, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED Sears, a corporation with offices and places of business throughout the United States, is engaged in the operation of retail stores and related enterprises. During 1984, Sears in the course of its business operations derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at its Massachusetts stores goods valued in excess of $10,000 directly from locations outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston Deliveries, a corporation with an office and place of business at a Sears warehouse on Cambridge Street in Allston, Massa- chusetts (Allston facility), and a place of business at a Sears facility on Guest Street in Brighton, Massachusetts (Brighton Annex), has been engaged in the transportation and distribution of freight as a motor freight carrier. During 1984, Boston Deliveries performed freight trans- portation services for Sears valued in excess of $50,000. The Union admits, and I so find, that Sears and Boston Deliveries are, and have been at all times material, each an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. H. THE RESPONDENT The Union is admittedly a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. i All dates herein are in 1985 unless otherwise indicated. 282 NLRB No. 138 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 25 (BOSTON DELIVERIES) 911 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABO,1f PRACTICES A. Facts The material operative facts are undisputed and were submitted in evidence by stipulation of the parties. How- ever, the parties are not in total agreement on the impli- cations of those facts. On 2 ,September 1969 Sears and Boston Deliveries executed a "Retail Delivery Operation Agreement" whereby Boston Deliveries (referred to in the agreement as Contractor) contracted to perform cer- tain services for Sears. The agreement provided in perti- nent part as follows: SEARS is the owner of certain motor truck equipment which is used and is to be used for the transportation of certain of SEARS' merchandise to and from SEARS' facilities and the facilities of others located in the Boston, Massachusetts area or which may now or hereafter comprise the retail de- livery operation of the Boston Retail Group (as that term is known and used by SEARS from time to time), together with deliveries to and from any or all of the said facilities to SEARS' customers within a delivery area as determined by SEARS and any other facility or facilities which may now or may hereafter comprise the inter-city or intra-city oper- ation of the Boston Mail Order Plant (as that term is used by SEARS) or any other points in the East- ern Territory of SEARS. CONTRACTOR is to furnish qualified drivers, helpers, platform men and other personnel as desired by SEARS for the load- ing, unloading, operation and maintenance of the SEARS motor truck equipment. In order to effectu- ate the purposes above described and in consider- ation of the mutual covenants and agreements herein entertained, SEARS and CONTRACTOR, intending to be legally bound by all the provisions hereof agree as follows: 1. Commencing on September 2, 1969, CON- TRACTOR does hereby agree to furnish and pro- vide to SEARS a sufficient number of competent and' qualified personnel, as requested ' by SEARS from time to time, to repair and maintain such motor truck equipment and operate it for the trans- portation of SEARS' merchandise to, from, be- tween and among all of the various locations de- scribed above. CONTRACTOR will also furnish trained platform men and helpers, if requested by SEARS. 2. All of the personnel described herein are and shall continue to be solely employes [sic] of CON- TRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall retain sole au- thority and responsibility for all matters pertaining to and connected ,with the employment and work of the employes [sic] described herein, including, but not limited to, their hiring, control, discipline and discharge, the setting of wage rates and the pay- ment of wages. In addition to its control under the terms and conditions of employment of the em- ployes [sic] described herein, CONTRACTOR shall also be solely responsible for all negotiations and contracts - with the bargaining agents of the em- ployes [sic] herein named. 3. CONTRACTOR shall provide the services herein described in accordance with the requests and needs of SEARS. Sears agreed to pay Boston Deliveries in accordance with a formula under which Sears compensated Boston Deliveries for its payroll and other labor costs, including fringe benefits. The agreement was made effective for an initial 1-year period and automatically renewable from year to year unless either party terminated the agreement on 30 days' written notice to the other party. Pursuant to their agreement, Boston Deliveries provid- ed employees to perform services for Sears at the All- ston facility. In November 1984, Sears opened a new warehouse at Brighton Annex, and Boston Deliveries provided employees to perform services at that location. So far as is indicated by the stipulated record, Boston Deliveries furnished personnel who performed loading and unloading work. (The stipulated documents indicate that Boston Deliveries and the Union disagree as to the scope of the work performed by such personnel, but the stipulated evidence is inadequate to resolve this disagree- ment.) The employees of Boston Deliveries who per- formed these services for Sears were at all times material covered by a collective-bargaining contract between Boston Deliveries and the Union. The current contract was executed on 18 July 1985 and made effective by its terms from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1988. The collec- tive-bargaining contract, which refers to Boston Deliv- eries as the Employer, and does not refer to Sears, in- cludes the following provisions: ARTICLE I SCOPE OF AGREEMENT Section 1. The execution of this Agreement on the part of the Employer shall cover all operations of the Employer within, into and out of the area and territory described below. If the Employer closes facility (Allston) and moves to another area, or transfers the work partial- ly to another area, the employees and Local Union will have the right to follow the work. All operations and work covered herein shall be performed exclusively by employees covered by this Agreement. Section 2. (a) Employees covered by this Agree- ment shall be constructed to mean, but not limited to, any driver, chauffeur, or driver helper operating a truck, tractor, motorcycle, passenger or horse- drawn vehicle, or any other vehicle operated on highways, street or private road, for transportation purposes when used to defeat the purpose of this Agreement. The term employees also includes, but is not limited to, all employees used in dock work, switching, checking, drag lines, stacking, loading, unloading, handling and assembling. 912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ARTICLE XVI GRIEVANCE MACHINERY COMMITTEE SECTION 1. NEW ENGLAND JOINT AREA COMMITTEE. The Operators and the Unions shall together create a permanent New England Joint Area Com- mittee, composed of the following Local Unions: 25, 42, 49, 59, 170, 191, 251, 379, 404, 437, 443, 493, 526, 653, 671 and 677. The Joint Area Committee shall consist of an equal number appointed by Em- ployers and Unions but no less than three (3) from each group. Each member may appoint an alternate in his place. The Joint Area Committee shall at its first meeting formulate rules of procedure to govern the conduct of its proceedings. The Joint Area Committee shall have jurisdiction over disputes and grievances involving Local Unions or complaints by Local Unions participating in such Committee. This Joint Area Committee shall meet at established times and at a mutually convenient location. SECTION 2. EASTERN CONFERENCE JOINT AREA COMMITTEE. The Employers and the Unions shall together create a permanent Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee which shall consist of delegates from the Eastern Conference Area. This Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee shall meet at established times and at a mutually convenient location. ARTICLE XVII GRIEVANCE MACHINER Y AND UNION LIABILITY SECTION 1. The Union and the Employers agree that there shall be no strike, lockout, tie-up, or legal proceed- ings without first using all possible means of a set- tlement, as provided for in this Agreement, of any controversy which might arise. Disputes shall first be taken up between the Employer and the Local Union involved. Failing adjustment by these parties, the following procedure shall then apply: (a) Where the New England Joint Area Commit- tee, by a majority vote, settles a dispute, no appeal may be taken to the Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee. Such a decision will be final and bind- ing on both parties. (b) Where the New England Joint Area Commit- tee is unable to agree or come to a decision on a case, it shall be submitted or appealed to the East- ern Conference Joint Area Committee at the next regular constituted session, at the request of the Employer or Union involved, except as otherwise provided in (d) below. Where the Eastern Confer- ence Joint Area Committee, by a majority vote, set- tles a dispute such decision shall be final and bind- ing on both parties with no further appeal. Minutes of the New England Joint Area Committee shall set forth the position and facts relied on by each party, but each party may supplement such minutes at the hearing before the Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee. Deadlocked cases may be submitted to umpire handling if a majority of the Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee determines to submit such matter to an umpire for decision. Otherwise, either party shall be permitted all legal or economic re- course. In May and June 1985, six employees of Boston Deliv- eries filed grievances against their Employer. The sub- stance of these grievances was that the employees were laid off for lack of work, while Sears employees were performing loading work at the Brighton Annex, that the employees of Boston Deliveries were entitled to such work under their collective-bargaining contract and, therefore, that they should be compensated for their loss of work. The Union, by its secretary-treasurer Joseph Conlon and steward John Mawn, presented and proc- essed these and subsequent similar grievances. The Union selected one of the original six grievances, known as the Hughes grievance, for submission to arbitration by the New England Joint Area Committee (NEJAC), with the understanding of the parties that NEJAC's decision would also apply to the other grievances. The Union al- leged that Boston Deliveries violated article I, sections 1 and 2, of its contract, and requested that Hughes "be paid for lost work opportunity" and that Boston Deliv- eries "cease and desist as per contract." NEJAC con- ducted a hearing on 17 July. At the hearing Boston De- liveries took the position, in sum, that Sears decided to staff the Brighton Annex with its own employees, that Boston Deliveries' employees had no contractual right to work at that facility, that Sears was not a party to any contract with the Union and had the right to use its own employees, that any adverse decision against Boston De- liveries would not be binding on Sears, and that the union contract did not control Boston Deliveries' cus- tomers. NEJAC decided in favor of the Union, holding that: "Based on the evidence and testimony presented the claim for lost work opportunity in violation of the con- tract is upheld." In the meantime, by letter dated 28 June, Sears notified ' Boston Deliveries that the "loading and unloading trailer services provided by Boston Deliv- eries, Inc. is no longer required" at the Allston facility and the Brighton Annex, and that "[a]s a result, Sears is effecting cancellation of these services pursuant to our contract as of August 1, 1985." On 1 July, Boston Deliv- eries notified its employees of the cancellation. The par- ties to this proceeding stipulated that about 1 August the Union engaged in a strike and picketing against Boston Deliveries at the Allston facility and the Brighton Annex. The only record evidence presented concerning the purpose or object of this strike and picketing consist- ed of hearsay, specifically, the self-serving assertions of Boston Deliveries in correspondence and its unfair labor practice charge. However, in its brief (Br. 2) the ' Union admitted that it struck to compel Boston Deliveries to comply with the NEJAC award. By letters dated 2 and 8 August, Boston Deliveries sent checks to the original six grievants for their alleged lost wages, informing them that it was making the payments 'under protest, and TEAMSTERS LOCAL 25 (BOSTON DELIVERIES) would seek judicial review of the NEJAC award: Boston` Deliveries asserted that it was making these payments be- cause the Union engaged in an "illegal strike" that was stopped by a temporary restraining order of the United States district court. According to Boston Deliveries, it was informed by an unnamed union representative that the strike was based on the fact that the Company had not yet made these payments, "despite the fact that 10 days from the receipt of the written decision had not even passed." At the present hearing , union counsel stated that at the time there was a dispute between the parties as to whether 10 days had passed . The stipulated evidence does not indicate any pertinent contract provi- sion governing strike action in the event of noncompli- ance with an arbitration award. Boston Deliveries instituted an action against the Union in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to vacate the NEJAC award. Boston Deliveries alleged in sum that NEJAC exceeded its au- thority by applying the collective-bargaining contract to work outside the scope of the contract, and that Sears had sole discretion concerning the assignment of work to Boston Deliveries. On 23 August the Union filed an answer and counterclaim, denying the allegations of the complaint and requesting enforcement of the NEJAC award. After 1 August the Union presented and proc- essed additional grievances against Boston Deliveries, al- leging further loss of work "because of the situation aris- ing from Sears taking over the platform work." The Union asserted that Boston Deliveries violated, in addi- tion to article I, various other sections of their contract, including those pertaining to seniority rights, and re- quested that Boston Deliveries be ordered to "cease and desist making unilateral changes without proper agree- ment between the parties and also to replace all lost work opportunities and benefits since August 1, 1985." After a hearing NEJAC was deadlocked on the griev- ances, and referred them to the. Eastern Conference Joint Area Committee. In October and November, the Union presented additional 'similar grievances, which were pending at the time of the present hearing. B. Analysis and Concluding Findings The first question presented is whether and under what circumstances a union violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by filing and processing grievances against an employer, pursuing them to arbitration , and seeking judicial confir- mation of a favorable award .2 In Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight), 278 NLRB 1303 (1986), the Board held in sum that a labor organization violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by filing and processing grievances against an employer where an object of such conduct is pro- scribed by that section, i.e., where the Union seeks to cause a cessation of business within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(b)(4) first part (B). The Board distinguished Bill Johnson 's Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983), in 2 The General Counsel does not contend that such conduct would constitute inducement or encouragement of a work stoppage under Sec. 8(bX4)(i)(B) However, the General Counsel does contend that such con- duct can constitute restraint and coercion of an employer under Sec 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). (Br. fn. 3.) 913 which- the ^Supreine Court held in sum that the Board cannot enjoin a retaliatory lawsuit by an employer, i.e., one filed in retaliation for its employees' exercise of Sec- tion 7 rights, unless the lawsuit lacks a reasonable basis in fact and law . The Board relied on the Supreme Court's observation (461 U.S. at 737 fn. 5) that its hold- ing did not apply to a suit that "has an objective that is illegal under Federal law." Therefore, in the present case, the Union's action in filing and processing griev- ances would be unlawful if done for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B). The Board's rationale would also be applicable to the Union's counterclaim for judicial confirmation of the NEJAC award. As indicated, the Union concedes that it struck and picketed Boston Deliv- eries in order to compel Boston Deliveries to comply with the award. Therefore, it follows that if the Union acted unlawfully by filing and processing its grievances through arbitration, then the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by striking and picketing Boston De- liveries to compel compliance with an award that the Union obtained by its own unlawful conduct. As the Union engaged in conduct that would consti- tute restraint and coercion of an employer , including a strike and picketing that would also constitute strike action under Section 8 (b)(4)(i)(B), the next question pre- sented is whether the Union engaged in its overall course of conduct for a secondary object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B). I find that it did. When the, Union filed and processed its grievances to arbitration, it based its claim for relief on various provisions of its contract with Boston Deliveries. It is possible that a collective-bargain- ing contract might provide for a minimum guaranteed workday or workweek, under which the signatory em- ployer might be obligated to compensate its employees' for its, failure to' meet that guarantee , even though the employer's failure to provide sufficient work was caused by factors beyond its control. However, the contract be- tween the Union and Boston Deliveries does ,not contain such provisions . Rather, the entire thrust of the Union's claims was that Boston Deliveries somehow violated its contract because certain loading dock work was per- formed by Sears' employees rather than by unit employ- ees of Boston Deliveries. However, Sears, which is not a party to the contract, made the decision or decisions to use its own employees. Boston Deliveries had no control or right to control those decisions. Rather, under their contractual arrangement, Boston Deliveries was obligat- ed to furnish services ' "in accordance with the requests and needs of Sears," and their arrangement was subject to cancellation by either party on 30 days' Written notice. Sears exercised this right by canceling its ar- rangement for any and all loading and unloading services at the Allston facility and the Brighton Annex. If the Union was unaware of Boston Deliveries' lack of control over assignment of the work in question when the initial grievances were filed, then the Union plainly learned of the true situation shortly thereafter, when Boston Deliv- eries notified its employees of Sears' cancellation, and when Boston Deliveries presented its position at the 17 July arbitration hearing . Therefore, under settled law the Union's dispute was with Sears, and Boston Deliveries 914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was a neutral or secondary employer to that dispute. See NLRB v. Plumbers Local 638, 429 U.S. 507 (1977). Nev- ertheless, the Union argues (Br. 4) that its conduct did not have a- proscribed object because its ultimate goal was to restore and reinforce the arrangement between Sears and Boston Deliveries by applying pressure on Boston Deliveries to use its influence on Sears in such a manner as to cause Sears to resume using the services of Boston Deliveries. This argument misconstrues the pro- scription of Section 8(b)(4)(B) against so-called second- ary boycotts. In secondary boycott cases, the crucial question is whether the Union is applying pressure on an employer with whom it does not have a primary dispute, i.e., a neutral or secondary employer. The Union's ultimate object may not be to cause a cessation of business be- tween, the secondary and'the primary employer. Rather, the "cease doing business" object may be an interim, conditional, tactical, or alternative means of achieving the Union's ultimate goal. When, as here, a union applies strike or other proscribed pressure in order to force the secondary employer to "use its influence" on the primary employer to restore or revise a business relationship be- tween them and, thereby, obtain work for employees represented by the Union, the Union's conduct is second- ary and violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B). NLRB ' v Operat- ing Engineers Local 825, 400 U.S. 297, 304-305 '(1971). Therefore, in the present case the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Sears and Boston Deliveries are each employers and persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. 2. The Union is a' labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By registering and filing grievances against Boston Deliveries under their collective-bargaining contract, processing such grievances through arbitration proceed- ings, seeking judicial confirmation of an arbitration award, and striking and picketing Boston Deliveries, all in furtherance of the Union's dispute with Sears, the Union has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning' of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Union has committed violations of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and from like or related conduct, to post appropriate notices, and to furnish and give appropriate notices to Sears and Boston Deliveries. I shall further recommend that the Union be ordered to withdraw its grievances against Boston Deliv- eries' arising out of the assignment of loading and unload- ing work to Sears' employees, and to withdraw its coun- terclaim for, enforcement of the Hughes award. See Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight), supra. As Boston Deliveries made payments to employees in com- pliance with the Hughes award because of unlawful union pressure, including a strike and picketing, I shall recommend that the Union be ordered to reimburse Boston Deliveries for such payments, with interest. See Printers Local 1066 (Siebenoller Co.), 205 NLRB 651, 653 (1973). Interest shall be computed in the manner and amount prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). I am rejecting the General Counsel's request for a visitatorial clause because the General Counsel has failed to demonstrate that there are circumstances in this case that warrant such a remedy. See Rebel Coal Co., 279 NLRB 141 fn. 2 (1986). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed4 ORDER The Respondent, Local Union No. 25, a/w Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehou- semen and Helpers of America, Allston and Brighton, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Registering, filing, or processing grievances against Boston Deliveries, Inc., demanding compliance by Boston Deliveries, Inc. with awards obtained as a result of such grievances, or striking or picketing Boston De- liveries, Inc. where an object thereof is to force or re- quire Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business with Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person. (b) In any other manner or by any other means engag- ing in, or inducing or encouraging any individual em- ployed by Boston Deliveries, Inc. or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce to ` engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, or threatening, coercing, or restraining Boston Deliveries, Inc. or any other person engaged 'in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or,require Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business with Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw all pending grievances against Boston Deliveries, Inc. arising out of the assignment of work by Sears, Roebuck & Co. to its own employees at the Sears warehouse on Cambridge Street in Allston, Massachu- setts, and the Sears facility on Guest Street in Brighton, Massachusetts. 4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's 3 Boston Deliveries requests that I find that the Union also violated Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. However, as the complaint does not allege Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the that the Union violated this section, I have no authority to make such a Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- finding. poses. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 25 (BOSTON DELIVERIES) (b) Withdraw its counterclaim against Boston Deliv- eries, Inc. in Civil Action No. 85-3144-W in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, (c) Reimburse Boston Deliveries, Inc. for payments made pursuant to the 17 July 1985 decision of the New England Joint Area Committee, as set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (d) Post at its office in Charlestown, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material, (e) Furnish to the Regional Director, for Region I signed copies of the notice for posting by Boston Deliv- eries and Sears, if they are willing, in their respective fa- cilities, in the places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be forthwith re- turned to the Regional Director for such posting. (f) Notify Boston Deliveries and Sears in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order ,that it will not, by any unlawful' manner or means, attempt to force or require Boston Deliveries to cease and desist doing business with Sears or any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce. (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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 AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 915 The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT register, file, or process grievances against Boston Deliveries, Inc., demand compliance by Boston Deliveries, Inc. with awards obtained as a result of such grievances, or strike or picket Boston Deliveries, Inc. where an object thereof is to force or require Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business with Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person. WE WILL NOT in any other manner or by any other means engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by Boston Deliveries,, Inc. or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, or threaten, coerce, or re- strain Boston Deliveries, Inc. or any other person en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business with Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person. WE WILL withdraw all pending grievances against Boston Deliveries, Inc. arising out the assignment of work by Sears, Roebuck & Co. to its own employees at the Sears warehouse on Cambridge Street in Allston, Massachusetts, and the Sears facility on Guest Street in Brighton, Massachusetts. WE WILL withdraw our counterclaim against Boston Deliveries, Inc. in Civil Action No. 85-3144-W in the United States District Court for the District of Massa- chusetts. WE WILL reimburse Boston Deliveries, Inc. for pay- ments made pursuant to the 17 July 1985 decision of the New England Joint Area Committee, with interest. LOCAL UNION No. 25, A/W INTERNATION- AL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA