Truck Drivers Local 100, Treamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 1971

187 N.L.R.B. 706 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Truck Drivers , Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union
No. 100 . International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca and Norfolk and Western Railway Company.
Case 9-CC-502
January 6, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On May 4, 1970, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent (herein also called the
Union) had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a brief in support thereof. The General
Counsel filed limited exceptions to the Trial Examin-
er's Decision with a brief in support thereof, and the
Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith.2
This case presents a situation wherein the primary
employer (Petty Motor Freight, Inc., herein called
Petty), whose sole place of business was on the
premises of a secondary employer (Norfolk and
Western Railway Company, herein called the Rail-
road), decided to go out of business upon receiving
the Union's strike notice, but failed to give formal
notice of its decision to the Union. When the
scheduled primary picketing at the common situs
began on August 25, 1969,3 Petty was no longer
performing any work anywhere, although its equip-
' The Respondent has excepted to credibility resolutions made by the
Trial Examiner Since the credibility findings as to the underlying sequence
of events are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant
evidence , no basis exists for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
2 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in
ment remained at the situs, unused, during the strike
and for several months thereafter. The strike ended on
August 27 after the Union verified that Petty had filed
a bankruptcy petition on the preceding day and when
Petty's "successor" at the situs (Turner) agreed to hire
the former Petty employees and bargain with the
Union. The Trial Examiner found that the Union's
picketing in these circumstances failed to meet the
Moore Dry Dock4 requirements for common situs
picketing and therefore violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) of
the Act. We disagree and find, for the reasons below,
that the General Counsel has failed to establish by the
requisite preponderance of all relevant evidence that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) has been committed.
From April 1967, until the events herein, Petty was
engaged exclusively, under a contract with the
Railroad, in performing certain trucking work in
connection with the Railroad's piggyback operation.
Petty's sole place of business during this period was
on the Railroad's premises (the Berry Yard) where it
maintained, rent free, an office and storage facilities
for its truck and tractors. Also, since 1967, Petty was
party to collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union covering its drivers, which provided, inter alia,
for employer contributions to an employee pension,
health, and welfare fund. The contract further
provided that, in the event of employer delinquencies
in making its payments, the Union could, after giving
the employer 72 hours' notice, take whatever action
against the employer it deemed necessary.
On August 21, 1969, when Petty was some $9,000
behind in his pension-welfare contributions, the
Union gave Petty 72 hours' notice of intent to strike
unless the delinquencies were paid up. That evening,
after the workday, Petty orally informed Joseph
Williamson, the Railroad's assistant freight agent,
that it had received the Union's strike notice; that it
could not financially withstand a strike; and that,
therefore, it had decided to terminate its operations
and go out of business. Petty confirmed this decision
by letter which he personally delivered to the Railroad
on Monday, August 25. In response, the Railroad sent
Petty a telegram on August 25 canceling Petty's
contract "effective immediately." Petty did not notify
the Union of its decision to go out of business but,
instead, telephoned two of his drivers on the night of
August 21 and told them that he had "ceased
our opinion, the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present
the issues and positions of the parties
J Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1969
' Sailor's Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB
547, 549
187 NLRB No. 101
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 100, TEAMSTERS 707
operations and that their money was in the mail in the
form of certified checks."5 He also advised them to go
to the Union to see about getting other work. The
checks to which Petty referred were actually not
mailed until the following day and were not received
by the men until Monday, August 25, after the strike
began.
On Friday, August 22, the Petty drivers (Simms,
Stewart, and Keaton) went to the Berry Yard where
they saw another individual, later identified as
Thomas Turner, doing some of the work previously
performed by Petty. Turner was working alone with a
rented truck. On the next day, August 23, they again
went to the Yard and were asked by Turner to help
him out. Simms, Stewart, and Keaton worked for
several hours and were paid in cash for their services
by Turner. Turner admittedly did not explain his
status vis-a-vis the Railroad to the men, nor did he
promise them future employment. The Union's 72-
hour strike notice expired on Sunday, August 24, a
nonworking day.
On Monday morning, August 25, Simms and
Stewart went to the union hall and told Business
Representative Quigley about Petty's telephone calls
to them on the preceding Thursday.6 They also
advised Quigley that Turner was seen on Friday and
Saturday doing piggyback work previously done by
Petty. Quigley, after making some inquiries as to the
identity of Turner, told Simms and Stewart that Petty
was to be put on strike for his pension-welfare
delinquencies. The men were given picket signs
identifying Petty as the object of the strike, and they
returned to the Berry Yard where they commenced
picketing on Laidlaw Avenue, the sole truck and
employee entrance to the Yard and to Petty's place of
business. The strike lasted 3 days. Turner's employees
refused to cross the picket line and neither Turner nor
anyone else attempted to move trailers into or out of
the Yard until Wednesday, August 27, when Quigley
gave Turner special permission to deliver a perishable
load.
On the afternoon of August 25, when the Railroad's
second-shift employees arrived and saw the picket
line, they asked the pickets and Business Agent
Barnes what the strike was about and whether it was
all right for them to cross the picket line. Barnes and
the pickets replied that the dispute was with Petty, not
with the Railroad, and that they could cross the line
provided that they did not do any of "the truckers'
work." The yardmen, however, remained reluctant to
cross the picket line and, instead, returned to their
parked cars. At this time, Assistant Yardmaster
Trivett arrived at the gate and asked Barnes if the
yardmen might pass through the gate, to which
Barnes replied that, since "we have no strike against
the Railroad, you can cross the picket line, but you do
not do any of the truckers' work." Trivett then talked
to the Railroad employees who proceeded through the
gate but did not do any piggyback work.
From the time that the strike began on August 25, to
the time that it ended on August 27, Quigley received
numerous telephone calls from representatives of the
Railroad, Turner, and other trucking companies who
were seeking to take over the work previously
performed by Petty. The gist of these conversations
was (1) to convince Quigley that Petty had definitely
and permanently gone out of business and (2) that the
piggyback work would be awarded to Turner or some
other trucking concern and, therefore, the Union
should try to work out an accord with Turner or
whoever else might be awarded the piggy back
contract. In the course of these conversations ( as well
as in conversations between the strikers and railroad
officials) railroad officials and Turner's attorney
assured the Union that, if Turner were awarded the
piggyback contract, he would hire the former Petty
drivers.
Either late on August 26 or early on August 27,
Quigley verified that Petty had, in fact, filed a
bankruptcy petition on August 26. At Turner's
request, a meeting was held on the afternoon of
August 27 between Turner, representatives of the
Union, and drivers Simms and Keaton to discuss the
possibility of negotiating a contract. Various matters
were discussed pertaining to Turner's efforts to win
the piggyback contract, the manner in which he
proposed to operate at the Yard, and the rate he could
afford to pay. Quigley wanted Turner to hire the three
Petty drivers, without loss of seniority, and to sign the
Union's master contract. Turner agreed to hire the
drivers, without seniority, but suggested they become
owner-operators. He did not agree to the Union's
master contract. The meeting, which had been
requested by Turner, ended without agreement except
that Turner's lawyer agreed to draft a proposed
contract which Quigley could submit for approval to
the strikers.
Later, on the evening of August 27, Quigley
telephoned Union President Farmer and they decided
to end the strike, agreeing that there was "no use
picketing where the man has gone out of business."
After the picket line was removed, about 9 p.m.,
Joseph Williamson, the Railroad' s assistant freight
agent, told the strikers to report to work the next day
as employees of Turner. Turner did not sign a
5 During past financial difficulties Petty also had threatened to go out August 25, about Petty 's telephone calls of August 21, Thus, Simms
of business , but did not do so testified that he telephoned Quigley "within a day or two" after Petty's call
6 It appears that Quigley was informed sometime before Monday, and related what Petty had said
708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract with the Union. Some 3 months later, he
ceased operations.
Based on the foregoing , we are not pursuaded that a
violation of Section 8(b)(4) was committed. The
Union clearly had a legitimate primary dispute with
Petty concerning the latter 's pension and welfare
delinquencies when it commenced picketing on the
morning of August 25. The Berry Yard was Petty's
sole place of business since 1967 and it was an
appropriate place for the Union to advertise its
dispute with Petty. That this was the Union's object is
not negated by the fact that Petty may have
discontinued operations before the picketing , previ-
ously decided upon , commenced . Petty never notified
the Union of this fact . Appearances at the site did not
disclose it . And though Petty told two employees of
his decision to terminate operations it is understanda-
ble that the Union was not diverted from its picketing
plan, especially in view of the fact that Petty had
frequently in the past made claims of financial
troubles and threats to employees to cease operations.
After the Union verified the fact that Petty had filed a
petition in bankruptcy, the picketing stopped. In the
attendant circumstances , we cannot attribute any
illegal purpose to the picketing from the fact that it
did not terminate abruptly when Quigley learned of
the bankruptcy petition.
Upon the entire record , we are not persuaded by the
General Counsel 's case that the Respondent's picket-
ing violated the Act as alleged . Accordingly , we shall
dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE F. FREY , Trial Examiner : The issues in this case,
which was tried before me at Cincinnati , Ohio , on February
10 and 11, 1970, with all parties participating fully in the
trial through counsel , are whether the above -named Union,
Respondent herein, in August 1969, picketed a facility of
Norfolk and Western Railway Company (herein called the
Railroad) in Cincinnati , Ohio , with the object of causing
employees of the Railroad and other employers to cease
performing services for their respective employers in order
to force and require the Railroad to cease doing business
with Thomas Turner Transport Corporation (herein called
Turner) unless and until Turner employed members of
Respondent and recognized Respondent as the collective-
bargaining agent of its employees , and prevent the Railroad
from resuming any business relationship with Petty Motor
Freight , Inc. (herein called Petty), all in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , 29 U.S.C. Sec . 151, et seq. (herein called the
Act). These issues arose on a complaint issued December
30, 1969 , by General Counsel of the Board through the
Board 's Regional Director for Region 9,i and answer of
Respondent admitting jurisdiction , but denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices . At close of the trial all
parties waived oral argument but written briefs filed by all
have been carefully considered by me in preparation of this
Decision.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the
stand, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR BUSINESSES
The Railroad is a Virginia corporation acting as an
interstate carrier engaged in transporting by rail for its
customers goods and materials among the several States,
and maintaining facilities in several States , including a
facility known as the Berry Yard in Cincinnati , Ohio, which
is the only facility involved in this case.
At all times material herein Petty was a Kentucky
corporation engaged in the transportation by truck tractor
of truck trailers , as an interstate carrier, with one of its
facilities located until August 22, 1969 , at the Berry Yard.
In the past calendar year up to August 22 , 1969, Petty in
course of its trucking operations in Ohio derived gross
revenue in excess of $50,000 from trucking operations
performed under contracts or arrangements with interstate
common carriers , including the Railroad , operating
between and among various States.
I find that the Railroad is, and Petty at all material times
herein was , an employer engaged in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act, and the Railroad has been and is a "person" within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 1) of the Act.
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act , and at all material times herein Earl
G. Quigley, Dallas Barnes , William O. Wilson, and Earl
Mitchell have each been a business agent of Respondent
and acting as its agent within the meaning of the Act. These
four agents comprised the city freight division of Respon-
dent , with specific jurisdiction over hauling operations at
the Berry Yard and like facilities and bargaining units of
employees employed therein.
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Events 4
At all times material herein the Railroad has been
engaged in transporting for its customers by rail truck
trailers loaded with freight to and from loading ramps and
associated facilities at its Berry Yard . This operation is
I The complaint issued after Board investigation of charges filed August
25 and 27, 1969, by the Railroad
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 100, TEAMSTERS 709
known as "piggy-back service." In this operation the
Railroad does not own or operate any tractor trucks but
from 1967 up to August 22, 1969, had a contract with Petty
under which Petty furnished tractors to haul loaded trailers
for customers of the Railroad to and from the Berry Yard
and loading and unloading them on and off flatcars.2
In the operation of his contract Petty used as his main
dispatch office an old railroad car owned by the Railroad
and located within Berry Yard several hundred yards from
Laidlaw Avenue, the nearest public highway, and the sole
truck and employee entrance to the Yard. He parked his
tractors partly in the Yard at a point far distant from his
office and partly on a lot adjacent to the Yard but owned
by another company.
From 1967 until he quit operations on August 21, 1969,
Petty had a collective-bargaining contract with Respondent
covering his drivers, under which he was required to make
monthly payments into the health and welfare and pension
funds maintained by Respondent. In early 1969 he had
financial problems, and fell behind in those payments and,
after several warnings from Respondent, he was advised by
Respondent on August 21, 1969, that his employees would
take economic action against him on August 25 because of
his defaults.3 At close of business on the 21st, Petty closed
his dispatch office, removed all his records, procured
certified checks for pay due his employees,4 called each on
the telephone about 8 p.m., and told those he was able to
reach that he had ceased operations and their final pay was
being sent to them by mail; 5 he told Simms the Union was
going to strike him, and he could not stand a strike
financially, so he was closing down, and that Simms should
go to the union hall the next morning and tell the Union
Petty was closed down and filing in bankruptcy, and that
Simms needed a job. Simms said he would go to the Union
early on Friday. Petty parked all his tractors in an isolated
spot, and left the Yard to see his attorney about filing a
petition in bankruptcy, which was actually filed for his
corporation on August 26, 1969, in the local United States
District Court. Petty advised Carlton Williamson, freight
agent of the Railroad, or his brother, Joseph, assistant
freight agent at the Yard, on the night of August 21 that this
was his last day of work there, as he was quitting the job
because of pressures from Respondent and his creditors.
Petty confirmed this action by letter to the Railroad on
August 25, which the Railroad answered by telegram of
that date terminating his contract. Petty never returned to
the Yard until about a month later, to make arrangements
to have some of his trucks removed as requested by the
Railroad.
On Friday, August 22, Turner made a temporary
arrangement with freight agent Williamson to handle the
2 The piggyback service is handled under three plans Under plan 1,
common carriers haul their own trailers to and from the Yard where the
Railroad toads and unloads them on flatcars, at destination another
common carrier hauls the trailer to the customer In plan 2, the Railroad
provides the trailer, loading it at the start, hauling it to the flatcar, shipping
it, and at destination hauling it to and unloading it for the customer Under
plan 2-1/2, the Railroad furnishes the trailer, but the shipper at one end
loads and hauls it to the flatcar, and at destination the customer does the
hauling from the flatcar and unloading at his plant
At the Berry Yard, the Railroad furnished the trailers for operations of
plans 2 and 2-1/2, but hired independent trucker Petty to load and unload
trailers at the flatcars and haul them to and from customers ' plants, using
piggyback hauling, pending award of a formal contract by
the Railroad .6 He began operations that afternoon, using
one rented tractor which he drove himself. Simms and
Stewart were at the Yard all day to find out who would haul
the trailers, and, when Simms saw Turner doing it, he asked
Joseph Williamson about it, and the latter replied Turner
was handling the work because Petty was out of business
and had quit the operation, that Turner had quit his job
with a trucking company to do the hauling on a temporary
basis until a formal contract could be worked out. That
night Turner called Simms to ask if two of the former Petty
drivers could help him with the work on Saturday; Simms
apparently agreed, for, when Turner continued the work on
August 23, he hired Simms and Stewart at $3.50 an hour on
a temporary basis to help him at the loading ramps, and
they worked 5 hours for him that day. He told them he
would employ them at that rate until a contract was signed.
On August 22 or 23, Simms reported to Business Agent
Quigley at the union office that Petty had told his
employees on the night of the 21st that he was going out of
business and quitting the Yard hauling, and was sending
the men their final checks, and that they did not work for
him on Friday, but that on that day Turner was doing
hauling at the Yard which indicated he was "taking over,"
and that the three Petty employees wanted to see if they
could hold their jobs in that operation.
On Sunday, August 24, Turner hired three other men as
temporary employees, giving two specific orders to report
at the Yard early Monday morning to hook up and drive
out a load of perishable grapes to a customer. In discussing
their employment, he suggested two of them should buy
their own tractors and become owner-operators on the job
like Turner; the other man already had his own truck.7
B. The Strike, its Nature and Effects
On Monday morning, August 25, the three Petty
employees met at the Yard early, discussed the fact that
Petty was out of business, they had not received their last
pay from him,8 and that they had no jobs, and agreed that
they should seek help from their union about their
"problems." Simms and Stewart went to the union office
and saw Quigley. He asked if Turner was still at the Yard,
and where he came from. They told him Turner was
moving the trailers, and that he was a dispatcher for Spade,
another city trucking outfit. Simms also told Quigley he and
Stewart had worked temporarily for Turner on the job on
Saturday. Quigley called Spade and learned that Turner no
longer worked there. Quigley then told the two men "we got
no alternative, we will just put Petty on strike." He gave
them picket signs stating Respondent was on strike against
his own tractors, drivers, and helpers
3 This was in accordance with the grievance procedure in its contract.
4 Carl E Simms, Harold Stewart , and Andrew I Keaton
5 He did not reach Keaton who was out of town, but left word with a
relative
6 Three or four truckdrivers besides Turner were apparently bidding for
the job after August 21
r The above facts are found from a composite of credible testimony of
Joseph Williamson , Petty, Turner, Simms, and Stewart . Testimony of any
of them at variance therewith is not credited
" Simms got his certified check in the mail later that day, and
presumably the other two got theirs at the same time
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petty, and sent the two back to the Yard where they and
Keaton began picketing with the signs at the sole truck and
employee entrance to the Yard mentioned above. Turner's
new employees were already at the Yard, preparing to haul
out the trailer of grapes, but when they saw the pickets and
signs, they called Turner, who came to the Yard. His men
refused to take the load of grapes through the picket line, so
he called Quigley about 9:30 a.m., saying he had the load to
deliver but could not unless the picket line was removed, as
his drivers would not cross it. Quigley said the line "would
not go down." Turner reminded him the strike was against
Petty, not against him, and Quigley said he knew that.
Turner then told Joseph Williamson about the problem,
when the latter came to work. Turner remained at the Yard
during the day, but neither he nor his employees moved any
trailers through the picket line.
When Joseph Williamson came to work that morning, he
asked Simms what it was all about, and Simms replied they
were on strike against Petty because of their grievances
against him, explaining that Petty was behind in his
payments to the health and welfare and pension funds
required by his contract with Respondent. Simms indicated
he was the spokesman for the pickets. Williamson asked
who was in charge of it, and Simms said Quigley was.
Simms gave him Quigley's telephone number, and William-
son telephoned Quigley and asked the reason for the
picketing, and if the strike was official. Quigley said it was
official, that "we" are on strike against Petty. Williamson
said Quigley knew Petty was no longer working for N & W,
and Quigley replied, "Yes, but his men reported there, he
maintains an office there, and his equipment is there, so we
are striking the place of employment." Williamson also told
him Turner or another man would take over the hauling
contract. Quigley replied that he would talk to anyone who
wanted to call him about it.
On Monday Joseph Williamson had several talks with the
pickets, particularly Simms, about the strike, Petty, and
Turner. As Turner had told him in the morning about his
inability to haul out the load of grapes, Williamson in the
afternoon asked Simms if either he or Turner could drive
the trailer out of the yard. Simms said he did not know, but
would call Quigley and find out. With Williamson's
permission, Simms talked to Quigley from the yard office
telephone, and then told Williamson, "I am sorry but they
won't let the grapes go, he said nothing moves in or out of
the yard." Williamson then notified the consignee of the
grapes about the reason for delay in delivery, promising to
get them to him as soon as possible.
Shortly before 2:30 p.m., on the 25th, when the evening
shift of five Yard employees of the Railroad came to the
Yard to report for work,9 they asked the pickets and
Business Agent Dallas Barnes if it was all right for them to
cross the picket line. The pickets and Barnes told them the
strike was against Petty, and it was all right, provided they
did not do any of the piggyback, or "our," work. Two of the
yardmen who asked these questions were local representa-
tives of the Trammens and Firemens Unions respectively.
All the yardmen then sat in their cars on Laidlaw Avenue,
and did not enter the Yard. Shortly after William L. Trivett,
9 This shift consisted of a conductor, two brakemen, an engineer, and a
fireman, all of whom were members of either the Brotherhood of Trainmen
assistant yardmaster for the Railroad, came to the picket
line and asked the pickets and Barnes if it was all right for
the yardmen to cross the picket line and go to work. Barnes
told him it was all right, as "we have no strike against the
Railroad, you can cross our picket line, but you do not do
any of the truckers' work." Trivett went over and talked to
the yardmen in their cars, and the latter then drove into the
Yard and went to work. Later in the afternoon, Trivett was
advised that the union conductor had refused to "spot"
loaded piggyback flatcars at the ramps for unloading on
orders from one Jack Varney, the local chairman of the
Trainmens Union. Tnvett called Varney about it, and
Varney confirmed that "they asked us not to do any
piggyback switching, and I do not think we should." Trivett
returned to the picket line and asked Simms if the pickets
intended that the yard crews should not do any switching of
flatcars at the piggyback ramps, and Simms said that was
right, "we do not want any switching or any work
performed at the piggy-back ramps."
The Railroad officials consulted counsel about the
problem that afternoon, for that evening Quigley was called
by J. Mack Swigert, one of the Railroad counsel, who told
him about the strike at the Yard, and that Turner, another
trucker, might take over the piggyback hauling work.
Quigley told him he would be glad to negotiate a contract
with the man who got the hauling work "if we had the
members."
Turner held a withdrawal card from Respondent, and
after he learned on the 25th that his employees, all members
of Respondent, would not cross the picket line with the
trailer of grapes or other products, he knew he could only
"operate union" at the Yard, so he called Quigley several
times on the 25th and 26th, advising that he expected to get
the hauling contract at the Yard and had already begun the
operation, but would like to meet with Quigley to work out
a contract and get rid of the pickets. Quigley indicated that
there was no use in meeting until Turner had the hauling
contract and Respondent represented his workers. When
Turner got the first refusal on the 25th, he contacted his
attorney, Philip J. Kennedy, told him he had to work out a
solution to remove the picket line, otherwise he could not
continue operations at the Yard, and instructed Kennedy to
get in touch with Quigley to arrange a meeting . Kennedy
talked to Quigley the morning of August 26, said he
represented Turner, that he understood Petty was out of
business, no longer working at the Yard, and had filed a
petition in bankruptcy, and that Turner would like to meet
with him to work out some way of withdrawing the pickets.
Quigley asked if Kennedy would check on the bankruptcy,
and let him know if it was a fact. Kennedy ascertained
shortly from the office of the local Federal referee in
bankruptcy that the petition had in fact been filed that
morning. He called Quigley that afternoon or early on the
27th to advise him of the filing, and Quigley told him he
had already confirmed that Petty had been adjudicated a
bankrupt, so "Petty was out of the picture," so far as
concerned any chance of Respondent collecting from him
moneys due to Respondent under its contract. Kennedy
replied that it was "obvious" that Petty was out of business.
or Brotherhood of Firemen The conductor was the supervisor of that crew,
taking his orders from the yardmaster
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 100, TEAMSTERS
In their discussion on the 26th, Kennedy told Quigley that
Turner wanted the hauling contract but, from his
examination of the piggyback operation and Petty's
experience with it, Turner felt it could be profitable only if
handled by drivers acting as owner-operators with their
own tractors, and that Turner was willing to hire the three
former Petty employees on the understanding that they
would handle the work on an owner-operator basis and
Turner would help them arrange the financing Kennedy
and Quigley agreed on a meeting on August 27, at which
Turner could work out a collective-bargaining contract
with Quigley recognizing Respondent as bargaining agent
for the former Petty employees, as employees of Turner
Kennedy reported to Turner this conversation and date for
the meeting , and apparently Turner reported it to one of the
Williamson, for sometime that day freight agent William-
son told Simms he thought the strike was settled but, when
Simms called Quigley to verify this, Quigley told him `until
we get a contract signed [apparently with the man who gets
the hauling] it is not settled "
On the 26th, Swigert again called Quigley, giving the
same information about Turner as the day before, and
Quigley replied that he could not discuss a collective-
bargaining contract until someone had the hauling
contract In this discussion, Swigert said Petty had filed in
bankruptcy that day, giving Quigley the number of the
bankruptcy case Quigley said he would check on it, and
late that afternoon he called the Federal Building in
Cincinnati to try to find out about the bankruptcy, but was
advised he had called too late in the day
Respondent maintained the picket line, with one to three
former Petty employees carrying the same picket signs, on
August 26 and to about 9 p in on the 27th In this period
Joseph Williamson had several talks with the pickets,
mainly Simms, about the strike, Petty, and Turner, in
course of which Simms told him once that the pickets had
no gripes against the Railroad, but Turner was doing the
trucking for it, and if he would sign the 13-State agreement
with Respondent, the strike would be over, he explained
that under this agreement the three pickets would keep their
seniority (Simms , Stewart, and Keaton in that order), and
any men hired thereafter would be behind them in
seniority While the picket line existed for 3 days, no
piggyback operations were conducted at the Yard by
Turner, other truckers, or employees of the Railroad under
any of the piggyback plans,i° except that Turner drove the
load of grapes through agree to the other proposals made
by Turner, so the meeting was adjourned the picket line on
the morning of the 27th, after he received permission from
Quigley personally while the latter was at the picket line
This occurred after Swigert had called Quigley in the
morning, saying the Railroad wanted to get the grapes out
to the customer Quigley told him that he should get them
out, that he himself would go to the Yard and get them out
himself, if necessary Shortly after, Quigley went to the
picket lines, told the pickets that, as far as he was
concerned, anyone could take out the grapes, and they
should let it go
10 Yard employees of the Railroad play an essential role in the
piggyback operation by switching flatcars with yard engines to and from
ramps for loading and unloading
711
On the afternoon of the 27th, Turner and Kennedy met at
the union office with Business Agents Quigley and William
0 Wilson, Simms, and Keaton to talk about negotiation of
a contract Turner told the union agents and members that
he wanted to work out a way to continue the trucking at the
Yard, and was willing to sign a contract with Respondent as
agent for his drivers Quigley said he wanted Turner to sign
the 13-State (local cartage) agreement (which Petty
apparently signed) and at the same time the three pickets
must be put back to work without loss of seniority Turner
agreed to take them on, but suggested that they come into
the operation as owner-operators, using their own equip-
ment like Turner Quigley and the two employees present
replied they were not interested in that plan Turner said he
would sign a city wide agreement li with Respondent and
hire the three men without seniority at a base rate of about
$2 an hour which would be adjusted retroactively to their
date of hire after Turner signed a contract with Respon-
dent, Turner explained that the freight rate the Railroad
paid for hauling was not high enough to allow Turner to
pay the rates in the regular freight hauler's contract, that
another local trucker did not pay the union rates, and that
he would pay that trucker's rates Quigley replied the Petty
employees had been paid over $4 an hour, and that the
company he referred to did not pay those rates because it
had a separate contract for operating cranes at a Southern
Railway facility, using only crane operators, and no
highway drivers were involved, and that Turner would have
to come under the freight hauler's contract because he
would be hauling loads by truck Quigley would not agree
to the other proposal made by Turner, so the meeting was
adjourned without agreement, with Quigley suggesting that,
if Kennedy would submit a written proposal for Turner,
Quigley would put it to the three former Petty employees
for a vote
After the meeting ended in the late afternoon, Simms and
Keaton went back to the picket line and resumed picketing
with Stewart Turner discussed the situation privately with
Kennedy, and instructed him to arrange a new meeting
with Quigley, and to offer immediate employment of the
three Petty workers without loss of seniority, at a specified
rate of pay pending negotiation of a contract In the
evening, Kennedy called Ira Farmer , president of Respon-
dent, to find out whether it was union policy to refuse to
negotiate a contract without a commitment to hire the three
former Petty employees, and Farmer confirmed this policy
Sometime that evening, Quigley called Farmer in New
York City to discuss the situation, and both decided there
was "no use picketing where a man has gone out of
business" About 8 pm, Freight Agent Williamson told
Simms on the picket line that the strike was definitely
settled Simms said he could not take down the picket line
until he heard from Respondent, so he called Quigley from
the Yard office about it, and Quigley told him there was no
use picketing further because Petty had filed in bankruptcy
Simms then told the other pickets Quigley had said it was
definitely established that Petty had filed in bankruptcy,
and was "out," so they had "nothing to strike over," and
11 This is apparently another form of standard Teamsters contract, to
cover intrastate truckers whose operations may be limited to a city wide or
similar local area
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they should stop picketing They stopped picketing about 9
p in Joseph Williamson told them they would start work
the next morning for Turner Quigley advised Kennedy of
the removal of the picket line when the latter called him
shortly after 9 p in When the pickets stopped picketing
they told Turner at the Yard that they had received orders
to stop picketing, and were told that Turner would put them
to work at once When Simms got home that night Keaton
called Simms and told him Turner would hire them the next
morning "until this thing is ironed out " The three pickets
began work for Turner the morning of August 28 at $3 50
an hour, as contrasted to $4 03 an hour they received under
Respondent's contract with Petty, and without any of the
additional benefits of that contract They worked under this
arrangement for Turner for about 3 months until the
hauling work was taken over by another trucker, for whom
they have worked ever since While they worked for Turner,
he never negotiated or executed a written collective-
bargaining contract with Respondent covering his employ-
ees Throughout his operation of the piggyback hauling,
Turner used only his own equipment (rented or otherwise),
but never any of Petty's trucks i2
C Contentions of the Parties, and Conclusions of
Fact and Law Thereon
The basic facts creating the main issues are plain in the
record Petty was the primary employer having a labor
dispute with Respondent , and since he operated his main
place of business at the Yard of the Railroad , 13 which had
no contract or labor dispute with Respondent and was a
neutral employer, it is clear that the primary and a neutral
employer shared the same premises , and that , when the
picketing of Petty's place of business began, those premises
harbored the situs of the primary dispute , which would
make Respondent 's picketing presumptively legal only if it
complied with the limitations and conditions set forth in
matter of Sailor's Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock
Company), 92 NLRB 547, i e (a) the picketing is strictly
limited to times when the situs of the dispute is located on
the secondary employer's premises , (b) at the time of the
picketing the pnmary employer is engaged in its normal
business at the situs , (c) the picketing is limited to places
reasonably close to the location of the situs , and (d) the
picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the
pnmary employer The record also shows that , after Turner
took over the piggyback hauling on August 22, he had no
contract or labor dispute with Respondent (except as noted
hereafter), nor permanent employees who were members of
Respondent, so that he was likewise a neutral employer on
12 1 find the above facts from a composite of credible and mutually
corroborative testimony of witnesses of all parties Testimony of any
witnesses at variance therewith is not credited
13 He had occasionally done some dispatching from his home but the
Yard was his main place of operation
14 It has long been well settled that an employer can be charged with
knowledge or notice of employee union or concerted activities from a large
variety of circumstances including the rather thin inference arising from
the small plant concept Texas Alumipum Company Inc 181 NLRB No
15 Unless a double standard is to be applied under the Act which would
require a greater weight or burden of proof of violation of the Act where a
labor organization is charged than where an employer is charged the same
August 25 and thereafter, in his attempted operations at the
Yard
General Counsel concedes that conditions (a), (c), and (d)
were met by the picketing, but argues that (b) was not
because, during the picketing, Petty was no longer engaged
in its normal business at the situs , having abandoned the
whole operation there (and thus his entire business) on
August 21 The Railroad argues in addition that condition
(a) was not met because Petty's total and announced
abandonment of his operation at the Yard prevented those
premises from being considered, in fact or in law, thereafter
as a common situs of the pnmary dispute Respondent
counters with the argument that to all outward appearances
Petty continued his normal business at the Yard after
August 21 and did not actually cease his "normal business"
there until after he filed his petition in bankruptcy on
August 26 and Respondent was convinced on August 27
that this had actually occurred, so that condition (b) existed
through August 27, Respondent's theory is that it is not
chargeable with knowledge or notice of the cessation of
Petty's operations unless and until some vague but formal
(and perhaps unchallengeable) official notice of the
occurrence (and also of cessation of its existence as a
corporate entity) is served on it I find no authority, and
Respondent cites none, to show that a different quantum of
knowledge or proof thereof in this respect is required by law
in the case of labor organizations than in the case of
employers, employees, or any other persons I conclude that
the law, as applied to the facts here, makes this argument
untenable i4
It is clear from the facts found above that Respondent,
through Quigley, was advised as early as August 23 by its
own members that Petty had completely stopped all
operations at the Yard and paid off his employees, and that
they were without employment Quigley was told by Simms
on Monday, August 25, before the picketing started, that
Turner had taken over the operation, and that at least one
other trucker was bidding for the work, and Quigley was
interested enough in this development to make a telephone
inquiry about Turner's past employment, before he set up
the picket line He had no reason to disbelieve what Simms
had told him about this on the 25th, as Simms and Keaton
came to the union office to seek its help about their
unemployment and their failure (up to that moment) to get
their final pay Hence, I must conclude that Respondent
was on notice from reliable sources before the picketing
started, that Petty was out of business and had no
employees at the Yard, and that another trucker, Turner,
had taken over his work under some arrangement with the
Railroad 15 The fact that Petty's trucks remained at the
Yard during the picketing and for months after it stopped is
broad principle must be applied to determine whether a union has
knowledge of activities which bear on the reason for or legality of its
conduct
15 Although Simms was not a formal shop steward for Respondent
among Petty employees and not technically its agent as Respondent
argues his almost daily reports to and conversations with Quigley after
August 21 about the changing situation with respect to the piggyback
hauling at the Yard and his relay of Quigley s orders about the load of
grapes on August 25 to the Railroad official all prove that in a real sense
he was Respondent s eyes and ears at the Yard from the time Petty quit
the hauling and after Turner took it over
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 100, TEAMSTERS
not significant proof that he was still doing "normal
business" at the Yard, or even continuing to operate
elsewhere as a trucker, in light of Respondent's knowledge
that Turner was doing the only piggyback hauling by
himself on August 22, with help of two former Petty men on
the 23rd, and tried to operate with other employees on the
25th, but throughout only with his own equipment, never
using any of Petty's trucks. In addition, Quigley also
learned from counsel for the Railroad and Turner as early
as the night of August 25 and on the 26th that Petty was out
of business and going into bankruptcy, and Quigley verified
this himself on the 26th, all of which reasonably indicated
to Respondent that Petty was out of the picture so far as the
piggyback operation at the Yard was concerned, and was
taking steps toward legal dissolution of his corporation.16
This was confirmed by the attempts of Turner and his
attorney to contact Quigley to set up negotiations with
Respondent looking to a contract covering employees in
Turner's operation and involving the contemporaneous
hiring of three former Petty employees, the main desire of
them and Respondent, which was demonstrated by
Quigley's repeated replies to Turner, his attorney, and the
Railroad counsel that he would be glad to discuss a
contract with anyone as soon as he had the hauling contract
and Respondent "had the members," meaning that its
members were employed on the operation.17 In light of
these events, the fact that Turner had not made any
permanent contract with the Railroad before the picketing
ended is immaterial and insufficient to support any claimed
doubt that Petty was out of business or that Turner had
taken over. In view of all these circumstances, Respondent
cannot properly claim Petty was still in "normal business"
at the Yard because he was not dissolved as a corporate
entity before the picketing ended. It is a well-known fact of
business and industrial life that any employer (corporate or
individual) can stop its actual business operation and
discharge its entire work force, but still remain in existence
legally as an inert corporate shell, with plant and equipment
still in place but lying idle; the former circumstance amply
warrants a conclusion that it is then no longer doing
"normal business" at its formal situs of business, but the
latter circumstance does not support an inference to the
contrary; the controlling factor is the complete cessation of
normal business operations and the disbanding of its work
force.18 While none of the parties cite any decisions directly
in point, the Board has held in a situation involving the
16 Quigley claimed in testimony , and Respondent argues , that it was
entitled to disregard what Petty told his employees on August 21, about
going out of business , as lust another empty threat such as he had made in
the past to his employees This argument has no merit , because on the 22nd
Petty suited his action to his words by ceasing all operations and
terminating his employees , which he had never done before , and he never
resumed the operation at the Yard, which his former employees well knew
from their observations while picketing , and Respondent 's business agents
must have observed when they were at the picket line
11 All the above facts and circumstances, together with Quigley's
penchant for self-contradiction and giving argumentative answers during
testimony , and his palpable inability to recall definite facts on crucial
points , as well as his completely incredible claim at one point that he did
not even know at the time he testified whether Petty was out of business or
had gone into bankruptcy, make his contrary testimony on the issue of
knowledge unreliable and incredible
18 Linoleum , etc, Union No 1236 (Cascade Employers Assn ), 180 NLRB
No 40
713
same issue that when a primary employer, who normally
engages in hauling products to premises of a secondary
employer and loads and unloads them at that point with its
own employees, leaves a trailer at those premises to be
unloaded only by employees of the secondary employer,
the primary employer is not engaged in its normal business
at the site of the secondary employer, so that picketing of
his truck while located at that site was directed to
interference with the work of the secondary employer, not
that of the primary, and thus violates Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act. Teamsters, etc. Local 279 (Wilson Teaming
Company), 140 NLRB 164. That ruling applies here a
fortiori, where the primary employer had completely ceased
its normal business at the common situs before the
picketing started, and was taking steps to dissolve its
corporate entity during the picketing.
The substantial and notorious evidence that Petty was no
longer in business in any sense at the Yard after August 21
also supports the Railroad's contention that Petty, the
primary employer, was no longer sufficiently "present" at
the Yard so as to make it a "common situs" or warrant the
conclusion that the picketing was purely pnmary.19 The key
factor for existence of a common situs is the continued
actual "operations" of the primary at the picketed site,
because the complete cessation of that "operation" has
been the traditional objective of strikes and picketing.20 It
has been held that where a primary employer has ceased in
the normal course of its operations to haul or use barges
with its own employees, and employees of a secondary
employer do work on them, the barges ceased to be a
common work situs of both primary and secondary
employers, but were the situs of the secondary employers
alone, so that picketing of them in that period violated
Section 8(b)(4). National Maritime Union (Farmers Union
Grain Terminal Assn.) v. N. L, R. B., 367 F.2d 177, 178, cert.
denied 386 U.S. 959. The violation found in that case makes
the violation all the more apparent here, where Petty had
totally ceased operations at the work situs of the secondary
employer, and none of its idle equipment was being
handled or used by secondary employees. This shows that a
"common situs" was nonexistent at the Yard during the
picketing, hence condition (a) of the Moore Dry Dock
criteria was not met , because the picketing was not limited
strictly to times when the situs of the primary dispute was
located at the Yard. This conclusion is also supported by
Respondent's admission in one part of its answer that Petty
Respondent also argues that Petty was not defunct because he had other
customers besides the Railroad, but the only proof adduced on this came
from a few questions of Respondent's counsel which disclosed only that
Petty told one other customer after August 21 that he was going out of
business Respondent did not pursue this line further to find out if Petty
had any other than two customers , or if he continued to operate his
business from some other location , such as his home Thus , the salient fact
remains that he dismissed his whole work force on August 21 and never
rehired them or any other employees thereafter , or used his tractors
thereafter
19 The Board has recently outlined the factors governing the
determination of a common situs in United Steelworkers, etc, Local 6691
(Auburndale Freezer Corporation), 177 NLRB No. 108, but the facts in that
case do not control here, for there the facts clearly showed a "live"
contractual arrangement between primary and secondary employers which
made a warehouse of the alleged secondary part of the operation of the
primary, during the picketing
20 United Steelworkers of America v N LR B, 376 U S 492, 499
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"ceased doing business on or about August 21, 1969." It
follows that under Moore Dry Dock it must be presumed
that the picketing was for an unlawful objective, which
Respondent has not rebutted.21
As Respondent picketed Petty at the Yard when it knew
Petty was out of business there, it follows that the
Respondent was picketing the operation of the Railroad, a
neutral employer, not Petty, and that condition (b) of the
Moore Dry Dock criteria was not met , hence I conclude
that Respondent picketed the Railroad in order to induce
its employees to refuse to perform services for it.22 By such
picketing it also threatened that secondary employer with
an object of forcing it to cease handling any piggyback
work within its premises and cease doing business with any
other person engaged in hauling as part of the piggyback
operation, for the facts found above show that the picketing
immediately caused employees of Turner and other neutral
truckers to refuse to haul piggyback trailers across the
picket line,23 which prevented the Railroad from continu-
ing to do business with Turner and the other truckers on the
piggyback operation and from performing any phase of
that operation in the Yard with its own employees,24 and
caused it to cancel its contract with Petty. Such conduct of
Respondent clearly falls within the scope of Section 8(b)(4)
of the Act, for it disrupted a substantial part of the Railroad
operation at the Yard.25
If we appraise Respondent's picketing vis-a-vis Turner,
and assume that Turner was an employer (based on his
temporary hiring of the Petty workers on August 23 and his
promise to them then, and offer to Respondent later, that
he would take them on as temporary help until a contract
was worked out), that he had his main place of business at
the Yard (like Petty), and that he was in a primary dispute
with Respondent (based on their disagreement over the
wage scale , status of drivers as regular employees or owner-
operators, and type of contract to be signed), I must still
conclude that the picketing did not meet condition (d) of
the Moore Dry Dock criteria, because the picket signs and
remarks of pickets to Railroad officials, Turner and drivers
of other neutral employers announced that the strike was
only against Petty, not Turner. Further, the objective of the
picketing was illegal : I find from admissions of Simms that
when Freight Agent Williamson on August 26 indicated
that he felt the strike was settled, Simms telephoned
Quigley and then reported to Williamson that Quigley had
said , "Until we get a contract signed it ain't settled." I note
21 Cf. Local 254, Building Service Employees Intl Union (United Building
Maintenance Corp), 173 NLRB No. 49 (as to the Lechmere Hospital
situation).
22 The picketing was effective in that it caused employees of the
Railroad to clear with the pickets and Respondent 's agent before they
crossed the picket line to go to work , and thereafter refused to handle any
piggyback flatcars, a necessary adjunct to the piggyback hauling formerly
done by Petty, in accordance with that condition to their entry to the Yard
imposed by Respondent's agents and its pickets.
23 1 find from uncontradicted testimony of Jeseph Williamson that
during the picketing drivers of trucks owned by customers of the Railroad
operating under plan I refused to bring piggyback trailers into the Yard
after seeing the picket line and talking to the pickets
24 Respondent clearly intended the picketing to have these results, for
uncontradicted testimony of Turner (a union member himself), Joseph
Williamson and Keaton shows that all parties knew a Teamsters picket line
would not be crossed by members of Respondent working for other
truckers in the area , and the pickets made sure of this by checking all
also that Quigley did not remove the picket line until after
Turner had given personal assurance in their conference
that he would hire the three pickets and execute some kind
of contract recognizing Respondent as bargaining agent for
his drivers. It is patent from these facts and circumstances
that Respondent's objective in closing down all the
piggyback work was to make sure that a union hauler did
the work with union drivers, like Petty. This was an illegal
objective.26
I also find that the picketing in the circumstances
outlined above exerted effective coercion and restraint
upon the Railroad and other neutral employers seeking to
do business with it in the piggyback operation within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. See Interna-
tional Hod Carriers, etc., Local 1140 (Gilmore Construction
Company), 127 NLRB 541, 545, footnote 6.
In summary, I conclude on the above facts and
applicable law, that Respondent's picketing did not
conform to the Moore Dry Dock criteria to the extent noted
above, and that by the picketing Respondent induced and
encouraged individuals employed by the Railroad, Turner,
and other employers, engaged in commerce or in industries
affecting commerce to engage in strikes or refusal in the
course of their employment to perform services for their
respective employers, and also threatened, coerced, and
restrained the Railroad, Turner, and other employers
engaged in commerce, all with the objectives of (1) forcing
and requiring the Railroad to cease doing any business with
Turner or any other person unless and until Turner or any
other person performing piggyback hauling for the
Railroad employed members of Respondent and recogniz-
ed Respondent as collective-bargaining agent of its
employees; (2) preventing the Railroad from doing any
business with Petty during Respondent's labor dispute with
Petty; 27 and (3) forcing and requiring the Railroad to cease
doing business with any other persons. Each of these
objectives is proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. I find
that by picketing as aforesaid for such objectives Respon-
dent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce as defined in Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (iiXB) and
Section 2(6) of the Act.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
trucks, moving in and out of the Yard , even those of concerns driving up
the adjacent roadway to the premises of another commercial concern, and
permitting them to go in or out only after making sure they were not going
into the Railroad Yard See Local 459, etc. (Friden, Inc. et. als.), 134 NLRB
598, 599
25 Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (The Great Atlantic
and Pacific Tea Company, Inc.), 173 NLRB No. 234, and cases cited in in.
6.
26 United Association of Journeymen, etc, Local 32 (A & B Plumbing,
Inc), 171 NLRB No 66
27 It is clear from the sequence of events found above that the Railroad
canceled Petty's contract only after oral and written advice from him that
he had quit work under it and abandoned it completely, and obviously the
Railroad would not rescind that cancellation or try to do business with him
thereafter, unless and until he might indicate a probability of going back
into business , which was an obvious impossibility due to the Respondent's
claims against him which forced him into bankruptcy
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL 100, TEAMSTERS 715
Railroad , Petty, and Turner described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ► i)(B)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from
such practices , and take certain affirmative actions
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Railroad , Petty, and Turner are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by the Railroad, Turner , and other persons engaged in
commerce or in industries affecting commerce to engage in
strikes or refusals to perform services in the course of their
employment , and by threatening , coercing , and restraining
said employers and persons , with the objects set forth
above, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii )(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and the entire record in the case, I
hereby issue the following:
[Recommended Order ommitted from publication.]