Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 70

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70 11
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Lo-
cal No . 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
and H . A. Carney and David Thompson , Partners,
d/b/a/ C & T Trucking Co. Case 20-CC-1023
June 10, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY
On February 17, 1971, Trial Examiner Maurice M.
Miller issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent 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 General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and
the Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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 Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer'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, except as noted below:
The only issue before the Board is whether, as urged
by the General Counsel, a broad cease and desist order
is justified here. Respondent opposes such an order as
improper. While we agree with the Trial Examiner's
conclusion that a broadly restrictive cease and desist
order is not warranted in this case, we disagree with his
view that, under the Board's precedents, such an order
is justified only, when the case under consideration,
taken in itself, demonstrates the respondent's proclivity
to disregard the requirments of the Act.2 To the con-
trary, we have long held,, with court approval, that a
broad remedial order is appropriate whenever a pro-
i No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's substantive findings
that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
S The cases cited by the Trial Examiner in support of that proposition do
not, in fact, support it. Rather, they establish that previously issued pub-
lished decisions and orders against the same respondent union, involving the
same general type of violation, may be relied on to determine its "pro-
clivity." N.L R.B. v. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et
al [United States Trucking Cooperationj, 344 F.2d 649, 652-653 (C.A.'2),
enfg. 146 NLRB 956, 963-964; Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. (Viking
Delivery Service, Inc.), 186 NLRB No. 72
191 NLRB No. 2
clivity to violate the Act is established, either by the
facts within a particular case,3 or by prior Board deci-
sions against the respondent at bar based upon similar
unlawful conduct in the past.'
In the instant case, the General Counsel contends
that a history of prior unfair labor practice proceedings
against this Respondent demonstrates its penchant for
repeatedly violating the Act's secondary boycott provi-
sions and that a broad order is, therefore, clearly jus-
tified. In support of this contention,, the General Coun-
sel cites 13 settlement agreements,' one Board
decision,' one Trial Examiner's decision to which no
exceptions were filed' and another which is currently
pending before the Board,' a civil and criminal con-
tempt adjudication in one case, and a preliminary injuc-
tion in another, all involving the Respondent herein.
The Board, however, has frequently held that settle-
ment agreements, and consent decrees arising there-
from, have no probative value in establishing that viola-
tions of the Act have occurred and, hence, they may
not be relied upon to establish a "proclivity" to violate
the Act.' Similarly, preliminary injunctions based on a
showing of reasonable cause to believe a violation has
occurred, and contempt adjudications for noncompli-
ance therewith, also do not establish that violations of
the Act have in fact been committed. We have also held
that a Trial Examiner's decision with voluntary com-
pliance, standing alone, is inadequate to show a tend=
ency to disregard the mandates of the Act.10 Moreover,
the Trial Examiners' decisions cited herein by the Gen-
eral Counsel did not involve secondary activities. With
respect to the prior Board decisions against this Re-
spondent, only the Smiser Freight Service case, supra,
involved unlawful secondary activities but, unlike the
instant case, for a recognitional objective. Under all of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 85, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, et aL (Victory Transportation Service,
Inc), 180 NLRB No. 109.
See cases cited in fn. 2, Supra.
These settlements of unfair labor practice complaints against this Re-
spondent were previously submitted to the Board as part of the stipulation
of facts in Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. (San-Jo Inc., d/b/a Smiser
Freight Service), 174 NLRB No. 20, where the board concluded that a broad
order was inappropriate.
6 Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of
Alameda County, et al. (Silas F. Royster d/b/a East Bay Labor Consultants),
183 NLRB No. 137. In this case the Board found violations of Section
8(b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(3) of the Act.
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. (Emery Brooks), 20-CB-2199
(TXD-533-70, issued September 17, 1970), wherein the Trial Examiner
found violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b((2).
8 Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70,Interna-
tionalBrotherhoodofTeamsters, eta!. (NationalBiscuit Company), 20-CB- -
2123 and 20-CB-2152 (TXD-SF-181-70, issued November 30, 1970),
wherein the Trial Examiner found violations of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and
8(b)(3).
Local 70, IBTCWHA (Sam Jo, Inc., d/b/a Smiser Freight Service), su-
pra, and cases cited at fn. 1 thereof.
1° Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local Union 142, et al. (Cross Construction
Co., Inc), 169 NLRB 840, and fn. I thereof.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the circumstances, we find that it has not been estab-
lished that the Respondent has demonstrated a pro-
clivity to disregard the secondary boycott provisions of
the Act." Accordingly a broad remedial order is not
justified in this case.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent,
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Lo-
cal No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended
Order.
11 Local 70, IBTCWHA (Sam-Jo, Inc., d/b/a Smiser Freight Service),
supra
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAURICE M. MILLER, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed and duly served, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board caused a Complaint and Notice of
Hearing to be issued and served upon the parties herein. (H.
A. Carney and David Thompson, partners , d/b/a/ C & T
Trucking Company, designated as Complainant herein, had
filed the relevant charge on June 29, 1970; General Counsel's
complaint was issued August 13. All dates cited within this
Decision refer to 1970, unless otherwise noted.) Therein,
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No.
70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, designated as Re-
spondent Union herein, was charged with the commission of
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519).
Copies of the complaint and Notice of Hearing were duly
served upon the respondent labor organization. Within Re-
spondent Union's duly filed answer, certain factual state-
ments in General Counsel's Complaint are conceded; Re-
spondent Union, however, denies the commission of unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to the issues was
held in San Francisco, ,California, on October 23 before me.
The General Counsel and Respondent Union were repre-
sented by counsel. Each party was afforded a full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. Since the hearing's
close, briefs have been received from General Counsel's rep-
resentative and Respondent Union's counsel; these have been
duly considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon the entire testimonial record, documentary evidence
received, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following findings of fact:
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent Union raises no question herein with re-
spect to General Counsel's jurisdictional claim. Upon the
Complaint's relevant factual declarations-specifically, those
set forth in detail within the second paragraph thereof-
which are conceded to be correct, and upon which I rely, I
find that both Complainant and Western Tube & Conduit
Corporation, one of the California firms with which Com-
plainant does business, were, throughout the period with
which this case is concerned, employers within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and business
activities which affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the statute. Further, with due regard for
presently applicable jurisdictional standards, I find assertion
of the Board's jurisdiction in this case warranted and neces-
sary to effectuate statutory objectives.
II THE RESPONDENT UNION
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local
No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, designated Respond-
ent Union within this Decision, is, and at all times material
herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, as amended . Throughout the period
with which this case is concerned, Robert Windsor, Respond-
ent Union's business agent, was, so I find, the designated
labor organization's agent, functioning on its behalf, within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the statute.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
General Counsel, herein, challenges the propriety of Re-
spondent Union's course of conduct, on several occasions,
while that organization was conducting a strike against C &
T Trucking for the purpose of winning a collective-bargaining
contract. During that strike-so General Counsel contends-
the Respondent Union's representatives picketed a neutral or
secondary employer, Western Tube & Conduit Corporation,
herein called Western, at particular premises which the firm
last designated occupied exclusively, under circumstances
which this Board should consider statutorily proscribed. Fur-
ther, Respondent Union is charged with having threatened
bodily injury to a Western employee, should he continue to
cross Respondent Union's picket line maintained before a
second site which C & T Trucking and Western occupied
jointly. The record, thus, presents three questions:
1. Whether, on or about May 15, Respondent Union
herein, through its business agent, Robert Windsor, threat-
ened Western's plant foreman, Douglas Patterson, with
bodily injury, should he continue to cross Respondent
Union's picket line before the premises which Western and C
& T Trucking occupied jointly.
2. Whether, from about June 26 through July 1, Respond-
ent Union herein, through its job steward, Edward Harris,
and its pickets, Jack Green and Allen Duffy, picketed before
Western's separate place of business, when no C & T Truck-
ing employees, vehicles or equipment were physically present.
3. Whether an object of Respondent Union's conduct, thus
described, was to force or require Western to cease doing
business with C & T Trucking.
Regarding these questions, Respondent Union's duly filed
answer, previously noted, proffers a general denial, merely.
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70
B. Facts
1. Background
a. The Relationship between Complainant and Western
Western, which manufactures metal tubing and conduit,
maintains a mill, separate business office, and yard on prop-
erty which is leased from the Port of Oakland; the property
fronts on 8th Avenue, with an easterly border along the Em-
barcadero, located within the city designated. Within some
nearby property, similarly leased from the port authority, the
firm maintains a warehouse and general storage facility. (The
warehouse and storage facility is used, primarily, to store
thin-wall electrical conduit which Western produces within
a second plant, located in Los Angeles, California. The firm's
Oakland facility, generally, produces heavier gauge pipe or
tubing.) C & T Trucking, which provides heavy-duty and
long-haul motor carrier service, was, throughout the period
with which this case is concerned, Western's month-to-
month sublessee; specifically, Complainant maintained its
business office within a separately partitioned portion of Wes-
tern's previously mentioned warehouse and general storage
facility. When not in service, C & T Trucking's vehicles were
usually parked in whatever open space there might be south
and southeast of Western's warehouse building, within the
partially fenced confines of their shared premises. (For con-
venience, the leased property in question-consistently with
the General Counsel's suggestion-will be designated as their
"common site" within this decision. The leased property,
nearby, within which Western's production facility, business
office and yard are located will be designated "the Western
site" herein.) Sometimes, however, C & T trucks might be
parked within some nearby separate premises-specifically,
premises designated as "the Marine Terminal yard" within
the present record-located directly south of the so-called
"common site" previously noted, and between that property
and the public street (8th Avenue) which defines the north-
erly border of Western's manufacturing site. Sometimes, C &
T trucks might, likewise, be parked on the shoulder of the
public street designated, near the Western site.
For Complainant's leased business office space-located
within Western's warehouse facility-the trucking firm pays
Western $60 per month. C & T Trucking, however, pays
nothing additional to Western for the privilege of parking its
trucks, when not in service, on their common site; the consid-
eration for such parking privileges is the ready availability of
C & T trucks, when required for Western's use.
Western, so the record shows, has been doing business with
Complainant for some 5 years. Pursuant to yearly contracts,
C & T Trucking currently leases a truck to Western for an
agreed monthly rental; Western uses the truck to make "local
deliveries" within a 250-mile radius from the firm's Oakland
production facility. (Respondent Union's job steward, Ed-
ward Harris, usually drove this leased truck; he is C & T
Trucking's employee, paid by that firm, since the relevant
contract between C & T Trucking and Western does not
provide for one driver's exclusive service.) In addition, West-
ern uses other C & T trucks, which its business needs dictate,
from time to time. These, it procures from Complainant pur-
suant to conventional common carrier arrangements; such
trucks are normally engaged to haul metal tubing and conduit
between Western's Oakland facility and its Los Angeles
plant.
Western's leased truck, normally, makes one to three deliv-
ery trips per day, depending on the distances involved; one
trip might, however, involve more than one delivery. The
firm's further reliance upon C & T trucks for long hauls
"averages" one truck load from Oakland to Los Angeles per
day.
13
b. The labor dispute
On or about April 2, Respondent Union began picketing
C & T Trucking for the purpose of obtaining a collective-
bargaining contract. The picketing was conducted, sporadi-
cally, thereafter. The record reflects a stipulation that Re-
spondent Union picketed Complainant' s business on April 2
and 3; during two business days some time between the latter
date and June 26; on Friday, June 26; and likewise on the first
three business days of the following week, June 29, 30, and
July 1 specifically. Respondent Union's picket lines-during
the period mentioned-were maintained at various gate loca-
tions around the previously mentioned "common site" within
which C & T Trucking's business office was situated. (The
testimony of Douglas Patterson, Western's plant foreman-
which has not been contradicted-warrants a determination
that the 2-day period of picketing mentioned in the stipula-
tion noted took place on Friday, May 15 and Monday, May
18, respectively. I so find.) The record warrants a further
determination, which I make, that Respondent Union con-
tinued to picket the trucking firm's "common site " premises
until July 10th, approximately. On or about that date, Com-
plainant consented to be bound by Respondent Union's
newly negotiated general collective-bargaining contract. Re-
spondent Union's strike was thereupon terminated and pick-
eting ceased ; the contract in question was reviewed and
signed by the parties shortly thereafter.
At various times, between June 26 and July 1, specifically,
various persons designated to maintain Respondent Union's
picket line at complainant partnership' s "common site"
premises likewise picketed the Western site; the questions
raised regarding the particular circumstances under which
this latter picketing was conducted define a principal subject
of controversy herein.
Throughout the period with which this case is concerned,
Respondent Union 's business agent, Robert Windsor, was in
charge of that organization's pickets. Likewise, Edward Har-
ris was, throughout, Respondent Union's job steward. The
picket line which functioned both at Western and C & T's
previously mentioned " common site" and the Western site
consisted of Harris, Jack Herbert Green, and Allen Duffy. I
so find.
2. The May 15 confrontation
Respondent Union's picket line, located before three "com-
mon site" entrances on April 2 and 3, did not affect Western's
operations. Throughout the period just designated, Western's
employees continued to move materials consistently with
normal practice, between that firm's production facility and
the firm's nearby warehouse, three or more times per day;
such movements were, normally, routed through a large
"rear" gate, within the fence which marks the common site's
boundary. General Counsel concedes that, during the 2-day
period in question, Western was in no way deprived of daily
access to those warehouse facilities which it maintains on the
common site.
During the morning of May 15, however, Respondent
Union's job steward, while picketing at the common site,
accosted a Western forklift driver normally employed at Wes-
tern's production facility; the driver had been directed to pick
up and return with some materials from Western's storage
shed. (According to Harris, their encounter took place at the
common site's so-called "railroad" gate, part of the boundary
fence which marks the eastern borders of both the common
site and the contiguous Marine Terminal yard. However,
Western's plant foreman, General Counsel's sole witness with
regard to this encounter, testified that Western's forklift
driver had reported his encounter with Harris as taking place
near the common site's western "rear" gate. For present pur-
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
poses, this conflict need not be resolved.) Job Steward Harris,
so his, testimony shows, detailed the nature and purpose of
Respondent Union's strike to Western's forklift driver, Ros-
sina; the latter was requested to recognize and honor Re-
spondent Union's picket line. Rossina, thereupon returned to
Western's mill,without the material which he had been dis-
patched to procure. According to Western's plant foreman,
the forklift driver reported that Respondent Union's pickets
would not permit him entry with respect to their "common
site" yard; he stated that, though he had not been physically
restricted, he was fearful, and further declared that he would
not attempt entry since he had been told to stay away. Upon
receiving Rossina's report, Patterson summoned another
forklift driver; then, he accompanied the latter to Western's
warehouse facility, by way of the rear gate previously men-
tioned, without being obstructed. (Though Plant Foreman
Patterson and Western's second forklift driver were not
physically obstructed, Harris concededly did speak with the
forklift driver following his passage through Respondent
Union's picket line; the job steward's testimony shows that he
explained the strike situation to the second forklift operator
"the same as we did" with Western's previous driver.) Plant
Foreman Patterson and the forklift driver were able to locate
and load the necessary tubing; thereupon, they returned to
Western's mill, without further confrontations. Harris, how-
ever, promptly telephoned Business Agent Windsor, Re-
spondent Union's representative generally in charge of their
strike; he reported that Western's forklifts were going
through Respondent Union's picket-line.
Later, that day, Windsor visited the Western C & T com-
mon site. Harris joined him; the two men proceeded, forth-
with, to the Western site, where they sought Western's plant
foreman. Windsor introduced himself by name, further desig-
nating himself as Respondent Union's business representa-
tive. He "may have" then asked Western's plant foreman to
what union he belonged; upon the present record, considered
in totality, I find that he did. Patterson's testimony with
regard to the conversation which followed, though he could
not recall the query regarding his union membership, reads,
substantially, as follows:
And he said in part, he said, "Look -------, anybody who
crosses that picket line over there is going to get hurt or
going to get their head busted. There's going to be some
heads busted," words to that effect ... I told him that I
was not in his Union or anyone elses' and I would get
pipe out of our shed whenever we had to. I said I was
obligated to do .that. And he said, "Well, if anyone
crosses that picket line over there, there is going to be
trouble."
Windsor's proffered recollection regarding this portion of
their conversation, by way of contrast, suggests nothing more
than a precatory request, free of threats. According to Wind-
sor, Patterson was first asked what local union he belonged
to, preliminary to a request that he recognize and respect
Respondent Union's primary picket line:
And I believe I asked him, I believe I said, "I would
appreciate it if the Union poeple would respect the pri-
mary picket line of C & T Trucking." (Emphasis sup-
plied)
The business representative recalled no response. Patterson,
so he testified, said nothing; he merely walked away, declar-
ing that he did not have time to talk.
The present record, considered in totality, leaves me con-
vinced that Patterson's recital, regarding the conversation
now in question, should be credited. His testomony with
respect thereto was forthrightly given and characterized by
positive assurance; likewise, it was, so I find, logically consist-
ent. By way of contrast, Windsor's purported recollection, as
General Counsel, within his brief, perceptively notes, reflects
some vagueness and lack of precision; further it suggests a
degree of diffidence on the business agent's part, coupled with
reliance upon carefully correct phraseology which, simply,
does not ring true. Finally, Windsor's testimony, within my
view, `lacks consistency. While a witness, he confessed a lack
of knowledge regarding the trade union affiliation, if any, held
by Western's workers; nevertheless, he testified that his pur-
ported request was directed to "the Union people" in Wes-
tern's hire. Further, having testified that his "request" for
Patterson's cooperation had been proffered in courteous
terms, he volunteered a statement that Patterson had not
been "overly" friendly, and that Western's plant foreman had
terminated their conversation curtly, without a direct re-
sponse. Such a brusque rejection of Windsor's request, under
the circumstances, must be rejected as less than likely. And,
with matters in this posture, Patterson's`testimony regarding
their conversation, previously detailed herein, merits cre-
dence. I so find.
Following,his conversation with Respondent Union's busi-
ness agent, Patterson determined, so his testimony shows,
that, should pipe supplies be required from Western' s ware-
house while the'Western-C & T Trucking common site was
being picketed, the necessary trips would be made after work-
ing hours, at which time both Western's, plant and C & T
Trucking's office would be closed. Ray Carney,, one member
of the complainant partnership, was so advised; Patterson
declared that such a procedure would cause the least amount
of trouble.
3. Subsequent developments
During General Counsel's presentation, some further tes-
timony, primarily hearsay in character, was proffered regard-
ing various supposed contacts between Respondent Union's
job steward and drivers for Mitchell Brothers, another motor
truck carrier.
For example: Plant foreman Patterson declared that a
Mitchell Brothers driver had reported to him, during the
course of Respondent Union's May 18 picketing specifically,
that, when he had tried to drive his truck through the western
"rear" gate ofthe Western, C & T Trucking common site, to
complete a partial load by picking up some metal tubing from
Western' s warehouse, Harris had told him that, should-he
attempt to load any pipe from Western's storage shed, the
Respondent Union would "close- down" the latter firm's
production facility. Further, according to Patterson, the
Mitchell Brothers driver had declared that, faced, with this
situation, he would not get involved, and would not load. The
driver had, then, reportedly made some telephone calls from
Western's office, though Patterson could not say whom he
called, following which he had told Western's plant foreman
that "they" had told him not to load.
Likewise, in this connection, Karl Crease, Western's plant
manager, summoned as General, Counsel's witness,-;recol-
lected a Mitchell Brothers truckdriver who had made some
telephone calls from Western's office; the driver had subse-
quently declared that he had been instructed not to pick up
a load. Crease recalled, however, that the driver's telephone
calls had been made on June 26, rather than during Respond-
ent Union's prior picketing period; further, Western's plant
manager could not testify from personal knowledge that the
Mitchell Brothers driver had placed his calls following a
picket line conversation.
Job Steward Harris, testifying in Respondent Union's be-
half, purportedly recalled a picket line conversation with a
Mitchell Brothers driver on the 29th; he did not, however,
specify which month. According to Harris, the driver was
merely given an explanation regarding the nature of Re-
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70
spondent Union's picket line; when the driver reported that
just "one more lift" was needed to complete his load, he was
advised that Respondent Union would "permit" him to finish
loading his truck. Harris declared, categorically, that the
Mitchell Brothers driver with whom he had this conversation
was not the driver , mentioned by General Counsel's wit-
nesses, who had subsequently placed a telephone call from
Western's office; he claimed "hearsay" knowledge merely,
regarding that driver, derived from a fellow picket.
With matters in this posture, the present record, within my
view, cannot be found sufficient to warrant a factual deter-
mination that some Mitchell Brothers driver , never clearly
designated, was "induced or encouraged" to refuse a Western
load through any course of conduct or representation charge-
able to Respondent Union's pickets. Patterson's testimony
regarding such a purported picket line contact between Har-
ris and some driver concededly derived from hearsay reports.
Crease, who did testify regarding the driver's refusal to load,
could not charge Respondent Union's job steward with re-
sponsibility for "inducing or encouraging" that decision.
Harris, who did concede a relevant conversation , did not
proffer testimony sufficient to support a conclusion that the
driver concerned had been either persuaded or prevented
from performing services. No factual conclusion would be
warranted, therefore, with respect to General Counsel's pre-
sumed contention that these purported picket line contacts
reflected a course of conduct subject to statutory proscrip-
tion.
4. The picketing of Western's mill
Previously, reference has been made to Respondent
Union's picket line, maintained at various "common site"
gates on Friday, June 26, and three successive working days
during the week which followed. The record, however, war-
rants a determination, further, that Respondent Union's
pickets, likewise, patrolled the public street directly in front
of Western's mill premises, during the same period.
Specifically, Respondent Union's job steward, while a wit-
ness, conceded that, together with Jack Green, his fellow
picket, he had picketed the Western site on June 26; Harris
contended, however,-that their picket line, confined to the
public street nearby, had been maintained between 7 and 8
a.m. merely, while C & T Trucking's leased truck was parked
on the street, being loaded. (According to Harris, Complain-
ant's leased truck had been seen leaving its normal overnight
parking space within the common site; Respondent Union's
pickets had, thereupon, followed the truck in question to
Western's mill yard. The record' provides no reliable clue,
however, regarding the name of Complainant's leased truck
driver during this period.) Respondent Union's job steward
testified, categorically, that Green and he terminated their
street-based picket patrol near Western' s mill yard and re-
turned to their "common site" picket duty directly following
the leased truck's departure; C & T workers designated for
picket duty, so he claimed, had been specifically instructed
that they could picket wherever a C & T truck was being
loaded or unloaded, during the time that it was being loaded
or unloaded. Harris conceded that their picketing "could
have been" resumed, later that day, when C & T's truck
returned for a second delivery load; he could not, however,
recall such' a return.
Plant Foreman Patterson's testimony, which Western's
plant manager corroborated, would, however, warrant a de-
termination, contrariwise, that Respondent Union's pickets
had reached Western's site around 7-o'clock, while the leased
truck was parked on the street being loaded, and that they
had remained within view- patrolling a portion of the public
street, free of fencing, which permitted passage to and from
15
Western's mill yard, for the balance of Western's working
day. (Plant Manager Crease recalled the pickets ' presence
"on and off" during the day in question .) Patterson could not,
concededly, testify from personal knowledge'that Respond-
ent Union's pickets were, then, continuously present; he did
maintain, however, that he saw one or more of them present,
within the limited space described, whenever he had occasion
to cross Western's yard, during the day in question, between
the firm's separate office building and'production facility.
The testimonial conflict between , Respondent Union's job
steward and Western's plant foremen, with regard to the
duration of Respondent Union's picket line before Western's
mill yard, stands, thus, clearly revealed. However, Patter-
son's recital, reviewed within the factual context which the
complete record herein provides, merits credence, within my
view . While a witness , Western 's plant foreman struck me as
forthright and determined , but dispassionate nevertheless;
His testimony was in substantial part circumstantially de-
tailed and, save in certain minor respects , logically consistent.
Harris,' testimony, however revealed a faulty or selective
memory, with respect to some significant matters, plus a
tendency to tailor his recollections; with respect to several
matters his proffered recitals, during cross-examination par-
ticularly, seemed calculated to qualify his direct testimony
previously given. With matters in this posture, then, Patter-
son's presently proffered recollection, that Respondent
Union's picket or pickets patrolled the Western site, through-
out the Friday, June 26, working day, has been credited.
On Monday morning, June 29, Respondent Union's pick-
ets, so I find , again took up their stations near Western's mill
site about 7 o'clock. C & T Trucking's leased truck (or,
possibly, a substituted trucker's vehicle) was loaded for "lo-
cal" delivery service, while inside Western's mill, some time
between 7 and 8:15; the truck was then dispatched. Shortly
thereafter, two long-haul trucks, which a different motor car-
rier, Cal Cartage, had been requested to provide, reached
Western's site. The first truck, so Patterson's testimony
shows, reached the mill premises at 9 that morning ; the sec-
ond arrived approximately one-half hour later. (Patterson's
testimony, which Western 's plant manager corroborated, and
which I credit in this connection, warrants a determination,
despite some slight vagueness, that Western's plant manager
had, himself, engaged Cal Cartage to provide temporary
long-haul common carrier service between Western's Oak-
land and Los Angeles plants, substituting for Complainant's
long-haul trucks while Respondent Union's labor, dispute
with that firm continued. Nothing within the present record
would justify a factual conclusion that Cal Cartage, specifi-
cally, was functioning as C & T Trucking's subhauler, per-
forming Complainant partnership's struck work; Western's
plant foreman, when queried regarding this possibility, noted
his categorical denial. Plant Manager Crease- - though he
conceded that C & T had "possibly" engaged a subhauler to
haul loads for Western "once or twice" during this period -
testified that such a subhauler would have substituted for C
& T's leased truck.) Both trucks discharged loads of metal
tubing which they had hauled from Western's Los Angeles
plant; they were, thereupon, loaded with material destined for
Los Angeles, and left Western's premises by noon. General
Counsel 's testimonial presentation , herein, warrants a deter-
mination, which I make, that Respondent Union's picket or
pickets were, concurrently, standing or patrolling on 8th
Avenue nearby. Though no reliable, probative, or substantial
evidence has been proffered that other motor carriers received
loads from Western that day, Respondent Union's pickets
remained within view near the firm's mill premises "on and
off" for the balance of Western's June 29 working day. De-
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spite Harris ' general denials in this respect , noted for the
record, I so find.
On June 30, so Plant Manager Crease testified, no C & T
trucks, not even Western 's leased truck, and no motor vehi-
cles provided by any other carrier were loaded at Western's
mill. (Western 's plant manager , so I find, had suspended his
firm's use of C & T's leased truck , concurrently with his
suspension of reliance upon Complainant 's long haul com-
mon carver service, until C & T 's labor "problems" were
settled.) Respondent Union's pickets, nevertheless, main-
tained their patrol near Western 's yard entrance , so I find,
throughout the firm 's working day, from 7 a.m. to 3:30 or 4
p.m. approximately . When Crease, reporting for work,
reached the Western site that morning , he told Job Steward
Harris, who was then and there performing picket duty, that
"You have no need to be here. We are not using C & T trucks
any more ." Harris replied , however, that 8th Avenue , the city
street which provided the northern border for Western's mill
premises , was a public highway , and that he had a perfect
right to be there; he continued picketing , so credible tes-
timony shows, throughout the day , or at least until early
afternoon.
Respondent Union 's picket or pickets, so I find , continued
to patrol the Western site during the morning of Wednesday,
July 1 , though no -motor carriers whatever were , then, being
loaded or unloaded there . Two Cal Cartage trucks were
loaded during the afternoon; General Counsel concedes,
however, that Respondent Union's picket line , with specific
reference to Western 's separate mill property , had, by then,
been removed.
Sometime in mid-July, probably on July 13 , following the
contractual settlement , previously noted , between C & T
Trucking and Respondent Union herein, Western renewed its
reliance upon Complainant carrier for long-haul and local
delivery service.
C. Conclusions
1. The May 15 confrontation
Previously, within this decision , determination has been
made that Respondent Union 's business agent , Windsor,
threatened Western's plant foreman with bodily harm,
should he continue to cross Respondent Union 's picket line,
then , located at various "common site" gates . The plant fore-
man's testimony regarding Windsor 's statement, which I
have credited, reveals, however , something more than a per-
sonal threat . Patterson was told that "anybody who crosses
that picket line" would encounter violence; such language,
within my view, conveyed a threat of bodily harm to Wes-
tern's rank-and-file workers , likewise.
General Counsel requests a determination that Respondent
Union herein, through Windsor's language , violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii), since Windsor was, thereby , pursuing a
statutorily proscribed objective.
Confronted with this contention , Respondent Union's
counsel presents a rather ingenious riposte . He suggests that
Section 8 (b) (4)(i) and (ii) merely proscribes certain conduct
for the purpose of.
. forcing or requiring any person to cease using, sell-
ing, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the
products of any other producer ... or to cease doing
business with any other person ...
Herein, counsel suggests, Windsor's course of conduct was
not calculated to force or require Western to suspend or
terminate a business relationship with complainant partner-
ship since he was merely suggesting that Western 's manage-
ment should cease using its own employees and its own equip-
ment to enter upon its own property , for the purpose of
obtaining some of its own supplies from its own warehouse
for use in its own mill . This Board is, therefore , requested to
find that no statutorily proscribed purpose was being pro-
moted.
This trier of fact has not, however, been persuaded. Wind-
sor's declaration that Western 's employees might encounter
violence, should they persist in trying to cross Respondent
Union 's then-maintained common site picket line for the pur-
pose of procuring their own company 's products from their
own company's warehouse , necessarily implied that Wes-
tern's management would not be permitted to conduct its
normal business freely , unless C & T Trucking could be per-
suaded to settle the contract dispute which had spawned the
picket line in question. The situation , therefore, presents a
classic case of statutorily forbidden pressure , brought to bear
not "upon the employer who is a party [to a dispute], but
upon some third party who has no concern in it " with the
objective of forcing the third to bring pressure on the em-
ployer to agree to the Union's demands . Compare N.L.R.B.
v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO, 400 U.S. 297 . I so find . Respondent Union was, so
the record shows, really trying to procure C & T Trucking's
capitulation by forcing Western , herein a neutral , to compel
the motor carrier's complaince with its (the Union 's) contract
demands. Pressures developed through such a reliance upon
threats, for the purpose noted , may properly be considered
"unmistakably and flagrantly" secondary ; they merit Board
proscription.
2. The picket line at Western 's mill premises
When a labor organization maintains a picket line at loca-
tions physically separate from the primary situs of some labor
dispute, questions necessarily develop with respect to the
picket line's purpose . To facilitate its resolution of such ques-
tions; namely, whether the labor organization 's picket line
should be considered "job action " restricted to the primary
employer 's business operations (which would be permissible),
or directed to some secondary employer's business (which
would be violative of the statute), this Board has laid down
certain evidentiary standards for evaluating the picket line's
purpose . Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547 , 549. The
criteria for judgment , therein set forth , which would nor-
mally warrant a deduction that challenged picketing pos-
sesses a primary character, have been stated as follows:(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 primary 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
primary employer. These standards were developed, so the
cases show , to make it clear that picketing , before it can be
considered lawful , must be conducted in a manner which
plainly reveals that the picket line's appeal is limited to the
primary employer's workers. This Board has uniformly held,
with judicial concurrence, that picketing violates Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the statute, when the record before it
reveals that Moore Dry Dock requirements have been disre-
garded.
With due regard for these requirements , the present record
will clearly support a determination that Respondent Union's
course of conduct , throughout the period during which pick-
ets stationed themselves near the 8th Avenue entrance to
Western 's mill premises , revealed a secondary objective,
statutorily proscribed . Respondent Union 's primary dispute,
concededly, concerned C & T Trucking solely . The credible
testimony proffered herein reveals , nevertheless, that,
throughout the several days during which Respondent
Union's pickets patrolled or were present near the Western
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70
site, from June 26 at 7 o'clock until July 1 at noon, there were
no C & T employees , vehicles, trucks, or other equipment
physically present and/or devoted to Complainant' s normal
motor carrier business at that site, except for those few, brief
occasions when a C & T Trucking's leased truck was actually
being loaded . (Western's plant manager and foreman did
testify that one member of complainant partnership, Ray
Carney, was a frequent visitor to Western's office during this
period. Their testimony reveals, however, that Carney's visits
were principally devoted to reports and consultation regard-
ing the status of Complainant's contract dispute with Re-
spondent Union herein; they did not concern the trucking
firm's normal business operations as Western's common car-
rier or truck lessor.) Should a determination be considered
warranted, arguendo, that Cal Cartage and Mitchell Brothers
were really subhauler "allies" performing complainant part-
nership 's struck work, despite Respondent Union's failure to
proffer reliable, probative or substantial evidence sufficient to
support such a conclusion, the present record, within my
view, would still dictate a finding that , during the major
portion of Western 's work time between the early morning of
June 26 and July 1 midday, Respondent Union was maintain-
ing pickets before a neutral employer's place of business,
despite the fact that no employees , vehicles, trucks or equip-
ment of C & T, their primary employer or some trucking
company "ally" were physically present.
With matters in this posture, then, determination seems
clearly warranted that Respondent Union's course of conduct
possessed a statutorily proscribed secondary objective,
namely, that its purpose was to force or require Western to
cease doing business with Complainant motor carrier. Cf.
Local Union No. 469 of the United Association of Journeyman
and Apprentices of the Plumbing, Pipe Fitting Industry of the
United States & Canada AFL-CIO (Hansberger Refrigeration
& Electric Co.), 135 NLRB 492, 493; Sheet Metal Workers,
International Association , Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO) (Sie-
bler Heating & Air Conditioning Inc.), 133 NLRB 650, 650-
651; Gardeners, Exterminators & Florists Division of Service
and Maintenance, Employees; Local 399, AFL-CIO (Roberts
& Associates), 119 NLRB 962, 963. I so find . Further, I note
that , during the 4-day period with which we are now con-
cerned, the Respondent Union's purpose was realized. Two
days with pickets present at Western's mill premises sufficed
to persuade the latter firm that C & T's trucks should not be
used until complainant partnership had settled or resolved its
dispute with respondent labor organization over contract
terms. Plant Manager Crease had, thereupon, notified Ray
Carney that Western would no longer rely upon C & T's
leased truck for local delivery service; nor would it requisition
trucks for long haul work. This suspension of Western's busi-
ness relationship with Complainant herein , so far as C & T's
motor carrier functions were concerned , became apparent on
June 30; Western did not, that day, requisition C & T's leased
truck. Further, no common carrier, neither C & T nor
another, was summoned for a Los Angeles trip. By noon of
the following day, when Western' s suspension of local deliv-
ery service and long haul trips had become patent , the Re-
spondent Union withdrew its pickets from their 8th Avenue
stations . This, despite its continuation of primary "common
site" picketing, which Respondent Union maintained until
approximately July 10, when C & T Trucking finally capitu-
lated and signified its willingness to adopt the contract which
Respondent Union desired. Western's normal business rela-
tionship with C & T Trucking, which involved requisitioning
Complainant's leased truck daily, plus additional trucks for
long haul service as needed , did not, however, resume until
July 13, following Carney' s notification that complainant
17
partnership and respondent labor organization had reached
a contractual consensus.
Under these circumstances , I find, Respondent Union may
properly be found to have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B), consistently with the General Counsel 's contention.
Within his brief, General Counsel submits that the scope
of Respondent Union's conduct found statutorily proscribed
herein , conjoined with its similar conduct previously directed
against other primary and secondary employers , reveals the
designated organization 's proclivity to violate the secondary
boycott provisions of the statute. (Supporting this contention,
General Counsel requests me to take official notice with re-
spect to fifteen prior cases involving this respondent labor
organization, filed and resolved in recent years, together with
a recent Board Decision and Order [ Teamsters Local 70 (East
Bay Labor Consultants), 183 NLRB No. 137] and two recent
Trial Examiner 's Decisions . These case records, so General
Counsel contends - establish Respondent Union' s disposiition
to violate the statute , together with its propensity to forestall
formal adjudications with respect thereto by consenting to
nonformal adjustments and settlements .) On the basis of Re-
spondent Union 's record , revealed in these cases, the present
trier of fact has been requested to recommend a broad
remedial order herein, which would forbid Respondent
Union to engage in statutorily proscribed secondary activity,
hereafter, involving not merely the particular employers with
whom this case is concerned , but, likewise, any other primary
or secondary employers, or their employees. Reynolds Elec-
tric Engineering Co., 154 NLRB 67; N.L.R.B. v. Electrical
Workers, Local No. 861, 353 F.2d 736 (C.A. 5), enfg. 143
NLRB 1169; N.L.R.B. v. Local 825, Operating Engineers,
322 F.2d 478 (C.A. 3), enfg. 138 NLRB 279, 280; Overnite
Transportation Co., 130 NLRB 1007, 1009-10, 133 NLRB
62, enfd. 332 F.2d 693 (C.A.5). See, further, N.L.R.B. v.
Local 522, Lumber Drivers, 294 F.2d 811 (C.A. 3), enfg. 129
NLRB 367, 381, in this connection.
General Counsel's suggestion , within my view , cannot be
cavalierly dismissed . Certainly , there can be no doubt that the
Board, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the statute, possesses
broad discretionary powers with respect to formulating
remedial orders. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S.
177; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v.
N.L.R.B., 341 U.S. 694, 706. Nor can there be any doubt that
a respondent labor organization 's demonstrated proclivity to
pursue courses of conduct violative of the statute, whenever
derived from a trade union "policy" which looks toward
generalized reliance upon pressures against "secondary" em-
ployers and disruptions of work by their employees, may
properly be considered sufficient to justify Board orders
couched in broad terms. N.L.R.B. v. Local 74, United Broth-
erhood of Carpenters, 341 U.S. 707, 715; N.L.R.B. v. Local
282, IBTCWHA, 344 F.2d 649, 652-653 (C.A.2); Local 85,
IBTCWHA, 180 NLRB No. 109. See the Board 's brief to the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on petition for en-
forcement with respect to the case last cited, pp. 12-14, in this
connection. Upon due consideration , however , I have not
been persuaded that the present case provides a proper vehi-
cle for the broad order which General Counsel presently
seeks. Though statutory violations have been found, the
present record will not, within my view , support a determina-
tion that such violations derived from or reflected a general-
ized policy ; the possibility of their derivation from careless-
ness, misguided zeal, or misconstrued directives , chargeable
to both Respondent Union 's business representative and pick-
ets, has not, within my view , been convincingly foreclosed.
The' Board has demonstrated its readiness to promulgate
broad orders whenever a respondent labor organization's
statutory violations , revealed within a particular case context,
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have been found both pervasive and gross. Local 85, IBTC-
WHA (Viking Delivery Service, Inc.) 186 NLRB No. 72.
Broadly restrictive cease-and-desist orders, however, cannot
be considered warranted, with respect to any given case,
merely because that case happens to be the latest in a series.
Within a recent address, "Some Reflections on Remedies
under the National Labor Relations Act," delivered January
19, 1971, Board Member Fanning has noted that:
... the Board is not omnipotent ... It cannot remedy
more than what it finds in the case before it. To suggest
that a more severe remedy would have a desirable deter-
rent effect does not advance the Board's cause. It must
establish the rightness of the remedy it proposes in the
case at hand ....
These considerations, within my view, dictate a present rejec-
tion of General Counsel's broad order request herein. No
disparagement of General Counsel's generally proffered ra-
tionale for such orders, detailed within his brief, should be
considered conveyed. This trier of fact suggests, merely, that,
when General Counsel' finds himself confronted with a per-
sistent statutory violator, broadly restrictive remedial direc-
tives may, most appropriately, be requested in those cases
which, taken in themselves, most clearly reveal the so-called
"proclivity" which he would have the Board interdict.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent Union and its designated rep-
resentatives, set forth in, section III, above, since they oc-
curred in connection with the specific business operations of
both Complainant and Western with respect to which certain
factual and legal determinations have previously been made,
have had a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to
lead, and in this instance have led, to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce, and the free flow of com-
merce.
V THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that Respondent Union and its
representatives did engage in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action, including the posting of
appropriate notices, designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act, as amended.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In the light of these findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following conclusions of law:
1. Western Tube & Conduit Corporation is, and has been,
throughout the period with which this case is concerned, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
engaged in commerce and business operations which affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act, as amended.
2. H. A. Carney and David Thompson, Partners, d/b/a C
& T Trucking Company is, and has been, throughout the
period with which this case is concerned, an employer en-
gaged in commerce and business operations which affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act, as amended.
3. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local
No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as amended.
4. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by
Western, or by other persons engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, to refuse, in the course 'of their
employment, to use, transport, or otherwise handle or work
on goods, articles, materials, or other commodities, or to
perform services for the purpose of forcing, or requiring West-
ern to cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the
products or services made available by C & T Trucking Com-
pany, or to cease doing business with that designated business
enterprise, Respondent Union has committed an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the
Act, as amended.
5. By threats, coercion, or restraint, directed to Western,
and/or other persons engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, for the purpose of forcing or requiring
Western to cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the
products or services made available by C & T Trucking Com-
pany, or to cease doing business with that designated business
enterprise, Respondent Union has committed an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act, as amended.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended-'
ORDER
Respondent Union, Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto
Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducement or encouragement of any individual em-
ployed by Western, or by any other person engaged in com-
merce or in any industry affecting commerce, to engage in a
strike or 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 refuse
to perform any other services, where an object thereof is to
force or require Western, or any other person, to cease using,
handling, or otherwise dealing in the products or services
made available by C & T Trucking Company, or to cease
doing business with that business enterprise.
(b) Threats, coercion, or restraint directed against West-
ern, or any other person engaged in commerce or in any
industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or to require Western, or any other person, to cease
using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the products or ser-
vices made available by C & T Trucking Company, or to
cease doing business with that business enterpirse.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post, in conspicuous places at its business office and
meeting hall, including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."' Copies of this notice, to be furnished by the
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall
be deemed waived for all purposes.
I In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70
Regional Director for the Region 20, as the Board's agent,
shall be posted immediately upon their receipt, after being
duly signed on behalf of Respondent labor organization by its
duly designated representative. Once posted, these notices
shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by respondent labor organization
to insure that these notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the said notice to the
Regional Director for Region 20 for posting by Western Tube
& Conduit Corporation, this recipient being willing, at all
locations where notices to employees are customarily posted;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith.'
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board."
J In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
To All Employees of. C & T Trucking Company
Western Tube & Conduit Corporation
To All Members of: Brotherhood of Teamsters &
Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America
After a hearing, during which all parties were given an oppor-
tunity to present evidence and argument, it has been deter-
mined that Teamsters Local 70 violated the law by commit-
ting certain unfair labor practices. In order to remedy such
conduct, we are being required to post this notice. Teamsters
Local 70 intends to comply with this requirement, and to
abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT, in any manner which Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act prohib-
19
its, threaten, coerce, or restrain Western Tube & Con-
duit Corporation, or any other person engaged in com-
merce or any industry affecting commerce, where, in
either case, an object thereof is to force or require the
named employer, or any other person to cease using,
handling, or otherwise dealing in the products or ser-
vices made available by C & T Trucking Company, or
to cease doing business with that firm.
WE WILL NOT, in any manner which Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act prohib-
its, induce or encourage any individual employed by
Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, or by any other
person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting
commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal, in the course
of his employment, to use, manufacture , process, trans-
port or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials or commodities, or to refuse to perform any
other service, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire the named employer, or any other person, to cease
using, handling, or otherwise dealing in the products or
services made available by C & T Trucking Company,
or to cease doing business with that firm.
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS & AUTO TRUCK
DRIVERS LOCAL 70,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS
OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050
Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San
Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335.