Graphic Arts Local No. 277

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

GRAPHIC ARTS LOCAL NO. 277
Graphic Arts International Union (G.A.I.U.) Local
No. 277; and Graphic Arts International Union,
AFL-CIO and S & M Rotogravure Service, Inc.
Case 30-CC-231
August 12, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
PENELLO
On November 4, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Alvin Lieberman issued the attached decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent Unions filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the Intervenor herein, Kable Printing
Company, filed a brief in answer to the Respondent's
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached decision in light of the exceptions and briefs,
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, only to
the extent consistent herewith.'
The Administrative Law Judge concluded, inter
alia, that the Respondent Unions violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by engaging in certain
conduct which was directed against S & M Rotogra-
vure Service, Inc. In reaching this conclusion, the
Administrative Law Judge rejected the Unions' de-
fense that such conduct was permissible under the
Act because S & M had allied itself with Kable Print-
ing Company, thus shedding its neutrality in a labor
dispute between Kable and an affiliate of the Re-
spondent International. We find merit in the Unions'
contention, on the facts and for reasons set forth be-
low.
Kable Printing Company is a large printing house
with facilities at Mount Morris, Illinois, where it
prints magazines, catalogs, and related items for pub-
lishers, large merchandisers, and other businesses lo-
cated throughout the country. Insofar as it is relevant
to these proceedings, Kable's customers include Ok-
lahoma Tire and Supply Company (OTASCO), a re-
tailer of automobile parts and supplies, for whom
Kable had agreed, in 1972, to produce sales catalogs,
at least four times a year, until January 31, 1975.
Kable's operations encompass rotogravure prepa-
' In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the
Respondents ' motion to reopen the record in this proceeding.
1053
ratory work, printing, and binding. Employees en-
gaged in these operations are represented by several
unions, including Mount Morris Graphic Arts Inter-
national Union Local No. 91-P (G.A.I.U.), an affil-
iate of the Respondent International, which repre-
sents those employed in the rotogravure preparatory
process. The most recent agreement between Kable
and Local 91-P expired on March 31, 1974. The
failure of the parties thereafter to reach a new agree-
ment , and the ensuing strike by employees in the
aforementioned unit, on May 10, 1974, brought
about the series of events which are here in issue.
Anticipating that the strike at Kable would inter-
fere with its ability to make the engraving for
OTASCO's September 1974 catalog, Kable's sales-
man, Max Buell, and OTASCO's catalog coordina-
tor, John Redding, discussed alternative means of
having the engraving work done. Buell suggested that
the work be done by S & M Rotogravure Service,
Inc., a rotogravure front-end shop, that is, an enter-
prise which performs preparatory work but does no
printing. S & M's employees are represented by Lo-
cal # 277, one of the Respondents herein. S & M had
not theretofore performed any work for OTASCO.
On June 19, 1974, following negotiations directly
between representatives of OTASCO and S & M,
OTASCO sent S & M a purchase order calling for
the performance of certain rotogravure preparatory
work, up to and including the engraving of cylinders
to be furnished by OTASCO, at a price to be negoti-
ated, for use in the printing of the September sale
catalog.
At the same time, OTASCO reached an under-
standing with Kable that the latter would deduct
from its bill for producing the September catalog the
amount which OTASCO would have to pay S & M
for the rotogravure preparatory work. According to
Redding, however, OTASCO did not decide to have
Kable, as opposed to some other printer, complete
the necessary work on the September catalog until
after the Respondents' alleged unlawful conduct in
July. Notwithstanding, on June 21, 1974, Redding
wrote Buell at Kable advising him that he, Redding,
had made arrangements with S & M "to furnish us
rotopositives and rotogravure cylinders, press ready
.." and requesting that the necessary blank cylin-
ders be forwarded by Kable to S & M for the latter's
use in connection with the engraving process.
Meanwhile, Mario Mueller, vice president of S &
M, having knowledge of the business relationship be-
tween Kable and OTASCO, sought to determine
from a representative of the Respondents whether or
not his portion of the OTASCO job would be consid-
ered struck work. Having received a negative answer,
S & M placed the OTASCO order into production.
219 NLRB No. 171
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, on July 8, Ed Doran , vice president of
the Respondent Local , advised Mueller that he could
not let S & M continue on the OTASCO job because
he considered it struck work . Later that same morn-
ing, the Local 's position was confirmed by Bernard
MacDonald , the Local's steward on the job, who also
advised Mueller that S & M employees were not al-
lowed to perform the disputed work , adding that
continuation of - such work might lead to estab-
lishment of a picket line by Local 91-P. Acceding to
this threat, Mueller allowed MacDonald to inform
key people to stop working on the OTASCO job.
Two days later , on July 10, officials of S & M met
with representatives of Local 277 and the Interna-
tional . At this meeting, Rudolph Stumpf, president of
S & M, expressed the view that the work in question
was not struck work because S & M had received the
order directly from OTASCO , not Kable . John Gab-
bard, the Respondent International's vice president,
stated that he did not want members of the Union
who are employed by S & M to be aiding and assist-
ing Kable which employs other members who are on
strike . After this meeting the union officials spoke
with S & M employees . On that occasion , Gabbard
warned employees against working on the OTASCO
job if they wished to avoid picketing by Local 91-P.
In fact , no further work was performed at S & M on
the OTASCO job.
On the above facts, the Administrative Law Judge
found that the Respondent Unions engaged in con-
duct falling within the ambit of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of
the Act . Further , the Administrative Law Judge re-
jected the Unions' contention that such conduct was
permissible because S & M had allied itself with Ka-
ble by performing struck work , as he found that
OTASCO, not Kable , chose S & M , negotiated the
agreement , and contracted to pay for the work. In his
view, the Unions' defense was predicated on nothing
beyond the facts that the arrangement pursuant to
which S & M performed the disputed work would
benefit Kable by enabling it to meet its contractual
obligations to OTASCO , and that an understanding
existed between OTASCO and Kable to the effect
that the latter would credit OTASCO for the amount
it paid to S & M. We disagree with that assessment of
the record herein and , by applying those principles
which have come to be known as the "ally doctrine,"
reach a different result.
This doctrine rests upon the assumption that
where an employer attempts to avoid the economic
impact of a strike by securing the services of others
to do his struck work , that is, work which would
otherwise have been done by his striking employees,
the striking union has a legitimate interest in prevent-
ing those services from being rendered . Thus, in Roy-
a! Typewriter,2 a case involving the performance of
`,`farmed-out" machine repair work on customer
equipment , the court stated:
We therefore hold that an employer is not with-
in the protection of [Sec . 8(b)(4)(B)] when he
knowingly does work which would otherwise be
done by the striking employees of the primary
employer and where this work is paid for by the
primary employer pursuant to an arrangement
devised and originated by him to enable him to
meet his contractual obligations . The result must
be the same whether or not the primary employ-
er makes any direct arrangement with the em-
ployers providing the services.3
The last sentence of the above-quoted material
makes it abundantly clear that , for there to be an
alliance , an agreement pursuant to which struck
work is performed need not necessarily be negotiated
between the struck primary and the secondary whose
substitute services are used . Indeed, the arrangement
need only have been originated by the primary.
Otherwise , alliances could be insulated against legiti-
mate union reaction by the simple device of having
the primary employer act in the name of his custom-
er. Any doubt concerning this construction was aptly
resolved by the Trial Examiner in the Picton case.4
Therein he stated:
In the absence of a direct or indirect arrange-
ment by the struck employer with the customer or
secondary employer . . . to have the work per-
formed for its account, the secondary employers
do not lose the protection afforded a "neutral"
under the Act. [Citation omitted , emphasis sup-
plied.] 5
Likewise , an alliance may be found notwithstand-
ing the fact that the agreed-upon consideration for
the performance of substitute services is paid by a
party other than the struck employer . It may indeed
be tendered by a customer of the struck primary. The
touchstone in such cases is whether or not, as stated
in Picton, the work was performed pursuant to an
arrangement by the struck primary and for his ac-
count.
Although it is sometimes difficult to determine, in
a given case, whether an arrangement is undertaken
principally to assist a strike-bound employer or the
latter's customer , we must make that assessment
2 N. L. R. B. v. Business Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference
Board, Local 459, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Work-
ers CIO (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F .2d 553 (C.A. 2. 1955).
3Ibid. at 559.
4 United Marine Division of the National Maritime Union , AFL-CIO, Local
No 333 (D. M. Picton & Co, Inc.), 131 NLRB 693 (1961)
Ibid. at 699.
GRAPHIC ARTS LOCAL NO. 277
based on all the relevant evidence, while fully appre-
ciating the separate (and sometimes similar) business
interests of the enterprises providing substitute serv-
ices and the struck employer's customers.
In making that assessment in this case, we con-
clude that an alliance existed between Kable and S &
M and therefore that the Respondent Unions did not
violate Section 8(b)(4) of the Act by engaging in the
conduct herein alleged as unlawful. At all relevant
times Kable was bound by an agreement with
OTASCO which called for the production of sales
catalogs. This agreement encompassed all phases of
the work entailed in the production of these catalogs,
including rotogravure preparatory work, printing,
binding, and distribution.
The strike at Kable affected only those employees
involved in the rotogravure process, leaving Kable
free to perform the remainder of the work. However,
Kable's ability to produce the required catalogs was
obviously imperiled by its inability to perform a vital
step in the production process. It is equally obvious
that by arranging for the performance of the rotogra-
vure preparatory work elsewhere and for its integra-
tion into the rest of the production process Kable
could achieve substantial contract performance. At
this juncture, Kable indicated to OTASCO that it
would do everything possible to produce the catalog
and suggested to OTASCO that S & M perform the
work in controversy, although, concededly, there is
no evidence that Kable itself dealt directly with S &
M. It is noteworthy, in this respect, that although S &
M had not theretofore performed any work for
OTASCO, evidence is lacking that OTASCO sought
assurances concerning the quality of its work. More-
over, the purchase order itself, which S & M received
from OTASCO and which memorializes the entire
agreement between them, is not convincing as evi-
dence of an arm's-length transaction, as distin-
guished from the production agreement between Ka-
ble and OTASCO, which sets forth detailed
specifications and overall prices for certain kinds of
work as well as specific prices for cylinder changes.
The purchase order executed by OTASCO directs S
& M:
Using publishers furnished roto art, make fin-
ished rotogravure cylinders ready for production
press for 28 page 2-on sale flyer catalog. Pub-
lisher will supply blank cylinders. Detailed in-
structions to follow... .
pursuant to terms which are "negotiable." Similarly,
Kable 's agreement , in these circumstances , to credit
OTASCO for any amount paid to S & M for the
work it performed underscores the fact that Kable,
not OTASCO, is the concerned party with respect to
1055
the performance of the substitute services.
In this posture, we are not persuaded that the ar-
rangement, ostensibly between S & M and OTASCO,
was entered into without regard to the interests
of the strike-bound primary. Indeed, we find other-
wise, namely, that S & M knowingly performed roto-
gravure preparatory work pursuant to an arrange-
ment devised and originated by Kable to enable it to
meet its contractual obligations to OTASCO. S & M
has thus allied itself with Kable in the latter's labor
dispute with its employees.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent Unions
did not engage in unlawful conduct by taking action
against S & M and we shall dismiss the complaint
herein in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the complaint here-
in be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALVIN LIEBERMAN , Administrative Law Judge: The hear-
ing in this proceeding, with all parties represented, was
held before me in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on August 19, 20,
and 21, 1974, upon General Counsel's complaint I dated
July 19, 1974,2 and Respondent's answer .3 In general the
issue litigated was whether Respondents violated Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amend-
ed (Act).4 Particularly, the principal questions for decision
are as follows:
1. Was the work undertaken by S&M Rotogravure Ser-
vice, Inc. (S&M), pursuant to a purchase order from Okla-
1 During the hearing the last sentence of par. 8(a) and the last sentence of
par. 8(b) of the complaint were stricken.
2 The complaint was issued pursuant to a charge filed on July 11, 1974, by
S&M Rotogravure Service, Inc
3 During the hearing the answer was amended in several respects. Thus,
par. 18 was amended to read as follows : "Admit, with regard to par. 9(b),
upon information and belief, that Local 91-P and 65-B, G.A.I.U., have been
engaged in a labor dispute with Kable Printing Company since May 10,
1974; but deny each and all other allegations of paragraph 9(b) of the
complaint." Par. I of the first affirmative defense was amended to read as
follows : "Graphic Arts International Union 91 -P is the exclusive bargaining
representative of certain engraver employees of Kahle Printing Company,
Mount Moms, Illinois; and that Local 65-B, G.A.I.U. is the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of certain book binding employees of Kahle Printing
Company, Mount Morris, Illinois ." Par. 2 of the first affirmative defense
was amended to read as follows: "On or about May 10, 1974, Local 91-P
and 65-B, G.A.I.U. commenced a strike against Kahle Printing Company."
Finally, during the hearing the answer was amended to admit the allega-
tions of pars. 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and 4(b) of the complaint.
Insofar as pertinent Sec. 8(bx4)(B), commonly referred to as the second-
Continued
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
homa Tire & Supply Co. (OTASCO) struck work? S
2. Assuming a negative answer to the foregoing ques-
tion, did Respondents engage in conduct described in Sec-
tion 8(bX4Xi) and (ii) of the Act for an object proscribed
by subdivision (B) of Section 8(bX4) of the Act?
3. In view of the arbitration provision of the collective-
bargaining agreement between S&M and Respondent
Graphic Art International Union (G.A.I.U.) Local # 277
(Local), should the process of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (Board) be withheld in the manner set forth in
Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co.,
192 NLRB 837 (1971), pending determination by an arbi-
trator as to the nature of the work referred to in question 1,
above?
Upon the entire record,6 upon my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor while testifying , and having
taken into account the arguments made and the briefs sub-
mitted,7 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Kable Printing Company (Kable),8 an Illinois corpora-
tion, is engaged in Mount Morris , Illinois , in providing en-
graving and printing services . During 1973 , a representa-
tive period, Kable purchased goods valued at more than
$50,000 from vendors located outside the State of Illinois.
S&M, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged at New Ber-
lin, Wisconsin, in providing engraving services to employ-
ers in the graphic arts and other industries. During 1973, a
ary boycott provision of the Act, is as follows:
SEC. 8 (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
or its agents-
-0
(4Xi) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual em-
ployed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employ-
ment to use , manufacture, process, transport , or otherwise handle or
work on any goods , articles, materials, or commodities or to perform
any services ; or (ii) to threaten , coerce , or restrain any person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where in either case
an object thereof is:
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using , selling , handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other produc-
er, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any
other person . . . Provided That nothing contained in this clause (B)
shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful,
any primary strike or primary picketing,
S Except when quoting or summarizing testimony , the term "struck work"
will be used in this Decision to refer to work of the nature described in
Truck Drivers Union Local No. 413, Teamsters (Patton Warehouse, Inc.), 140
NLRB 1474, 1483 ( 1963), text accompanying In. 12 enfd . in this respect 334
F.2d 539 (C.A.D.C., 1964), cert . denied 379 U.S. 916 (1964).
6 Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected
r Although all the arguments of the parties and the authorities cited by
them, whether appearing in their briefs or made orally at the hearing, may
not be discussed in this Decision , each has been carefully weighed and
considered.
s Kahle Printing Company was permitted to intervene in this proceeding
to the extent of its interest.
representative period, S&M sold goods valued at more
than $50,000 to customers located outside the State of Wis-
consin.
OTASCO, a Delaware corporation, is engaged at Tulsa,
Oklahoma, in the retail sale of automobile parts and sup-
plies. During 1973, a representative period, OTASCO's
gross sales exceeded $500,000 and it purchased merchan-
dise exceeding $50,000 in value from vendors located out-
side the State of Oklahoma.
Accordingly, I find that Kable, S&M, and OTASCO are
employers and persons engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(6) and 8(b)(4) of the Act. Sheet Met-
al Workers International Association, Local Union No. 299,
AFL-CIO. (S. M. Kisner), 131 NLRB 1196, '1198-99
(1961); International Longshoremen & Warehouseman's
Union, and Local No. 13, (Catalina Island Sightseeing
Lines), 124 NLRB 813, 815 (1959); Carolina Supplies and
Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89 (1958); Siemons Mailing Ser-
vice, 122 NLRB 81, 85 (1958); International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, General Drivers and Helpers Local No. 554 and Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local No. 608, AFL (McAllis-
ter Transfer, Inc.), 110 NLRB 1769, 1771-72 (1954).
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondent Graphic Arts International Union (Interna-
tional) and Respondent Local, an affiliate of Respondent
International , are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act. Also affiliated with Respondent
International are Graphic Arts International Union, Local
91-P (Local 91-P), and Graphic Arts International Union,
Local 65-B (Local 65-B).
III. INTRODUCTION
Briefly, this case is concerned with Respondents' efforts
to prevent S&M from performing engraving work for
OTASCO. The complaint alleges, and the answer denies,
that to achieve this end Respondents violated Section
8(bX4)(B) of the Act.
As will be seen, the central issue in this case is the nature
of the work involved. Respondents argue that it was struck
work. The General Counsel, S&M, and Kable contend that
it was not.9 The significance of these conflicting positions is
that if the work in question was struck work, the measures
taken by Respondents to prevent S&M from doing it were
privileged. If it was not struck work, the course of action
followed by Respondents contravened the Act.
Respondents further assert that inasmuch as the collec-
tive-bargaining contract between Respondent Local and
S&M deals with the subject of struck work and also pro-
vides for the arbitration of disagreements as to the inter-
pretation of contract provisions, the Board should not issue
a decision in this matter but should defer to the arbitral
process.
9 The contentions of the General Counsel , S&M, and Kable are generally
similar . Accordingly , unless otherwise noted , they will be referred to herein-
after as the General Counsel 's contentions.
GRAPHIC ARTS LOCAL NO. 277
IV. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 10
A. The Strike at Kable
Kable, as already noted , is engaged in the engraving and
printing business . On May 10, 1974 ,11 Local 91 -P, which
represents the engravers employed by Kable , and Local
65-B, which represents Kable's bookbinders , struck Ka-
ble.12 Local 91 -P's strike against Kable was still in progress
at the time of the trial.
As will be set forth in greater detail below , at the strike's
outbreak Kable was under contract to produce sale cata-
logs for OTASCO. Because of Kable's inability by reason
of the strike to make the engravings required in manufac-
turing the catalogs S&M was engaged to do, and began
doing, this work.13
B. The Collective -Bargaining Contract Between S&M and
Respondent Local
S&M and Respondent Local , which represents S&M's
employees , are parties to a collective-bargaining contract.14
The provisions of their contract , material to this proceed-
ing, follow.
SECTION 24 - STRUCK WORK
24.1 The employer agrees that it will not render pro-
duction assistance to any employer, any of whose
plants is struck by any local of the GAIU or by the
International , or where members of any such local or
the International are locked out, such strike or lockout
having been in continuous existence for five(5) work-
ing days, by requiring the employees covered by this
agreement to handle any work farmed out directly or
indirectly by such employer, other than work where
the employer herein customarily has performed for the
employer involved in such strike or lockout.
24.2 The Union reserves the right to require the em-
ployer not to render production assistance to any em-
ployer, any of whose plants is on strike or if any of its
employees are locked out, by requiring the employees
covered by this agreement to handle any work nor-
mally performed by such employees on strike or
locked out, farmed out directly or indirectly by such
employer other than work which the employer herein
customarily has performed for the employer involved
in such strike or lockout.
10 The purpose of these findings is to furnish a frame of reference within
which to consider the facts relating to Respondents ' alleged unfair labor
practices and to the conclusions to which they may give rise . To the extent
that the contentions of the parties relate specifically to the findings made
here they will be treated here , although they, as well as the findings, may
again be considered in other contexts.
11 All dates hereinafter mentioned without stating a year fall within 1974.
12 It will be recalled that Local 91-P and Local 65-B, like Respondent
Local, are affiliates of Respondent International.
13 The engravings to be made by S&M pursuant to this arrangement is
claimed by Respondents to have been struck work.
14 G.C. Exh. 2.
SECTION 25 - CHAIN SHOP
1057
25.1 The employer agrees that his employees shall not
be required to handle any work in the plant covered
by this agreement if, in any part of the United States
or Canada, any local of the Graphic Arts Internation-
al Union or the International is on strike of the mem-
bers of such local or International are locked out in
any other plant which is wholly owned and controlled
by the employer or otherwise so owned, controlled or
operated so as to constitute the employer, and any
other entity that may be involved, a single employer
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Such strike or lockout must have
been in continuous existence for five (5) working days.
SECTION 26 - RIGHT TO TERMINATE
26.1 In the event the employer requests any employee
to handle any work described in the struck work and
chain shop clauses, the Union, in addition to the other
rights and remedies the employees and the Union
have under this agreement or the law, shall have the
right in its discretion to terminate the agreement forth-
with by giving written notice to the employer.
SECTION 27 - INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF EMPLOYEE
27.1 The employer agrees that it will not discharge,
discipline or discriminate against any employee be-
cause such employee refuses to handle any rotogra-
vure production work of the type described in the
struck work and chain shop clauses.
s s s D
34.5 In the event of disagreement as to the interpreta-
tion or application of any provisions of this agreement
or any charge by either party of any violation of the
terms or provisions of this agreement, the matter shall
be taken up in the following manner:
(a) The shop delegate and the management of the
Company will seek an amicable adjustment of the
disagreement.
(b) In the event of failure to adjust the matter, the
issue shall be taken up by the representative of the
local Union and the management of the Company.
(c) Should no settlement result within a reasonable
time as provided in (b) above, then either party may
submit such controversy in writing to a joint com-
mittee consisting of three (3) representatives from
the Union and three (3) representatives from the
employer. Any person involved in the question at
issue shall be heard.
(d) If the joint committee is not able to arrive at a
satisfactory settlement of such dispute within a rea-
sonable time, either party may request the matter be
submitted to an impartial arbitrator, to be selected
by the joint committe.... the decision of the arbi-
trator shall be final and binding on all parties and
the expense of the arbitrator shall be borne equally
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Union on the one hand and the employer on
the other hand.
s
34.6 The Union's right to strike or the employee's re-
fusal to work under the recognition , jurisdiction,
struck work and chain shop clauses hereof , are not
subject to arbitration.
C. Deferral to Arbitration
On July 18, 1974, following the filing of the charge in
this case by S&M , Respondent Local notified S&M by
letter that by undertaking to make , and by requesting
employees to work upon, engravings required for the
OTASCO sale catalogs , S&M was , in its opinion , violating
those sections of its contract with S&M dealing with struck
work , including section 24.1. In the same letter Respondent
Local requested an immediate meeting with S&M or, in the
alternative, that the matter be submitted for resolution to a
joint committee pursuant to the contract's arbitration pro-
visions.
Having received no answer from S&M , Respondent Lo-
cal, on July 26, again wrote to S&M. In this letter Respon-
dent Local reiterated its view that S&M was violating sec-
tion 24.1 of the contract and informed S&M that it was
proceeding to arbitration in the manner set forth in the
contract.
On July 30 S&M responded to the foregoing letter. In its
response S&M took the position that the question of
whether its work on the OTASCO sale catalogs was struck
work , which S&M steadfastly denies , was not arbitrable
under the contract . 15 S&M further stated that the General
Counsel having issued the instant complaint , 16 it intended
to pursue its rights before the Board.
Respondents contend that the dispute between Respon-
dent Local and S&M concerning the nature of the work
involved constitutes a disagreement as to the interpretation
or application of section 24.1, the struck work section of
the contract between Respondent Local and S&M, resolva-
ble under the contract's arbitration provisions. According-
ly, Respondents assert in their third affirmative defense to
the complaint that the "unfair labor practice issues [raised
by the charge] and the arbitration issue both turn on the
meaning or application of the disputed contract provisions
of Section 24.1 and pursuant to the policy announced in
Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971), said charge
should be deferred to the grievance and arbitration proce-
dure of the existing agreement."
The Board's policy of staying its hand pending arbitra-
tion may be invoked when the contract between the con-
tending parties requires that the dispute in question be sub-
mitted to binding arbitration.
Exemplifying the first above-mentioned proposition is
Collyer, itself, 17 where the Board , in withholding its proc-
15 In this connection S&M made reference to sect. 34.6 of the contract,
which, in pertinent part, states : "The Union's right to stoke ... under the
. Struck Work and Chain Shop clause hereof, are not subject to arbitra-
tion."
16 As noted, the complaint issued on July 19
esses, noted that "the contract [there under consideration]
unquestionably obligates each party to submit to arbitra-
tion any dispute arising under the contract and binds both
parties to the result thereof." Illustrating the second is the
Board's statement in Joseph T. Ryerson & Sons, Inc., 199
NLRB 461, (1972), that in the "series of decisions adum-
brating the Board's policy to defer to a contractual forum
where a dispute might properly be resolved either by us or
under contract procedures, we have required as a condition
of such abstention that the dispute presented in our pro-
ceeding be cognizable in the contractual forum."
As set forth, Respondents urge that a decision on S&M's
"charge . . . be deferred" pending arbitration of the dis-
pute between respondent Local and S&M as to the "mean-
ing or application of the disputed . . . provisions of Sec-
tion 24.1," the struck work section of the contract between
Respondent Local and S&M. But, as S&M pointed out in
its July 30 letter to Respondent Local, and as is the case,
section 34.6 of the contract expressly provides that disputes
bearing upon the struck work section are "not subject to
arbitration." This being the situation, there is absent from
the contract between Respondent Local and S&M the un-
derlying basis for deferral to arbitration; namely, as Col-
lyer makes clear, an unquestionable obligation upon the
parties to submit struck work disputes to arbitration.18
Accordingly, I conclude that deferral to arbitration in
this case is not warranted.
D. The Nature of the Work Involved 19
In 1972 Kable and OTASCO entered into a contract
pursuant to which Kahle was to manufacture sale catalogs
for OTASCO at least four times a year until January 31,
1975. The contract further provided that OTASCO was to
pay a fixed price to Kable covering all work to be done by
Kable, including engraving work. The catalogs with which
this case is concerned were to have been distributed in
September 1974.
Kable and Local 91-P, which represents Kable's engrav-
ers, were parties to a collective agreement whose termina-
tion date was March 31, 1974. Anticipating that Local 91-P
would strike Kable upon the expiration of their contract 20
and that this strike would substantially reduce Kable's
ability to make the engravings required for the OTASCO
17 192 NLRB 837, 842 (1971).
18 In view of the contract 's express exemption from its arbitration provi-
sions of disputes arising under its struck work section, it cannot be said that
such disputes are even arguably arbitrable, a factor which in Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company, 198 NLRB 569, (1972), moved the Board to defer
arbitration.
19 Respondents argue that the engraving work S&M undertook to do, and
did, for OTASCO was struck work. The other parties to this proceeding take
a contrary view . As noted in the introductory portion of this Decision, this
is the central issue in this case If the work involved was struck work, as
Respondents contend , the steps they took to prevent S&M from doing it, to
be described below , were privileged, and not , as the complaint alleges, viola-
tive of Section 8(b)(4XB ) of the Act. Truck Drivers Union Local No 413,
Teamsters (Patton Warehouse, Inc.), 140 NLRB 1474, 1483 ( 1963), enfd. in
this respect , 334 F.2d 539 (C.A.D.C., 1964), cert . denied 379 U.S. 916
(1964); Shopmen's Local Union No. 501 of the International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Oliver Whyte
Company, Inc.), 120 NLRB 856, 862 (1958).
20 As found above , the strike actually occurred on May 10 and was still in
progress at the time of the trial.
GRAPHIC ARTS LOCAL NO. 277 1059
September 1974 catalogs, John Redding, OTASCO's cata-
log coordinator , and Max Buell, Kable 's salesman, dis-
cussed alternate means of having the engraving work done.
During their discussions , which took place early in 1974,
Buell suggested that the work be done by S&M.
On June 19 , following negotiations between OTASCO
and S&M concerning the latter's doing the work, OTASCO
sent S&M a purchase order for the engravings needed for
OTASCO's September 1974 catalogs. S&M knew when it
received and accepted this order that the work it called for
would have been done by Kable had not Kable's engravers
been on strike.
When OTASCO issued the purchase order to S&M it
expected to be billed by, and to pay, S&M for the work
done by it. In this connection , OTASCO had "an under-
standing ," as Redding , OTASCO's catalog coordinator,
testified, "that [OTASCO] would be credited on the Kable
bill with the amount [it] paid S&M."
As it happened , because of conduct engaged in by Re-
spondents, to be set forth in detail below, S&M stopped
working on the OTASCO order after doing only about a
quarter of the work. Not having completed the job, S&M
sent no bill to OTASCO, nor did it charge OTASCO for
the portion which had been done.
Respondents make two arguments in support of their
position that the work involved was struck work. The first
is that it would have benefited Kable, the struck employer,
by, as Respondents state on brief, "enabling Kable to meet
its contractual obligations" to OTASCO. Respondents'
second argument is based on the "understanding " between
Kable and OTASCO that Kable would credit OTASCO
for the money it would have paid S&M for doing the work.
However, more must be shown before it can be said that
S&M did struck work.
When a business enterprise whose supplier of goods or
services has been struck arranges to obtain such goods or
services from another supplier the substitute supplier, in
agreeing to such an arrangement, does not perform struck
work or ally itself to the struck supplier. United Marine
Division, Local 333, International Longshoremen 's Associa-
tion (New York Shipping Association), 107 NLRB 686, 687,
708 (1954). Nor, in such a case, is the substitute supplier
deprived of the protection afforded neutral employers by
Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, notwithstanding that it
knows that it is doing, what, but for the strike, would have
been done by the struck supplier. D. M. Picton & Co., Inc.,
131 NLRB 693, 694, 699 (1961).
The situation is different, however, and the substitute
supplier is performing struck work, for which reason the
substitute supplier "is not within the protection of Section
8(b)(4)(A) [now 8(b)(4)(B)] when [it] knowingly does work
which would otherwise be done by the striking employees
of the primary [struck] employer and where this work is
paid for by the primary employer pursuant to an arrange-
ment devised and originated by him to meet his contractu-
al obligations ." N.L.R.B. v. Business Machine and Office
Appliance Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459, IBEW
(Royal Typewriter Company), 228 F.2d 553, 559 (C.A.2),
cert. denied 351 U.S. 962.
In Truck Drivers Union Local No. 413, Teamsters (Patton
Warehouse, Inc.), 140 NLRB 1474 1483 (1963), enfd. in this
respect 334 F.2d 539 (C.A.D.C., 1964), cert. denied 379
U.S. 916, the Board stressed the necessity for the presence
of an "arrangement" between the struck employer and its
substitute as a prerequisite for holding that the substitute
was doing struck work, thereby becoming an ally of the
struck employer. Thus, the Board stated:
[A]n essential requirement of the ally doctrine [is] that
the work must be transferred to a secondary employer
through an arrangement with the primary employer
.. [In] the absence of any arrangement between
the struck and the secondary employers, the work pre-
viously performed by the struck employer may not be
interfered with even though the secondary employees
are performing a service which, but for the dispute,
would customarily be performed by the employees of
the struck employer.
The cases cited in Respondent's brief 21 in which the
Board held that struck work was involved and, for this
reason, exonerated the unions which hindered its perfor-
mance are not to the contrary. In each the struck employer
arranged with another employer for the latter to do work
which the struck employer could not do because of a strike
by its employees.
Accordingly, in determining whether the engraving S&M
agreed to make for OTASCO was, as Respondents con-
tend, struck work the circumstances pursuant to which
S&M undertook to do the work must be examined. Consid-
eration must also be given to the question of who was to
pay for the work.
The first item to be taken into account, in this regard, is
that Kable, OTASCO's supplier of engravings, was struck.
This being the case, OTASCO sought another supplier to
furnish the needed engravings; and it, not Kable, chose
S&M. Having selected S&M, OTASCO negotiated with it
for the production of the engravings, following which it
ordered them from S&M.
Although S&M knew that but for the strike by Kable's
engravers Kable would have done the work, the arrange-
ment whereby S&M was to produce the engravings was
made with S&M by OTASCO and not, even indirectly, by
Kable.22 Finally, OTASCO, not Kable, intended to pay for
the engravings upon receiving a bill from S&M.
Accordingly, applying the teaching of Royal Typewriter
and Patton Warehouse, I conclude that the engraving work
undertaken, and that portion which was done, by S&M
was not struck work and further conclude that S&M did
not, by reason of the foregoing, ally itself with Kable in its
dispute with Local 91-P, nor did S&M forfeit its status as a
21 Shopmen's Local Union # 501 (Oliver Whyte Company, Inc.). 120 NLRB
856 (1958); International Die Sinkers Lodge No. 410 (General Metals Corpo-
ration), 120 NLRB 1227 (1958); General Teamsters Local No. 324 Truck
Operators League of Oregon, 122 NLRB 25 (1958); General Drivers and Dairy
Employees Local Union 563 (Fox Valley Material Suppliers Association, Inc.),
176 NLRB 386 ( 1969); Local 28, International Organization of Masters.
Mates and Pilots, AFL-CIO (Ingram Barge Company) 136 NLRB 1175
(1962). enfd . 321 F.2d 376 (C.A.D.C)
221 do not construe the mere suggestion by Kahle 's salesman to
OTASCO's catalog coordinator that the work be done by S&M to be the
type of "arrangement" spoken of in Royal Typewriter and Patton Warehouse.
See, in this connection , D M. Picton & Co, Inc, 131 NLRB 693, 694, 697
(1961).
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
neutral in that dispute.
I am not persuaded to the contrary by Respondents' ar-
gument that the work involved was struck work because
OTASCO and Kable were parties to an "understanding"
whereby OTASCO would be "credit[ed]" by Kable for the
money OTASCO would have paid S&M for making the
engravings for OTASCO's September 1974 catalogs? A
similar situation was present in Laborers International
Union of North America, Local 859 ( Thomas S. Byrne, Inc.),
180 NLRB 502, 503-505 (1969). Nevertheless, the Board
concluded that the work involved was not struck work 24
I also reject, as proving too much, Respondents' argu-
ment that the work done by S&M was struck work be-
cause, had it been completed , it would have benefited Ka-
ble by enabling it to fulfill its contract with OTASCO. As a
general proposition, I suppose that any work done by a
substitute which, but for a strike, would have been done by
the struck employer , directly or indirectly , benefits the
struck employer. Notwithstanding this, as has been shown,
such work is not struck work unless it is done pursuant to
an arrangement with the struck employer. I have found
that this is not the case here.
V. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts Concerning Respondents' Alleged Violations of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act
On July 1, 1974, before S&M began work on the engrav-
ings ordered by OTASCO, Mario Mueller, S&M's vice
president, asked Bernard MacDonald, Respondent Local's
steward at S&M, whether the OTASCO "job is considered
struck work." As Mueller explained , he put this question to
MacDonald because, knowing that Kable had produced
sale catalogs for OTASCO in the past and that Kable's
engravers , represented by Local 91-P were on strike, he
"didn't want [the] complication ... of having a picket line
on S&M."
MacDonald, after checking with Respondent Local, in-
formed Mueller that "its okay to go ahead . . . with this
job." Accordingly, S&M placed the OTASCO order into
production.
Work on the OTASCO engravings proceeded without
incident until July 8. At about 10 a.m. on that day, follow-
ing an apparent change of position by Respondent Local
concerning the nature of the work, Ed Doran, vice presi-
dent of Respondent Local, notified Mueller that he "could
not let [S&M] continue on [the OTASCO] account [be-
cause] he considered this OTASCO [job] struck work."
An hour or so later, MacDonald, Respondent Local's
steward , told Mueller that "the union considered [the
OTASCO engravings to be] struck work and we [, S&M's
23 It will be remembered , in this connection , that the contract between
Kahle and OTASCO provided that OTASCO was to pay Kahle a fixed
puce for its work, including engraving work , in producing the catalogs.
u The Board's conclusion was rejected by the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Laborers International Union of North Ameri-
ca Local 859, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 446 F.2d 1319 ( 1971). With due defer-
ence to the court of appeals , however, I am bound by the Board's decision.
Prudential Insurance Company of America, 119 NLRB 768, 773 (1957), re-
versed in other respects 361 U.S. 477 (1960).
employees ,] are not allowed to work on this job." Continu-
ing his conversation with Mueller , MacDonald stated that
"if we were to work on this [OTASCO] account . . . it is
very well possible that [Local 91-P] would set up a picket
line at S&M."
Capitulating to this threat , Mueller "authorized Mac-
Donald to inform the key people to stop work on
OTASCO." Although work on the OTASCO engravings
was discontinued at Mueller's direction because he feared
that otherwise S&M would be picketed, that portion of the
job which had been done was still in S&M 's shop at the
time of the hearing and OTASCO's entire order could have
been completed whenever S&M considered it feasible to do
so25
On July 10 officials of Respondent Local and Respon-
dent International , including Jack Jaeger , president of Re-
spondent Local, and John Gabbard, Respondent
International's vice president , met with Mueller and Ru-
dolph Stumpf, president of S&M , Stumpf protested the
designation of the OTASCO work as struck work. Stumpf
pointed out in this connection that he did not think it was
struck work because S&M had received the order for the
engravings from OTASCO, not Kable. To this Gabbard
replied , as he testified, that "we [do] not want our members
[employed by S&M] to be aiding and assisting [Kable]
where we have other members that are on strike."
After this meeting with Mueller and Stumpf,
Respondent 's officials met with S&M's employees. Gab-
bard and Jaeger urged the employees to do no further work
on the OTASCO order . As an employee in attendance at
this meeting testified in this regard , Gabbard informed the
employees that "if [they] were to go ahead and do the
work, [they] would undermine the strike action [at Kable];"
and Jaeger told them that "if [they] would go ahead and
work [on the OTASCO engravings they] would naturally
have a picket line from [Local 91-P] coming and standing
at [S&M's] door."
B. Contentions and Concluding Findings Concerning
Respondents' Alleged Violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act.
As noted earlier, if the OTASCO work undertaken by
S&M had been struck work, Respondents would have been
privileged in availing themselves of secondary measures to
prevent its being done. However, as I have found that it
was not struck work, it must now be determined whether
Respondents' conduct was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B)
of the Act, as the General Counsel contends.
A violation of Section 8(b)(4XB), the Act's secondary
boycott provision, consists of two elements. These are a
purpose commonly known as a "cease doing business" ob-
ject and proscribed conduct.
There can be no doubt that it was Respondents' aim to
cause S&M and OTASCO to cease doing business with
each other in support of Local 91-P's dispute with Kable,
to which both S&M and OTASCO were neutral? Nor do
25 The foregoing findings are based upon, and the quotations appearing in
the text are taken from , credited and uncontroverted testimony given by
Mueller.
m "The gravamen of a secondary boycott is that its sanctions bear, not
upon the employer [,here Kahle,] who alone is party to the dispute, but upon
GRAPHIC ARTS LOCAL NO. 277
Respondents argue to the contrary . Accordingly, I find
that the "object" requirement of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act has been satisfied.
The conduct proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act,
insofar as pertinent, is "to induce or encourage any indi-
vidual employed by any person . . . to engage in . . . a
refusal in the course of his employment . . . to perform
any services ; 27 or . . . to threaten , coerce , or restrain any
person ...." 28 These requirements , too, I find , have been
satisfied.
Concerning the conduct proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(i)
of the Act, the evidence clearly shows that on July 10,
1974, John Gabbard , vice president of Respondent Inter-
national , informed S&M's employees that if they were to
work on the OTASCO order they "would undermine" Lo-
cal 91-P's strike against Kable . In like vein Jack Jaeger,
president of Respondent Local , told the employees that
their working on the OTASCO engravings would result in
the establishment of a "picket line . . . at [S&M's] door"
by Local 91-P. These statements , I find , constitute induce-
ment and encouragement , within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i), to individuals employed by S&M to refrain, in
the course of their employment, from performing services
for S&M in connection with the OTASCO engravings 29
I further find that the coercion spoken of in Section
8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act is also present . It appears in the state-
ments made by Ed Doran and Bernard MacDonald, re-
spectively Respondent Local's vice president and steward,
and by Gabbard.
Thus, on July 8 Doran told Mario Mueller , S&M's vice
president , that he "could not let [S&M ] continue on [the
OTASCO] account." This was quickly followed by Mac-
Donald 's notification to Mueller that S&M's employees
,.are not allowed to work on [the OTASCO] job." Finally,
on July 10, Gabbard said to Rudolph Stumpf, S&M's pres-
ident, that "we do not want our members [in S&M's em-
ploy] to be aiding and assisting" Kable in its dispute with
Local 91-P.
Statements such as these , whose effect is to inform an
employer that its employees would not be permitted by a
union to perform work disfavored by the union have a
coercive effect within the contemplation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act . See, in this connection, Newspaper
and Mail Deliverers Union of New York and Vicinity (Bergen
Evening Record Corporation), 175 NLRB 386, 388 (1969),
and Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local No. 107 (Riss
& Company, Inc.), 130 NLRB 943, 947 ( 1961), enfd. 300
F.2d 317 (C.A.3).
Respondents argue that the foregoing declarations were
persuasive, rather than coercive .30 However, even if, ar-
... third part[ies] [, here S&M and OTASCO ,] who [have) no concern in
it." International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501 (Samuel Lan-
ge v. N. L. R. B ., 181 F.2d 34 , 37, (C.A.2 1950), affd . 341 U.S. 694 (1951).
Sec. 8 (b)(4)(i).
28 Sec . 8(b)(4)(ii).
29 "The words 'induce or encourage ' are broad enough to include in them
every form of influence and persuasion ." International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local 501 (Samuel Langer) v. N.L R. B., 341 U .S. 694, 701-
702 (1951).
70 On brief Respondents state , regarding this, that "unions may persuade
... an employer to stop handling a product or processing goods as opposed
to threatening , coercing or restraining the employer."
1061
guendo, the statements standing alone are deemed to lack
coercive tendencies, one, that made by MacDonald, re-
spondent Local's steward, was coupled with a warning
concerning the possibility of picketing, itself a threat within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii) of the Act," thereby im-
parting a coercive effect to his other remark, if not also to
those of like import made by Doran and Gabbard, vice
presidents respectively of Respondent Local and Respon-
dent International. Cf. Luby Leasing, Inc., 198 NLRB 951,
enfd. 486 F.2d 1395 (C.A.2, 1973); and Federal Stainless
Sink, Div. of Unarco Industries, Inc., 197 NLRB 489, 495
(1972).
Adverting to the absence of evidence of refusals by
S&M's employees to work on the OTASCO engravings as a
consequence of Respondents inducement and pointing to
the fact that S&M, itself, stopped the work, Respondents
further argue that there has been no violation by them of
Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. Concerning this, Respon-
dents state in their brief that they "cannot be found to have
induced . . . employees to action if no action is taken."
That proof is lacking to show that S&M's employees re-
fused to work on the OTASCO engravings, is, indeed, true.
However, the evidence clearly shows that Respondents,
in fact, induced them to refrain from working on the
OTASCO order. This inducement could have been effec-
tive if S&M, despite its earlier capitulation to the unlawful
picketing threat, ordered a resumption of work on the
OTASCO goods, as it had a right to do and could have
done. The immediate ineffectiveness of Respondents' in-
ducement is, therefore, immaterial. Furthermore, the con-
cept that inducement must be effective to fall within the
ambit of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act was long ago rejected
by the Board. Associated Musicians of Greater New York,
Local 802 (Gotham Broadcasting Corporation), 110 NLRB
2166 2168 (1954), enfd. 226 F.2d 900 (C.A.2), cert. denied
351 U.S. 962.
Accordingly, I conclude that each Respondent, indepen-
dently, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by
inducing individuals employed by S&M to refrain from
working on engravings ordered from S&M by OTASCO
and by threatening and coercing S&M in order, in both
cases, to cause S&M and OTASCO to cease doing business
with each other.32
VI. THE EFFECT OF RESPONDENTS ' UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Respondents' unfair labor practices occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Kable, S&M and OTASCO set
forth in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
31 Untied Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
(American Modulars Corporation), 203 NLRB 1112 (1973).
32 The complaint alleges that Respondents were parties to "a common
and joint venture in furtherance of the labor dispute" between Local 91-P
and Kable . As I have concluded that each Respondent has independently
violated Sec 8(b)(4)(B), to remedy which an applopria(e order will be is-
sued, the joint venture allegations of the complaint need not be passed
upon . General Teamster, Warehouse and Dairy Employees Local 126 (Ready
Mixed Concrete, Inc), 200 NLRB 253 (1972).
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
VII. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and
(iiXB) of the Act, my Order will require them to cease and
desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will
effectuate the purpose of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Kable is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) of the Act.
2. S&M and OTASCO are persons engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(bX4) of the Act.
3. Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. The work S&M undertook to do , and did, pursuant to
the purchase order issued to it by OTASCO was not struck
work.
5. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by S&M to refuse in the course of their employment to
perform services , an object thereof being to force or require
S&M and OTASCO to cease doing business with each
other, Respondents have engaged , and are engaging, in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4Xi)(B) of the Act.
6. By threatening and coercing S&M, an object thereof
being to force or require S&M and OTASCO to cease
doing business with each other , Respondents have en-
gaged , and are engaging , in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )(B) of the Act.
7. The unfair labor practices engaged in by Respon-
dents, as set forth in Conclusions of Law 5 and 6, above,
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]