International Longshoremen'S And Warehousemen'S Local 13; International Longshoremen'S And Warehousemen'S Local 63

704 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 13; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 63 and The Careau Group d/b/a Egg City International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 13; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 63; Metropolitan Steve- doring Company; Long Beach Container Termi- nal, Inc.; Pacific Maritime Association and The Careau Group d/b/a Egg City and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Party to the Contract. Cases 31-CC-1895 and 31-CE-196 June 15, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On June 29, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 13 and International Long- shoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 63 (Re- spondent Locals 13 and 63) filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief; and Respondents Metropoli- tan Stevedoring Company, Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc., and Pacific Maritime Association filed an opposition brief to the General Counsel's exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed 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. We agree with the judge, as does our dissenting colleague, that Respondent Local 63 has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and that Re- spondent Local 13 has violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. We further agree with the judge, contrary to our dissenting colleague and for the reasons set forth below, that there was no vio- lation of Section 8(e) or Section 8(b)(4)(A). The Respondents were all bound to a collective- bargaining agreement that provided in part: 11.51 Refusal to cross a legitimate and bona fide picket line, as defined in this paragraph, ' Respondent Locals 13 and 63 have excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon- derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings shall not be deemed a violation of this Agree- ment. Such a picket line is one established and maintained by a union, acting independently of the ILWU longshore locals, about the prem- ises of an employer with whom it is engaged in a bona fide dispute over wages, hours or working conditions of employees, a majority of whom it represents as the collective bar- gaining agency. Collusive picket lines, jurisdic- tional picket lines, hot cargo picket lines, second- ary boycott picket lines and demonstration picket lines are not legitimate and bona fide picket lines within the meaning of this Agree- ment. [Emphasis added.] During the week preceding August 20, 1986, a container of Egg City products was delivered to the facility of Respondent Metropolitan Stevedor- ing Company (Respondent Metropolitan). The con- tainer was stored in a refrigerated area to await the arrival of a ship due about a week later. On August 20, 1986, United Farm Workers (UFW) pickets pa- trolled the main gate at the Metropolitan terminal with signs stating, "On strike against Egg City." Metropolitan representatives had been told that UFW would picket unless the Egg City container was removed. After the picket line was established, representa- tives of Respondents Local 13 and Local 63 told representatives of Respondent Metropolitan that labor would be removed from the terminal unless the picket line was moved inside the terminal and the UFW picketing allowed around the Egg City container. (Such conduct by Local 13 and Local 63 is found to have violated Sec. 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.) Metropolitan allowed the picketing inside the terminal that night. That same day a representative of Respondent Pacific Maritime Association (Respondent PMA), of which Metropolitan was a member, participated in a labor relations committee meeting pursuant to the grievance procedures of the contract. Repre- sentatives of Respondent Local 63, Respondent Metropolitan, and UFW were present. An Egg City representative participated by telephone. Re- spondent Local 63 took the position that the UFW picketing of the container inside the terminal was bona fide, while Respondent PMA claimed the picketing was a secondary boycott and not bona fide under the provisions of section 11 of the col- lective-bargaining agreement. The same day a telephone arbitration hearing was conducted by arbitrator George Love. The parties stated their positions, and the arbitrator im- mediately ruled that the situs of the Egg City strike 295 NLRB No. 74 LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 13 (EGG CITY) 705 had been expanded and that the picket line was bona fide under section 11.5 of the contract. Our dissenting colleague would find that Re- spondents Metropolitan, Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc., and PMA, as well as Respondents Local 13 and Local 63, violated Section 8(e)2 by "enter[ing] into" an agreement that is unlawful within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act be- cause the parties submitted the dispute to an arbi- trator which resulted in an arbitration award stat- ing: "The UFW picket, placed at the one contain- er, is bonafide [sic], the ILWU work force does not have to handle it."3 We agree with the judge that the contract as in- terpreted by the arbitrator was violative of Section 8(e). However, we also agree, contrary to our dis- senting colleague, that neither the Respondent Em- ployers nor the Respondent Unions, by virtue of the arbitrator's decision , entered into an agreement that violated Section 8(e). The collective-bargain- ing agreement, on its face at section 11 .51, clearly stated that "hot cargo picket lines, secondary boy- cott picket lines . . . are not legitimate and bona fide picket lines within the meaning of this Agree- ment." The contract explicitly stated also that it would not allow its provisions to be interpreted as a "hot cargo" agreement. We do not agree that the cases cited by our dis- senting colleague support a finding that submission of the dispute to an arbitrator, under the terms of this collective-bargaining agreement, constituted entering into an agreement in violation of Section 8(e). We agree that there are circumstances under which the Board will find a violation of Section 8(e) by virtue of an arbitrator's award issued within the 10(b) period, even if the collective-bargaining agreement was not unlawful on its face.4 However, in the circumstances of this case , the collective-bar- gaining agreement was not only valid on its face, but also was not amenable to an unlawful interpre- tation, despite the arbitrator's award. Although the Board acknowledges an arbitrator 's power to inter- pret a contract, we are not bound to find a viola- tion of the Act here on the basis of the arbitrator's award. The parties drafted a collective -bargaining agreement that clearly avoided any suggestion that 2 Sec 8(e) provides- It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organizalon and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or im- plied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person ... . 8 Respondent Local 13 did not participate in the arbitration hearing. Respondent Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc was not present, al- though it is a member of Respondent PMA which did participate 4 Retail Clerks Union Local 770 (Hughes Market), 218 NLRB 680, 683 fn. 11 (1975). hot cargo or other secondary picket lines would be protected. We would not find, 10(b) considerations aside, that the signers of this contract entered into an agreement in violation of Section 8(e), either at the execution of the contract or at the submission of a grievance to arbitration. Even our dissenting colleague acknowledges it is "problematic" to find that the Respondent Employers violated Section 8(e) where, as here, their bargaining representative took pains to avoid committing such an unfair labor practice when the contract was drafted and argued against the Respondent Unions' position at the time of the arbitration hearing. Rather than un- dermining the policy of collective bargaining, this approach encourages parties to enter into valid contracts and to submit disputes to arbitration. We are not called on here to enforce the contract nor to rescind an arbitrator's decision, but merely to pass on whether Section 8(e) of the Act has been violated. We decline to find such a violation. With respect to the Respondent Unions, we agree with the judge that although Locals 13 and 63 consistently maintained a position , accepted by the arbitrator, that the contract protected their members' refusal to perform the work in question, there is no violation of Section 8(e) because there was no "enter[ing] into" an agreement prohibited by Section 8(e). We further agree with the judge that the Respondent Unions did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(A) because the core of the Unions' efforts was to require the Respondent Employers to refuse to handle Egg City products, which is found to violate Section 8(b)(4)(B), rather than to "enter into" an 8(e) agreement. We do not find that the Respondent Employers' actions or lack of action after the arbitration award constitute entering into an agreement prohibited by Section 8(e). We agree with the judge 's conclusion that the Respondent Employers took no action to honor the arbitrator's award. We therefore need not pass on whether the Respondent Employers would have "honored" the award if they had ac- quiesced to the unlawful secondary pressures of the Respondent Unions. Accordingly, we adopt the judge's recommendation that the 8 (b)(4)(A) and 8(e) allegations of the complaint be dismissed. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge, and orders that the Respondents, Interna- tional Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 13 and International Longshoremen 's and Ware- housemen's Local 63, Wilmington, California, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 706 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CHAIRMAN STEPHENS, dissenting in part. I agree with my colleagues' affirmance of the judge's conclusion that Longshoremen's Locals 13 and 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by threaten- ing work stoppages with regard to the presence of Egg City products at port facilities, and that Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) by inducing or en- couraging employees to refuse to transport or oth- erwise work on containers with Egg City products. Unlike my colleagues, however, I would reverse the judge and find that Locals 13 and 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(A) by forcing the Respondent Em- ployers to enter into an agreement that is prohibit- ed by Section 8(e). In addition, I would find that all the Respondents violated Section 8(e) as a result of the binding decision of an arbitrator interpreting section 11 .51 of the bargaining agreement in a clearly unlawful manner . All parties to the present proceeding either have executed or are otherwise bound by this bargaining agreement, which pro- vides for final and binding arbitration. The facts of this case are set forth in the judge's decision, and no party contests the accuracy of his factual presentation . In short, Locals 13 and 63 acted in support of secondary picketing by another labor organization, the United Farm Workers, di- rected at the Egg City products. In advance of this picketing, the secretary-treasurer of Local 13 sent a letter to the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) informing it, an employer association for stevedore, terminal, and shipping companies, that Local 13 would be honoring the Farm Workers' picket lines under section 11 .51 of the bargaining agreement.' In mid-August 1986 a container of Egg City products was delivered to the Metropolitan Steve- doring Company terminal. Picketing at this facility by the Farm Workers commenced on the morning of August 20, 1986, and work at the terminal came to a standstill. Business agents from each of the two respondent locals threatened Metropolitan that labor would be removed from the terminal unless the picketers were allowed to picket inside the ter- minal around the Egg City container. The vice president of Local 63 took the further position, similar to the one earlier taken by Local 13, that the picketing of the container inside the terminal ' Sec. 11.51 of the contract states: Refusal to cross a legitimate and bona fide picket line , as defined in this paragraph, shall not be deemed a violation of this Agreement. Such a picket line is one established and maintained by a union, acting independently of the ILWU longshore locals, about the prem- ises of an employer with whom it is engaged in a bona fide dispute over wages, hours or working conditions of employees, a majority of whom it represents as the collective bargaining agency . Collusive picket lines, jurisdictional picket lines , hot cargo picket lines, second- ary boycott picket lines and demonstration picket lines are not legiti- mate and bona fide picket lines within the meaning of this Agree- ment. was bona fide under section 11 .51 of the bargaining agreement. Representatives of Metropolitan dis- agreed, and the matter was submitted for arbitra- tion. Representatives of Local 63 and PMA partici- pated in the arbitration proceeding , as a result of which the arbitrator made an immediate ruling that the situs of the Egg City strike had been expanded and that the picket line was bona fide under section 11.51 of the bargaining agreement. Following this arbitration award, Metropolitan informed a customer who handled Egg City prod- ucts about what had occurred in the arbitration proceeding. PMA also published the award and distributed it to all members. In October 1986 there was an attempted delivery of an Egg City contain- er at the Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT). The president of Local 63 informed an LBCT clerk of the contents of the above arbitration award and indicated that the container did not have to be re- ceived. The next day delivery was again attempted and was refused by LBCT. In a letter written that day to the steamship company, the LBCT terminal manager explained that the Egg City container was rejected, and that, "this has been arbitrated as a bonafide [sic] strike and in as much as the ILWU is honoring the UFW picket lines we do not want to tie up the terminal nor your vessel . . . ." A simi- lar attempted delivery of an Egg City container at the LBCT facility was rejected by an LBCT guard in December 1986. My colleagues have affirmed the judge's conclusion in this case that the con- tract, as interpreted by the arbitrator, violated Sec- tion 8(e) because it thereby allowed unit employees to honor secondary picket lines. However, not- withstanding that this was precisely the interpreta- tion advanced by Locals 13 and 63 when they ear- lier had referred to section 11.51 of the contract as privileging their work stoppage in response to the Egg City picketing, my colleagues adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondent Unions did not "enter into" any unlawful agreement within the meaning of Section 8(e). Furthermore, notwith- standing that following the issuance of the award, agents of the Respondent Employers made refer- ence to it while taking actions that facilitated the Unions' achievement of their unlawful objective, my colleagues find that the Employers did not "honor" the award and cannot be found guilty of entering into section 11.51 as interpreted by the ar- bitrator. I do not believe that these conclusions accord with the law. First, with respect to the liability of the Re- spondent Unions, in a similar setting the Board in Bricklayers Local 2 (Johnson & Sons), 224 NLRB 1021 (1976), enfd. 562 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1977), found that the respondent unions, by submitting a LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 13 (EGG CITY) 707 contract interpretation dispute to arbitration, as well as by obtaining an arbitration award, "entered into" the contract clause in question within the meaning of Section 8(e). The Board there found that the respondent union violated Section 8(e) in light of the broad reading the arbitrator gave to the contract provision.2 The judge's present attempt to distinguish Brick- layers by noting that in that case there was no alle- gation of employer misconduct is wholly irrelevant to whether the respondent unions violated Section 8(e) by their conduct. In any event, the judge's analysis is a frontal assault on the capacity of an ar- bitrator to provide an authoritative reading of the parties' intent regarding contract provisions alleged to violate Section 8(e). Whatever the legality of such an arbitral decision under Section 8(e), the Board has never previously expressed a doubt that an arbitrator (or an equivalent entity) has the power to interpret a contract. See Liquid Carbonic Corp., 277 NLRB 851 (1985); Teamsters Local 42 (Inland Concrete), 225 NLRB 209, 217 fn. 24 (1976); Bricklayers, supra at 1026; Retail Clerks Local 770 (Hughes Markets), 218 NLRB 680, 683 fn. 11 (1975). It follows from this that Locals 13's and 63's interpretation of article 11.51 of the con- tract, ultimately sanctioned by the arbitrator as the correct interpretation, entailed an unlawful objec- tive within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A) and that their threat to strike and the actual work stop- page provides a compelling basis for finding a vio- lation of Section 8(b)(4)(A).3 Admittedly more problematic is the remaining allegation of whether the Respondent Employers in this proceeding (PMA, Metropolitan, and LBCT) violated Section 8(e) as a result of the arbitrator's interpretation of article 11 of the contract. Al- though it might seem at first glance that these par- ties were innocent bystanders (particularly PMA which argued before the arbitrator against the un- lawful interpretation of the provision), it remains that the arbitrator gave the parties what they sought: a binding interpretation of the contract under a mutually agreed-on procedure. The judge's emphasis in this proceeding that the employers here never "acquiesced" in this interpretation- even were I to accept this as factually accurate- misses the point. The Board has construed the lan- s As a separate issue, the Board also found the contract provision was unlawful on its face. 8 It bears noting that my colleagues' affirmance of the judge's dismissal of the 8(b)(4)(A) allegation is contradicted by the express statutory lan- guage. This section expressly prohibits forcing or requiring any employer to enter into any agreement that is prohibited by Sec. 8(e). My col- leagues, however, have now ruled that "unlawful union pressures" pre- cludes there being any agreement. If this is true, then it appears that Sec. 8(b)(4XA) is self-contradictory. guage "to enter into" in Section 8(e) very broadly, and where a provision is reaffirmed, there need be neither compliance nor a demand for compliance. See Masters, Mates & Pilots (Cove Tankers), 224 NLRB 1626 (1976), enfd. 575 F.2d 896 (D.C. Cir. 1978). As noted above, the arbitrator's award estab- lishes that the agreement was "entered into" by an entity empowered by the Respondent Employers to do so in a manner binding on all the Respond- ents, thus establishing the 8(e) violation as to all. Moreover, if any of the Respondent Employers had continued to disagree with the arbitrator's in- terpretation, they could have sought to contest the propriety of the arbitrator's award in district court proceedings. No such action to set aside the award was ever taken. On the contrary, as stated above, it appears that each of the Respondent Employers took steps to publicize and thereby implement the arbitrator's ruling. The obvious purpose of such publicity was to provide forewarning to shipping companies so that they would not try to transport Egg City products through the Respondent Em- ployers' terminals. Although it is not illogical that the Respondent Employers may have desired to avoid work stoppages, their actions in this regard were in support of an agreement that violates Sec- tion 8(e). Finally, contrary to the suggestion of my col- leagues, in proposing to find the 8(e) and 8(b)(4)(A) violations here, I am not seeking to "rescind" the arbitration award itself, and I recognize that we are not called on to "enforce" the contract. We do, however, have before us the issue of whether these parties have entered into an agreement that violates Section 8(e). Concerning this issue, I do not regard the parties' intent when they originally negotiated the agreement to be dispositive. Certainly it could not be disputed that if the parties chose to amend their contract midterm so as to add an unlawful hot cargo clause, there would be no question that they violated Section 8(e). In my view, the parties accomplished such an amendment through the Union's successful effort to get the arbitral con- struction it sought and the Respondent Employers' failure to contest the award in court as void under the National Labor Relations Act. Under generally accepted arbitral principles, the award became "a binding part of the [collective-bargaining] agree- ment,"4 and certainly both parties' conduct after is- suance of the award was consistent with that un- derstanding. For these reasons, I would find the additional violations noted above. 4 F. Elkouri and E. Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, 425 (4th ed. 1985). 708 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bernard Hopkins, Esq., for the General Counsel. William Carder, Esq. (Leonard, Carder & Zuckerman), of San Francisco, California, for Respondent Local 63 and Party to the Contract ILWU. George Shibley, Esq., of Long Beach, California, for Re- spondent Local 13. John Meyers and Dennis Gladwell, Esqs. (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher), of Newport Beach, California, for Respond- ents Metropolitan Stevedoring Company, Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc., and Pacific Maritime Asso- ciation. Wayne Hersh, Esq. (Finkle, Hersh & Stolly), of Irvine, California, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Los Angeles, California, on March 23 and April 5, 1988. The charge, first amended charge, and second amended charge in Case 31 -CE-196 were filed respectively on October 30, November 10, and De- cember 24, 1986, by The Careau Group d/b/a Egg City (Egg City). The charge in Case 31-CC-1895 was filed on January 23, 1987, by the same Charging Party. An order consolidating cases and complaint issued on March 31, 1987, alleging that the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 13 (Local 13), International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Local 63 (Local 63), and Metropolitan Stevedoring Company (Metropoli- tan) violated the National Labor Relations Act. The complaint alleged that Local 13 and Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act and that all three Re- spondents violated Section 8(e) of the Act. By order dated May 4, 1987, the Regional Director for Region 31 of the Board granted the motion of Pacific Maritime As- sociation (PMA) to intervene in these proceedings. An order consolidating cases and amended complaint in Cases 31 -CC-1895 and 31-CE-196 issued on November 19, 1987, alleging that Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B); that Local 13 and Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B); and that those Locals, PMA, Met- ropolitan, and Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT) violated Section 8(e) of the Act. Issues The primary issues are: 1. Whether Locals 13 and 63 engaged in unlawful sec- ondary activity by threatening to honor picket lines of the United Farm Workers Union (UFW) at longshore docks operated by Metropolitan and LBCT. The UFW had a primary dispute with Egg City and containers of Egg City products were delivered to the docks. 2. Whether an arbitration award finding that Locals 13 and 63 would not be in violation of their collective-bar- gaining agreement by honoring the UFW picket line, when combined with the language of the relevant collec- tive-bargaining agreement and the alleged acceptance of that arbitration award by Local 13, Local 63, Metropoli- tan, LBCT, and PMA constituted a "hot cargo" agree- ment within the ambit of Sections 8(b)(4)(A) and 8(e) of the Act. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General Counsel, Local 13, Local 63, the ILWU, PMA, Metropolitan, and LBCT. On the entire record of the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor , I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Egg City, the primary employer in this case, has a place of business in Egg City, Moorpark, California, where it produces, processes, and distributes eggs and egg products. During the calendar year preceding issu- ance of complaint Egg City's gross volume of business was between $32 and $36 million; it purchased commod- ities outside of California valued at about $20 million; and it sold products valued at about $10 million outside of California. Egg City is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. PMA is an employer association whose members are stevedore, terminal, and shipping companies, and their agents, engaged in the movement of cargo on oceango- ing vessels to and from Pacific Coast ports of the United States. PMA is authorized to enter into collective-bar- gaining agreements on behalf of its members. During the year immediately preceding issuance of complaint PMA and its members, including Metropolitan and LBCT, en- gaged in the movement of cargo from ports in California to ports outside of California and the United States and to ports in foreign countries, and received in excess of $100,000 in payment therefore. PMA, Metropolitan, and LBCT are persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Local 13 and Local 63 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Egg City produces , processes, and distributes eggs and egg products from its facility in Egg City, Moorpark, California. At one time Egg City had a contract with the UFW covering all employees on an hourly basis except for clerical workers who worked in the processing facili- ty. The UFW was certified by the California Agricultur- al Labor Relations Board as the representative of the Egg City employees. During 1986 there was a labor dis- pute between Egg City and the UFW. I ' The primary labor dispute between Egg City and the UFW led to litigation before the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. On January 15, 1988, an administrative law judge from that agency issued a decision in which he found that the UFW violated state law by engaging in certain proscribed secondary activity Some of the facts in that case parallel matters alleged in the instant case The administrative law judge's Continued LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 13 (EGG CITY) The issues in this case arose when containers of Egg City products were delivered to longshore docks in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, for overseas ship- ment. Egg City had sold egg products to Ocura and Company, a company that imported products into Japan and sold them there. Egg City used Federal Transport and Unlimited Express to deliver the egg products to the docks. Ocura and Company took possession at the dock or at public warehouses. Metropolitan and LBCT are members of PMA. PMA and the ILWU are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement known as the ILWU-PMA Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks Agreement 1984-1987. That con- tract was in effect at all times material herein. PMA members including Metropolitan and LBCT as well as ILWU Locals, including Locals 13 and 63, were bound by that agreement . Members of Local 63 check cargoes or containers and verify documents. Members of Local 13 do the physical work of loading cranes, latching con- tainers, moving equipment, and lifting containers. The collective-bargaining agreement provided in part: 11.51 Refusal to cross a legitimate and bona fide picket line, as defined in this paragraph , shall not be deemed a violation of this Agreement. Such a picket line is one established and maintained by a union, acting independently of the ILWU longshore locals, about the premises of an employer with whom it is engaged in a bona fide dispute over wages, hours or working conditions of employees, a majority of whom it represents as the collective bargaining agency . Collusive picket lines, jurisdic- tional picket lines, hot cargo picket lines, secondary boycott picket lines and demonstration picket lines are not legitimate and bona fide picket lines within the meaning of this Agreement. The contract also contains a comprehensive grievance and arbitration provision culminating in a final and bind- ing decision of an arbitrator. Section 17.52 of the con- tract provides that the: Powers of arbitrators shall be limited strictly to the application and interpretation of the Agreement as written. The arbitrators shall have jurisdiction to decide any and all disputes arising under the Agree- ment including cases dealing with the resumption or continuation of work. Arbitration awards are binding on all parties to the agreement. On August 19, 1986, James Gyerman, secretary- treas- urer of Local 13, sent the following letter to the Pacific Maritime Association: The intent of this letter is to inform you that the United Farm Workers of America (AFL-CIO) has notified Local 13 that picket lines will be estab- lished throughout the docks of the Long Beach and decision was pending appeal at the time of the trial herein I have consid- ered the administrative law judge's decision in that case However, the findings set forth here are based solely on the record in the instant case. 709 Los Angeles Harbors wherever containers of the Julius Goldman Egg City are located. Local 13 will be honoring these picket lines under Section 11 of the PCLCD. The letter was received by PMA but copies were not sent by PMA to its employer-members and PMA did not give instructions to those members with regard to how they should react when picketing began. Some copies of the letter were circulated at the Metropolitan facility and Andreas Hoebich, Metropolitan's terminal manager, saw the letter. On about August 18, 1986, three individuals from the UFW told Thomas Warren, the president and business agent of Local 63, that the UFW was on strike at Egg City and that they were going to establish picket lines in front of some of the Egg City containers. They asked if Local 63 would support them in their action . Warren re- plied that Local 63 would decide whether it would help the UFW when the picket lines went up. B. The Incidents at Metropolitan's Facility During the week preceding August 20, 1986, a con- tainer with Egg City products was delivered to Metro- politan's facility in Los Angeles. Such containers are re- ceived in a gated area by members of Local 63. They are then placed in a container yard where they are stored until they are loaded on a ship. The Egg City container was placed in a refrigerated storage area with a number of other containers. The ship on which the container was to be loaded had not yet arrived and it was not due until August 26 or 27, 1986. On about August 18 , 1986, representatives of the United Farm Workers came to the Metropolitan facility and told Andreas Hoebich , Metropolitan's terminal man- ager, that the UFW intended to picket the terminal unless the Egg City container which was on the premises was removed. On August 20, 1986, the container was still on the premises. That morning UFW pickets ap- peared at the Metropolitan terminal in Los Angeles. The pickets walked back and forth near the main gate which was 60 or 70 yards past the guard shack through which trucks had to go to unload containers . They carried signs saying "On strike against Egg City." Thomas Warren, the president and business agent of Local 63, received a telephone call from one of the clerks at the Metropolitan terminal about 10 a.m. on August 20 . He arrived at the terminal about 10 minutes later and found that the termi- nal was at a standstill . Some truckers honored the picket line and turned around and some individuals walked off the job.2 After the picket line was established, Metropolitan's terminal manager, Andreas Hoebich , and General Man- ager Robert Chiu approached the picket line and spoke to Thomas Warren, president and business agent of Local 63, and Bill Marino , a business agent for Local 13. 2 Dino Rossi, the vice president of labor and marketing at LBCT, ap- peared quite credible when he described the general situation in his in- dustry. He averred that when a picket line goes up there is a common bond between the different labor organizations and everybody walks, whether the picket line is legal or illegal. 710 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Warren and Marino told Hoebich and Chiu that labor would be removed from the terminal as well as from the vessel unless Metropolitan agreed to move the picket line inside the terminal and have the pickets picket just the Egg City container.3 At the time of the picketing the Egg City container was in a refrigerated area with other containers about 300 yards from the picket line. It had been there for some time and there were no Egg City employees or trucking employees near it. The container was not scheduled to be loaded for another 6 or 7 days. The pickets were allowed to enter Metropolitan's termi- nal and picket around the Egg City container . The pick- ets remained there that night picketing the container. The rest of Metropolitan's operation continued without interruption . On August 20 Charles Young, the labor re- lations administrator for PMA, arrived at the Metropoli- tan terminal to participate in a joint clerks' labor rela- tions committee meeting pursuant to the grievance pro- cedures in the contract. Warren and Tom Harrison, vice president of Local 63, participated on behalf of Local 63. Representatives of Metropolitan and UFW were present. A representative of Egg City participated by telephone. No representative of Local 13 participated. Local 63 took the position that the UFW picketing of the contain- er inside the terminal was bona fide while the employers took the position that the picketing was a secondary boy- cott and was not bona fide under section 11 of the con- tract. No agreement was reached and the issue was re- ferred for immediate arbitration. Charles Young from PMA called Richard Carrott, the chairman and chief executive officer of Egg City. Young told Carrott that PMA had been informed that if Egg City did not remove some containers from the dock, there would be a general strike and shutdown on the docks. Young also said that PMA wanted to avoid that situation, that arbitration would take place, and that Gar- rott would be called. Carrott replied that Egg City did not own the product and that it was owned by Ocura and Company. Young said that the purpose of the call was not to establish that kind of activity but simply to arrange to contact Carrott later during the course of the arbitration. Later the same day an arbitration hearing by telephone conference call was held by arbitrator George Love. Young spoke for PMA and Warren spoke for Local 63. The minutes of the clerks' labor relations committee meeting were read to the arbitrator and the parties stated their positions. Local 13 did not participate. Carrots of Egg City received a phone call while the arbitration was taking place and he was asked some questions . The arbi- trator rendered an immediate decision on the telephone. He ruled that the situs of the Egg City strike had been expanded and that the picket line was bona fide under section 11.5 of the contract. The telephone decision was confirmed by a written decision dated August 26, 1986, entitled "In the Matter of a Controversy Between Inter- 8 This finding is based on the credited testimony of Hoebich Warren's testimony about the incident was in some ways similar to that of Hoe- bich's. Where it differs I credit Hoebich . Warren was either unsure of himself or less than candid with regard to certain important matters. He averred that there might have been a business agent present from Local 13 but he was not sure. Marino and Chiu did not testify national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 63 and Pacific Maritime Association Involving a United Farm Workers picket line at Berth 233, Terminal Island, Evergreen." The written decision stated in part: "The following decision, applicable to any other contain- ers of a like fact situation as in this issue was then given. The UFW picket, placed at the one container, is bona- fide, the ILWU work force does not have to handle it." Shortly after the arbitrator rendered his decision on the telephone, Hoebich from Metropolitan contacted Japan Lines, who is responsible for the movement of the container. Metropolitan's dealings with regard to the container were with its "customer" Japan Lines. Hoe- bich reported to Japan Lines that UFW pickets were sur- rounding one of their containers . He also told Japan Lines what had occurred at the arbitration. He asked what Japan Lines wanted to do . Japan Lines then made arrangements to have the container removed from Me- tropolitan's terminal. A day or two later the container was removed. Charles Young, the labor relations administrator for PMA, administers the contract on behalf of the PMA members. He credibly averred that once an arbitration decision issues, it remains in effect until revoked or oth- erwise overruled. However he also credibly testified that because of the passage of time, the grievance machinery would be again invoked if an Egg City container came to the terminal. Warren, the president and business agent of Local 63, testified that if an Egg City container came in today the clerks would probably not receive it if there were a picket line. The arbitration award was published and sent to all members of PMA. In about November or December 1986 there was a second incident of UFW picketing at Metropolitan's ter- minal. Metropolitan permitted the pickets to come into the terminal and picket the container. Hoebich once again notified Japan Lines concerning what was taking place and the arbitrator's decision. Japan Lines decided to have the container removed from the terminal and that was done. C. The Incidents at LBCT About 4:30 p.m. on August 20, 1986, UFW pickets ap- peared at LBCT's terminal in Long Beach Harbor. LBCT allowed two pickets to come inside the terminal and stand near the container which held the Egg City products. Dino Rossi, LBCT's vice president of labor and marketing, credibly testified that he permitted the pickets to come onto the premises in order to keep the terminal open. He told Terminal Manager Bill Smith to call the steamship line that was to transport the container and tell them what happened. Smith did so and at 8:30 the next morning the steamship line told Smith that it did not want the container and that the container was to be removed from the terminal . A short time later the con- tainer was placed outside the gate. On October 23, 1986, the UFW picketed while an Egg City container was coming through the gate. The termi- nal manager asked Rossi what to do and once again Rossi told him to call the steamship line. The steamship LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 13 (EGG CITY) 711 line told the terminal manager that it did not want the container and that LBCT should not receive it. While the picketing was going on on that day, Thomas Warren, the president and business agent of Local 63, re- ceived a call from an LBCT clerk who was one of his members. The member told him that an Egg City con- tainer was being picketed and asked what he should do. Warren read to the member the arbitration award and said that the issue had already been arbitrated and that they did not have to receive the container. A similar incident of picketing on the arrival of an Egg City container occurred the following day, October 24, 1986. Once again the steamship line was called and the steamship line told LBCT not to accept the contain- er. Delivery of the container was refused. On that day Rossi, the vice president of labor and marketing for LBCT, had a conversation with Richard Carrott, the chairman and chief executive officer of Egg City. Rossi told Carrott that LBCT did not have a relationship with Egg City, and that the problem was with the steamship line which did the booking . Rossi added "You know, as far as I'm concerned, there's pickets out there and I want to keep the terminal open." Also on October 24, 1986, LBCT Terminal Manager Bill Smith sent a memo to steamship company Y.S. Line with a conformed copy to Rossi, which stated that Egg City again attempted to deliver a container ; that Channel 2 News was across the street from the main gate; that the container was again rejected from receiving at the terminal; and that "This has been arbitrated as a bonafide strike and in as much as the ILWU is honoring the UFW picket lines we do not want to tie up the terminal nor your vessel the Yamashin Maru upon its arrival at the dock." The last incident testified to occurred on December 17, 1986. On that day Ernest Ward, a truckdriver for Federal Produce Transportation , picked up a load at the Egg City facility and attempted to deliver it to the LBCT's terminal. He was denied entry to the terminal by a guard. The guard inspected a paper that had con- tainer numbers on it and then said that he could not accept the container because it was from Egg City. Ward then left the LBCT's terminal without making the delivery. D. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The allegation that Local 13 and Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act The complaint alleges that Local 13 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) that Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.4 Those sections are commonly re- ferred to as the secondary boycott provisions and they are designed to reach only secondary boycott activities. Primary action is not prohibited . The proviso to Section 8(b)(4)(B) specifically states that "nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or pri- mary picketing." In the instant case, Egg City is the pri- mary employer. The UFW had a dispute with Egg City and had no dispute with Metropolitan or LBCT except to the extent that those companies handled Egg City products. Metropolitan and LBCT were neutrals or sec- ondary employers with regard to UFW's dispute with Egg City. Local 13 and Local 63 joined forces with the UFW in furtherance of UFW's primary dispute with Egg City. However Metropolitan and LBCT remained neutrals or secondary employers with regard to the pri- mary dispute. The secondary boycott provisions of the Acts have "the dual congressional objectives of preserv- ing 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." NLRB v. Denver Building Trades Council (Gould & Preisner), 341 U.S. 675, 692 (1951). In some situation there is substantial difficulty in dis- tinguishing between primary and secondary activities, particularly where that activity takes place at the situs of the secondary employer . However none of those difficul- ties are present in the instant case. This is not a situation where a primary and a secondary employer are both en- gaged in work at a common situs . Cf. Sailors' Union (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547 (1950); Iron Workers Local 1433 (Benchmark Contractors), 285 NLRB 1089 (1987). The primary employer was performing no work at the premises of the secondary employer. It is not a sit- uation where there was a common and ambulatory situs. Cf. Electrical Workers Local 861 (Plausche Electric), 135 NLRB 250 (1962). There were never any employees of the primary employer at the premises of the secondary employer. It is not an ally situation where the employees of the secondary employer performed farmed out struck work which but for the strike would have been per- formed by employees of the primary employer . Sacra- mento Area District Council of Carpenters (Malek Con- struction Co.), 244 NLRB 890, 894 (1979). The secondary employers were performing their normal longshore work which had never been done by employees of the primary employer. In addition there was no consumer picketing. The consumers were in Japan . There was no common ownership, control, or integration of operations under which the primary and secondary employers could be 4 Those sections provide that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization: (4)(1) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual em- ployed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affect- ing commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (u) to threaten , coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is- (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using , selling, han- dling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person, or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 section 159 of this title - Provided, That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be construed to make unlawful , where not otherwise unlawful, any primary strike or primary picketing 5 Formerly Sec. 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act. 712 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD treated as a single employer or a straight line operation. The secondary employers were independent and were engaged in the transportation industry. In sum, none of the exceptions appear to apply. The actions of Local 13 and Local 63 described above were secondary boycotts proscribed both by the literal wording and the underly- ing intention of Section 8(b)(4)(B). In order to establish her case, the General Counsel must prove both an action encompassed by Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) as well as an object proscribed by Sec- tion (B). On October 23, 1986, an LBCT clerk who was a member of Local 63 told Thomas Warren, the president and business agent of Local 63, that an Egg City con- tainer was being picketed. Warren told him that they did not have to receive the container. That statement consti- tuted an inducement or encouragement of an "individual employed by any person engaged in commerce . . . to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his em- ployment to . . . process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods." within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) of the Act. On August 20 Warren, on behalf of Local 63, and Bill Marino, the business agent for Local 13, told Andreas Hoebich, Metropolitan's terminal manager, that labor would be removed from the terminal as well as from the vessel unless Metropolitan agreed to move the picket line inside the terminal and have the pickets picket just the Egg City container. That amounted to a threat to engage in a complete strike or work stoppage if the UFW pick- ets remained outside the gate and, by clear implication, a threat to engage in a partial strike by refusing to process, transport or otherwise handle or work on a container with Egg City products if the pickets limited the picket- ing to the area around the container. That threat to engage in a complete or partial strike was action within the contemplation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii ) which reads "to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in com- merce." By letter dated August 19, 1986, James Gyerman, sec- retary-treasurer of Local 13, informed PMA that Local 13 would be honoring UFW picket lines that were to be established throughout the docks of the Long Beach and Los Angeles harbors wherever containers of Egg City were located . PMA was the bargaining representative of Metropolitan, LBCT, and many other employers on the longshore. PMA was the agent of those employers and notice to PMA was notice to its members . In addition copies of the letter were circulated around the longshore and Andreas Hoebich, Metropolitan's terminal manager, saw one of the letters . The letter constituted a threat within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii).6 6 On December 17, 1986, a guard at LBCT refused entry to a truck delivering a container of Egg City's product However there was no evi- dence to indicate whether the guard was acting on his own initiative, under orders from a union, or under orders from his employer. There were other incidents, as described above, in which deliveries from Egg City were prevented or in which Egg City containers were removed. However there was no evidence of any inducement of employees or threats to employers by Local 13 or Local 63 other than those set forth above. The object of Local 13's and Local 63's actions was clear. It was to force Metropolitan, LBCT, and other members of PMA to cease "handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing" in the products of Egg City. The threats to engage in a total strike if the UFW picket line remained outside the gate and a partial strike if the con- tainers themselves were picketed established that Local 13 and Local 63 did not want the PMA members to handle the containers in question. The object of Local 13 and Local 63 was that of forcing or requiring any person to cease . . . handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer..." within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B). For the reasons set forth above, I find that Local 13 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and that Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.7 2. The allegation that Local 13 and Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(A) and that those Unions and PMA, Metropolitan, and LBCT violated Section 8(e) of the Act Section 8(e) of the Act prohibits unions and employers from "entering into" a contract under which an employ- er "ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling . . . transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person."8 Section 8(b)(4)(A) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to force or require an employer to enter into any agreement which is prohibited by Section 8(e). Both Sections 8(e) and 8(b)(4)(A) are aimed at pro- scribing agreements with secondary objectives. As the Supreme Court held in National Woodwork Mfg. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 645 (1967): The touchstone is whether the agreement or its maintenance is addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employer vis-a-vis its own employ- ees. 7 Pars. 17 and 21 of the complaint allege that an object of Local 13's and Local 63's conduct was to force or require Metropolitan and LBCT to cease doing business with Egg City. Metropolitan and LBCT had no direct business contact with Egg City. Metropolitan's and LBCT's direct dealings were only with truckers, shipping companies, and perhaps the person to whom Egg City sold its products However, the actions of the Unions were intended to force Metropolitan and LBCT to stop doing business with those persons or anyone else who wanted to handle Egg City products, and in a broader sense the pressure , at least indirectly, was to get Metropolitan and LBCT to cease doing business with Egg City. In any event the matter was fully litigated and I have found that the object of Local 13's and Local 63's actions was to force Metropolitan and LBCT to cease handling , transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of Egg City and that the actions of the Unions for that object were proscribed by Sec . 8(bX4)(B). a Sec 8(e) reads: It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement , express or im- plied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforceable and void LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 13 (EGG CITY) 713 Contract clauses that are geared to work preservation or other primary purposes are not banned. There is no con- tention in this case that there is a "work preservation" issue. A contract clause providing that it is not a violation of the contract for employees to honor a picket line consti- tutes a violation of Section 8(e) if the clause is broad enough to apply to secondary activity. Dan McKinney Co., 137 NLRB 649, 652 (1962). However, the General Counsel does not contend that the contract clause in the instant case is on its face violative of Section 8(e) of the Act. The clause by its terms has no application to sec- ondary picket lines.9 As found above Local 13 and Local 63 violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act by putting unlawful pressure on Metropolitan and LBCT in an attempt to force those companies to refuse to handle containers with Egg City products. However, the General Counsel has not estab- lished that those companies acquiesced or agreed to take the actions demanded of them by the Unions . Metropoli- tan and LBCT simply called the shipping companies who were their customers and informed them what was going on. The reality of the situation was that the ILWU Locals would not handle the containers in question and there was no practical way for Metropolitan or LBCT to load them on the ships. The shippers decided to have the containers removed from the terminals . They had no other alternative if they wanted to find a means to trans- port the containers. ) ° However even if Metropolitan, LBCT, or PMA had acquiesced to the unlawful pressure by Local 13 and Local 63, that would not constitute an agreement between those unions and employers within the contemplation of Section 8(e). In Teamsters Local 282 (General Contractors Assn. of New York), 262 NLRB 528, 547-548 (1982), the Board adopted that part of the Trial Examiner's decision which held:"" It therefore would appear that Congress intend- ed, by enacting Section 8(e), to supplement and not supplant the secondary boycott provisions of the Act which are now designated as Section 8(b)(4)(B). Moreover, it seems unlikely that Section 8(e), in utilizing the words "contract or agreement," was intended to encompass those situations where an employer, in the absence of a prior agreement, acquiesces in union pressure to cease doing business with a person with whom the union has a dispute. 9 In Pacific Maritime Assn, 256 NLRB 769, 770 ( 1981), the Board reit- erated the position it had taken in prior cases, holding- Thus, if the meaning of the clause is clear , the Board will determine forthwith its validity under 8(e), and where the clause is not clearly unlawful on its face, the Board will interpret it to require no more than what is allowed by law On the other hand, if the clause is am- biguous, the Board will not presume unlawfulness, but will consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether the clause was intended to be administered in a lawful or unlawful manner . In the absence of such evidence, the Board will refuse to pass on the validity of the clause. 10 There was evidence that a guard prevented a delivery at the LBCT terminal However as noted above , there is no evidence that LBCT was responsible for or even knew of the guard's actions . The guard might very well have been acting under union instructions or on his own 13 See also Teamsters Local 208 (De Anza Delivery System), 224 NLRB 1116, 1124 (1967); Teamsters Local 754 (Glenora Farms Dairy), 210 NLRB 483, 490 (1974) . . . [T]he secondary boycott provisions of the Act, in Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) were designed to provide the appropriate Board relief . . . . There- fore, it seems to me that the words "contract or agreement" used in Section 8(e) contemplates the entering into of an agreement between a union and an employer, on a continuing basis, whereby the employer agrees to cease doing business with other persons with whom the Union may have future dis- putes. The real questions presented here are whether the ar- bitrator's decision that the ILWU work force did not have to handle the container in question constituted an interpretation of the contract that violated Section 8(e) of the Act and whether LBCT, Metropolitan, and PMA could reasonably have been said to have "entered into" such an 8(e) contract. As found above the action of the Unions was secondary and unlawful. The contract as in- terpreted by the arbitrator was violated of Section 8(e) that the employers were bound by that interpretation in the sense that they "entered into" an agreement within the meaning of Section 8(e). In a sense , an arbitration agreement is a blank check and the interpretation of the arbitrator can be binding on all the parties. However in the circumstances of this case, I think something more is needed to impute unlawful conduct on the part of the employers. The contract was lawful on its face. The arbi- tration clause was lawful . Both collective-bargaining agreements and arbitration clauses are encouraged by and consistent with Federal labor policy . If an employ- er's only action is to enter into a lawful contract with an arbitration clause and the arbitrator gives some unlawful meaning to the contract, the arbitrator's decision may be void and unenforceable but the employer should not be found guilty of committing an unfair labor practice. Here there is no evidence that the Employers took any action to honor the arbitrator's award. Even if the Employers had acquiesced to the unlawful secondary pressures of the Unions, there would be no inference that the Compa- nies were honoring the award . The Companies' acquies- cence would be easily explainable in terms of the unlaw- ful union pressures. Paragraph 10 of the complaint al- leges that "the arbitrator's award constituted a bilateral reaffirmation and entering into of an agreement whereby Respondents and all members of PMA have agreed to cease and refrain from doing business with Egg City unless and until the award is revoked." In support of that contention the General Counsel cites Bricklayers Local 2 (Gunnar I. Johnson & Sons), 224 NLRB 1021 (1976), enfd. 562 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In that case the Board held that certain clauses in a contract as interpret- ed by an arbitrator were violative of Section 8(e). How- ever that case differed from the instant one in critical ways. There the complaint alleged wrongdoing only by the unions. There was no allegation of employer wrong- doing. As explained by the court of appeals, the Unions "entered into" the contract within the 10 (b) period (6- month statute of limitations) by consistently maintaining the position that had been accepted by the arbitrator that the contract clauses protected their members from refus- ing to enter a jobsite through a reserved gate. It was the 714 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union's "entering into" the contract through its actions rather than the arbitration award in itself which formed the basis for the finding of violation. In the instant case there were no actions by the Employers which could reasonably be interpreted as an "entering into" the con- tract as interpreted by the arbitrator. In sum I find that the contract clause was legal on its face, that the arbitration clause was legal and that Metro- politan, LBCT, and PMA did no "enter into" the con- tract as improperly interpreted by the arbitrator . It fol- lows that the allegations in the complaint that allege that Metropolitan, LBCT, and PMA "entered into" a con- tract in violation of Section 8(e) of the Act must be dis- missed. It could be argued that Local 13 and Local 63 did "enter into" an 8(e) contract by consistently maintaining the position, accepted by the arbitrator, that the contract clause protected their members from refusing to do the work in question. In effect, that would require a finding that the Unions were estopped from denying the exist- ence of the contract by their actions in attempting to en- force the contract as interpreted by the arbitrator's award. However, I am reluctant to find any "entering into" a contract unless there is a mutually binding con- tract and there cannot be one unless both the employers and the unions agreed to one. An argument could also be made that the Unions' actions, which had an unlawful object under Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, had the addi- tional unlawful object of forcing the Employers to enter into an 8(e) agreement. However, the core of the Unions' effort was to require the Employers to refuse to handle Egg City products and not to force those employers to "enter into" an agreement. Teamsters Local 282 (General Contractors Assn. of New York), supra at 547-548. In any event the findings with regard to the 8(b)(4)(B) viola- tions and the remedies set forth below appear sufficient to prevent further unlawful conduct. I shall therefore recommend that the 8(b)(4)(A) and 8(e) allegations of the complaint be dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging an individual employed by LBCT to refuse to transport or otherwise handle or work on containers with Egg City products with an object of forcing LBCT to cease handling, transporting or otherwise dealing in the products of Egg City. 2. Local 13 and Local 63 violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act by threatening Metropolitan, LBCT, and PMA with an object of forcing those employers to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of Egg City. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Local 63 has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and that Local 63 and Local 13 have en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, I recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Local 63 used an arbitration award to justify its unlawful conduct as set forth above, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from honoring any arbitration award involving Egg City to the extent that such award purports to justify conduct that is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii) of the Act. Local 13 did not participate in the arbitration proceed- ing, but it was bound by the award as a party to the con- tract. Local 13's letter of August 19, 1987, which stated that it would honor the picket line under section 11 of the contract, relied on the contract for justification of its unlawful threat and Local 13's position was supported by the arbitrator the following day. A similar order is there- fore appropriate with respect to Local 13. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record of this case, I issue the following recommended 12 ORDER A. Respondent International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 63, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to refuse to transport or otherwise handle or work on containers holding products of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City, with an object of forcing such person to cease handling, transporting , or otherwise deal- ing in the products of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City. (b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Metropolitan Stevedoring Company, Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc., Pacific Maritime Association or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce with an object of forcing such person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City. (c) Honoring any arbitration award involving the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City to the extent that such award purports to justify conduct that is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' a Copies of '$ If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. 1' 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 " LONGSHOREMEN ILWU LOCAL 13 (EGG CITY) the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by Respondent Local 63's authorized representative, shall be posted by Re- spondent Local 63 immediately upon receipt and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in- cluding all places where notices to members are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- ent Local 63 to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by the Pacific Mari- time Association and its members if those companies are willing to post them. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent Local 63 has taken to comply. B. Respondent International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Local 13, its officers, agents, and repre- sentatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Metropolitan Stevedoring Company, Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc., Pacific Maritime Association or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce with an object of forcing such person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City. (b) Honoring any arbitration award involving the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City to the extent that such award purports to justify conduct that is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its business office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 114 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by Respondent Local 13's authorized representative, shall be posted by Re- spondent Local 13's immediately upon receipt and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in- cluding all places where notices to members are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- ent Local 13 to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director with signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by the Pacific Mari- time Association and its members if those companies are willing to post them. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent Local 13 has take to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations in the complaint as to which no violations have been found are dismissed. APPENDIX A NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 715 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 induce or encourage any individual em- ployed by Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry af- fecting commerce to refuse to transport or otherwise handle or work on containers holding products of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City, with an object of forcing such person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City. WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Metropoli- tan Stevedoring Company, Long Beach Container Ter- minal, Inc., Pacific Maritime Association, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing such person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City. WE WILL NOT honor any arbitration award involving the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City to the extent that such award purports to justify conduct that is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) or (ii)(B) of the Act. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S LOCAL 63 APPENDIX B NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 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 threaten, coerce, or restrain Metropoli- tan Stevedoring Company, Long Beach Container Ter- minal, Inc., Pacific Maritime Association or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing such person to cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the prod- ucts of the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City. 14 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." 716 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT honor any arbitration award involving such award purports to justify conduct that is violative the Careau Group d/b/a Egg City to the extent that of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S LOCAL 13