General Drivers, Local 563

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 219 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GENERAL DRIVERS , LOCAL 563
General Drivers & Dairy Employees Union Local No.
563, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America ; International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local No. 139, AFL-CIO; and Plumb-
ers & Steamfitters Local No. 458 and Inland
Trucking Co. and Wesley Meilahn , Copartners
d/b/a Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co. Case 30-CC-97
October 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On October 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that they 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
certain portions of the Trial Examiner's proposed
Order and Notice, together with a brief in support of
these exceptions. Respondents filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support
thereof, and the Charging Party filed an answering
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders
that Respondents, General Drivers & Dairy Employ-
ees Union Local No. 563, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America; International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local No. 139, AFL-CIO; and
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 458, their officers,
219
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
I Member Brown concurs in the result
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE F. FREY, Trial Examiner: The issues in this case,
which was tried before Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey at
Oshkosh and Appleton, Wisconsin, on various dates
between February 19 and April 18, 1969, with all parties
participating fully in the trial through counsel, are (1)
whether the above-named Unions, acting in anoint venture
in furtherance of a pending labor dispute with Fox Valley
Material Suppliers Association (herein called the
Association) and its members, including Courtney &
Plummer, Inc. (herein called C & P), have picketed a
building project of 2 other employers, Haldon Corp. and
W.C. Mayo (herein called Haldon and Mayo, respectively),
in order to cause employees of said employers to cease
work for their respective employers and to cease handling
materials delivered by C & P and Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co.
(herein called Oshkosh) to said project, have threatened
employees of Mayo and Haldon with loss of union
membership, and have subjected them to physical attacks
and threat of bodily harm, if they handled materials of C &
P and Oshkosh at said project, thereby inducing and
encouraging said employees to engage in a strike or refusal
to handle materials of C & P and Oshkosh, and also
threatening and coercing Haldon and Mayo, neutral
employers engaged in commerce, with the object of forcing
or requiring them and other persons engaged in commerce
to cease using and handling products of, and cease doing
business with, C & P, and/or forcing or requiring Oshkosh,
a neutral employer, to cease doing business with other
neutral employers on said project, all in order to force and
require the latter to cease doing business with C & P, all in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et
seq. (herein called the Act), and (2) whether such conduct of
Respondents through their agents against Oshkosh is
permitted under the Act because (a) Oshkosh has allied
itself with C & P and thus is not neutral with respect to
strikes instituted by one or more of Respondents against the
Association and its members, including C & P, and (b) by
reason of a strike against Oshkosh by Teamsters Local 126,
a sister local of Respondent Teamsters 563, that Respon-
dent is privileged to engage in a primary dispute which thus
involves employees of Oshkosh.
These issues arose on a complaint issued January 31,
1969, by General Counsel of the Board through the Board's
Regional Director for Region 30, and as amended at the
hearing,' and answer of Respondents which questioned
jurisdiction, denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices, and raised certain separate defenses considered
below.
At close of the testimony the Trial Examiner reserved
' The complaint issued after Board investigation of charges filed by the
Charging Party on September 16 and October 2, 1968, and January 23,
1969
186 NLRB No. 38
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
decision of motions of Respondents to dismiss the amended
complaint on the merits; these motions are disposed of by
the findings and conclusion in this Decision. All parties
waived oral argument at close of the case, but written briefs
filed by all have been carefully considered in preparation of
this Decision.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the
stand, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
that at all times material herein Jeffery Curtin, as business
agent of Teamsters 563, Donald Shaw, as business agent of
the Engineers , and Roland Choudoir, as business agent of
the Plumbers , were agents of and acting on behalf of their
respective local unions within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Events
1. THE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR BUSINESSES
C & P is a Wisconsin corporation engaged at Neenah,
Wisconsin, in the sale of sand, gravel, and aggregate for the
building and construction industry and also as a general
contractor in said industry. In the year 1968 C & P had
gross sales in excess of $1 million, and also supplied goods
and services valued in excess of $50,000 to enterprises
which themselves are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
Haldon is a Wisconsin corporation engaged at Oshkosh,
Wisconsin, as a building. contractor in the building and
construction industry. At all times material herein it has
been general contractor under contract with Murphy Oil
Corporation for construction of an automobile service
station at the intersection of Highway 47 and Midway
Road, in Menasha, Wisconsin (herein called the Midway
Project).
Mayo is in business in Appleton, Wisconsin, as a
masonry contractor and at all times material herein was the
masonry subcontractor to Haldon on the Midway Project.
Oshkosh is engaged at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in the sale
and delivery of ready-mix concrete to the building and
construction industry, and at all times material herein it
was engaged in delivery of such products to Mayo at the
Midway Project, at the same times that C & P was engaged
in delivery of gravel and aggregate to said Project.
I find that C & P, Oshkosh, Haldon, and Mayo are
employers each engaged in commerce or in industries
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.2
II. RESPONDENTS AS LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
General Drivers & Dairy Employees Union, Local 563,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(herein called Teamsters 563), International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local No. 139 (herein called the
Engineers), and Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 458
(herein called the Plumbers)3 are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act. It is not disputed, and I find,
C & P is one of seven employers located in the Fox Valley
area,4 bargaining with Teamsters 563 and Engineers on
behalf of its members. Teamsters 563 has its office in
Appleton, Wisconsin, and claims jurisdiction in the
northern portions of the counties of Winnebago, Calumet,
and Washara, and the western part of Waupaca County,
above a state or county road running east and west about
halfway between Appleton and Oshkosh; this territory
includes the cities of Appleton, Neenah, Menasha, Green
Bay, and other municipalities on both sides of the valley of
the Fox River which joins Green Bay on the north and
Lake Winnebago on the south. Teamsters 563 has had
collective-bargaining contracts covering all drivers of
Association members since about 1960; prior thereto it had
successive contracts with C & P covering the latter's drivers
since about 1935. The last contract negotiated and
consummated through the Association expired March 31,
1968. During negotiation of a new contract, in July 1968 a
labor dispute arose between Teamsters 563 and Association
members, including a strike by drivers of Association
members against their employers, which dispute was
continuing at time of the hearing herein.
The Association has been negotiating contracts with
Engineers for a unit of operating engineers employed by C
& P, Badger Highway Co., Landwehr, Inc., and Calnin &
Goss. The latest contract between Engineers and these
employers expired March 31, 1968, and, when negotiations
did not produce a new contract, Engineer members
employed by these employers struck on July 30, 1968, and
the strike was continuing at time of the hearing. Engineers
claims jurisdiction over operating engineers employed
anywhere in Wisconsin.
Plumbers has its headquarters in Avalon, Wisconsin, near
the Illinois border. While the record does not show
definitely the extent of its claimed jurisdiction, its agent,
Roland Choudoir, admitted that it did not claim jurisdic-
tion in the general area of Oshkosh and Fond-du-Lac, and
that during the events described herein it had no bargaining
contracts with Oshkosh, members of the Association,
Haldon, or Mayo, although plumbers may have been
employed by Mayo at some point on the Midway Project.
Oshkosh is not a member of the Association and does not
employ any individuals represented by any of Respondents.
However it has had successive collective-bargaining
contracts with Teamsters 126, a sister local of Teamsters
2 While their answer pleads ignorance of the jurisdiction facts to which there were no objections.
Respondents make no argument that any of the four employers named 4 The other employers are Badger Highway Co ., Schabo Ready Mix Co.
above do not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Board . of Appleton , Calnin & Goss, Landwehr, Inc., and Twin City Concrete
9 The names of the Unions are stated as amended in the complaint at Corporation (herein called Twin City).
the outset of the hearing on motions of Charging Party and Respondents,
GENERAL DRIVERS , LOCAL 563
563, with headquarters in Oshkosh and claiming jurisdic-
tion in an area generally south of the jurisdiction of
Teamsters 563, including the larger cities of Oshkosh,
Fond-du-Lac, Ripon, Waupun, Green Lake, Randolph,
and Beaver Dam. The most recent contract of Teamsters
126 with Oshkosh expired May 1, 1968, and after which
Oshkosh and at least one other ready-mix operator in
Oshkosh, Cook & Brown, locked out their driver-employees
during negotiation of a new contract until July 17, 1968, at
which time Teamsters 126 called a strike against Oshkosh
which was still in progress at time of the hearing,5 the other
employer involved having settled with Teamsters 126.
Thus, at the time of the events related below, there was a
primary dispute between Teamsters 563 and Engineers with
Association members C & P and Twin City, and another
such dispute between Teamsters 126 and Oshkosh. This is
the background of the activities of Respondents discussed
next.
B. The Alleged Secondary Boycott Activity
On December 9, 10, and 11, 1968, Mayo had two
employees, Arlie Canfield and Richard Zimmer, engaged
on the Midway Project in building molds and forms in
preparation for the spreading of stone and aggregate
foundations and pouring of ready-mix concrete thereon to
form cement slabs, platforms, and walkways under his
contract with Haldon. In connection with this work
Canfield placed telephone orders on the morning of
December 11 with C & P for delivery at the site of a load of
aggregate, and with Oshkosh for delivery in the afternoon
of ready-mix concrete These orders were placed in
accordance with instructions of Mayo given previously.
Shortly after noon, while the Mayo workers were eating
lunch, a C & P driver drove up with a truckload of
aggregate. While Canfield was directing placement of the
truck for unloading, Business Agents Curtin, Choudoir,
Shaw, and William Stillman6 were driving by in Curtin's
car. Shaw saw the C & P truck and called Curtin's attention
to it. Curtin stopped, parked the car some distance away on
Midway Road, and the four got out and approached the
Mayo men on the jobsite. Shaw asked Canfield if he was a
union man. Canfield said he was. Shaw asked him if he
knew C & P was on strike and that he was handling strike-
bound material. Canfield replied that he did not know too
much about that, as he was "paying into the union, was not
full union yet." Canfield asked the agents "what about this
load, shall I dump it?" Choudoir replied "If you dump it,
there may be a picket line out here tomorrow." Shaw said
that there "could be trouble" if he handled strike-bound
material, and then asked Canfield "Are you going to send it
back, or should we send it back?" Canfield then told the C
5 See General Teamsters, Warehouse and Dairy Employees, Local 126, et
a! (Courtney & Plummer, Inc,) 175 NLRB No 86 , where the Board found
that the above organization , cited herein as Teamsters 126, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, and also detailed some of the
facts and events involving that pending labor dispute
221
& P truckdriver to take the load back, and the driver drove
the truck away. The C & P driver had no talk with the
agents. During this conversation, Choudoir also told
Zimmer that "this is strike-bound material," and Zimmer
said "I am not going to use it." Shaw and Choudoir then
asked Canfield if he was going to pour concrete. He replied
he was. They asked where he was getting concrete, and he
replied Oshkosh Ready-Mix. Curtin and Choudoir re-
marked that that material was strike bound, too, that
Oshkosh was involved in a labor dispute. Shaw and Curtin
then suggested that Canfield go to the construction shanty
on the site and cancel that order. Canfield did so,
accompanied by Shaw, who stood at his side while he called
Oshkosh to cancel the concrete delivery, and also called
Mayo to report what had happened, saying he had canceled
the gravel and concrete orders. Mayo told Canfield that he
and Zimmer should remain on the job, that Mayo would
have gravel and concrete sent back to the job, the two men
should wait for it, and he (Mayo) would get there shortly.
While Canfield and Shaw were in the shack, Curtin went
back to his car and drove it onto the project site. After
getting Mayo's instructions, Canfield went out and
reported them to Zimmer, saying Mayo wanted both to
wait until he got there. At the same time Shaw told Curtin
that Canfield had canceled the Oshkosh concrete for that
afternoon and was trying to get it from another source.
Curtin told the other two agents to "watch what else
happens while we are here." One of the agents told Canfield
that if the gravel came back, and he handled it, "they"
might make it hard for Canfield to get into the union,
meaning the Bricklayers' and Masons' Union. Both men
then went back to work building forms for concrete. About
this time, the four union agents left the premises and drove
away. Shortly after, another C & P gravel truck drove up,
followed by a man in a pickup truck. The latter asked
Zimmer and Canfield if they would use the gravel, and
Canfield said they would not, that the driver should take it
away. The truck and the pickup driver then drove off
without dumping the gravel.
About 1:30 p.m., a loaded Oshkosh ready-mix concrete
truck, driven by one Wayne Koenig, drove onto the site,
and Koenig asked Canfield where to dump the concrete. As
they talked, Shaw and Curtin drove by in Curtin's car and,
when Shaw saw the truck, he told Curtin to stop, so Curtin
drove onto the site; Choudoir, who was following Curtin
closely in his own car, also stopped, parked on the road,
and joined the other agents. When they walked onto the
site, Zimmer told them he and Canfield had returned the
gravel. Canfield asked the agents if he could handle the
concrete, and one of them told him they could make it hard
for him to get into his union if he did. He said he would not
handle it.7 Shaw approached Koenig, and asked him if he
had a union card Koenig replied it was none of his
business, and asked if Shaw was a union official. Shaw said
that was none of Koenig's business. Koenig then had a
rather heated argument with Shaw and Curtin, in which
Shaw and Curtin called Koenig a "scab" driver taking work
6 Stillman was another business agent of the Engineers
7 According to Curtin, Choudoir came onto the site shortly after Curtin
and Shaw had this discussion with the two workmen and when Choudoir
got there, he said to Curtin "I see we have another problem," to which
Curtin replied, "yes, but no one is going to handle the struck cement "
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from union men, and also described him with abusive and
scatological terms. Koenig clearly expressed his dislike of
unions and union agents, calling Shaw a "union racketeer"
and disparaging unions as no good and "crooked" and
opining that only a person of low mentality would work for
a union. In the discussion several of the agents called
Koenig a "smart aleck," commenting that "smart alecks"
usually get hurt, have their heads bashed in. The argument
went on for about 20 minutes.
While Shaw was arguing with Koenig, Curtin walked
back to his car and procured a picket sign stating "Fox
Valley Construction Material Suppliers Association, Local
563, On Strike," walked back to a concrete platform on the
site, and stood there with Choudoir, the sign under his arm,
facing the Mayo workmen. Canfield and Zimmer were
working on forms a few feet away and Canfield saw the sign
and told Zimmer he thought one of the agents had a picket
sign under his coat. Zimmer told Canfield he would not
work on strike-bound, material; Canfield replied that he
was trying to get into the Masons' union and was not sure
of his exact status in it, so he figured he would not work on
such material either. In the meantime, about 2 p.m. Mayo
arrived at the site and approached Koenig, who was near
the three agents , to ask what the trouble was. As he
approached, Curtin partially hid the picket sign under his
topcoat. Mayo asked Koenig what the trouble was and the
latter told him no one on the site would handle the
concrete. Mayo asked the three agents if they were union
officials and they said, yes. Mayo then approached his
workers, who were not working but talking to the three
agents on the platform, and called them away for a private
discussion. While he talked to them, Curtin put the sign
back in his car and returned to the platform. Mayo asked
his men what the problem was and they replied they could
not use this concrete because it was "strike-bound" and
they would be in serious trouble if they handled material
from a strike-bound firm; Canfield said he thought he
might be fined and denied membership in his union if he
used it. Mayo asked why and Canfield replied the three
men on the site said he could not use the concrete. Mayo
then took the workers over to the agents standing on a
concrete slab and asked Canfield to ask them why he could
not use the concrete, what the problem was, and if he would
get in trouble by using it. The agents did not reply. Canfield
also told them they had said he would be in serious trouble
if he used the concrete, but they did not answer to this.
Mayo then asked the three agents why they were there and
Choudoir replied that they represented Mayo's two
workers. Mayo asked them if they realized they were on
private property and requested them to leave. They asked
who the owner was, Mayo told them, and Shaw said they
could not care less, had a right to be there, and were not
leaving. Shaw asked Mayo if he knew the truck had strike-
bound concrete and what Mayo thought about it. Mayo did
not reply but walked aside with his two workers and told
them that to the best of his knowledge the agents' action
was illegal, there was no basis for it as long as there was no
picket line set up on the job, that they should not worry
about it, as he had an injunction pending through the
National Labor Relations Board covering the job, and that
the unions could not strike or bother the workers on the job,
and then suggested "let's go ahead and pour the concrete,"
as no one was telling them not to. Both men indicated they
could not do so, for the reasons they stated before. Mayo
then told them that, if they would not do it, he would pour
it himself but there was other work for them to do on the
job and they should do that, as he was paying them by the
hour. Canfield started to prepare forms but Zimmer said he
would leave the job. Mayo suggested Zimmer might drive
off in his car for a time, until the agents left the job, but he
refused, saying he would leave the job, as he did not want
any more trouble. Mayo said that, if he left, Mayo would
consider that he was quitting and he should take his tools
with him. Zimmer replied that he did not want to quit but
could not finish strike-bound concrete. Mayo then went
into the construction shack, while Zimmer left the jobsite
shortly. Canfield continued to work on forms. At some
point during these events, but after his argument with
Shaw, Koenig returned to his truck to report on the two-
way radio what had occurred and was directed by some
Oshkosh official to remain on the project to see if Mayo
would pour the concrete.
In the shack, Mayo called Donald Wolfe, an officer of
Haldon, explained the situation, and asked for help because
his own men would not pour concrete. Wolfe sent his
employee, Charles Beyer, from another project to help
Mayo. When Beyer arrived at the Midway Project about 15
minutes later, he saw the Oshkosh truck standing there and
walked onto the concrete platform where Shaw and
Choudoir were standing, told them he had been sent to help
pour the concrete, and asked if they were "from the
union." 8 Shaw said they were and asked Beyer if he was
going to work on "strike-bound" material on this job.
Another agent said they were having trouble with Oshkosh
and also mentioned Haldon. Beyer told them that, if there
were any "union difficulties" on the job, he did not care to
help in any of the work. Curtin asked if he was a union man
and Beyer said he was. The agents replied that they would
"appreciate it very much" if he would not help to pour the
concrete. Early in this conversation Koenig walked up to
the group to hear what was said. Shaw told Koenig to "get
out of here, let us alone, what we have to say is none of your
business, you are not wanted." Choudoir also asked Koenig
to "step aside." Koenig remained near the group, so the
agents took Beyer out to the center of Midway Road to
talk. Koenig followed them, and Shaw repeated his order to
him to "get out of here," saying he might get hurt if he
followed them. Curtin also asked Koenig to "stay out of our
conversation." Koenig did not move away, so Curtin tried
to block him with his body from getting near to the group.
Koenig sidestepped him and walked toward the group and
then Shaw became angry and physically pushed Koenig
with his arms, moving him back into the traffic lane on the
opposite side of the road.
About this time, Mayo approached the group of agents
and Beyer and told the latter that the unions could take no
8 Beyer suspected there was trouble with the Teamsters, when he saw had picketed the site and prevented pouring of concrete from an Oshkosh
the three agents and the Oshkosh truck standing there, because he had truck.
worked on a jobsite in Neenah 4-5 months before where Teamsters 563
GENERAL DRIVERS , LOCAL 563
legal action against him if he poured the concrete. Beyer
replied that, if there was any "union trouble" on the job, he
would not help pour the concrete. Mayo then took him to
the construction shack, asking him to call his office. Beyer
told Wolfe on the telephone that he would not pour the
concrete, because a union business agent had told him not
to handle it, that there could be some "trouble." Wolfe told
him the unions could not penalize him if he helped Mayo
with the concrete but Beyer refused to help, saying he
thought that, if he poured the concrete, the unions might
put up a picket line and he had worked in a situation like
that before and did not like to work behind a picket line.
Wolfe then told him to go to another Haldon project and
Beyer drove away shortly, having been on the site only
15-20 minutes. Wolfe immediately called Duane Sweet,
sales manager of C & P, told him about Beyer's call, and
said that a gravel truck had been sent back to its plant, two
cement finishers had left the job, and Mayo had called for
help. He asked Sweet to drive to the project, check on the
"trouble," and let him know, as he (Wolfe) was busy in the
Oshkosh office and could not get to the project site quickly.
Sweet said he would go.
When Beyer left the site, Mayo asked Canfield again if he
would help pour the concrete. Canfield replied that he did
not want to get into any trouble, so Mayo told him to leave
his tools for Mayo to use and to go to another project
Canfield left and Mayo asked Koenig to help him pour the
concrete. Koenig agreed and the two began to pour the
concrete, with Koenig operating the truck and pouring
chutes and Mayo spreading and smoothing off the
concrete, while the three union agents watched from a
nearby platform.
While Mayo and Koenig were handling the concrete,
Sweet and another employee of C & P drove up and offered
to help Mayo, and he had them help him in spreading the
concrete, while Koenig operated the truck levers and added
water to the mix as needed, and Mayo did the finishing.
While they worked for about 2 hours, the three agents stood
on a nearby platform and watched. During the operation
either Mayo or Sweet called the nearby C & P plant for
another load of stone, which was delivered and dumped
about 4 p.m. The agents left the site about that time.
I find the events of December 11 outlined above from
credible and mutually corroborative testimony of Mayo,
Canfield, Zimmer, Koenig, Beyer, and Sweet, which is
corroborated in substantial part by admissions of Shaw,
Curtin, and Choudoir. I do not credit other testimony of the
three union agents to the effect that they limited their
discussions on the site to mere reminders to the Mayo
workers that strike-bound material was at or coming to the
site and to mere expressions of appreciation upon alleged
statements volunteered by the Mayo men that they would
not handle strike-bound material, for this is incredible in
face of the admissions of the agents that they deviated from
trips to a conference by stopping and entering the site twice
deliberately, on seeing the C & P and Oshkosh trucks, in
order to try to assist Local 126 in its dispute with Oshkosh
by doing whatever they could to prevent the use of strike-
bound materials on the project and thereby strike at
Oshkosh and C & P in their business, that they took pains
to advise both the Mayo employees that the stone and
223
concrete being delivered was strike-bound material, after
learning that both workers were union men, and that they
remained on the site for more than 2 hours, part of that time
with a picket sign openly displayed indicating the project
was "on strike." In addition, I am satisfied that both
workers refused to handle this material on advice and
threats of the union agents, as found above, rather than
voluntarily, because both admitted they knew about both
the Teamsters 126-Oshkosh and Teamsters 563-C & P
disputes the day before, when they had raised the question
with each other and with Mayo whether they should handle
materials of those suppliers because of the possibility of
union trouble, and had accepted Mayo's assurances that
the strikes were settled and that they had a legal right to use
it and would be protected by an injunction procured by the
Board which would prevent the unions from causing any
trouble based on their dispute with Oshkosh, and both had
on the basis of such assurances handled products from both
firms on the 10th and Canfield ordered products from both
early on the 11th. It is clear from this testimony and a
specific admission by Canfield that they would have
continued to handle products from both on the 11th but for
the appearance, actions, and threats of the union agents
that day, which were effective enough to override Mayo's
repeated assurances of legal protection if they used the
material, by inducing both workers to refuse to touch the
material while the union agents were present. This
conclusion is also strengthened by the admission of
Zimmer, a long-time union member, that, when he talked to
his brother, a business agent of his own union, about it that
night, the latter considered the explanation of Mayo
plausible and reasonable, advising Zimmer to go back to
work until they determined whether Mayo had the
protective injunction he had mentioned to them both on the
10th and 11th. Regarding the use of the picket sign, I do not
credit Curtin's story that he at one point used a portion of
it, containing only the words "On Strike," as a memo pad to
record details about the Oshkosh truck and the events of
the afternoon for "future reference" and did not display a
whole picket sign as such at the site; he could give no
explanation why he did not first ask the other union agents
for an envelope or scrap of paper on which to make his
notes, before he went to his car for the sign; and his
explanation that he made notes in these situations for his
own vague "future reference," but not as a practice of his
union or for purpose of reports to his union's officials, is
weak and lacks credence because he does not explain what
"future reference" the notes would serve. Further, neither
Shaw nor Choudoir, who had been business agents far
longer than Curtin (who had been a Teamsters agent only
since June 1968), bothered to keep notes on the Midway
Road incident; in fact Shaw says he never tried to keep
such records on numerous similar incidents he had
observed during the dispute between Engineers and the
Association, because if he did they would have filled a book
the size of a Sears Roebuck catalogue; in addition, while
Curtin tries to distinguish his alleged note-taking about the
Oshkosh truck from his failure to make such notes on the C
& P truck earlier that day by saying he knew all the C & P
trucks since the Association already had a dispute with
Teamsters 533, he admits he could not know whether
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Oshkosh was in fact delivering material that afternoon, or
another contractor not involved in a labor dispute, as he
well knew the practice of RM9 concrete companies of
renting trucks from each other.
As it is clear from the record that on December 11, 1968,
neither Mayo nor Haldon employed members of Respon-
dents or had any dispute with any of Respondents, and that
no employees of either C & P or Oshkosh, who were
members of either Teamsters 563 or 126, were actually
working on or picketing the Midway Project, and Choudoir
and Shaw admit no members of their unions were working
there that day, the facts found above clearly demonstrate,
in light of the admitted purpose of the activities of the
union agents, that both Haldon and Mayo were neutral,
secondary employers with respect to the Teamsters 563-
Association dispute and Teamsters 126-Oshkosh dispute,
and that the picketing with coercive remarks and other
activities of Respondents jointly through their business
agents at said project was an attempt to cause employees of
Haldon, Mayo, and Oshkosh, and actually caused employ-
ees of Haldon and Mayo, to cease work for their respective
employers and to engage in a refusal in the course of their
employment to use, process, transport, or otherwise handle
materials and to perform services, and was an attempt to
threaten and coerce Mayo, Haldon, and Oshkosh and other
persons engaged in commerce, all with an object of forcing
and requiring Mayo, Haldon, and other persons engaged in
commerce to cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in
products of, and to cease doing business with, C & P or
Oshkosh. As a prima facie consideration, such facts and
conduct with these objectives establish a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.io
C. The Affirmative Defenses
In their arguments, Respondents do not seriously
question the nature and objective of the conduct of their
agents, but in effect plead a confession and avoidance,
arguing that for various reasons their conduct amounts to
permissible primary pressure against C & P and Oshkosh,
as protected by the proviso to Section 8(b)(4). They present
four main contentions: (1) Their agents' remarks and
inducements to Haldon and Mayo employees were primary
activity because they were designed to induce them to
refrain from the tasks of unloading and placing strike-
bound material coming from primary employers, which
were "related work" that contributed to and was connected
directly with the work of the primary employers which
Respondents were legally trying to halt; (2) the agents'
inducements were lawfully directed to the inducement of
other workers to cease working at a roving primary situs of
pending disputes, i.e., the loaded trucks; (3) Oshkosh is not
a neutral employer entitled to protection from pressures
which are primary as to it, so that the arguments of the
agents with Koenig, as well as the altercation including
9 RM will be used hereafter as the abbreviation for "ready-mix."
10 1 find no merit in the corollary claim of Respondents that their
actions were not picketing, but only verbal appeals intended to induce the
Mayo and Haldon employees not to cross a "primary picket line" at the
primary situs, i.e., the loaded trucks, for the mere claim admits they had
established a "picket line" in the ordinary sense; and the deliberate
invasion of private property by four business agents, with three remaining
bodily contact, were designed to induce him to cease work
for Oshkosh, and were thus legitimate actions which
"disinterested" unions like Respondents could take to
induce employees of Oshkosh to cease working as
strikebreakers, under the Board ruling in United Association
of Journeymen, Local 106 (Columbia-Southern Chemical
Corporation), 110 NLRB 206, and supporting decisions;
and (4) Oshkosh is allied with C & P and Twin City so as to
make it a primary employer along with the latter concerns
in their primary dispute of Teamsters 563. These points will
be considered in order.
At the outset I find no merit in Respondent 's argument
that they were not engaged in a joint venture on December
I 1 at the Midway Project, for the admissions of their three
agents as to their common purpose of "assistance" to two
Teamster locals engaged in primary disputes with Oshkosh
and C & P, as well as their joint action in twice deliberately
stopping at, picketing, and leaving the jobsite together, and
their similar and simultaneous threats and other forms of
inducement in the presence of each other to Haldon and
Mayo employees, all make it clear beyond question that
they were deliberately acting in concert and combination in
pursuit of a common purpose and objective. In addition,
this "assistance" to another union operating in the same
general area was merely the latest instance of a pattern of
joint action and coordination of efforts vis-a-vis employers
running back at least to 1965. I must take judicial notice of
the joint actions of both Teamsters 563 and 126 found by
the Board in the Courtney & Plummer, Inc., case, supra, and
the record here also shows that Teamsters 563, through
agent Schlieve, assisted Teamsters 126 in its 1965 negotia-
tions with Oshkosh, in that he acted as "mediator" in
carrying positions and arguments between that union's
officials and Meilahn and his attorney, Gill, that in this
fashion and also through periodic reports by all locals in the
State to each other at quarterly meetings of Teamsters Joint
Council No. 39, he was kept abreast of all contract
negotiations and problems of Teamsters 126 with employ-
ers in its area including the progress of the 1968
negotiations, that the 1968 contract of Teamsters 126 with
Oshkosh had to be "cleared" through Joint Council No. 39,
that Teamsters 563 has a constant and "vested" interest in
conditions obtaining in the jurisdiction of Teamsters 126,
and that it is standing policy of Teamsters 563 (as well as
that of the Engineers and Plumbers) to assist "in any way
we can" another union in a strike against an employer,
when that employer does business in the jurisdiction of any
of Respondents. In addition, Shaw of the Engineers
admitted that during the 1968 negotiations of Engineers
and Teamsters 563 with the Association, he and Schlieve by
cross-invitation attended the respective negotiations of
their locals, at least to keep abreast of the terms and
progress of the negotiations of each. From all these facts I
am satisfied and find that if any violation of the Act
to make threats to Mayo and Haldon workers to induce them not to handle
the struck material, and use of a picket sign during their 2-hour occupation
of a portion of the site for this purpose, all done admittedly in concerted
action, are cogent indicia of the traditional picketing indulged in for years
by labor organizations. Whether the Midway site was a primary situs of a
dispute with C & P or Oshkosh will be discussed later.
GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL 563 225
appeared in Respondents ' conduct on December 11, they
arejointly and severally liable therefor.
1. The claim of primary pressure
Respondents argue that their conduct at the Midway
Project was legitimate primary pressure in aid of the
pending primary strikes against C & P and Oshkosh, which
comes within the proviso to Section 8(b)(4)^ protecting the
traditional right of primary strikes and picketing, because
that right includes the right to request the assistance of
other workers to support it, and here the pressures "were
addressed to primary conduct." Respondents rely on
Supreme Court decisions which hold:
(a) In lawful primary picketing of the plant of a primary
employer, the striking union may make verbal appeals to a
single employee of a customer trying to pick up strike-
bound materials from the plant, even if the object of such
action was to attempt to cause the customer to cease doing
business with the struck employer, provided the union's
conduct is not directed to inducing concerted conduct by
more than one employee of the neutral employer, and all
inducements made are limited to the area of picketing at the
site of the primary dispute, which is directed at the
employees of the struck employer in the traditional manner.
(International Rice Milling Co., Inc., et al. v. N.L.R.B., 341
U.S. 665) The implication of the Supreme Court decision
limited to inducement of a single neutral employee was
that, if there had been action designed to cause a concerted
refusal of delivery by the neutral employees, the conduct
would have violated Section 8(b)(4) However, these facts
make the case inapposite here, where Teamsters 563 was
extending its strike activity far beyond the traditional situs,
i.e., the plants of C & P at Neenah and elsewhere, or of
Oshkosh RM at Oshkosh, to premises where neither struck
employer was doing the normal work conducted at their
struck plants, but were merely delivering materials as and
when ordered by Mayo, the secondary employer at the
Midway site.
(b) Where a primary union having a dispute with a
primary manufacturer pickets its plant at which outside
contractors are performing construction, maintenance, and
repair work which is necessary to normal operation of the
plant, the union may include in its picketing and other
appeals a separate gate maintained for exclusive use of such
outside contractors, and thus appeal to their employees to
support the strike, without violating Section 8(b)(4),
because the type of work done by the contractors aids the
primary employer's everyday operation, hence this
amounts to "related work" which destroys their neutrality
vis-a-vis the primary dispute. See Local 761, IUE [General
Electric Co.] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667. This decision was
premised upon the fact that the "related work" done by the
contractors was such that, but for its performance, the
primary employer would not have been able to continue
operations normally at the plant, hence it was not the usual
"common situs" situation which required application of the
principles of Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547,
placing certain limitations upon picketing in such situa-
tions. On the facts this decision cannot control here,
because the record shows, as noted hereafter, that neither C
& P nor Oshkosh was performing work at the Midway site
in the normal sense which made it essential to the
operations of either Haldon or Mayo at the site.
(c) As an extension of the "related work" principle, a
primary union in a primary dispute with a primary
manufacturer whose plant is served with transportation by
a railroad siding owned by a railroad and adjacent to the
plant, may include that siding, railroad equipment
operating on it, and the railroad employees operating the
same in its picketing activities in an attempt to induce them
to stop furnishing transportation to the manufacturer,
without violation of Section 8(b)(4). See United Steelwork-
ers of America [Carrier Corp.] v. N.L.R.B, 373 U.S. 492.
The Supreme Court here reasoned that the primary strike
which is protected by the proviso to Section 8(b)(4) includes
primary picketing which has traditionally been "aimed at
all those approaching the situs whose mission is selling,
delivering or otherwise contributing to the operations
which the strike is endeavoring to halt," and that in light of
this traditional goal of primary pressure Congress intended
by the proviso to preserve the right to picket during a strike
any gate reserved for employees of neutral deliverymen
furnishing day-to-day service essential to the primary
employer's regular operations. The Court also noted that
none of the union 's strike activities was designed to
interfere with any of the railroad's deliveries to other
adjacent plants served by the same railway siding.
Respondents argue that the above rulings, particularly
the last two dealing with "related work," apply here,
because Respondents' activities were directed to Mayo and
Haldon employees to induce them to refrain from
unloading and using strike-bound material which
"contributed to and is directly connected with the
operations which the strike is endeavoring to halt," i.e., the
basic operations of both Oshkosh and C & P. It is true, of
course, that the buying and use of such material benefited
both primary employers, and was a main object of their
operations, and Respondents contend that the activity
permitted by the International Rice Milling Co. case to
prevent buyers of struck products from picking them up at
the situs of the primary dispute applies with equal force to
the reverse situation existing here, where the inducements
are directed to employees of otherwise neutral customers
for strike-bound C & P and Oshkosh products at locations
other than the situs of the primary dispute, since their
acceptance and use of such products is essential to the
operations of the primary employers. Respondents also
argue, as they must, that this right of inducement exists at
common sites situations as well as at plant premises housing
the primary dispute. They maintain that a holding
otherwise would seriously limit the right of primary strike
and pressure protected by the Act because the record shows
that normally over 90 percent of RM concrete is delivered
to construction sites by the RM manufacturer.
The first weakness of this argument is that the record here
does not support a finding that either C & P or Oshkosh
were performing their normal operations at the Midway
site, so as to make it their "plant" or "main place of
business ." Respondents cite no cases involving the same
facts as here or clearly compelling this conclusion. Some
cases cited by them recognize that suppliers of materials to
a picketed employer at his regular place of business may
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lawfully be subjected to the primary pressure being exerted
on him at that point, which is the traditional point of such
pressure, and it is clear that the Board and courts,
recognizing the protection afforded to the right of primary
picketing in Section 8(b)(4), have tended to give wide
latitude to picketing and related conduct confined to the
sole or main premises of the primary employer.1' However,
while both C & P and Oshkosh had delivered materials
previously at the Midway site, and C & P had been a
supplier of stone to Haldon at other projects in the past,
there is no proof that either supplier had an exclusive long-
term or fixed contract or arrangement to supply materials
to either Haldon or Mayo in all their work, such as to make
delivery of materials by them to either an essential aspect of
the contractor's work, or to make each construction site of
each contractor in fact or in law a main place of business of
the suppliers. To the contrary, the record shows that
Haldon had turned down the C & P bid for delivery of
concrete to the Midway site in favor of Oshkosh, but it does
not show that Oshkosh had prior dealings with Haldon or
Mayo; and, when the union agents made their first threats
to Mayo employees, inducing them to refuse the C & P
stone and causing Canfield to cancel the C & P delivery,
they expected him to make efforts to get the stone
elsewhere, as Shaw notified his associates engaged in the
picketing; it is also inferable that they knew, as appears in
part from testimony of agent Schlieve, that there were other
suppliers of stone and concrete available in the area who
apparently had no disputes at the time with Respondents or
Teamsters 126. There is also credible evidence that
Oshkosh at least supplied concrete in the Neenah area only
occasionally, as most of its business arises in the Oshkosh
area and to the south of it. Hence, the record does not
support a finding that either Haldon or Mayo was a sole
source of business essential to the continued operation of
either C & P or Oshkosh, or that the latter suppliers were a
sole source of materials without which either contractor
could not operate. I must therefore conclude and find that
mere delivery of materials to the Midway site by C & P or
Oshkosh did not make that site the location of the primary
dispute of either supplier with their respective Teamster
locals.
Respondents also argue that, in unloading, placing, and
finishing the stone and RM concrete on the site, the Mayo
workmen were performing work sufficiently "related" to
the normal operations of the struck suppliers, which
included the truck of each as a roving situs of the primary
dispute, so as to make lawful Respondents' appeals to the
Mayo workmen while the trucks were on the site.
Respondents cite two cases to support the proposition,12 in
both cases the Board held that, for purposes of determining
the legality of certain contract clauses under Section 8(e) of
the Act, the mixing and delivery (including pouring) of
ready-mix concrete at construction sites is not construction
"See Local 761, IUE v. N. L.R. B., supra; United Steelworkers of America
v. N.L. R. B., supra; and Building and Constructions Trades Council, etc.
(Markwell and Hartz, Inc.), 155 NLRB 319, 324, and cases cited in footnote
12.
12 Teamsters, Local 294 (Island Dock Lumber, Inc.) 145 NLRB 484, and
Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Local 695, Teamsters (Madison
Employers' Council), 152 NLRB 557.
13 Meilahn testified credibly that, when RM concrete reaches a
contractor's project, it is considered sold to him, even if he decides not to
work on the site, but merely the delivery of a material or
product. The Board's analysis of this operation in those
cases makes it clear that the exact placement of the
concrete on delivery is controlled only by employees of the
concrete contractor who have prepared the forms or other
location for it, and is a necessary part of his subcontract on
the job, but no part of the act of delivery by the supplier; if
requested to do so by the concrete contractor, for whatever
outlandish reason, the supplier's driver would dump the
concrete on the ground, and that would still be final
delivery although perhaps useless in performance of the
contractor's work.13 It follows from these considerations, as
well as the working relationship facts noted above, that,
when the Mayo employees told the C & P and Oshkosh
drivers where to deposit their materials, and then finished
off the concrete after the deposit and pour, they were doing
work related in fact only to Mayo's contract with Haldon,
and not "related" to the main business of C & P and
Oshkosh. Hence, the cases which find that otherwise
neutral employers may be enmeshed in a primary dispute
because they are doing work "related" to that of the
primary contractor do not apply here.
Even if I accept the argument that both primary
employers were conducting their normal operations at the
Midway site, so as to make it a common situs, either during
the whole day of December 11, or while their trucks were
there, then it is clear that Respondents' picketing of the
primary employers there would be lawful only if it
conformed to the four standards set up by the Moore Dry
Dock case for common situs picketing, viz: (1) the picketing
is strictly limited to times when the situs of the dispute is
located on the secondary employer's premises; (2) at the
time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its
normal business at the site ; (3) the picketing is limited to
places reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (4)
the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the
primary employer.14 Since the record clearly shows that
Respondents' picketing and inducements of the Mayo and
Haldon employees occurred at times when no C & P or
Oshkosh truck or employee was on the premises, and
neither primary employer was engaged in any activity there,
conditions (1) and (2) are not satisfied. The extension of
their activity to other times, without exerting any direct
pressure on either the C & P or Oshkosh drivers,15 compels
the inference that Respondents' object was to halt the use
of strike-bound material by Mayo and Haldon employees
and to induce those secondary employers to cease doing
business with C & P and Oshkosh.
Since there is no proof that striking employees of
Oshkosh or C & P appeared at the Midway site to conduct
traditional primary picketing in support of the pending
disputes against either C & P or Oshkosh, or that Teamsters
126 engaged in any such conduct vis-a-vis Oshkosh, it
follows that Respondents' conduct in the absence of a
use it, and he must pay for it.
14 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547, 549; Building and Construction Trades Council of New Orleans
AFL-CIO (Markwell and Hartz, Inc.), 155 NLRB 319, 323, 326, 327.
15 The salient facts are that the agents brought personal pressure on the
Mayo workmen, rather than on the C & P driver when he arrived at the
site, to have the C & P material rejected, and they exerted the same
pressure on the Mayo employees, to reject the Oshkosh concrete, long
before it arrived at the project.
GENERAL DRIVERS , LOCAL 563 227
lawful primary picket line or other facts which made that
site either a main or ambulatory situs of a primary dispute
amounted to picketing by secondary unions at the worksite
of neutral employers to induce employees of those
employers to refuse to perform services for their employers
for an objective which was forbidden by Section 8(b)(4)(B),
and violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act; and
since this activity, particularly by Teamsters 563, did not
comply with the Moore Dry Dock requirements, to the
extent that the site may have been an ambulatory one
temporarily situated at a neutral's premises, at least in its
application by Teamsters 563 vis-a-vis C & P, it further
violated the same sections of the Act.16 The above facts and
considerations dispose of Respondents' second contention
noted above.
2. Respondents' actions toward Oshkosh and its
drivers
Respondents' third defense is that Oshkosh is not a
neutral vis-a-vis Teamsters 563, because of its primary
dispute with Teamsters 126, hence Oshkosh and its driver,
Koenig, could lawfully be subjected to primary pressure by
a sister local of that union and its two "disinterested" allies
anywhere they could find them, relying on United
Association of Journeymen, Local 106 (Columbia-Southern
Chemical Corporation), 110 NLRB 206. In that case the
Board held in substance that a secondary union may induce
primary employees represented by it to respect a primary
picket line posted at their employer's place of business on a
common situs, even though it has been posted by another
union , on the theory that "Congress was not concerned to
protect primary employers against pressures by disinterest-
ed unions, but rather to protect disinterested employers
against direct pressures by any union." This holding, cited
with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court in Houston
Insulation Contractors Association v. N L.R.B., 386 U.S. 664,
668, merely applies the basic principle that appeals to
employees by unions are a legitimate implementation of
permissible primary picket line activity if they are intended
to induce action only at the primary situs, whether made by
primary or secondary unions. The same principle was
extended by the Board in Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers
"General" Local No. 200 (Milwaukee Plywood Company),
126 NLRB 650, to make lawful appeals by a secondary
union to secondary employees represented by it, to respect
a primary picket line posted by a primary union at a fixed
primary situs. But neither case allows a secondary union to
induce secondary employees to refuse to deal with their
employers or refuse to handle strike-bound goods at an
ambulatory primary situs, temporarily located at their
employers' premises, in the absence of a lawful primary
picket line there. To the contrary, the Board has held that
such appeals by a secondary union to secondary employees
it represents, not to load trucks of the primary employer,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(B), in the absence of a lawful
primary picket line around the trucks,17 or some current
notice by the primary union to both secondary employees
i6 See Grain Elevator, Flour and Feed Mill Workers, Local 418
(Continental Grain Company) 155 NLRB 402, which is stronger on the facts
than this case, for the secondary union in that case made its appeals to
employees of a secondary employer whom it represented Here, of course,
and their employers which make it clear that the labor
dispute involved there is between the primary union and the
primary employer, and that the secondary employers and
their employees are not involved; lacking such notice the
dispute takes on the appearance and character of a dispute
between the secondary union and the neutral employers
over the dealings of the neutrals with the primary employer,
and thus brings the action of the secondary unions within
the prohibitions of Section 8(b)(4)(B). Under this ruling,
Respondents acted illegally because Teamsters 126 had
never set up a picket line at the Midway site or otherwise
which would indicate to the Mayo or Haldon employees
that its dispute with Oshkosh had been transferred there
when its trucks delivered at the site .18 Nor is this lack cured
by the fact that the secondary employees here already knew
about the Teamsters 126-Oshkosh dispute, as well as the
Teamsters 563-C & P dispute, when Respondents' main
agents arrived on the scene, or that the agents reminded
them of these disputes by calling both C & P and Oshkosh
materials "strike-bound"; as found above, it is clear the
secondary employees would have continued to work, but
for the appearance and action of Respondents.
Giving the facts the implications most favorable to
Respondents, the most that the Columbia-Southern case
would permit was appeals directly to the Oshkosh driver
when he was on the Midway site designed to make him stop
working for Oshkosh, the primary employer, but this would
be lawful only if Respondents had complied with the Moore
Dry Dock limitations to make it clear to all neutral
employees that their activity was only to assist Teamsters
126 in its dispute with Oshkosh. Their pressure upon
Koenig directly need not be appraised by itself, however,
because there is no allegation that Respondents violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) in this respect. The salient fact is that the
coercion exerted on him was in the presence of a Haldon
employee, and was effective to cause the latter to refuse to
do work for either Haldon or Mayo, hence Respondents'
actions clearly induced him to cease handling materials for
both secondary employers, which was illegal in the absence
of picketing by the primary union, Teamsters 126. In their
brief Respondents in effect concede that the ruling in the
Continental Grain Co. case is controlling on this aspect of
their conduct. I conclude on this point that Respondents'
entire conduct at the site was not rendered legal by the fact
that at one point they exerted pressure in aid of Teamsters
126 upon the employee of Oshkosh, which in itself may
have been legal under extensions of some Board decisions.
3. The "allied employer" issue
Respondents argue that Oshkosh has so allied itself with
C & P and Twin City, primary employers in dispute with
Teamsters 563, that in law it has voluntarily become part of
that dispute, so that said Respondent with its own allies,
Engineers and Plumbers, can lawfully take action designed
to prevent use by others of strike-bound materials coming
from Oshkosh. Since the hearing closed herein, the Board
none of Respondents represented employees of Haldon or Mayo who were
subjected to pressure
i7 Local 584, etc et a! (Fairway Farms, Inc) 141 NLRB 638
18 See Continental Grain Company, supra, 410, 411.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued its Decision in a case involving both Teamsters 563
and 126,19 finding that they had violated the same sections
of the Act involved here in actions against C & P and Twin
City, and rejecting the same "allied employer" contention
as to the relationship between C & P and Oshkosh. I think
that decision is res judicata on that issue so as to bind
Teamsters 563, but not the Engineers and Plumbers, so that
the findings and decision herein on that issue must rest on
the record made here by the latter Respondents.
The record here shows that during 1968 and up to date
the majority stock in C & P and Twin City has been held by
second-generation members of the Courtney and Plummer
families .20 Prior to 1945 both enterprises had been a single
partnership dealing in crushed stone, gravel, and ready-mix
concrete, but thereafter C & P, as a partnership and then a
corporation, processed and sold crushed stone and gravel,
while Twin City sold ready-mix concrete, securing about 90
percent of its crushed stone from C & P. Charles M.
Plummer, as president, operates C & P on a day-to-day
basis, and David Courtney, Jr., as president, runs Twin City
in like manner. Other second-generation Courtneys and
Plummers occupy the secretary and treasurer jobs in both.
Both corporations have the same office in Neenah,
Wisconsin, but maintain separate corporate books and
records. Part of the operations of both are also at the
Neenah office site where C & P has a garage and crushes
and washes aggregate,21 and Twin City runs a fixed RM
plant. Twin City has other RM plants in Menasha, Brillion,
and Appleton. Other second-generation Courtneys and
Plummers have various managerial jobs in the corporations
and the various plants of Twin City.
Inland is a partnership formed in 1960 by the second-
generation Courtneys and Plummers initially for the
purpose of buying dump trucks and portable crushing
plants and leasing them to C & P; a separate concern for
this purpose had certain tax and income advantages for
both families. C & P is still its only customer. The five
Courtney brothers together have a 1 /3 interest in it, David
Courtney, Jr., and his sister together own about 1/3, and
Mr. and Mrs. Williams own the remaining 1/3, being the
same Courtneys and Plummers that control C & P and
Twin City. Inland has its office at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, in
the home of Charles M. Plummer, who runs it actively for
the benefit of both families; it has no other employees or
administrative personnel.
Meilahn began close business relations with the Court-
neys and Plummers in early 1964 when he approached the
Inland partners for financing with which to buy out his
partners in Green Lake Ready-Mix Co., of Green Lake,
Wisconsin, a large -size RM distributor operating plants in
several counties west of Lake Winnebago. He dealt mainly
with David Courtney, Jr., as the agent of the Inland
partners on this venture which resulted in the formation of
19 General Teamsters, Warehouse and Dairy Employees, Local 126, et a!
(Courtney & Plummer, Inc.), 175 NLRB No. 86.
20 The first generation consists of David Courtney, Sr., Walter
Courtney, and Earl M. Plummer, who together created partnerships years
ago which preceded the present corporations . These elders have retired
from active participation in the corporations and turned over their majority
interests to the second generation, so that in 1968 and up to date the
second generation has been actively running both concerns, as majority
stockholders and officers . These persons are: David Courtney, Jr.,
a 50-50 partnership between the nine Inland partners on
one side, and Meilahn on the other, which took over Green
Lake RM and its plants. As one of those plants was in
Oshkosh, the new Green Lake partners desired to run this
as a separate enterprise so in April 1964 they formed
Oshkosh for this purpose, holding the same 50-50 interest
in it as in Green Lake. Since its formation, Meilahn has
been the actual manager of Oshkosh, supervising from its
Oshkosh office its daily operations, all personnel , finances,
and labor policies. He has in like manner continued to
operate Green Lake RM. In managing both he is directly
responsible to the Courtney and Plummer interests, as his
copartner. In the operation of Oshkosh he is the only
partner who receives under the partnership agreement a
fixed salary as "operating partner." In handling its
finances , he signs all checks other than payroll with one of
three named Courtney and Plummer relatives; this
arrangement was designed to act as a check for their benefit
on large purchases of $10,000 or more by Meilahn, but in
actual practice, he makes the decision on all purchases,
large or small , and prepares checks for routine signature by
David Courtney, Jr.; on large expenditures, he usually
informs the latter about each beforehand as a courtesy
gesture, but the latter has apparently never exercised any
veto on such purchases. Recently, the Inland partners have
suggested that the double signature requirement be
abandoned, which would give Meilahn, as the "operating
partner," sole discretion on all expenditures, subject only to
his periodic accounting to the C & P interests through
monthly profit and loss and balance sheets. Thus, in both
Oshkosh and Green Lake, Meilahn runs the whole
operation in all aspects, merely rendering periodic account-
ing to the C & P or Inland interests as "silent" investing
partners.
In 1964, 1965, and 1967, Meilahn and the Inland partners
became partners in three other RM concerns, i.e.,
Randolph RM of Randolph, Waupun RM of Waupun, and
Beaver RM at Juneau, after their respective owners
approached the Inland partners with offers to sell out; after
investigation of each concern and the offer by Meilahn and
consultation between him and David Courtney, Jr., as the
agent for the Inland partners, Meilahn and the Inland
partners took 50-50 interests in Randolph and Waupun,
but Inland took a 75-percent interest in Beaver. In these
acquisitions, Meilahn usually handled the negotiations with
the sellers, while Courtney handled the financing. In each
instance, basically the same type of partnership agreement
was made between the Inland partners and Meilahn as in
the case of Oshkosh.
I find from the above facts that C & P and Twin City are
a single family enterprise, both by reason of their common
origin and present common ownership and operation by
the same second-generation members of the C & P families.
Gwendolyn Jensen (sister of David, Jr.), both children of David, Sr., Pearl
Williams (daughter of Walter Courtney) and her husband, Harvey
Williams, and five sons of Earl M . Plummer, i.e ., Charles M., William,
James, Thomas , and Robert . These persons , with the wives of some of the
first- and second-generation members of each family, comprise the
directors, and some of the second-generation members comprise the
officers , of both corporations.
21 C & P gets its rough gravel from 30-40 pits in Winnebago and three
adjacent counties , and at times from other locations in Wisconsin.
GENERAL DRIVERS , LOCAL 563
I also find that C & P and Twin City on the one hand, and
Oshkosh on the other, are linked by the same common
ownership. General Counsel and the Charging Party do not
seriously contest this conclusion, but argue that under
recent Board decisions common ownership alone is not
sufficient to make C & P, Twin City, and Oshkosh "allied
employers" within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4), and that
there must also be proof of "such actual active or common
control, as distinguished from a mere potential, as to denote
appreciable integration of operations and management
policies," citing Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No.
639, Teamsters (Poole's Warehousing, Inc.) 158 NLRB 1281,
1285, 1286, cited and followed in Courtney & Plummer, Inc,
supra, and that such proof is lacking here. Accepting these
principles, Respondents argue that additional facts in the
record amply prove the additional element quoted above.
On the element of " active or common control, " it is at
once apparent that in their basic operating structure and
daily management, Twin City, C & P, and Oshkosh are
entirely separate. Meilahn has no interest or control in
Twin City or C & P, and the Courtneys and Plummers in
those concerns which comprise the nine Inland partners
who own half of Oshkosh do not in fact exercise any active
part in the operation or control of Oshkosh; they act only as
silent investment partners therein, receiving periodic
accountings from Meilahn, the active partner, to which
they are entitled. The two C & P enterprises and Oshkosh
maintain entirely separate records and administrative
personnel in offices miles apart. There is no evidence of
actual common supervision of such offices, records, or
personnel.
Turning to actual integration of operations, the record
shows that in the group of RM concerns under common
ownership, all with a few exceptions have continued to
operate in their respective areas substantially as before their
acquisition by the C & P-Meilahn combine. Green Lake
RM, with four plants rather closely grouped to the west of
the Lake in Waushara, Green Lake, and Marquette
Counties, sells not only RM concrete but hauls dry cement
in bulk, it hauls the latter product, which is the main
ingredient of concrete, to plants of Oshkosh, Beaver,
Randolph, and Waupun (among other RM companies), the
latter three operating plants generally south of the Lake. In
January 1966, on joint application of the nine Inland
partners and Meilahn, listed together as "doing business
as" Green Lake, Oshkosh, Waupun, and Randolph, the
Wisconsin Public Service Commission granted them
authority to continue to transport bulk dry materials for
building and highway construction in nine counties
abutting the Lake on the north, west, and south, as Green
Lake did, and expanded that authority to include
transportation of asphalt mix, wet cement, and RM
concrete in the same broad area, the assignees representat-
ing they would service dealers in RM concrete in that area.
However, there is no proof that under this expanded
authority Green Lake RM or the above applicants have
significantly increased or concentrated their haulage of any
of the above materials or products only to RM concerns
within the C & P-Meilahn ownership. In fact, in the 13
22 There is no proof that C & P, Twin City, Inland, or any of the
Courtney or Plummer family members individually have any interests
229
months from January 1, 1968, to February 2, 1969, Green
Lake has used more than half the dry cement it buys in its
own RM plants, and the remainder was sold to at least eight
RM companies, four in the C & P-Meilahn ownership, the
other four being independents; the largest buyers, in order,
were Beaver, Oshkosh, Valley RM (an outsider), with
smaller amounts to Randolph RM and Waupun RM and
the smallest amounts to Twin City Concrete, Badger
Highways, and Lakeview Sand and Gravel, the latter two
being outsiders. Aside from the fact that Green Lake began
its hauls into the Fox Valley area since the 1968 strike of
Teamsters 126 against Oshkosh and Cook & Brown, there is
no credible proof that the nature or volume of its business
with the C & P-Meilahn concerns has changed appreciably
since the 1966 grant of expanded transportation authority.
In addition, it appears that it charges all buyers at the same
rates for the same length of haul; there is no preferred
treatment in rates given to concerns in the C & P-Meilahn
combine. Since its formation Oshkosh always used crushed
stone as a basic ingredient of its RM concrete, and its main
source is Vulcan Materials, an independent, which is the
closest supplier; it has bought small amounts of specific
small-size (3/4) stone from C & P, but most of it from other
sources outside the C & P-Meilahn complex. In the 13
months of 1968 plus January 1969, Oshkosh bought a
substantial amount of 3/4 stone from C & P at Neenah,
hauling it in its own trucks, but this purchase was forced on
it for a period up to 6 weeks in the summer of 1968 when
Vulcan drivers refused to load Oshkosh trucks while
Teamsters 126 was on strike against Oshkosh; for the same
reason, it was forced to turn to A. E. Schultz Corporation of
Neenah, another independent, for stone to the extent of
$6,000. Aside from that period, Oshkosh still bought nearly
$33,000 worth of stone from Vulcan out of total expendi-
tures of about $101,000 for supplies other than concrete. In
that period, Oshkosh bought over $50,000 of sand and
gravel from Cedar Lake Sand & Gravel Co., an independ-
ent firm and a normal source which is further from
Oshkosh than the Neenah plant of C & P,22 and it also
bought about $1,600 worth of RM concrete from the Twin
City plant in Neenah in December 1968, for use on nearby
gasoline station project (not the Midway site involved here).
In sum, Oshkosh purchases from Twin City and C & P in
that period totaled only about $10,500 out of total
purchases of about $105,000, which in context appears to
be far less than a significant amount of business dealings
between the 3, compared to the business done with 11
outside firms in the period. Hence, in considering sales and
purchases of materials overall, I find no significant
departure from past practices by C & P, Twin City, or
Oshkosh which would tend to demonstrate an appreciable
integration of operations.
Respondents argue, however, that the joint acquisition
since 1964 by the Inland partners and Meilahn of 5 RM
companies operating a total of 10 separate RM plants in
rather close proximity to each other and to 4 similar plants
of Brillion RM and Twin City in counties to the north, west,
and south of the Lake discloses an appreciable horizontal
integration of both interests in business operations.
whatever in any of the companies from which Oshkosh buys the bulk of its
sand, gravel, stone , and aggregate
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Assuming that 9-3/4 miles is the most efficient distance for
transportation of RM concrete to a jobsite,23 and taking
that as the normal radius of operation of an RM concrete
company, it is clear from a map prepared by Schlieve and in
evidence to show the position and area of operations of the
10 plants, that the 10 fairly well blanket an area extending
about 10 miles north of the Lake, about 70 miles to the
west, and about 60 miles to the south. This extension of the
RM concrete operations of Inland and Meilahn in a
compact area is some mechanical evidence pointing toward
possible integration of operations and management, but I
do not consider it substantial or significant evidence of
meaningful integration because there is no evidence of
significant reciprocal dealings with one another among all
these concerns to the exclusion of dealings by them with
outside, or independent, RM companies in the same broad
area . As noted above, all of these concerns have continued
to deal with each other and with outside concerns
substantially as in the past. Furthermore, while these
acquisitions may well continue and begin to assume the
outline of a plan of expansion (though any set plan therefor
is denied by the Courtneys and Plummers who testified,
and Meilahn), it does not show that, as of the hearing dates
herein, any significant monopoly of RM concrete opera-
tions in the area had been planned or put in operation. To
the contrary, I find from Meilahn's uncontradicted
testimony and admissions of Schlieve that in 1969 there
were at least 19 other RM concrete dealers operating
throughout the whole general area, 5 or 6 of which have
continued to trade RM concrete, equipment, and personnel
with concerns in the Inland-Meilahn complex as in the past.
Some of the outside concerns are well within the effective
circles of operations of the Inland-Meilahn concerns, but
many are outside those circles, so that it can be presumed
they still service areas which Inland-Meilahn companies do
not try to service appreciably.24
As for interchange of equipment and personnel, the
record shows that in the Fox Valley and adjacent areas it
has long been the practice for RM companies to rent RM
trucks from each other, with all charging and paying the
same rental rates depending on the size of the truck. In all
such rentals the services of the driver of the renting
company goes with the truck and he takes orders from the
lessee thereof as long as the latter uses the truck, but is not
paid separately by the lessee. Prior to 1964, Twin City
Concrete rarely rented RM trucks from other RM
companies, the only recorded instances being a single rental
from Green Lake RM in 1961 and one from Badger
Highways in 1960. After Oshkosh was formed in April
1964, Twin City began almost monthly rentals in small
amounts from Oshkosh, which increased substantially in
1965 through 1968; in the same period it made smaller but
significant rentals from Green Lake RM, and occasional
rentals from Waupun RM and Randolph RM. In contrast,
23 Charles Plummer testified to this effect, and Schlieve, business agent
of Teamsters 563, corroborates him. Testimony of David Courtney, Jr., and
Zimmer indicated that an RM concrete dealer can haul RM concrete in
mixer trucks as far as 30 miles without deterioration of the concrete, but
that, in practice and for best economy, the shorter distance it is hauled
before use, the better. Hence I accept Plummer's testimony as to most
efficient distance.
24 f find from credible testimony of Mayo, Meilahn, Koenig, and
it made no rentals from outside RM companies in the same
period, except in comparatively small amounts from Valley
RM in 1965 through 1968, in smaller amounts from Schabo
Materials in 1965 and 1966, and a large amount ($2,206)
from one Duppeck in 1965; the latter rental probably
involved a major job in the Appleton-Neenah-Menasha
area not far from Antigo, where Duppeck was located.
Charles M. Plummer, president of C & P, explained that
Twin City procured its trucks mostly from Valley RM,
Schabo Materials, and Oshkosh, because the first two are
located in Appleton, a short distance from Neenah, while
Oshkosh is about 16 miles away but the three are the closest
RM companies to Neenah, and Twin City thus pays the
least travel time in hiring their trucks, if available. He also
testified that in 1968 Twin City hired mostly from Oshkosh,
which had the only RM trucks available, as Valley RM and
Schabo was short of drivers due to the strike and had to use
all their own trucks; this explanation is not controverted
and affords a reasonable explanation for the fact that Twin
City since 1965 has relied heavily on Oshkosh for such
equipment. The heavy Twin City rentals from Green Lake,
whose three plants are further from Oshkosh than two
independent plants in Appleton, was due to the fact that
Twin City often had to go that far afield for additional
trucks to handle business its own trucks could not handle;
and it had to do this even though the added travel time
made the rental rates greater.
On the other hand, the same pattern does not appear on
rentals of equipment to other companies. The record shows
that from 1965 through February 1969 Twin City normally
rented more trucks to outside companies than to C & P-
Meilahn companies: In 1965, its rentals to Oshkosh and
Green Lake RM totaled about $4,000, as against about
$525 to Valley RM and Schabo Materials, but the large
rentals to Oshkosh and Green Lake occurred while Twin
City was struck by Teamsters 563. In 1966, rentals to
Oshkosh brought in about $1,850, while those to independ-
ents (Fox Valley Construction Co., Schabo, Valley RM,
and Cook & Brown) brought over $7,100. In 1967, rentals
to Oshkosh brought about $1,450, but those to Schabo and
Valley RM amounted to about $1,850. In 1968, rentals to
Oshkosh were $1,375, while those to six outside companies
totaled over $3,000. Hence, these figures do not indicate
any favored treatment of RM companies in the Inland-
Meilahn combine. Further, any significance in the transac-
tions by Twin City with concerns in the combine fades
away when the small figures on its hire and rental of
equipment with concerns in the combine are compared
with its gross annual purchases of nearly $1,000,000 and its
gross annual sales of $1,500,000.
On the question of employee interchange between the C
& P-Twin City enterprise and Oshkosh, David Courtney,
Jr., testified credibly that except for some minor and
abnormal cross-hiring of employees during the disruption
Schlieve that it is common practice in the whole area for RM companies to
buy batches of concrete from one another whenever the seller's plant may
be nearer to a working site than the buyer's own plant ; however building
contractors may also buy mostly from one RM concern when working in a
specific area , usually but not always the plant closest to his jobsite, and in
such dealings he may actually receive concrete prepared in another RM
plant, if his supplier runs short or cannot deliver RM concrete for other
reasons.
GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL 563 231
caused by the 1965 strikes there has been no interchange of
employees between them. Respondents argue that the
increased rental of RM trucks with drivers by C & P from
Oshkosh shows that C & P and Twin City thus substantially
supervise and control drivers of Oshkosh, and is proof of
substantial interchange. But this has no merit, since the
driver in a mechanical manner "goes with the truck" on
each such rental and during the rental perforce does work
only for C & P as part of its own business; C & P does not
pay his wages or any other benefits, or control his general
working conditions, as such, but only pays for his services
in the hourly rental rate for the truck. During such rentals,
neither C & P nor the driver acting at its orders does any
work for Oshkosh. The same situation obtains when Twin
City has rented trucks with drivers to Oshkosh to some
extent each year but, as noted above, the amount of such
rentals is usually far less annually than to outside RM
companies; and it would be quite farfetched to argue that
such rentals to or from outside companies thus indicate that
C & P or Twin City are to that extent integrated in their
operations with all such companies. Since I have found that
the practice of cross-rentals of trucks with drivers among
RM companies generally is widespread, I do not consider
the mechanical cross-transfer of drivers a meaningful
interchange of personnel within the purview of the cases
dealing with the "allied employer" defense.
On the issue of joint or coordinated labor policy and
relations, the record shows that: Charles M. Plummer
generally handles daily labor policy and personnel relations
for C & P and Twin City, while Meilahn has been doing the
same for Oshkosh. However, the interrelation between the
two during the 1965 and 1968 labor disputes and
negotiations is pertinent.
The record also shows that, in the 1965 contract
negotiations between Teamsters 563 and the Association,
Charles M. Plummer and David Courtney, Jr., jointly
represented Twin City and C & P and finally executed
similar 3-year contracts with that union for their respective
companies (Plummer for C & P and Courtney for Twin
City). In the negotiations the principal negotiator for all
Association members was attorney Gordon P. Gill, of
Appleton, who had in the past represented the various RM
companies in the Association, before its formation, in both
joint and individual negotiations with Teamsters 563, and
also in continual administration of earlier contracts
between those parties.
During the 1965 negotiations, Teamsters 563 in August
struck all members of the Association except one (Calnin &
Goss). About two weeks after the strike began at Appleton,
Teamsters 563 also picketed Oshkosh, continuing that
conduct until a few days after the final negotiation session
with the Association. While that picket line existed,
members of Teamsters 126 employed by Oshkosh refused
to cross it, and Teamsters 126 extended the picketing to
Waupun RM and Green Lake RM plants (although it had
contracts with Oshkosh and had reached agreement with
the other two companies),25 on the theory that the three
companies were "allied" with C & P. Based on the conduct
of both unions, Inland and Oshkosh jointly filed a suit for
damages in a local court against both and their respective
agents; Gill was attorney for both plaintiffs. While that suit
was pending, the defendant unions subpenaed Charles M.
Plummer to appear at Oshkosh on October 11, 1965, to give
pretrial depositions before a court commissioner. In that
period, the Association members including C & P had
continued contract negotiations with Teamsters 563; C & P
reached an agreement with Teamsters 563 a few days
before October 11. When Gill brought Plummer to
Oshkosh for the depositions on that day, he told Plummer
he had been discussing settlement of the suit with officials
and the attorney for Teamsters 126, so that Plummer would
be available to sign necessary releases on behalf of Inland if
the case was settled and to give his deposition if it was not.
When the parties and their counsel gathered for the
depositions, Gill conferred further on settlement with
counsel and officials of both unions, and in a long
afternoon discussion involving these representatives, as well
as Plummer and Meilahn, the suit was settled with releases
exchanged by both parties. At the same time Meilahn
sought and obtained modifications of the new Oshkosh
contract with Teamsters 126 which created a wage
differential between employees of Oshkosh and Waupun
and Green Lake, in order to prevent cutrate competition
between them. At the same time, Teamsters 126 sought and
Meilahn agreed to establishment of a definite boundary
line between the territories to be served by Oshkosh and
Waupun, so that Waupun could not do business in the
Oshkosh area and make its drivers lose business and pay.26
Robert Schlieve, business agent of Teamsters 563, acted as
a go-between in these discussions between Teamsters 126
and Meilahn, but took no part in the actual negotiations for
Teamsters 126. However, Schlieve raised an issue about
differences in rates for drivers under the Oshkosh contract
rate and those paid under the Twin City-Teamsters 563
contract and asked what rates would be paid if drivers of
either worked in the territory covered by the other union
contract. Plummer and Meilahn settled this by agreeing
that Oshkosh trucks would operate only below a fixed road
line somewhere between the Neenah-Menasha area and
Oshkosh City, but that if Oshkosh drivers worked in the
area serviced by Teamsters 563 they would get the rates of
its contract. At the same time Plummer negotiated for and
procured the insertion of a standard "no-strike, no-
lockout" clause in the Oshkosh contract to prevent
Teamsters 563 from picketing of Oshkosh if it operated in
an area where another struck RM company normally
operated. Since there was a dispute between Teamsters 126
and Green Lake RM about its representation of Green
Lake workers, Plummer also asked for and procured a
withdrawal of Teamsters 126's claim for representation, so
as to prevent that union from extending any picketing to
the plant of Oshkosh or those of C & P and Twin City at
Neenah on any issue involving Green Lake. In working out
these settlements, Gill also procured substantially the same
25 In negotiating these contracts, Teamsters 126 had dealt jointly with in a contract, Gill was present to advise Meilahn
Meilahn acting for Oshkosh and officials of two other RM companies 26 This part of the settlement also disposed of unfair labor practice
(Cook & Brown Lime Co and Pipkorn Fuel & Supply Co), and in course charges filed against either Green Lake RM or Waupun RM based on
thereof Meilahn had advised the union representatives that Attorney Gill alleged unilateral wage changes for Waupun employees contra its contract.
represented Oshkosh; and in the final negotiation session in July, resulting
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
modifications of provisions of the Teamsters 563 and 126
contracts, as well as standardization of other clauses, which
he wanted in order to facilitate his administration of each
contract, both in their interpretation and resolution of
disputes for the employers thereunder. On the basis of all
the above settlement terms, Gill requested and procured
from the Board's Regional Director approval of withdrawal
of the various charges filed by the employers and unions
against each other. During 1967, Gill advised Meilahn in
the course of processing grievances under the Oshkosh
contract with Teamsters 126. He also continued to
represent the Association and its members in administra-
tion of their contracts with Teamsters 563 until early
1968.27
Although it is clear that in 1965 C & P and Twin City, as
part of the Association, had conducted negotiations and
reached agreements with Teamsters 563, which were
separate and 'apart from negotiations and agreements by
Oshkosh and other RM companies in its area with
Teamsters 126, the facts that in 1965 Inland (which must be
considered part of the Twin City-C & P combine) took joint
legal action with Oshkosh against both unions based on
their coordinated strike activities against Association
members and Oshkosh and other RM companies south of
it, that, in settlement of that suit and various unfair labor
practice charges filed by employers and unions against each
other, both C & P and Oshkosh sought and obtained
modifications of the C & P and Oshkosh contracts designed
to protect them singly and jointly against future strike
activity by either or both unions, that a single attorney
acted for and with both employers in working out the
settlement and contract modifications and also continued
to administer both contracts for the employers during most
of the contract terms, are all potent circumstances which
compel the conclusion that in 1965 and up to 1968 Twin
City, C & P, and Oshkosh shaped and pursued a
coordinated if not fully common or centralized labor
policy, which is substantial indication of the type of
integration of management policies that makes them "allied
employers" within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the
Act.28
The C & P and Oshkosh contracts expired early in 1968,
the Oshkosh agreement ending May 1 (the same for all
other RM companies in that area), and that of C & P about
the same time. In February 1968, Teamsters 563 was
notified by a Madison firm of attorneys that the
Association contracts were being terminated, and that said
attorneys would represent the Association and its members
in negotiations of a new contract. That firm had been hired
by the Association late in 1967, after Gill had withdrawn as
its representative on labor matters, and confined his labor
work to occasional represention of some of its members
individually in labor matters. Since its appointment, the
Madison firm has represented C & P and Twin City in all
labor matters. Sometime shortly before May 1, 1968,
27 The facts of the 1965 dealings are found from credible testimony of
Robert Schlieve and Donald Wetzel, as corroborated in large part by
admission of Meilahn, Charles M. Plummer, and David Courtney , Jr., and
documentary evidence . Testimony of Plummer at variance with these
findings is not credited, for his recollection of the details and progress of
the October I I negotiations was vague and at times self-contradictory. Gill
was not called as a witness by any party.
Oshkosh, Waupun RM, and Cook & Brown decided to hire
the present counsel for the Charging Party as their
attorneys for labor matters, and Local 126 learned of this
when its officials first met Russ R. Mueller of that firm at a
negotiation session on April 30, 1968. There is no evidence
of prior coordination or agreement between C & P and
Twin City on the one hand, with Oshkosh or the other two
RM companies on the other, about the choice and hiring of
either firm.
Before the contracts of Oshkosh and other RM
companies south of the Lake expired on May 1, Local 126
had sent new contract demands to each, and there had been
preliminary discussions between union officials and
officials of some of these concerns, without reaching any
agreement. In this period, the demands were discussed at
one or more weekly luncheon meetings in mid-April in
Oshkosh which were attended by officials of many of the
RM companies operating in the Fox Valley area around
Appleton as well as along the west side of the Lake and as
far south as the Fond-du-Lac area. At one meeting
attended by Meilahn representing Oshkosh and Waupun
RM, and officials of Cook & Brown, Lakeview Sand &
Gravel, and other companies, there was general discussion
about whether the RM companies should accept a strike or
should lockout their employees if no agreement was
reached by May 1. Some Fond-du-Lac area concerns
favored no lockout and further negotiations, although they
all thought a strike was inevitable, but Meilahn favored a
lockout. There was no agreement reached on this,
particularly since definite demands had not been received
by all companies from Teamsters 126. There was some
discussion about whether C & P would accept a strike and
try to operate without union help, and some company men
present got the impression that it would probably accept a
strike and lockout their employees, although its business
was building up. While none of the officials at these
meetings were clear about whether any member of the
Courtney or Plummer families was present, and neither
David Courtney, Jr., nor Charles M. Plummer could recall,
and would not admit, their presence at such a meeting, it is
inferable that Meilahn was the source of the impressions
received at the meeting about the C & P attitude,
particularly since he appeared to favor a lockout even that
early, and both Courtney, Jr., and Plummer admitted they
had attended the Oshkosh industry meetings sporadically
and probably had discussed the labor negotiations in the
Fox Valley area generally with Meilahn at various times in
this period. On April 30, the day before the contract expired
and after an unsuccessful meeting with Teamsters 126 that
day, Meilahn told David Courtney, Jr., in a phone
conversation that Oshkosh and Cook & Brown would
probably lockout their employees if no agreement were
reached. Courtney had no part in this decision, and did not
object to Meilahn's plan of action. Oshkosh and Cook &
Brown locked out their employees on May 2, and it
28 See Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No. 639 (Poole's
Warehousing, Inc.,) supra, and Miami Newspaper Printing Pressmen Local
No. 46, etc. (Knight Newspapers, Inc.), 138 NLRB 1346, enfd. 322 F.2d 405
(C.A.D.C.), for the guiding principle, and Sakrete of Northern California
Inc., 137 NLRB 1220, 1223, and General Drivers, Local Union No. 886 (Ada
Transit Mix), 130 NLRB 788, 795, for the ruling that identity and single
control of labor policy is an important aspect of a single employer finding.
GENERAL DRIVERS , LOCAL 563
continued until July 17. Negotiations with Teamsters 126
continued in the meantime, and both employers ended the
lockout on July 17, but their employees refused to return
and struck instead. During that strike, both companies
hired temporary replacements for the strikers. Meilahn kept
David Courtney, Jr., advised of these actions by Oshkosh. I
am convinced and find that Meilahn as the agent of
Oshkosh and Waupun RM was a prime mover in these
actions against Teamsters 126, because of his aggressive
part in expanding the C & P-Meilahn participation in the
RM industry in the Lake area, and that his decision to fight
the union aggressively with a lockout stemmed in large part
from its early wage demands which sought parity of wages
with those which employees represented by Teamsters 563
in the Appleton area were getting,29 involving a sum over a
3-year period which would have greatly affected Oshkosh
and its neighbor RM companies, as the labor costs in such
companies were generally about 25 percent of total gross
income. However, his prominence in these events also
highlights more sharply the fact that the C & P-Twin City
interests had no actual or even inferable voice or part in the
strategy of Oshkosh against Teamsters 126. It appears that
in this period, the Association members had not yet
received any demands or held any negotiations with
Teamsters 563, so it is unlikely that those attending the
April industry meetings in Oshkosh would have received
any definite indication about the attitude of Association
members toward a strike by Teamsters 563.
Considering that in 1968 there were separate counsel
representing Association members and the southern RM
companies associated with Oshkosh in dealing with
Teamsters 126, and that in the economic warfare with that
union Oshkosh acted solely in concert with Cook & Brown
and Waupun RM, and lacking any substantial or credible
proof of coordination with Twin City-C & P or other Fox
Valley RM companies, the 1968 negotiations do not appear
to portray the significant coordination of labor policy
between the C & P-Twin City combine and Oshkosh that
obtained in 1965. Hence, it is no more than speculation to
say, as Respondents contend, that continued integrated
control of labor policy must be found from the mere fact
that Meilahn kept the C & P interests advised of all events
and decision of Oshkosh in the 1968 negotiations and
economic warfare with Teamsters 126, for in this respect
Meilahn was doing no more than what all RM companies
in both the Appleton and Fond-du-Lac areas did for each
other continually during their weekly industry meetings in
Oshkosh, to which all had a standing invitation. Respon-
dents also argue that Meilahn's reports to David Courtney,
Jr., about the demands of Teamsters 126 and his response
to them were in fact mandatory in order to procure prior
approval of his proposed lockout and other actions,
because the union demands, if accepted, would have
29 The details of these negotiations are set forth in the Board's Decision
in Teamsters, Local Union 126 (Inland Trucking Co and Wesley Medahn Co-
Partners d/b/a Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co, et al), 176 NLRB No 52, of which
I take judicial notice The Board there found that Teamsters 126 had not
violated Section 8(bX3) of the Act by its panty and related demands during
bargaining with the above employers.
3° Respondents adduced proof that, shortly after the Inland partners
and Meilahn took over Beaver RM in April 1967, Medahn and David
Courtney, Jr, acted together to negotiate a new contract with another
Teamsters local. However, this was clearly forced on them by the
233
entailed expenditure of over $20,000 in added labor costs
over 3 years, and such expenditures could not be
undertaken without specific approval of the C & P interest.
This is an untenable argument, for a capitulation to this
union demand without bargaining would have entailed
only about $6,600 of added labor cost spread over each
year, for which Meilahn needed no advance approval from
his partners in Inland, as found above; and there is no
proof as to the probable cost to Oshkosh of a long lockout
of drivers or the ensuing strike, especially where it appears
Meilahn promptly replaced strikers. In sum, the most the
record shows is that, during the 1968 negotiations, lockout,
and strike, Meilahn was "going it alone," in concert only
with Cook & Brown for a while, and then entirely alone
after Cook & Brown and other nearby RM companies
settled with Teamsters 126, but without prior specific
clearance with or permission of the C & P interests, or any
second guessing by them on the situation since. Nor can I
infer joint determination of labor policy from the fact that
when the 1965 contracts were approaching expiration, the
Twin City-C & P combine and Oshkosh each procured
separate labor counsel, for the selections occurred at
different times in 1967 and 1968, so far as this record shows,
and there is no substantial proof of prior consultation of
both interests on this subject alone which would overcome
the impressive proof that in 1968 Meilahn was continuing
to run Oshkosh and make all management decisions for it,
including labor policy, on his own as the sole operating
manager of the company, and that he has never had any
interest or control in Twin City-C & P. I have also noted
that there is some parallel in conduct between the two
enterprises in that both operated during their 1965 strikes
without replacements to any appreciable extent, while both
used replacements almost from the start during the 1968
strikes, which were still continuing at the time of the
hearing. However, I consider this parallel conduct of slight
importance for the same reasons stated above with respect
to choice of new labor counsel. On the other hand, further
evidence of separation in handling of labor policy and
strategy lies in the lack of proof of simultaneous or
coordinated contract bargaining, or execution of original
contracts, either in 1965 or 1968, by the C & P-Twin City
combine and Oshkosh and its associated southern RM
companies in dealings with Teamsters 563 and 126
respectively.30
Respondents also see evidence of integrated labor policy
in the fact that two C & P employees appeared on the
Midway project and helped unload the Oshkosh RM truck
on December 11. The record shows that: Both men came to
the site at the request of Haldon, after Mayo had advised
him of the union trouble, and Wolfe of Haldon had replied
that he would ask the C & P men to go over to help out,
explaining that if one of them came to the job, the union
expiration of the old contract shortly after the takeover, and they had not
yet had time to install a new manager for the operation, so that they had to
work out the contract themselves Since then , a new manager has been in
charge, with full responsibility for day-to-day operations including labor
relations and policy Hence, I do not consider this one-time point action of
Courtney, Jr, and Meilahn, who were both officers in the Beaver concern
after the takeover, as substantial evidence of continued integration of labor
management and policy in that company or any other in the Inland-
Meilahn combine.
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agents would not bother Mayo any more . After the
concrete was poured Sweet of C & P called Wolfe to report
what had been done , including the fact that he had himself
ordered another load of stone from C & P. Credible
testimony of Wolfe and Sweet indicates that Sweet took it
upon himself to help out Wolfe in this emergency because
he was a personal friend of Wolfe , and Haldon had been a
good customer for C & P stone for this and other projects
over the past few years . Sweet had tried to sell C & P
concrete as well as stone to Haldon for this job, since a C &
P concrete plant was only a short distance from the project,
but Wolfe had turned him down on the concrete , preferring
to buy it from Oshkosh , though its plant was about 17 miles
away, because it had used Oshkosh concrete in the past and
felt he would have less labor problems buying from it than
from C & P .31 Wolfe admits that prior to that strike his
concern had never used Oshkosh concrete for work in the
Neenah-Menasha area but had bought it from C & P, and
that in the past it had bought stone and fill from C & P for
jobs in the Oshkosh area , but not RM concrete . This proof
indicates that Haldon , and through it Mayo, were perhaps
changing their buying habits for RM concrete due to the
pending strike by Teamsters 563 against C & P-Twin City,
but there is no proof that the advent of Sweet on this
occasion was by any prearrangement with Oshkosh , hence I
do not consider the actions of a secondary contractor in
trying to get concrete from a source less likely in his view to
run into labor problems, and his decision in a strike
situation for personal reasons to get help from an official of
one primary employer to help unload a truck of another
primary employer , as proof of a joint labor policy between
the two primary employers . Even if there had been some
proof of a practical prearrangement in this emergency in
order to get the concrete poured , it would not destroy the
neutrality of Haldon , Mayo, or Oshkosh , vis-a-vis the C &
P dispute with Teamsters 563, for it has been held that a
close working relationship between independent contrac-
tors is not enough to destroy the neutrality of one of them
which is otherwise a secondary employer within Section
8(b)(4). N. L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction
Trades Council, et al. [Gould & Preisner], 341 U.S. 675, 689.
In sum , while a slight inference might arise that a joint
labor policy made and pursued during and after the 1965
settlements might be continued by the two enterprises, that
inference and the other circumstances alluded to by
Respondents as noted above are not sufficient to overcome
the salient factor that during the 1968 disputes, Oshkosh
pursued its own strategy along with Cook & Brown and
Waupun RM, all in the southern area , in dealings with
Teamsters 126, while Twin City-C & P apparently followed
its own policy vis-a-vis Teamsters 126.
I conclude that all the pertinent proof falls short of
establishing that during the 1968 dispute Twin City-C & P
was allied with Oshkosh within the meaning of Section
31 In 1968, particularly December, Teamsters 563 represented about 90
employees of C & P and Twin City, who comprised the great majority of
all employees of Association members, and these concerns were the only
Association members still on strike. Oshkosh, of course, had no dispute
with Teamsters 563.
32 I have carefully considered other corollary contentions raised by
Respondents in arguments on motions during the hearing and in their
brief, and find them without merit.
8(b)(4) insofar as labor policy was concerned, or in any
other pertinent aspect of business relationships.
Having concluded that the affirmative defenses raised by
Respondents, and their arguments in support thereof, are
without merit,32 I find and conclude on all the pertinent
facts found above and for reasons stated above that
Respondents and their agents named above, jointly and
severally, have violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.33
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Haldon, Mayo, C & P, and Oshkosh described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)
of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist
from such practices, and take certain affirmative actions
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In view of the propensity of Respondents to engage in
"secondary" activities against the above employers and
other neutral employers engaged in the construction and
RM concrete industry within the wide geographical area of
the jurisdictions of Respondents, as shown by the above
facts and in Courtney & Plummer, Inc., supra,34 there is
strong likelihood that they may engage in similar coercive
and unlawful conduct affecting other neutral employers.
Hence, I will recommend a broad cease-and-desist order, as
the Board did in the above-named case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. C & P, Oshkosh, Haldon, and Mayo are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and Jeffrey Curtin,
Donald Shaw, and Roland Choudoir are agents of
Respondents Teamsters 563, Engineers and Plumbers
respectively, within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
in industries affecting commerce to engage in a strike or
refusal in the course of their employment to handle or use
materials, and to perform services, with an object of forcing
or requiring Mayo and Haldon and other persons engaged
in commerce or in industries affecting commerce to cease
33 There appears to be no issue or argument here that C & P or Twin
City was performing "struck work" for Oshkosh, or vice versa, nor is there
any proof which would support such a finding.
34 See also Building and Construction Trades Council of Fond du Lac
County, et at. (Roger W. Peters Construction Co., Inc.,, 168 NLRB No. 81,
involving similar violations by Teamsters 126, which the Board noted in
the Courtney & Plummer, Inc., case.
GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL 563
using , handling, or otherwise dealing in products of, and to
cease doing business with either C & P or Oshkosh, or both,
and forcing or requiring Oshkosh to cease doing business
with Mayo in order to force or require Mayo to cease doing
business with Haldon, so that Haldon in turn would be
forced to cease doing business with C & P, Respondents
have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Mayo and
Haldon to cease doing business with C & P and Oshkosh,
Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondents, General Drivers & Dairy Employees
Union Local 563, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, International Brotherhood of Operating Engi-
neers, Local No. 139, AFL-CIO, and Plumbers &
Steamfitters Local No. 458, and their respective officers,
representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, jointly and
severally, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any employees of Haldon
Corp. or W. C. Mayo, or any individual employed by any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of their employment to handle or use materials or to
perform services with an object of forcing or requiring the
above or other persons to cease doing business with
Courtney & Plummer, Inc., or Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co., or
both, and of forcing and requiring Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co.
to cease doing business with W. C. Mayo in order to force
or require W. C. Mayo to cease doing business with Haldon
Corp. in order to force the latter company, in turn, to cease
doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Haldon Corp. or
W. C. Mayo, or any other person engaged in commerce or
in any industry affecting commerce, with an object of
forcing them to cease doing business with Courtney &
Plummer, Inc., or Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co., or both.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their respective offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notices marked "Appendixes A, B, or
C," as applicable 35 Copies of said notices, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after
being duly signed by authorized representatives of
Respondents, shall be posted by each of said Respondents
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
each for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to their members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
235
(b) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notices from
said Regional Director, return to him signed copies for
posting by Haldon Corp. and W. C. Mayo, if they be
willing, at their places of business, including all places
where notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.36
31 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 , recommendations , 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 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 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 "
36 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 30, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of
Haldon Corp. or W. C. Mayo, or any individual
employed by any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike
or refusal in the course of their employment to handle
or use materials or to perform services, with an object of
forcing or requiring the above-named companies to
cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc., or
Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co., or both, and of forcing and
requiring Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co. to cease doing
business with W. C. Mayo in order to force or require
W. C. Mayo to cease doing business with Haldon Corp.
in order to force or require Haldon Corp., in turn, to
cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Haldon
Corp. or W. C. Mayo, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with
an object of forcing them to cease doing business with
Courtney & Plummer, Inc., or Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co.,
or both.
GENERAL DRIVERS &
DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL No. 563 AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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, Second
Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-272-3861.
APPENDIX B
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Second
Floor, Commerce Building , 744 North Fourth Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, Telephone 414-272-3861.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of
Haldon Corp. or W. C. Mayo, or any individual
employed by any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike
or refusal in the course of their employment to handle
or use materials or to perform services, with an object of
forcing or requiring the above-named companies to
cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc., or
Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co., or both, and of forcing and
requiring Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co. to cease doing
business with W. C. Mayo in order to force or require
W. C. Mayo to cease doing business with Haldon Corp.
in order to force or require Haldon Corp., in turn, to
cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Haldon
Corp. or W. C. Mayo, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with
an object of forcing them to cease doing business with
Courtney & Plummer, Inc., or Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co.,
or both.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL No. 139 , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of
Haldon Corp. or W. C. Mayo, or any individual
employed by any other person engaged in commerce or
in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike
or refusal in the course of their employment to handle
or use materials or to perform services, with an object of
forcing or requiring the above-named companies to
cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc., or
Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co., or both, and of forcing and
requiring Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co. to cease doing
business with W. C. Mayo in order to force or require
W. C. Mayo to cease doing business with Haldon Corp.
in order to force or require Haldon Corp., in turn, to
cease doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Haldon
Corp. or W. C. Mayo, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with
an object of forcing them to cease doing business with
Courtney & Plummer, Inc., or Oshkosh Ready-Mix Co.,
or both.
PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS
LOCAL No. 458
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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, Second
Floor, Commerce Building , 744 North Fourth Street,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, Telephone 414-272-3861.