Teamster Local 677 (J H Hogan)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 (J H HOGAN) 499 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL-CIO and J. H. Hogan, Inc. Case 34- CC-87 August 17, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT On January 30, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Joel P Biblowitz issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supportmg brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief 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, as modified, and to adopt the recom- mended Order The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (n)(B) of the Act when it en- gaged in area standards picketing against McCleary Brothers, Inc , at the parking garage construction site where McCleary delivered ready-mix concrete to Chargmg Party concrete subcontractor J H Hogan, Inc The judge's analysis focused on the Respondent's defense of its picketing at a gate re- served for neutral employers rather than at the gate reserved for the exclusive use of the primary employer, McCleary We agree with the judge, for the reasons set forth fully in his decision, that the Respondent has failed to prove its contentions that the neutral reserved gate was tainted by a single in- cident in which a McCleary truck used this gate or that the location of the primary reserved gate un- reasonably deprived the Respondent of its right to commumcate with the public because occupants of passing vehicles were traveling too fast to read the picket signs We find it unnecessary to pass, how- ever, on the Respondent's defense that safety haz- ards attendant to picketing at the primary gate lo- cation unreasonably impaired the effectiveness of that picketing Accordingly, in finding a violation here, we do not rely on the Respondent's failure to restrict its picketing to the reserved primary gate It is undisputed that the Respondent picketed the jobsite daily from November 30, 1989, until at least the December 27, 1989 heanng in this case At no time during this period was the primary employer, McCleary, present at the jobsite Whether the Re- spondent was required to restrict its picketing to the reserved pnmary gate, it clearly failed to meet the Moore Dry Dockl requirement that it limit its picketing to times when the situs of the dispute was at the secondary employer premises The Respond- ent has offered no persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of an illegal secondary objective aris- ing from this failure We therefore affirm the judge's conclusion that the Respondent's picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (u)(B) ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL- CIO, Waterbury, Connecticut, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth m the Order 1 Sailors Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 NLRB 547, 549 (1950) Jaye Bailey, Esq , for the General Counsel Burton S Rosenberg Esq , for the Respondent Michael N La Velle, Esq (Pullman, Conley, Bradley et Reeves), for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOEL P BisLowrrz, Administrative Law Judge This case was heard by me on December 27, 1989, 1 in Hart- ford, Connecticut The complaint and notice of hearing issued on December 11 and was based on an unfair labor practice charge filed on December 1 by J H Hogan, Inc (Hogan) The complaint alleges that Turner Con- struction Company (Turner) has been engaged in the construction of a concrete parking garage located on Union Street and South Elm Street m Waterbury, Con- necticut (the site) In connection with this construction, Turner subcontracted certain work to other companies, including Hogan to perform the cement construction work at the site In furtherance of the subcontract from Turner, Hogan contracted with McCleary Bros, Inc (McCleary) to furnish it with cement supplies at the site The complaint further alleges that International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL-CIO (Respondent) has been engaged m a labor dispute with McCleary, but has had no labor dispute with Turner, Hogan, or any of the other contractors at the site Respondent admits all of the above, except that it had a labor dispute with McCleary The complaint alleges further that on about November 24, separate gates were established at the fa- cility, one reserved for McCleary and one for all other contractors, but that since November 30, Respondent has 1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to relate to 1989 299 NLRB No 69 500 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD picketed the gate reserved for the "neutral" contractors, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. On the entire record, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent admits, and I find, that Hogan, a Con- necticut corporation with its principal office located in New Haven, Connecticut, is engaged in business as a construction contractor. During the 12-month period ending November 30, Hogan purchased and received at locations within the State of Connecticut goods and ma- terials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Connecticut, and is therefore an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits and I also find that Turner and McCleary are each employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE FACTS The facts herein are based upon the credible and un- contradicted testimony of Augustine Ruggiero, construc- tion superintendent for Hogan at the site, John Czertak, project manager for Hogan, and Louis Parisi, business agent for Respondent. Hogan is the prime concrete sub- contractor at the site, performing all the concrete work. Hogan began at the site in late October or early Novem- ber; its work crew at the site ranged from an average of four carpenters and two laborers to a theoretical peak of eight carpenters and four laborers. The other subcontrac- tors also had employees on the site beginning in early to mid-November. Hogan purchased all its concrete for the site from McCleary, which delivers the concrete to the site in ready-mix concrete trucks. Upon completing the delivery of the concrete to the site, the McCleary truck leaves the site. Admittedly, Respondent has no dispute with either Turner, Hogan, or any other subcontractor on the site. In about 1987, Respondent attempted to or- ganize McCleary's employees, but was unsuccessful in this pursuit. Prior to November, Parisi determined through conversations with McCleary employees that McCleary was not paying its employees an amount equal to Respondent's "package," as contained in collective- bargaining agreements with numerous employers. On this basis, Respondent commenced picketing the site. The site is triangular shaped, bordered on the North by Union Street, on the West by South Elm Street, and on the South (separated by a grassy area) by Interstate 84. Perpendicular to and ending at Union Street, 100 feet from its most easterly point, is Franklin Street. The length of each portion surrounding the site is as follows: Union Street-513 feet; South Elm Street-209 feet; Inter- state 84-559 feet. In about the first week of November, the entire site had been enclosed by a chain link fence. There are three trailers at the site: Hogan has two trail- ers near the most easterly portion of the site and Union Street, and Turner has a trailer at the southwestern por- tion of the site, where Interstate 84 crosses South Elm Street. There were two vehicular entrances established on the site when the chain link fence was erected, each about 20 feet wide: an entrance on Union Street (gate A) about 100 feet west of the most easterly point of the site, and an entrance on South Elm Street (gate B), approxi- mately 120 feet south of the intersection of Union Street and South Elm Street. There is 3 feet between the fence and the street. Respondent's pickets first appeared at the site on No- vember 22; on that morning, about three of Respondent's pickets appeared at each of the two gates to the site car- rying signs saying the following: "TO THE PUBLIC. CONCRETE HERE BEING DELIVERED UNDER SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. DO NOT USE •McCLEARY BROS. CONCRETE FOR YOUR WORK. THERE IS NO STRIKE HERE. TEAM- STERS LOCAL 677." After speaking to Turner's con- struction superintendent, Ruggieio obtained a 4-foot by 4-foot sheet of plywood and spray painted the words: "McCleary Only Gate" on the plywood and posted it at the Union Street gate about 9 a.m.; no sign was posted at the South Elm Street entrance at that time. At that time, the picketing ceased. About noon on that day, a McCleary truck entered the site through gate A, and exited through gate B about 25 minutes later. Later that day, Czertak placed an order for signs to be posted at the site. The next workday was Friday, November 24; on that day Czertak brought the signs to the site at 7 a.m., at which time they were posted. The sign posted on Union Street, gate A stated: "THIS GATE RE- SERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF McCLEARY BROS. INC. ONLY." The sign posted on South Elm Street, Gate B stated: "THIS GATE RE- SERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE FOLLOWING: CONTRACTOR Turner Construction. SUB-CONTRACTORS: J. H. Hogan, Inc. Manafort Bros., Shepard Steel. THEIR SUB-CONTRACTORS, THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR SUPPLIERS ONLY." About noon that day, Hogan sent the following telegram to Respondent, with a copy to McCleary: EFFECTIVE AT THE STARTING TIME ON NOVEM- BER 24, 1989, A DUAL GATE ENTRANCE SYSTEM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AT OUR PROJECT AT ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL PARKING GARAGE WATERBURY, CT. GATE "A" LOCATED ON UNION STREET OPPOSITE FRANKLIN STREET IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND MATERIAL SUPPLIERS OF MCCLEARY BROTHERS INC. GATE "B" LOCATED ON SOUTH ELM STREET OPPOSITE SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE AGENTS, EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MATERIAL SUPPLI- ERS OF J. H. HOGAN, INC. ONLY. ANY PICKET ACTIV- ITY AGAINST MCCLEARY BROTHERS MUST BE CON- FINED TO GATE "A." FAILURE ON YOUR PART TO LIMIT YOUR PICKETING TO THAT ENTRANCE WILL CAUSE J. H. HOGAN TO FILE NLRB CHARGES AND/OR SUE FOR DAMAGES. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 (J H HOGANf) 501 There were no McCleary deliveries to the site and no picketing, as well, on either Friday, November 24 or Monday, November 27 On both of those days, however, Ruggiero saw Respondent's representatives sitting in their cars parked on Franklin Street in the vicinity of gate A On Tuesday, November 28, one McCleary truck arrived about 8 a m and six McCleary trucks arrived at the site between 12 15 and 3 p m Each of these trucks entered and exited the site through the Union Street gate A Whenever a McCleary truck arrived at the site, Re- spondent's pickets got out of their cars and picketed gate A with the picket signs referred to, supra When the pickets arrived, Hogan and Manafort's employees stopped working and left the site On Wednesday, No- vember 29, there were no McCleary deliveries and no picketing at the site, Hogan's employees worked that day On Thursday, November 30, there was no picketmg the early morning There were no McCleary deliveries that day and no representative of McCleary was on the site that day About 10 30 a in, 6 to 10 of Respondent's representatives, including Pansi, began picketing the South Elm Street—gate B at the site Since that day, Re- spondent's pickets have picketed the South Elm Street— gate B on a daily basis with between two and six pickets, on only one occasion (December 7) did Respondent's Representatives picket Union Street—gate B and then only for about 15 minutes McCleary has had no deliv- eries and no representative at the site since November 28 Beginning on November 30, the employees of Hogan and the other subcontractors have failed to work at the site One important aspect of Respondent's defenses is the location of gate A—the Union Street gate reserved for McCleary Respondent contends that the location of the gate, and the resulting speed of the vehicles passing it, make it both unsafe for its pickets and ineffective for the transmission of its message Union Street is a continu- ation of the exit ramps from westbound Interstate 81 and a state highway Both of these exit ramps merge into a one-way two-lane road that becomes Union Street about the most easterly portion of the site The distance from the commencement of the exit ramp on Interstate 84 to gate A is about one-third of a mile Approximately half- way between the commencement of the ramp and gate A is a road sign stating that the speed limit is 30 miles per hour Directly across from gate A is Franklin Street, a two-way street ending at and crossing Union Street, there is a yield sign for drivers on Franklin Street pre- paring to enter Union Street About 400 feet past gate A (still two lanes going one-way—westbound) is a traffic light at the intersection of Union and South Elm Streets My observation of the videotape submitted by Respond- ent establishes that most of the vehicles approaching gate A appeared to be traveling between 30 to 35 miles per hour, some slowed down considerably at Franklin Street (directly across front gate A) in order to turn right onto Franklin Street Iv ANALYSIS Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (u)(B) was designed to preserve "the right of labor organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor disputes" while, at the same time, shielding "unoffendmg employ- ers and others from pressure in controversies not their own" NLRB v Denver Building Trades Council, 341 U S 675, 692 (1951) Drawing the line between what is pro- scribed picketing is especially difficult at a common site where the primary employer's employees work alongside the employees of the secondary (mnocent) employers To bring this issue more clearly into focus, employers often set up separate gates at such a common situs, one gate for the offending primary employer, and one or more gates for all other employers or suppliers at the sites When such separate gates are established, the union is obligated to picket solely at the primary gate unless it can show that the neutrality of the gates has been violat- ed In Iron Workers Local 118 (Tutor-Saliba Corp), 285 NLRB 162, 167 fn 12 (1987), Administrative Law Judge Timothy D Nelson stated very succinctly Although Sec 8(b)(4) is among the more prolix and complicated of the statutory provisions which we must interpret and apply, its application in common situs-reserved gate situations is by now mostly straightforward, uncomplicated, and well- known to building trades unions and to their attor- neys It is not an oversimplification to summarize whole volumes of law in this area with the state- ment that to avoid running afoul of Sec 8(b)(4) a picketmg union must at least stay away from gates posted for and used by persons other than the person with whom it has a primary labor dispute, unless it can show that it has a factually-grounded belief that the primary disputant is likewise using the ostensibly neutral gate There can be exception- al situations, of course While acknowledging that It picketed the South Elm Street gate B (the gate set up for the neutral employers) beginning November 30, Respondent relies on three de- fenses that it alleges cleanses what might otherwise be lawful picketing under Section 8(b)(4) of the Act The first two defenses are related to the location of the re- served gate—gate A, that because it is along a road that is a continuation of the exits of two major highways (one an interstate highway) the speed of the vehicles passing the gate made it ineffective for the display and transmis- sion of its message as well as unsafe for the pickets car- rying that message Additionally, Respondent contends that its picketing should be excused because McCleary violated the reserved gate system on November 22 when one of its trucks entered through gate A and exited the facility through gate B In Electrical Workers IBEW Local 501 (C W Pond Electric), 269 NLRB 274 (1984), the Board rejected the respondent's reliance on Electrical Workers IBEW Local 453 (Southern Sun), 237 NLRB 829 (1978), stating "In the mstant case, the primary reserved gate was clearly marked and maintained, and thus he Respondent Union was able to convey its message directly to the primary employer and its employees, visitors, suppliers and the general public" Electrical Workers IBEW Local 400 502 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (County of Ocean), 269 NLRB 119, 122 (1985), the ad- ministrative law judge (as affirmed by the Board) dis- missed the union's defense that picketing of the primary gate as impaired because it was so remote, stating "While this gate may not have been the ideal reserved gate for primary enlployees from the Union's standpomt, it certainly was sufficient to meet all the criteria set forth by the Board in those cases dealing with reserved gates" Respondent's defense herein is not that the primary gate was too remote, conversely, the allegation is that vehi- cles passed the gate at such an accelerated speed that they were not able to fully read or comprehend the mes- sage the Respondent was attemptmg to spread I find this defense without merit My viewing of the videotape pre- sented by Respondent, together with the other record testimony convinces me that individuals driving past gate A had time to read some or all of the picket signs, if they were there Additionally, cars entering Umon Street from Franklin Street had ample time to observe the signs as did cars on Union Street, slowing to turn nght into Franklin Street True, it may not have been the perfect location for Respondent's purposes, or the location that Respondent would have chosen if it had the power or ability to do so, but that is not required Local 400, supra This gate's location did not unreasonably deprive the Union of its right to reach the public, Electrical Workers IBEW Local 501 (C W Pond Electric) v NLRB, 756 F 2d 888 (D C Cir 1985), nor did it substantially impair the effectiveness of the picketing, Carpenters Local 354 (Sharp & Tatro Development), 268 NLRB 382 (1983) As the Board stated in Carpenters Local 33 (C B Construc- tion), 289 NLRB 528 (1988) "Although the primary gate location may not have been ideal, we note that Board precedent does not require primary reserved gate place- ments calculated to maximize a picket's chances to reach members of the public" I therefore reject this defense The next defense is that the speed of the cars passing gate A made it unsafe for picketing at that gate The tes- timony of Parisi, together with the videotape supplied by Respondent, establish that there is a sidewalk about 3 feet wide between gate A and the adjacent roadway In addition, at the time the videotape was taken, there was snow on the ground My viewing of the videotape dis- closes no substantial danger to picketmg at gate A, m fact, Respondent picketed at that location on November 22 and 28 and December 7, all, apparently, without inci- dent As stated, supra, my viewing of the videotape con- vinces me that the vehicles did not pass the gate at an excessive speed and a number of them slowed down, substantially to turn on Franklin Street, or slowed down to accommodate cars in front of them that were turnmg into Franklin Street In addition, the chain link fence and the two gates were erected around the site weeks before, and without reference to, the instant dispute To require Turner to reconstruct the chain link fence and the gates surrounding the site for the convenience of Respondent's pickets, and the effectiveness of its message, would be unfair and unwarranted in the instant situation I there- fore reject this defense, as well 2 2 Counsel for Respondent in his bnef, attaches the decision of Chief Judge Ellen Bree Burns, of the United States Distnct Court, Distnct of Finally, Respondent defends that its picketing of the reserved gate should be excused because of the violation of the reserved gate by the McCleary truck on Novem- ber 22 It is, of course, true that the picketing union need not comply with the reserved gate if the contractors on the site do not comply However, the Board does not re- quire perfect compliance and excuses noncompliance by the employers on the site in two situations Where the noncompliance was isolated and where even if the non- compliance was more than isolated, where the reserved gate system was rehabilitated and reestablished and was subsequently complied with In Plumbers Local 48 (Cal- vert Contractors), 249 NLRB 1183 (1980), the Board stated that "isolated occurrences did not establish a pattern of destruction of the reserve gate system suffi- cient to justify resumption of picketing at the neutral gates" And in Operating Engineers Local 18 (Dodge Ire- land), 236 NLRB 199 (1978), the Board stated "the few instances of misuse of a neutral gate by suppliers of the primary employer were not sufficient to justify Respond- ent's picketing of the neutral gates" Assuming arguendo that the reserved gate system in the instant matter had broken down, the law is clear that an employer may ef- fectively rehabilitate or reestablish the reserve gate system so long as the union is properly notified and the system is subsequently honored Electrical Workers IBEW Local 332 (WS B Electric), 269 NLRB 417 (1984), Iron Workers Local 433 (Oltmans Construction), 272 NLRB 1182 (1984), NLRB v Carpenters Local 1622 (Wood & As- sociates), 786 F 2d 903, 905 (9th Cir 1986) In the instant matter, on November 22, a handpamted plywood sign was placed on the gate reserved for McCleary—the entrance that 2 days later would official- ly become gate A Later that day, on one occasion, a McCleary truck entered through that gate and exited through the South Elm Street gate That was the extent of the taint of the reserved gates General Counsel's posi- tion is that the single taint on November 22 does not excuse the picketing because the reserved gate was not formally established until November 4, when the official signs were posted on the gates and telegrams were sent to the Respondent informing them of the creation of the reserved gates I agree with General Counsel and recom- mend that this defense be dismissed, not only was there only one isolated instance of the employers violating the reserve gate, but subsequent to that situation, the em- ployers established (or reestablished) the reserved gate system and honored that system Iron Workers Local 433 (Chris Crane), 288 NLRB 717 (1980) By picketing gate B, reserved for the neutrals, since November 30 (when McCleary was not on the site), Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(1) and (n)(B) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 J H Hogan, Inc is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) Connecticut, and asks that I take judicial notice of the fact that Chief Judge Burns denied the Regional Director's request for a preliminary in- junction under Sec 10(1) of the Act, finding a "reasonable perception of danger at Gate A" For the reasons stated above, I respectfully disagree with Chief Judge Bums' finding TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 (J H HOGAN) 503 2 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Hogan, Manafort Bros, or by other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a stnke or refusal in the course of their em- ployment to perform services, and by threatening, coerc- ing, and restraining the above-named Employers, or other persons engaged in commerce or business oper- ations affecting commerce with an object of forcing or requiring the above-named persons to cease doing busi- ness with McCleary Bros, Inc , International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 677, AFL-CIO has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the memung of Section 8(b)(4)(0 and (n)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed3 ORDER The Respondent, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, Local 677, AFL-CIO, Waterbury, Connecticut, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by J H Hogan, Inc, Manafort Bros, Inc , or other per- sons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, ma- terials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named Employers, or any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease using, selling, han- dling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, McCleary Bros, Inc (b) In any manner threatening, coercing or restraining J H Hogan, Inc , Manafort Bros, Inc , or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named Employers, or any other persons en- gaged in commerce to cease using, selling, handling, transporting or otherwise dealing in the products of, or cease doing business with, McCleary Bros, Inc 3 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 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its office and meeting halls copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix " 4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 34, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme- diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices to members are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 34 signed copies of the notice in sufficient number for post- ing by the Employers, if willing, at all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply 4 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 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, nor will our officers, business repre- sentatives, business agents, or anyone acting for us, what- ever his title may be, engage in or Induce or encourage any individual employed by J H Hogan, Inc, Manafort Bros, Inc, or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise, handle, or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named Employers, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry af- fecting commerce, to cease using, selling, handling, trans- porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or cease doing business with, McCleary Bros, Inc WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain J H Hogan, Inc, Manafort Bros, Inc , or any other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce, where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named Employers or any other persons engaged in commerce to cease using, selling, handling, transport- 504 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or cease doing business with, McCleary Bros, Inc INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 677, AFL-CIO