Construction, Building Material, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 423 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING MATERIAL, TEAMSTERS
Construction, Building Material , Ice & Coal Drivers
and Helpers and Inside . Employees, Local Union
No. 221, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Perkins Motor Transport,
Inc, Cases 18-CC-533 and 18-CC-535
January 19, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND WALTHER
On June 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm :the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Construction, Building
Material, Ice & Coal Drivers and Helpers and Inside
Employees, Local Union No. 221, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommend-
ed Order.
'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951) We have carefully
exammed the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that
Respondent engaged in unlawful secondary activity, we do not adopt his
rationale as set forth in In 13 of his Decision
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
423
CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon charges and amended charges of unfair labor prac-
tices filed on November 7, 12, and 14, 1974, by Perkins
Motor Transport, Inc., the Charging Party, against Local
Union No. 221, Teamsters, the Respondent, a complaint
was issued on December 31, 1974, against the Respondent
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section' 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as'
amended, 29 U.S.C. 151, et seq. On January 7, 1975, the
Respondent duly filed its answer denying the commission
of unfair labor practices. Copies of the complaint and ac-
companying notice of hearing were served on all the par-
ties.
Pursuant to notice a hearing on the complaint was held
before me in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on various dates
from February 19, 1974, to February 26, 1974. All parties
appeared, participated in the hearing, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to introduce and to meet ma-
terial evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs.
Briefs were filed by all parties on April 16, 1975. Upon
consideration of the record and the briefs I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED
Fabcon, Inc., herein called Fabcon, is a Minnesota cor-
poration, with principal office and place of business within
the State of Minnesota. Fabcon is engaged in the manufac-
ture and erection of prestressed concrete. During the past
year, Fabcon sold goods valued in excess of $50,000 which
were shipped by Fabcon from its facilities within the State
of Minnesota directly to points outside the State of Minne-
sota.
Bor-Son Construction Company, herein called Bor-Son,
is a Minnesota corporation engaged in construction of
apartments and other multiple-occupancy dwellings and
construction work. During the past year, Bor-Son, in the
course of its business operations, purchased, transferred,
and delivered to its construction sites goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000, which goods were transported
to said sites within the State of Minnesota directly from
points outside the State of Minnesota.
Paper Calmenson and Co., herein called Paper Calmen-
son, is a Minnesota corporation with principal office and
place of business within the State of Minnesota. Paper Cal-
menson is engaged in the nonretail business of purchasing
and selling scrap steel and steel productions. During the
past year, Paper Calmenson sold goods valued in excess of
$50,000 which were shipped by Paper Calmenson from its
facilities within the State of Minnesota directly to points
outside the State of Minnesota.
Perkins Motor Transport, Inc., is a Minnesota corpora-
tion engaged in the business of truck brokering. During the
222 NLRB No. 69
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
past year, a representative period, Perkins' total revenues
from its operations were approximately $1 million of which
more than $50,000 was derived from Fabcon and more
than $50,000 was derived from Paper Calmenson. During
the past 12 months, Perkins has, in the course of its busi-
ness operations, purchased, transferred, and delivered to its
plant and shop supplies goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $50,000, which goods were transported to said facil-
ity within the State of Minnesota directly from points out-
side the State of Minnesota.
By virtue of their operations as described above, Fab-
con, Bor-Son, Paper Calmenson, and Perkins are and at all
times material have been employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act,
and employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Local Union No. 221, Teamsters , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES I
A. Issues
The case arises out of an attempt by Respondent Local
221, in late 1974, by means of picketing and other activity,
to obtain recognition as the bargaining representative of
Perkins' truckdrivers or operators. The issues are: (1)
whether Perkins' drivers or operators are employees within
the meaning of the Act or are independent contractors;
and (2) whether the Respondent's conduct had an object of
forcing or requiring (a) independent contractors to join the
Respondent, or (b) other persons or employers to cease
doing business with Perkins in order to compel Perkins to
recognize and contract with the Respondent.
B. Perkins' Business
Perkins is a nonunion motor carrier operating under au-
thority granted by various Federal and state bodies, such
as the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Minnesota
Public Service Commission, and others, which regulate mo-
tor freight transport for hire. Perkins has two large custom-
ers who are responsible for the majority of its business:
Fabcon, Inc., and Paper Calmenson, Inc., identified in sec-
tion I, above. Fabcon's account constitutes approximately
60 percent of Perkins' business.
At the time the Respondent's organizational picketing
began, described hereinafter, Perkins employed approxi-
mately 24 owner-operators, whose status is in dispute.
However, in addition, Perkins employed at that time three
i The findings herein are based on admitted facts, or credible testimony
or other credible evidence, to the extent deemed probative in the particular
circumstances . Where there is testimonial dispute as to the facts, the varying
versions have been evaluated in the light of the demeanor of the witnesses,
the inherent probabilities, and the probative value of the particular testimo-
ny In making factual resolutions all evidence in the record, not previously
excluded, has been considered and weighed, whether specifically adverted
to or not
persons within the group for whom the Respondent sought
recognition, who were employees within the meaning of the
Act: two drivers and a mechanic? While the General
Counsel and the Charging Party contend that Dean Per-
kins and Arnold Thorson are not to be counted as employ-
ees, I do not find that contention sustained. I therefore
conclude that at all material times Perkins employed per-
sons, within the unit sought by the Respondent Union,
who were employees within the meaning of the Act 3
C. The Status of the Owner-operators
1. The facts
At the time of hearing, all drivers of Perkins trucks were
owner-operators-that is to say, they own their own trac-
tors, which they lease to, and operate pursuant to a written
contract with Perkins. Several also own trailers. However
in most cases the trailers are supplied either by Perkins or
the shipper. Owner-operators are paid a specified percent-
age of each haul, plus a percentage of Perkins', net annual
carrier revenue. Under the contract owner-operators man
"trip-lease" within the requirements of the Interstate Com-
merce Commission and may obtain their own "back-
hauls," using Perkins' carrier rights and paying Perkins a
commission.' Trip-leasing and back-hauls may constitute a
substantial source of income for the owner-operator, as
much as over $40,000 annually. Two of the owner-opera-
tors are incorporated. One owner-operator has other busi-
ness interests involving several trucks, and at least one em-
ploys a driver.
The contract between Perkins and the owner-operator
describes the operator as an "independent contractor"
(par. 23) exercising "the discretion and judgment of an in-
dependent contractor in the performance and exercise of
his rights and obligations under this contract " (par. 4). The
owner-operator may hire drivers or other employees to op-
erate the equipment, provided they meet the requirements
of regulatory authorities. Under the contract he is solely
responsible for direction and control of such employees,
and for the payment of necessary employment taxes on
them. Perkins is not permitted to request discontinuance of
such employees, except for violation of applicable laws or
regulations. In addition, the contract provides that the
owner-operator shall in all respects direct the operation of
his equipment, including performance of the contract, se-
2 The two drivers were Dean Perkins and Arnold Thorson. Dean Perkins
is a brother of Neil and Dennis Perkins Neil and Dennis and their mother,
Vera Perkins, are the sole owners of Perkins Motor Transport, Inc., the
mechanic was Jerry Schoer. In mid-November 1974, a few days before the
termination of the picketing, Thorson became an owner-operator. On No-
vember 27, 1974, Dean Perkins quit and moved out of the state
3 The contention as to Dean Perkins is that he was a shareholder or owner
in the business There is no evidence to that effect. Dean Perkins' mere
relationship to the owners does not nullify his status as an employee. As to
Thorson , the contention is that his change in status during the pendency of
the dispute requires a finding that he is not an employee . As to that I find
that Thorson's change of status shortly before the termination of the picket-
ini does not cancel his employee status retroactively.
Trip-lease means to haul for another carrier using that carrier's rights. A
back-haul is the return load secured by the owner-operator, either by him-
self or through a broker, and involves the use of Perkins' carrier authority,
and perhaps its trailer
CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING MATERIAL, TEAMSTERS
lection of commodities, routes, insurance, and all matters
relating to repair or maintenance.
Under "pro-rate" statutes in effect in some States, the
vehicle licenses for tractors operating in more than one
State are required to be in the name of the carrier. Howev-
er, the contract provides that the cost of the vehicle license
is to be defrayed by the owner-operator.' Individual own-
er-operators may-and several of Perkins' owner-operators
do-restrict their operations to a single State. In such case
they may acquire vehicular licenses ("Y plates") in their
own names.
When the trucks are operating under Perkins' hauling
authority, they display Perkins' logo in the form of painting
on the cab, or removable signs or placards, containing
statements to the effect that the ng is leased by Perkins,
and giving Perkins' address and a list of the carrier licenses
which Perkins holds in various jurisdictions. Such identifi-
cation is required by regulatory authorities. The vehicle
may also be painted in Perkins' colors-brown. Perkins
pays a bonus-$100-to operators so painting their ma-
chines. Several have done so.
The contract between Perkins and the owner-operator is
for a 6-month period. Cancellation by either party is per-
mitted on 30 days' notice. Perkins has not invoked the 30-
day provision in the case of operators desiring to cancel,
and has itself canceled a contract only once-that in the
case of an owner-operator who had five culpable accidents
in a period of slightly more than 1 year.
Owner-operators must meet the requirements established
by the Interstate Commerce Commission and other regula-
tory agencies. The contract is initially for a 29-day period,
during which the operator's credentials and driving record
are checked, and he is given a physical examination and a
driver's test. If those are satisfactory, the basic contract is
operative. In no case thus far has a 29-day contract failed
to be succeeded by a 6-month contract.
Owner-operators purchase and maintain their own trac-
tors, or other equipment, provide, in the main , their own
financing, and choose their own service or repair agency.
Perkins does not provide maintenance or sell articles or
parts to the owner-operators. All expenses incident to per-
formance of hauling, including vehicular license fees, taxes,
and tolls, but excluding state fees required to secure
carrier's authority, are borne by the owner-operator.
Perkins' owner-operators receive no unemployment
compensation, workmen's compensation, or social security
benefits through Perkins. Perkins pays no taxes or insur-
ance premiums for such benefits on behalf of the owner-
operators or employees of the owner-operators. Insurance
on the tractor is provided by the owner-operator. In gener-
al, insurance on the cargo, and liability insurance for per-
sonal injury or other property damage, is carried by Per-
kins, in conformance with requirements of regulatory
authorities. However, owner-operators may, but are not re-
quired to, purchase vehicular insurance through Perkins at
fleet rates, Perkins deducting the amount of the premiums
from sums due the owner-operator. Perkins also makes
5 Under prorate, taxes due each State in which the carrier operates are
divided among the participating States according to the carrier's mileage in
each State.
425
available to owner-operators, at cost, hospital and life in-
surance under a group policy covering clerical, and other
employees of Perkins.
The contract provides that Perkins shall use reasonable
effort to provide the owner-operator with a substantial vol-
ume of hauling and, subject to trip-lease, provides that the
owner-operators' equipment shall be used only for the
hauling of commodities provided by Perkins.
Loads are assigned to operators on a first-in, first-out
basis, except where there are fewer loads than operators
available, in which case seniority among the operators pre-
vails, provided the equipment is suitable. The owner-opera-
tors may choose not to haul certain types of commodities,
and they may, without penalty, reject loads proffered them
by Perkins. Operators are free to choose their own routes
of travel, and in general, the days they will work. Owner-
operators wear no uniforms.
Fines or other liabilities consequent upon illegal opera-
tion of the vehicles, such as traffic or overweight violations,
are the primary responsibility of the owner-operator, and
are not paid by Perkins, though in certain circumstances
they may be assumed by a shipper. The owner-operator is
required to post a performance bond in the amount of
$2,500.
2. Conclusions as to the status of the owner-operators
On the basis of the above facts, and in the light of appli-
cable case authority,6 I conclude that Perkins' owner-oper-
ators are independent contractors and not employees with-
in the meaning of the Act.
The contract provides for independent contractor status.
Owner-operators purchase their own equipment with sub-
stantial capital investment and provide wholly for its main-
tenance. They are paid on a contractually provided scale
for the performance of work which they are free to accept
or reject. They enjoy none of the usual indicia of employee
status: Paid vacations, provision for wage increases, pen-
sions, paid health care, life insurance, and workmen's and
unemployment compensations. They employ qualified em-
ployees on their own terms and, short of noncompliance
with governmental safety and legal requirements, are free
to operate and to maintain their equipment as they choose.
In sum, the owner-operators appear to be entrepreneurs
carrying out a contractual function largely within their
own discretion, not subject in any significant extent to su-
pervisory control by Perkins as to the manner of their per-
formance and answerable only for proper completion of
their mission.
In the context of those facts, I deem the owner-operators
to be independent contractors within the meaning of the
applicable authorities.
The Respondent adverts to various considerations which
it asserts require a contrary conclusion: That there is a
30-day "probationary" period, recognition of seniority
rights, loss of further opportunity for the remainder of any
6Ace Doran Hauling and Rigging Co., 214 NLRB No. 84 (1974); Kreitz
Motor Express, Inc, 210 NLRB 27 (1974); George Transfer and Rigging Co.,
Inc, 208 NLRB 494 (1974); Conley Motor Express, Inc, 197 NLRB 624
(1972); Deaton, Inc, 203 NLRB 1099 (1973), enfd. 502,F.24 1221 (C.A. 5,
1974); Fleet Transport Co., Inc, 196 NLRB 436 (1972).
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
day on which a load is rejected, Perkins' identification on
the cab, and vehicle licenses in the name of Perkins. Addi-
tionally, the Respondent asserts that the United States De-
partment of Transportation Motor Carver Regulations,
paragraph 391.3(c), as revised October 1, 1973, in effect
define Perkins' owner-operators as employees.
I do not deem those facts supportive of the conclusion
that Perkins' owner-operators are employees. As has been
seen, the 29-day contract when a new operator is secured is
for the purpose of completing necessary investigations and
assuming the fulfillment of other requirements. I do not
deem that to be the equivalent of a probationary period.
Nor do I consider the limited application of a seniority
principle in the assignment of loads to be inconsistent with
an independent contractor status. As for the asserted loss
of opportunity for further loads on the day a proffer is
rejected by an owner-operator, I find no definitive evi-
dence in the record to that effect. Indeed there is specific
testimony that operators who have rejected proffered loads
have been awarded others on the same day. It has been
previously noted that regulatory authorities require that
any vehicle operating under a carrier's authority must be
identified as the carrier's. It has also been seen that where
vehicles operate under a prorate arrangement, the vehicu-
lar license is required to be taken out in the name of the
carrier. Finally, I do not interpret paragraph 391.3(c) of the
Motor Carrier Regulations of the United States Depart-
ment of Transportation, quoted in footnote 7, below, as
declaring that an owner-operator is an employee within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
Thus, I find that none of the considerations urged by the
Respondent, either singly or collectively, tend to impair the
conclusion that Perkins' owner-operators are independent
contractors, and not employees under the Act.
D. The Respondent's Activity
1. January 1974; Bailey's visits to Perkins and Fabcon
On or about January 14, 1974, Paul F. Bailey, business
agent and recording secretary of the Respondent, called on
Neil Perkins secretary-treasurer of Perkins Motor Trans-
port, with the view of having Perkins become a unionized
firm. The effort was unsuccessful, Perkins telling Bailey, in
sum, that his drivers were independent contractors.
From Perkins' office, Bailey went to the office of Fab-
con, where he spoke to David Hanson, president of Fab-
con. Bailey interrogated Hanson as to the nature of the
relationship between Perkins and Fabcon. Hanson ex-
plained that it was a contract arrangement by which Per-
kins hauled materials for Fabcon. Bailey told Hanson that
the Respondent had been receiving complaints from
unions and employees on unionized construction projects
because Perkins' nonumon drivers were making deliveries
to union projects. Bailey asked that Fabcon compel Per-
7 Subpar (c) is as follows
A motor carrier `employs' a person as a driver within the meaning of
this part whenever it requires or permits that person to drive a motor
vehicle (whether or not the motor vehicle is owned by the motor car-
ver) in furtherance of the business-of the motor carrier
kins to man his trucks with Teamsters members. Hanson
responded in effect that he was satisfied with Perkins' serv-
ices and that the matter was none of his (Hanson's) busi-
ness. Bailey then said that, if Fabcon did not put pressure
on Perkins, Bailey would make "trouble" for Fabcon.8
2. May 1974; Bailey's second, visit to Fabcon
Fabcon's employees are represented by labor organiza-
tions; the plant employees by Laborers Local 563, and
those in the field by Local 49 of the Operating Engineers,
Bricklayers Locals I and 2, and Laborers Local 132.
About May 17, 1974, Respondent's representative, Bai-
ley, paid another visit to President Hanson of Fabcon. On
this occasion Bailey was accompanied by three officials of
Laborers Locals 132 and 563.9
The conversation was principally between Bailey and
Hanson. Bailey stated that something would have to be
done about Perkins, either Fabcon should get rid of him or
have his drivers become members of the Respondent. Han-
son was advised that his customers could be talked to and
picketing brought to bear on him at the plant and in the
field, resulting in delay and monetary expense for Fabcon.
As Hanson put it in his testimony: "They were going to go
to the contractors and try and get after us through the
contractors. They were going to picket us. Unless we either
stopped doing business with Perkins or got Perkins to get
union drivers on the rigs. That is it. "
3. October 31, 1974: At Yorktown
During October 1974, Fabcon was engaged in construc-
tion at the Yorktown apartments project, to which Perkins,
pursuant to its contract with Fabcon, was hauling materi-
als.
On October 31, 1974, some 10 to, 12 officials of the vari-
ous construction trade unions in the Minneapolis area con-
ducted a card check at the Yorktown project. Among the
union officials were Business Agent Bailey of the Respon-
dent, and Leonard Bienias, field representative of the Min-
neapolis Building Trade Council. A card check is a proce-
dure engaged in by the Trade Council at more or less
regular intervals, in which officials of the council and rep-
resentatives of affiliated construction unions station them-
selves at the entrance of a unionized construction project,
generally sometime before the beginning of the workday,
and ask each person entering the project for his union card
and current dues receipt. Normally the procedure takes 1
to 2 hours.
On the morning in question, at or about 7:30 a.m., two
of Perkins' tractors, driven by Perkins' owner-operators,
seeking to enter the Yorktown project to make pickups,
were stopped by the group of union officials blocking the
driveway and asked for their union cards. When they could
not produce cards the drivers parked the vehicles in the
t The events in this subparagraph are recited for background purposes
only. Those incidents occurred more than 6 months prior to the filing of the
unfair labor practice charge See Sec. 10(b) of the Act.
9 Frank Andrejack, field and plant representative of Laborers Local 563,
and John McGinn and George Larkin, respectively, business manager and
recording secretary of Laborers Local 132.
CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING MATERIAL, TEAMSTERS 427
street and called Perkins' office for instructions . President
Dennis Perkins then took a loaded truck and drove to the
Yorktown site. As he attempted to enter the driveway he
was stopped by the group of union officials, including Bai-
ley and Bienias, and was asked for his union card. When
Perkins replied that -he did not have one, he was told that
all drivers had to have a union card to work on a union
job. An inconclusive argument ensued. During a lull in the
argument John Buckingham, an employee of Fabcon on
the project, got into Perkins' cab to get some blueprints for
the job. At or about the same time several vehicles sought
to exit through the driveway from the project. Perkins
moved his truck aside, and after the vehicles had cleared
the driveway Perkins drove through. Several of the union
officials stepped in front of the truck to stop him but Per-
kins kept going, narrowly missing Bienias. Bienias, an-
gered, grabbed Buckingham, who in the meantime had got-
ten out of the cab, backed him against the vehicle,
demanded to see his union card, and asked Buckingham
who he was to be telling the truck to come in. As Dennis
Perkins went to help Buckingham, Bienias grabbed Perkins
and accused him of trying to run him down. Perkins re-
plied that they had jumped in front of the truck, and if they
got in his way that was their "tough luck."
Someone in the crowd began to disconnect the air hoses
from the trailer, which would have locked the trailer brakes
and made the vehicle inoperable. At that point Dennis Per-
kins drove the vehicle further into the project, where even-
tually it was unloaded at or about 11 o'clock. The entire
incident took several hours, and Perkins was delayed from
an hour to an hour and a half in effecting an entrance and
making the delivery. Fabcon's work on the project was de-
layed several hours by the incident.
At one point during these occurrences Fabcon Foreman
Douglas Vollbrecht complained to Leonard Bienias about
the delay of deliveries, and the two exchanged heated
words. Bienias told Vollbrecht that Fabcon's employees
were scabs for working with nonunion drivers.
Sometime during that week, Glen Esterly, president of
the Respondent, and Business Agent Bailey, sought legal
advice as to what might be done with respect to Perkins.
They were advised by their attorney that they could con-
duct peaceful organizational picketing at Perkins' place of
business, and follow Perkins' trucks to jobsites where they
were loading or unloading, and picket while the trucks
were there. They were cautioned, however, against the use
of force or threats, or of picketing at locations other than
Perkins at times when Perkins' trucks were not present.
4. November 7, 1974: The picketing at Perkins and
Fabcon
On November 7 the Respondent began to picket and to
follow Perkins' trucks.
Perkins and Fabcon jointly occupy a building in Savage,
Minnesota. The building is owned by Fabcon, and Perkins
is a lessee for that portion of the building which it occupies.
Fabcon has a plant as well as an office on the property,
Perkins an office only. Fabcon owns a number of buildings
in the vicinity, all fronting on a private road owned by
Fabcon. The building in which Perkins is located is ap-
proximately 26 feet wide. Fabcon's main production plant
and erection center is located approximately 350 feet away,
on the private road. Access to the buildings and the plant is
by a common driveway used by Fabcon, Perkins, and
others having business on the premises. Normally Fabcon
ships some 30 truckloads a day from the plant, using the
driveway.
Early on the morning of November 7, 1974, the Respon-
dent stationed approximately 20 pickets, some carrying
picket signs, along the private road. The picket line extend-
ed some 400 feet, covering Perkins' office, the driveway,
and other buildings of Fabcon. Police were summoned, but
before they arrived either Dennis Perkins or Neil Perkins,
or both, went to the picket line and told Business Agent
Bailey that the pickets were on private property, and that
he was advising them of that fact "as a favor" and in order
to help them out. Bailey replied, in substance, that the only
way Perkins could help them out was to sign a contract.
After the police arrived, the pickets left the private road
and took up stations on public property.
The picketing at that location continued until November
19, when all picketing ceased. The picket signs used
throughout the picketing at all locations bore the following
legend:
UNFAIR
PERKINS MTR . TRANS.
REFUSES TO MEET AND BARGAIN
WITH TEAMSTERS LOCAL 221
The picketing substantially slowed shipments out of
Fabcon's plant.
5. November 7, 1974: The Swanson project
The Swanson project was an apartment construction in
Hopkins, Minnesota, on which Fabcon had a contract with
P.S.L. Co., the owner, to furnish, haul, and erect materials
for the project. Perkins, pursuant to its contract with Fab-
con, was the hauler of the materials.
On November 7 representatives of the Respondent fol-
lowed Perkins' trucks, carrying material from Fabcon's
plant, to the delivery sites, among them the Swanson proj-
ect.
When John Coleman, Fabcon's foreman for Fabcon on
the Swanson project, arrived at the job about 6:40 a.m. that
day, he found some 25 to 30 construction union represen-
tatives, among them Robert Bohnhoff, business agent of
the Respondent, standing along the road in front of the
project. Coleman asked Bohnhoff what was going on.
Bohnhoff asked Coleman whether he realized that he had
nonunion truckdrivers, to which Coleman responded in the
affirmative. Bohnhoff told Coleman that "they" were going
to have to do something about that. Coleman asked if the
group would stop the trucks from coming in but got no
definitive answer.
At or about 10:20 a.m. Jerry Smith, an owner-operator
for Perkins, arrived at the Swanson site with a load of Fab-
con material. Members of the union group produced picket
signs. Bohnhoff stepped in front of the truck and warned
Smith not to hit him. Coleman appealed to Bohnhoff, stat-
ing that he needed the materials to keep the job going.
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bohnhoff responded that he was not stopping the job, but
nevertheless he and others continued to stand in front of
the truck. Coleman then called the police. When they ar-
rived some argument and shoving ensued, but eventually
Smith was permitted to complete the delivery.
The incident upset Fabcon's progress on the job. Several
of Fabcon's employees on the project asked Foreman
Coleman if they should go home. He told them that they
could do as they pleased.
6. November 8, 1974: The visit to Paper Calmenson and
its result
Paper Calmenson, Perkins' second largest customer, is a
steel merchant, for whom Perkins does hauling from Paper
Calmenson's plant in St. Paul, Minnesota. Paper Calmen-
son has contracts with various labor organizations, among
them Teamsters Local 120 in St. Paul.
On November 8, 1974, Glen Esterly, president and busi-
ness agent of the Respondent, accompanied by two other
officials of the Respondent, and by Ray Langevin, business
agent of Teamsters Local 120, called on Jerome K. Reller,
traffic manager of Calmenson. Esterly was the principal
spokesman for the union group. They told Calmenson, in
Calmenson's words, that "their intentions were to picket
Perkins and Perkins' drivers at any point they found them
.... In response to Reller's inquiry as to the reason for
the picketing he was told that it was for recognition, and
that it could be carried on for a period of 30 days. Reller
asked how that involved Calmenson, and he was advised
that, since Perkins was carrying Calmenson's materials, the
Respondent could picket Perkins' drivers wherever they
found them, including the places of business of Calmenson
and his customers.
After some discussion Calmenson said that any picket
sign appearing outside of a company cast a reflection on
the company, and that Calmenson had unions who "prob-
ably wouldn't even bother to read what the sign said." Rel-
ler went on to say that he could not afford to have signs
like that outside the building, or to have his customers
picketed, and that his only alternative was not to use Per-
kins until the situation was "resolved." The union represen-
tatives stated that that was his perogative.
Reller then telephoned Neil Perkins and told him that
Paper Calmenson intended not to use Perkins any further
until the matter was "clarified." Paper Calmenson ceased
to use Perkins after November 8.
7. November 8 to 13: At the Swanson project
On November 8 owner-operator Jerry Smith sought to
enter the Swanson project with a Perkins truck at or about
7:30 a.m. At that time there were between 15 and 20 pick-
ets at the entrance. As Smith drove up, an unidentified
member of the group, wearing a Teamsters jacket, stepped
in front of the truck and it stopped. The individual told
Smith to "get out of there." When Smith replied that it was
illegal to prevent him from delivering at the jobsite the
individual sought to open the cab door, but it was locked.
He then began to strike the truck and the mirrors with his
picket sign. Fearing damage to the truck, Smith withdrew.
Respondent Business Agent Bohnhoff was present among
the group.
Around the same time another Perkins truck was refused
entrance. Both trucks then parked some distance away in
the town of Hopkins, at a point not visible from the con-
struction site. In response to a telephone call from the driv-
ers, President Dennis Perkins came to Hopkins and sought
to get a police escort at the Hopkins Police Department,
but was unsuccessful. The two loaded trucks were there-
upon returned to Fabcon without delivery.
During the occurrences that morning Business Agent
Bohnhoff told James Hasse, erection controller of Fabcon,
that Perkins had almost ran down Leonard Bienias at the
Yorktown project, and, as related by Hasse, Bohnhoff said,
"'if he tries that again I'll kill him,' or `we'll kill him,' I'm
not sure which his exact words were."
November 9 was a Saturday and the 10th a Sunday.
Perkins made no deliveries to the Swanson project on No-
vember 11, 12, and 13, because, in the words of Foreman
Coleman of Fabcon, "the truckers were unwilling to haul
them."
During the period of time from November 7, 1974, until
the cessation of the picketing, picket signs were displayed
at the Swanson project on several occasions when Perkins
trucks were not present.
8. November 14: At the Swanson project
On November 14, 1974, being advised that there were no
pickets at the Swanson project, Perkins dispatched three
loads to that fob. As two of the drivers, Gerald Smith and
Glenn Thomson, were spotting their loads, Business Agent
Bohnhoff arrived at the site. He told the drivers that he was
attempting to help them, but that they were resisting him,
and he was getting "damn sick of it. Bohnhoff further said
that the only reason that he was not giving them trouble
that day was that Perkins was at the Respondent's office
negotiating a contract. However, he added that "I don't
want you back here again; and if you come back . . . I'll
have 500 guys to back me up . . . . I don't mean kids
either. I mean men that know their way around."
On the following day, November 15, Smith turned down
any further hauls because, as he put it, "I was scared."
On November 14 Ronald H. Swanson of the P.S.L. Co.,
owners of the Swanson project, advised President Hanson
of Fabcon that, because of the inability of Perkins to deliv-
er materials at the Swanson jobsite, he was hiring other
truckers and deducting the cost from payments due Fab-
con under their contract. Ronald Swanson confirmed that
information by letter dated November 15 to Hanson stat-
ing, in pertinent part, as follows:
Due to the fact your truck hauler, Perkins Motor
Transport, cannot deliver materials to our jobsite in
Hopkins, Minnesota, it is necessary for us to immedi-
ately hire proper truckers to haul the remaining mate-
rials to our site the cost of such will also be deducted
from your contract with us.
CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING MATERIAL, TEAMSTERS
9. November 14: The Columbia Heights project
The Columbia Heights project was a 10-story residential
development for the elderly, on which Bor-Son Construc-
tion Company was the builder and Fabcon a contractor.
At the time the instant controversy arose, Perkins hauled
Fabcon's material to the project pursuant to its contract
with Fabcon.
As we have seen, the picketing at the premises in Savage,
occupied by Perkins and Fabcon, substantially impeded
shipments from Fabcon's plant in Perkins trucks. That af-
fected Fabcon's progress on various jobs, including the Co-
lumbia Heights project. As a consequence, Bor-Son orally
informed President Hanson of Fabcon that unless Fabcon
"got the job going," Fabcon would be subject to damages
for the delay.
Early in the morning of November 14, 1975, a group,
variously estimated at from 15 to 60 persons, of officials of
various construction union organizations gathered at the
entrance to the Columbia Heights project. 10 Approximately
25 to 30 employees were on the jobsite. Picket signs visible
to passers-by in the street were placed against cars parked
in the street, though no Perkins' trucks were present.
At or about 9 a.m., owner-operator Richard Allen came
to the Columbia Heights project in a Perkins truck with a
load of Fabcon's material for the job. As Allen sought to
enter, union representatives, some with picket signs, took
up positions in the driveway, effectively blocking Allen's
entrance. When Allen stopped, Respondent Business
Agent Robert Bohnhoff got into the cab of the truck,
seized the controls, and threatened Allen, telling him that
unless he moved the truck out of the driveway he would be
pulled from the truck, beaten, and made "an example for
everybody else to stop working." Someone in the group
shouted an instruction to poke a hole through the truck
radiator, Allen, concluding, in his words, that "there was
no sense in getting killed," withdrew his truck from the
driveway and parked it in the street. As he withdrew he
was told that the group was "not going to have no scab
truckdrivers, hauling at a union job." Allen's attempts to
explain that he was an owner-operator went unheeded.
The truck, with Allen in it, remained parked in the street
for several hours. Police were summoned, and about 2 p.m.
Allen and his truck were escorted into the project by a
police car, using another entrance. When the union group
discovered the strategem, they blocked that entrance brief-
ly, but after some discussion with the police withdrew and
permitted the truck to enter. As the truck went in , Bienias,
a field representative of the Minneapolis Building Trades
Council, told Allen, "I'm going to get you."
Allen delivered his load, and as he was preparing to
drive out, a group of some 20 to 25 persons sought to stop
him by standing in the driveway. By that time police had
left. Allen blew his horn and started into the driveway at a
pace variously estimated at 5 to 10 miles per hour, and the
10 Among the union organizations whose representatives were present at
various times during the day, and participated in some or all of the activities
to be described, were the Respondent, Laborers Local 563, the Carpenter's
District Council, the Minneapolis Building Trades Council, and Operating
Engineers Local 49
429
group got out of the way. However, as the truck went by,
Bienias either fell or was hit by the truck, or both. There is
dispute, unnecessary to resolve, as to which. As Allen pro-
ceeded out, dirt and rocks were thrown at the truck, and
the signal lights were damaged.
These events materially delayed construction on the pro-
ject that day.
On the same day, November 14, Dennis Perkins and
officials of the Respondent conferred over a period of sev-
eral hours concerning terms for settlement of the contro-
versy. The Respondent's officials requested Dennis Perkins
to sign an agreement recognizing the Respondent as the
bargaining agent of Perkins' "drivers, mechanics and other
labor," requiring membership in the Respondent after 8
days, and also providing for contract negotiations to begin
after the signing. Perkins refused to sign the agreement.
Upon inquiry by Perkins as to the type of contract he
would be expected to sign, the Respondent's officials pre-
sented various contracts with area trucking companies, one
of which covered owner-operators. After reading these,
Perkins took them to his office for consultation with his
brother Neil. Later in the day Dennis Perkins telephoned
the Respondent and said, in sum, that he ' did not want a
contract.
During the contract discussions on November 14, Den-
nis Perkins told the Respondent's officials that his drivers
were contractors and indicated doubt that he could con-
tract for them. The Respondent's representatives told him
that he need not worry about the drivers, that they could
"get around them."
Laborer's Local 563 has a collective-bargaining contract
with Fabcon which contains a no-strike clause. On Novem-
ber 14 Fabcon's men on the Columbia Heights job, mem-
bers of Local 563, asked Wallace Small, business agent of
Local 563, if they could go to work. Small, on the instruc-
tions of the business manager of Local 563, told them that
it was up to them. Small was one of the union group which
participated in the events of Novemher 14 and 15 at Co-
lumbia Heights.
10. November 14: At Columbia Heights; other events
On November 15, 1974, the number of construction
union representatives present at the Columbia Heights pro-
ject was larger, in the range of 30 to 60 people, apparently
in response to the events of the previous day. Though no
Perkins' trucks appeared at the project on November 15,
some of the individuals carried picket signs, and some signs
were leaned against autos on the parking lot. As a conse-
quence employees employed on the project, including all of
Fabcon's crew, refused to work and the project closed
down. However a number of representatives of the unions
remained there throughout the day, "to see that it stayed
closed down." 11
No Perkins' trucks were dispatched to the Columbia
Heights project that day. Owner-operator Allen, of Per-
kins, refused to take his truck from the shop because of the
threats recited heretofore. Owner-operator Gerald Smith
11
Testimony of Harry Blue, Twin Cities Carpenters District Council rep-
resentative, a witness for the Respondent
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was offered work and turned it down because he was
-̀'scared."
- : On November 15, 1974, Bor-Son followed up its previ-
ous oral warnings to Fabcon with a letter formally notify-
ing Fabcon of Bor-Son's intention to charge Fabcon for all
expense incurred by Bor-Son resulting from Perkins' ina-
bility to make deliveries at the Columbia Heights project.t2
As we have seen, on the same date, P.S.L. Co. notified
Fabcon that because of Perkins' inability to deliver materi-
als to the Swanson jobsite, P.S.L. was hiring other truckers
and deducting the cost from Fabcon's contract with P.S.L.
11. November 18: At Columbia Heights and Swanson
On Monday , November 18 , another trucking company,
Terry Brothers , began to deliver Fabcon materials to the
Swanson site , without apparent incident . On November 18
there were 10 to 12 union representatives at the Columbia
Heights project . No picket signs were displayed . Another
trucker, Lambert Trucking , made several deliveries to the
Columbia Heights project that day without incident and
work proceeded normally:
Perkins' ability and authority to make deliveries at both
projects, and to haul for Calmenson , had thus now been
effectively terminated.
12. November 18 at Savage; the following of the trucks
to Superior , ,
Picketing was maintained continuously on working days
at Perkins' headquarters in Savage, adjacent to Fabcon,
from its inception, on November 7, 1974, until November
19, 1974, when all picketing ceased. The number of pickets
varied from 1 to 60. Perkins had difficulty getting trucks in
and out of Fabcon's plant because of interference and
12 The letter is as follows
November 15, 1974
Fabcon, Inc
700 West Hwy 13
Savage, Minnesota 55378
Attention. Mr. David Hanson
Re' COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
Dear Sir
As you are aware, the Teamsters' Union is picketing the site for the
above project and have today initiated a complete stop of all work The
culprit of this action by the Teamsters' Union is Perkins Trucking who
is employed by you as truckers of the precast materials to the above
project.
We wish to inform you that our firm, besides a time delay, is being
directly economically injured by this shut-down of the project, as we
are carrying the financing of the project
As you and your sub-contractors are responsible for the delay we now
are experiencing, we must notify you that we intend to back-charge
your firm any and all expenses we incur due to financing costs and
delay of the construction project
We urge you to settle yours and Perkins Truckings difficulties with the
Teamster's Union before the above expense reaches astronomical pro-
portions.
Very truly yours,
BOR-SON CONSTRUCTION, INC
Ibb Agvald
mass picketing-at time requiring the assistance of police.
As we have seen, this impeded construction work on the
various projects.
On November 18, 1974, Perkins had four loads sched-
uled for a run from Savage, Minnesota, to Superior, Wis-
consin. Two of the loads were dispatched early, about 3 or
4 a.m. before the arrival of the pickets at Perkins' Savage
headquarters. Anticipating possible trouble with the two
remaining loads, Perkins asked the Savage police depart-
ment for an escort. The two trucks, carrying concrete
blocks, were escorted through the picket lines by police to
state Highway No. 13. In the process, however, one of the
pickets opened the chain binder fastening the load to the
trailer on one of the trucks.
From that point on, Dennis Perkins escorted the trucks
in another vehicle, following directly behind. Four or five
cars filled with union officials trailed behind Perkins, at-
tempting to overtake and to pass him. However, Perkins
delayed them by various maneuvers. At an intersection
where the trucks transferred from Highway 13 to 35 W
Perkins stopped his vehicle on the approach ramp to 35 W,
blocking the following cars for a period of time. When the
chase was resumed, the union cars overtook the truck with
the loose binder which had stopped to refasten the load.
When the union personnel got out of their cars and ap-
proached the truck, the operator got back into the cab and
proceeded on his way. Perkins then managed to insert his
vehicle between the truck and the cars behind. When the
truck reached the transfer ramp from Route 35 W to Inter-
state 94, Perkins stopped his vehicle on the ramp, again
blocking the following cars. At this point an unidentified
person from one of the vehicles got out and cocked a zip
gun at Perkins. With that Perkins fled in his car. What
happened thereafter is not disclosed.
Respondent's president, Glenn Esterly, and its secretary-
treasurer, Walter Wallace, were among the group which
followed the two trucks.
13. November 19, 1974: The picketing ceases
On this day, at or about 11:30 a.m., the Respondent
ceased all its picketing activity.
14. Conclusions as to the legality of the Respondent's
activity
The facts previously cited need not be repeated. Taken
together they establish a pattern of force, threats, and in-
terference directed at the operations of Perkins and other
employers, and having the necessary effects of dissuading
employees of secondary employers to cease working, and
secondary employers to cease doing business with Perkins,
in order to compel Perkins to recognize the Respondent as
the bargaining representative of persons employed by Per-
kins, including owner-operators, and to sign a contract.
Though witnesses for the Respondent denied that they en-
gaged in some, though not all, of this conduct, I have cred-
ited the contrary testimony.
The Respondent's defense is that it was engaged in a
lawful attempt to persuade Perkins to recognize the Re-
spondent as the representative of Perkins' employees, and
CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING MATERIAL, TEAMSTERS
that its activity was restricted to peaceful picketing or other
permitted, conduct directed only at Perkins, and at appro-
priate times and places. The facts refute that contention.
While the Respondent's representatives were correctly in-
structed by their attorney as to proper limits of their activi-
ty, and advised that,they could not lawfully go beyond it,
that advice was not followed. The effect was to impede
operations of secondary employers, and to demonstrate to
them and their employees that continued dealing with Per-
kins would meet with force and violence directed at them
and their property. In addition picket signs were displayed
at the places of business of secondary employers- at times
when no Perkins' trucks were present.
That conduct manifests design to secure objectives pro-
hibited by the statute. That is so regardless of whether Per-
kins' drivers were independent contractors or were instead
employees of Perkins within the meaning of the Act,
though it has been found that they were in fact indepen-
dent contractors. The Respondent contends that it sought
recognition only for employees of Perkins, and if the own-
er-operators were independent contractors, the Respon-
dent did not seek to represent them. Whether a genuine
mistake of fact on the part of the Respondent as to the
employee status of the owner-operators would be a defense
need not be determined. It has been seen that on several
occasions the Respondent was informed that Perkins' own-
er-operators were not employees, but independent contrac-
tors. Under those circumstances, having been advised of
the true facts, the Respondent assumed the risk that the
owner-operators, whom it knowingly involved in its activi-
ty, were in fact secondary employers. See Local Union No.
767, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-
CIO (Florida Planned Communities, Inc.), 209 NLRB 586
(1974). That Perkins had employees within the projected
bargaining unit at the time the activity began is not a de-
fense, since the Respondent's demand and its actions were
not restricted to them, but included secondary employers.
The Respondent's contention that it did not in fact know
the status of the owner-operators, and was unable to secure
a Board determination as to the issue, is thus beside the
point.l3
13 It would seem that the entire controversy might have been avoided by
a representation proceeding . In view of the concern of Congress over the
involvement of secondary employers in recognitional disputes, among
others, and the procedures provided in Secs. 8(b)(4)(C) and 9 of the Act, it
would seem that the Act may perhaps be interpreted to contain some ready
method of resolving controversies of this kind without resort to unfair labor
practice litigation Clearly Perkins, the Charging Party, could have filed a
petition under Sec. 9 of the Act asking for a determination as to whether the
Respondent was a bargaining representative entitled to recognition . Its fail-
ure to do so suggests that Perkins did not utilize all available statutory
mechanisms to settle the matter peaceably Nor do the Respondent 's action
indicate that it used all diligence to have the issue of status resolved by
statutory procedures While the Respondent asserts , without denial, that it
invited Perkins to file an RM petition in order to resolve the status of the
owner-operators , because the Respondent could not file one itself due to its
lack of a 30-percent showing of representation, those factors are of doubtful
applicability Though Sec. 101.17 of the Board's Statements of Procedure
contains a provision to the effect that , where the petitioner in a representa-
tion case is a labor organization , it must supply evidence of representation,
I find nothing in the statute or the Board 's Rules and Regulations requiring
such a showing in the instant kind of situation . As this case evidences, the
most certain effect of such a requirement is to produce perhaps avoidable
interruptions of businesses , physical confrontations , police problems, and
431
Nor is it a defense that some of the Respondent's activity
was carried on in connection with card checks by'the Min-
neapolis Building Trades Council. Officials of the Respon-
dent were present at and participated in the secondary ac-
tivities on such occasions , and were assisted at times by
officials of other unions. In addition, representatives of
some of those unions testified that they were present, at
least in part, for the purpose of supporting the
Respondent's attempt to organize Perkins.
It is consequently found that by its course of conduct set
forth above the Respondent induced and encouraged indi-
viduals employed by Perkins, Fabcon, and Bor-Son to en-
gage in a strike or refusal to perform services within the
course of their employment, and threatened, coerced, and
restrained Perkins, Fabcon, Bor-Son, and Paper Calmen-
son, with an object- of forcing or requiring owner-operators
of Perkins, who are self-employed persons or employers, to
become members of Respondent, and of forcing or requir-
ing Fabcon, Bor-Son, and Paper Calmenson to cease doing
business with Perkins.
It is further found that such of that conduct as has oc-
curred since May 7, 1974, is violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclu-
sions, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue, the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER14
The Respondent, Construction Building Material, Ice &
Coal Drivers and Helpers and Inside Employees, Local
Union No. 221, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any employee of Perkins
Motor Transport, Inc., Fabcon Inc., Bor-Son Construction
Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or a
refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufac-
ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
any goods , articles, materials , or commodities or to per-
form any services, where an object thereof is: (1) forcing or
requiring owner-operators of Perkins, or any employer or
the maintenance of litigation-results quite the opposite of those intended
by the statute It is therefore possible that a requirement for showing of
interest is inapposite in circumstances such as these , where the essential
issue, perhaps dispositive of the entire matter, is not whether the Union has
sufficient representation to warrant holding an election , but rather involves
a question of law as to whether the individuals involved are employees
However , the Respondent did not file a petition to test the point, and it
ceased its activity before 30 days after its commencement, thereby preclud-
ing a determination under Sec 8(b)(7)(C ) of the Act of the status of the
owner-operators without a showing of interest , as therein provided. Thus the
Respondent also avoided invocation of procedures which may have made
the present litigation unnecessary
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
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.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
self-employed person, to join the Respondent, or (2) forc-
ing or requiring Fabcon, Bor-Son, Paper Calmenson and
Co., or any other employer or person, to cease doing busi-
ness with Perkins.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Perkins, Fab-
con, Bor-Son, or Paper Calmenson, or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce , where an object thereof is: (1) forcing or requiring
owner-operators of Perkins, or any employer or self-em-
ployed person, to join the Respondent, or (2) forcing or
requiring Perkins or any other employer to recognize or
bargain with the Respondent or any other labor organiza-
tion as a representative of its employees, unless the Re-
spondent or other labor organization has been certified by
the Board as the representative of such employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in the Respondent's business offices, meeting
halls, and all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 15 Copies of such notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 18, shall, after being signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) mail to the Regional Director for Region 18, suffi-
cient signed copies of the aforementioned notice for post-
ing by Perkins, Fabcon, Bor-Son, or Paper Calmenson,
those companies willing, at any of their places of business
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ-
ing, within 20 days after date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
15 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
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."