International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1323 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1323
appear that any of the other members of the Association have
any employees belonging to the same craft. While electrical
maintenance work is performed at plants other than the 3
mentioned above, this work is of a minor, routine nature, not
requiring the exercise of craft skill. Moreover, the employees
responsible for this work are not true craftsmen, having had
no special training as electricians. Such electrical mainte-
nance work as they do is merely incidental to their duties as
production or general maintenance employees.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following
voting group : All full-time or licensed maintenance elec-
tricians, employed at the various plants of the California
Fish Canners Association, Inc., excluding all other employees,
guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate
unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the Petitioner for that unit which the Board, under such
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor,
the existing unit is found to be appropriate and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to
such effect.
Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 182, UTICA, NEW YORK AND VICINITY, AFL and
JAY-K INDEPENDENT LUMBER CORP.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL 125, AFL and MOHAWK VALLEY
DISTRICT COUNCIL, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CAR-
PENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL and JAY-K
INDEPENDENT LUMBER CORP. Cases Nos. 3-CC-31 and
3-CC-32. June 15, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaged in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
108 NLRB No. 189.
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam-
iner with the exceptions and modifications noted below.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent Teamsters
and the Respondent Carpenters District Council engaged in
certain secondary boycott activities atKlein's store in violation
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act and that the Respondent
Teamsters, in addition, committed similar violations at the
premises of Sunset Lumber Company.
A majority of the Board2 agrees with the Trial Examiner
only with respect to the Sunset incident for which the Respond-
ent Teamsters alone was responsible. As fully discussed in the
Intermediate Report, Bielby, a Sunset employee and Teamsters'
steward, after his conversation with one of the occupants of the
car that trailed the Blount truck, decided not to unload that
truck and accordingly informed Denslow, another Sunset em-
ployee and member of the Teamsters, that they "weren't
supposed to unload it" because the Blount truck had crossed
the Teamsters' picket line at the lumberyard of Jay-K whose
employees the Teamsters was trying to organize. We find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that the objects of this conduct were
to force and require Blount Lumber Company to cease doing
business with Jay-K and to force and require Jay-K, in turn,
to recognize or bargain with the Teamsters, although the
Teamsters was not the certified bargaining agent of the em-
ployees involved. Like the Trial Examiner, we further find,
contrary to the Teamsters' contention, that the so-called "hot
cargo" clause in the Teamsters' contract with Sunset--
assuming without passing on its validity' --was not applicable
to and therefore could not protect the employees' refusal to
unload the Blount truck. As shown in the Intermediate Report,
this clause merely reserved to the Teamsters" . . . the right
to stop any of its members at any time or under any circum-
stances from making any pickups, drops or deliveries at any
place where labor trouble exists." Plainly, Sunset employees
in the present case were not required to make any pickups at
a place where labor trouble existed, as provided in the "Hot
Cargo" clause.
'As the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties, the Respondents' request for oral argument is denied.
2 Chairman Farmer and Members Peterson and Rodgers. Member Murdock dissents from
this determination in a separate opinion.
3 In view of the majority's disposition of the "hot cargo" defense, Chairman Farmer and
Member Rodgers find it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the "hot cargo" clause.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1325
A majority of the Board ,' on the other hand , disagrees with
the Trial Examiner that the Respondents Teamsters and Car-
penters - District Council violated Section 8 ( b) (4) (A) and (B)
because of Carbone ' s conduct at Klein ' s store .' Although, as
the Trial Examiner found , Carbone was a member of the
Teamsters and a Jay-K picket whose acts atKlein ' s store may
have been in furtherance of the purposes of the primary picket
line at Jay-K's premises, the record is devoid of any evidence
that when Carbone left the primary picket line and followed
Jay-K's truck to Klein ' s store , he was acting pursuant to any
express or implied authority vested in him by the Respondents.'
Nor is there any evidence that the Teamsters was aware of
Carbone ' s activities at Klein ' s store so that , contrary to
Member Rodgers ' assertion , no adverse inference may be
drawn from the Teamsters' failure to disavow Carbone's
activities , since there w.,s no opportunity for such disavowal.
We do not think it proper -to hold that a union is responsible for
the secondary activity of a picket who, insofar as the record
shows , was authorized only to engage in lawful picketing at the
scene of the primary dispute.
4Chairman Farmer and Members Murdock and Peterson.
5 Member Rodgers would find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner , that the Respondents
are responsible for Carbone's activities at Klein's store. As a regular and authorized picket
at the Jay-K lumberyard, Carbone, who was not an employeie of any employer involved in this
case, was clearly acting as the Respondents' agent in furtherance of the Respondents' ob-
jectives. See Sealright Pacific, Ltd., 82 NLRB 271, 272. A union's liability for Section 8 (b)
conduct attaches as a matter of law as a result of what its agents, acting within the scope of
their authority, do on its behalf. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
(Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487, 1507-1509; Perry Norvell Company, 80
NLRB 225, 243-244 That the specific acts done by the agent were actually authorized or
subsequently ratified need not be shown; authority to perform such acts may be inferred from
the conduct of the principal Restatement of Agency, sec. 219; International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, supr. Here, Carbone's authority may be inferred from the fact
that the Respondents' officers and agents were among the "line" pickets at Jay- K lumberyard,
and were consequently aware of what transpired there; from the additional fact that Carbone
occupied a strikingly unique position as a person who, among the "line" pickets, had partici-
pated in the picketing with his automobile for at least a week prior to the Klein incident; from
the further fact that, by his own admission, Carbone had used this automobile to follow Jay- K
trucks on at least two occasions before the Klein incident occurred; and from the still further
fact that, so far as the evidence shows, the Respondent had taken no steps whatever either to
restrict Carbone's activities or to disavow them.
The situation with respect to the respondents' liability herein is akin to the situation where
liability attaches to an employer for the acts of supervisors that are not shown specifically to
have been authorized or ratified. For example, see C Ray Randall Manufacturing Company,
88 NLRB 140, 145; J. S. Abercrombie Company, 83 NLRB 524, 529, petition to review denied
180 F 2d 578 (C A. 5); Beatrice Foods Company, 84 NLRB 493, 494, enforced 183 F 2d 726
(C A 10).
6 Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225 at pp 236, 245. See also Restatement of Agency,
sec. 228 at P. 506:
b. Proof that the actor was in the general employment of the master does not of itself
create an inference that a given act done by him was within the scope of employment. If,
however, it is also proved that the act tended to accomplish an authorized purpose and
was done at an authorized place and time, there is an inference that it was within the
scope of employment. (Emphasis supplied.)
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we will dismiss the allegations of the complaint
relating to the Klein incident. Moreover, as the Board does not
find that the Respondent Carpenters-District Council committed
any of the violations alleged in the complaint, we will dismiss
the complaint in its entirety as to them. We will also modify the
Trial Examiner's recommended order to conform with our
findings herein.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local 182, Utica, New
York and Vicinity, AFL, and its officers, representatives,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
Inducing and encouraging employees of Sunset Lumber Com-
pany or of other employers (other than Jay-K Independent
Lumber Corp.) to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans -
port, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials,
or commodities or to perform any services for their respective
employers, where anobjectthereofistoforceor require Blount
Lumber Company or other employers to cease doing business
with Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., or to force or require
Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp. to recognize or bargain with
the above-named labor organization as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of its employees unless and until said labor
organization has been certified as such bargaining agent in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office in Utica, New York, copies of
the notice attached hereto as Appendix.' Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by th e Regional Director for the Third Region,
shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of
this Respondent, be posted by this Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order as to
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
7In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pur-
suant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1327
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it
relates to Respondent Mohawk Valley District Council, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, and
its affiliate, Respondent United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Local 125, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
Member Murdock, concurring in part and dissenting:
I agree with Chairman Farmer and Member Peterson that
Carbone was not authorized to act as an agent of the Respondents
in speaking to employees at Klein's store. Itherefore join with
them in dismissing this portion of the complaint.
I must dissent, however, from the decision of my three col-
leagues to find a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) with
regard to the Sunset incident. The record shows that Steward
Bielby on the advice of an unidentified individual approached
Foreman Heinrich and suggested that he should not unload the
Blount truck. Foreman Heinrich apparently agreed with Bielby.
Heinrich did not direct any employee to unload the truck.
Indeed, he repeated Bielby's statement to the driver that the
truck could not be unloaded. Under these circumstances, I can-
not agree that Bielby's subsequent statement to a fellow
employee that they "weren't supposed to unload" the truck
constituted inducement and encouragement within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B). I am of the opinion, rather, that
the Sunset Company through Heinrich had already acquiesced
in Bielby's suggestion that the truck not be unloaded. I would
therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 182, UTICA, NEW YORK AND VICINITY,
AFL
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give
notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of
Sunset Lumber Company or of any other employer (other
than Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp.) to engage in a
strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or
commodities, or to perform any services for their respec-
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tive employers , where an object thereof is to force or
require the Blount Lumber Company or other employers
to cease doing business with Jay-K Independent Lumber
Corps., or to force or require Jay-K Independent Lumber
Corp. to recognize or bargain with us as the representa-
tive of its employees unless and until we have been certi-
fied as such representative in accordance with the provi-
sions of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 182,
UTICA, NEW YORK AND VICINITY, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By....................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date
hereof , and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by Joseph T. Kelly, president, on behalf of the
Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., herein called Jay-K, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Third Region (Buffalo, New York),
issued a consolidated complaint dated July 1, 1953, against the Respondents named in the
caption and herein called respectively Teamsters and Carpenters District Council alleging
that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the consolidated complaint, as amended at the
hearing, alleged in substance that since on or about March 19, 1953, Respondents, and each of
them by their officers, agents, representatives, and members, engaged in and by orders,
directions, instructions, and appeals, induced and encouraged employees of C. T. K. Real
Estate Corporation, Chester Milostan & Son, Blount Lumber Company, Sunset Lumber Com-
pany, Kleins Credit Jewelers, and other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals
in the course of their employment to use, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, objects thereof being
(a) to force or require C. T. K. Real Estate Corporation, Kleins Credit Jewelers, and other
employers, to cease doing business with Jay-K, or with employers or persons doing business
with Jay-K, and (b) to force or requireJay-K to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the
representatives of its employees where Respondents have not been certified as such repre-
sentatives under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
The Respondents in their duly filed answers denied generally all allegations of the consoli-
dated complaint attributing to them the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Utica, New York, on July 20, 21, and 22, 1953,
before Sidney Lindner the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. Various motions made by the Respondents at the close of the General Cowisel's case
to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of proof were denied with leave to the Respondents
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1329
to renew upon the entire record at the end of the case. Upon renewal, ruling on the motions
was reserved. The motions are now disposed of in accordance with the findings of fact and
conclusions of law made below. Opportunity was afforded all parties to argue orally upon the
record at the close of the case, and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions. The
General Counsel and counsel for the Respondents argued orally at the hearing and briefs were
filed thereafter by the parties which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE JAY- K INDEPENDENT
LUMBER CORP., THE CHARGING PARTY
Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., the Charging Party herein, is a New York State corpora-
tion with its office and place of business located at New Hartford, New York, where it is
engaged in the sale and distribution of lumber and building supplies. During the year ending
May 31, 1953, Jay-K received shipments of goods and materials directly from outside the
State of New York in the amount of$ 401,372.18. Its indirect shipments of goods and materials
were valued at $5,998.74. During the same period it sold to firms located in New York State
which are engaged in interstate commerce goods valued at $ 19,948.96. It was stipulated at the
hearing and I find that Jay-K is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. See The
Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
if. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It was stipulated at the hearing and it is found that the Respondents International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 182, Utica,
New York and Vicinity, AFL, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 125, AFL, and Mohawk Valley Distict Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; picketing at Jay-K premises
Jay-K as noted above is engaged in the sale of lumber and building materials from its yard
located on the Seneca Turnpike in New Hartford, New York. Among its 22 employees, 6 are
yardmen,[ 6 are truckdrivers, and 5 perform millwork using machine tools and are known as
shopmen.
In the summer of 1950, Carmen Citro, business agent and vice president of the Teamsters,
and Ed Ryan, business agent of the Carpenters, spoke to Joseph Kelly, president of Jay-K, at
the lumberyard and asked what he thought about signing union contracts. In the discussion which
ensued the union representatives explained that the contract with the Carpenters would cover
the shopmen and the Teamsters' contract would cover the yardmen and truckdrivers. Kelly
inquired what would happen if some of the employees did not choose to become members of a
union Citro stated that he would refer union men to take the jobs of such employees.
After some further conversation Kelly told Citro and Ryan that he did not think he would
sign union contracts at that time. At Citro's request, Kelly granted permission to the union
representatives to address his employees. The meeting concluded with Citro saying he would
return to the yard the following week to place a notice on the bulletin board giving the date
when the union representatives would come to the yard to talk with the employees.
Citro did not avail himself of the opportunity to address Jay-K's employees. Likewise the
union representatives did nothing further regarding their request to Kelly that he sign con-
tracts with their respective organizations until about May 1951.
On or about May 22, 1951, Citro saw Kelly in the latter's office at the yard. Citro told Kelly
he had come from Woodbury's (a lumberyard in Whitesboro, New York), where he attempted
IA yardman piles lumber, waits on customers, and assembles orders which are to be de-
livered to customers.
339676 0 - 55 - 85
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to get Woodbury to sign a union contract , but was told to "get to Jay-K first " since Jay-K
was doing the- bulk of the business in the area. Citro informed Kelly that the AFL was going
to control the building material industry. Kelly was also told "your number is up, you have
got to sign a contract , you have got to tell the men to join a union ." Citro warned Kelly that
his call was in the nature of a 5-day notice that unless a union contract was signed, picketing
would start at the end of the 5-day period. Kelly told Citro he was willing to abide by his
agreement made a year previously to place a notice to employees on the yard bulletin board
and have the union representatives talk with the employees . Citro said he could not accept
that proposal without clearing it with his superiors and left.
On or about May 24, 1951, Kelly received a telephone call from Rocco DePerno , president
of the Teamsters. DePerno told Kelly he was calling as head of the Federation of Labor
(DePerno is also president of the Utica Federation of Labor ) and in the role of a peace-
maker with a view to settling matters with Kelly . DePerno requested Kelly to urge his
employees to join the Union stating he knew that if Kelly stimulated them in that direction
they would join. In the event that Kelly did not comply with the request , DePerno noted that
picketing would start the following Monday morning . Kelly told DePerno that if picketing
commenced he would never compromise. DePerno said he would come out to the yard on
Tuesday or Wednesday after the picketing started to "settle things ," remarking that there
were some 35,000 or 45,000 people in the Union, none of whom would trade with Jay-K and
that his business would be ruined.
On Monday , May 28 , 1951 , a picket line consisting of 6 to 8 men , including Citro and Ryan,
was set up in front of Jay-K's premises . Picket signs containing the legends as follows
were carried: "Unfair, Jay-K Lumber Do Not Patronize, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local 182"; "Unfair, Jay-K, U. B. of C & J. of A. Mohawk Valley
Dist. Council of Carpenters, A. F. of L."
Shortly after the picketing started , Harold Ulrich , another Teamsters ' business agent,
offered to bring a union contract to Kelly to look over with a view to signing . Kelly refused
the offer.
During July 1951, Citro drove his automobile through the Jay-K yard waving a sheet of
paper and saying "I just signed Woodbury . Isn't it about time you came along? "
At about 12 noon on a Saturday in July 1951, when the picket line activities ceased for the
day, William Brennan , Carpenters ' business agent, and several other men asked Kelly to
sign a union contract . Kelly replied that if his employees wanted to join the Union he would
agree to sign a contract.
Subsequent to the first day of picketing a blue Kaiser automobile has been parked off the
shoulder of the road in front of the Jay-K premises up to the time of the hearing herein
bearing a Teamsters ' picket sign on its front bumper and a combined District Council-
Carpenters ' picket sign on its rear bumper or vice versa.2 In addition there has been
intermittent " live" picketing participated in by officers and business agents of both Unions,
as well as other parked automobiles bearing the picket signs as above described.
It was stipulated between the parties that neither the Teamsters nor the Carpenters-
District Council has at any time since the inception of picketing to the date of the hearing
herein represented a majority of Jay-K's employees nor has either been certified by the
Board as the representative of Jay-K 's employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing , I find that the object of the Respondents in picketing Jay-K
was to force and require Jay-K to recognize or bargain with Teamsters and Carpenters-
District Council as the representatives of its employees although Respondents have not been
certified as such representatives in accordance with Section 9 of the Act.
B. The Klein incident
In early March 1953, Charles Klein, president of the C. T. K. Real Estate Corporation,
entered into a contract with Chester Milostan & Son , a general contractor, whereby Milostan
was to do the carpentry work on a remodeling job at the premises located at the northwest
corner of John and Bleecker Streets in the city of Utica, New York. The premises house the
retail jewelry business individually owned by Klein and known as Kleins Credit Jewelers.
Klein reserved the right to himself to furnish the lumber and building materials, which, he
arranged to purchase from Jay-K.
2 The Carpenters ' picket sign was removed shortly after the unfair labor practice charges
were filed with the Board in the instant matter on or about April 22, 1953.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1331
Herman Schwertfeger, maintenance man and stock clerk in Klein's employ, was given addi-
tional duties while the alteration job was going on to call Jay-K for the lumber and materials
as needed but with specific instructions from Milostan to advise Jay-K to make all deliveries
before 8 a. in. or between 12 noon and 12:30 p. m., the carpenters' lunch period. Schwertfeger
also helped to unload the lumber and pile it on the floor where the alteration was being made.
Jay-K made either 2 or 3 deliveries of lumber and materials to Klein prior to March 20.
On March 20, a Jay-K truck driven by John Wells with Clarence Davis as the helper left the
yard at about 11:30 a. m. bound for Klein's with a delivery of lumber and materials.
Davis testified thatas theJay-Ktruckleftthe yard and turned on to the highway a light green
Plymouth coupe which was parked in front of the Jay-K premises along with the blue Kaiser,
previously described, pulled away and followed the Jay-K truck. Davis stated he had observed
the Plymouth coupe parked in front of the Jay-K yard for about a week previous to March 20
and that during this time it had displayed on its front and rear bumpers the Teamsters' and
the Carpenters -District Council's picket signs. Further, the person who was driving the Ply-
mouth coupe on March 20 was the same individual he saw in the car during the week when it
was parked in front of the Jay-K premises. At the hearing the individual was identified as
Mike Carbone, a member of the Teamsters. His testimony regarding this incident will be set
forth in detail hereinafter.
The Jay-K truck proceeded to Yorkville, NewYork,where it stopped at the Bauer Hardware
Store to pick up several boxes ofstaples.Davis stated that the Plymouth coupe which had been
following also pulled up to stop about 100 feet in back of the truck. The Jay-K truck then went
on towards Utica with Carbone following it in the Plymouth coupe.
In Utica the Jay-K truck was backed into an alley on John Street to the rear of Kleins Credit
Jewelers preparatory to making the delivery. Davis testified that the Plymouth coupe also
stopped and Carbone approached him and said they could not unload the lumber and materials
for Klein because it was "A Union job." Carbone went into Kleins Credit Jewelers and up the
stairs at the rear of the store to the second floor where the remodeling job was going on.
Since it was necessary for Davis to get out on a shed roof in order to pass the lumber and
materials from the truck through a window into the second floor he, followed Carbone through
the store and up to the next floor. While out on the shed roof passing the lumber through the
window to Schwertfeger, who was piling it on the floor, Davis observed Carbone speak to 3 or
4 carpenters for several minutes. The carpenters were seated on the floor at the front of the
building eating lunch. Davis did not hear Carbone's conversation with the carpenters. Carbone
then came to the window at the rear of the floor and leaning out said to Davis, "you are
wasting your time unloading [it] here because you are only going to have to take [id all back.
This sure surprises me, Chet Milostan pulling a deal like this." Carbone also said something
about "straightening out" Milostan. In spite of Carbone's remarks, Davis unloaded all of the
lumber and materials and Schwertfeger completed his job of piling the lumber on the floor.
The Jay-K truck returned to the lumberyard.
Carbone testified that he is a member of the Teamsters but is neither an officer nor a
steward of said Union. He is an employee of N. D. Peters, a cement company. Carbone denied
that he ever served as a Teamsters'picketat Jay-K. So far as parking his automobile in front
of the Jay-K premises and displaying picket signs on it , Carbone testified that he drives by
the Jay-K premises and on one occasion sometime "this past spring, or fall, or winter,
rather" he parked on the road in order to say hello to the picket regularly stationed there and
then drove right along. Carbone stated that on or about March 20 he drove his Plymouth coupe
to the Sears Store some 2 or 3 miles distant from the Jay-K yard to pick up his wife who was
there shopping.3 On their way home Carbone's attention was attracted to a white truck bearing
no sign or markings but containing lumber which he stated "in my mind I knew it was a Jay-K
truck." Carbone admittedly then followed the truck to Kleins Credit Jewelers.
Carbone stated he entered the retail store premises, inquired who was doing the upstairs
alteration job and received permission to go up to talk to the men. Carbone saw 6 or 7 men
eating lunch on the second floor and asked for the boss. According to Carbone, one of the men
pointed to another fellow and said "That is the boss there." Carbone spoke to "the boss,"
who he claimed was about 25 feet away from the other men, and said, "do you know this stuff
that you are handling here is Jay-K lumber, is unfair to the Union? " Reassuring "the boss"
upon the latter's inquiry that the men were working with Jay-K lumber, Carbone walked out.
He admitted however that as he was leaving the premises he leaned out of the second floor
window and said to Davis, "don't bother unloading, you will probably have to take it back."
9Carbone was temporarily unemployed for some time prior to that date.
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carbone also admitted that on 1 or 2 other occasions he followed Jay-K trucks but since they
went to private homes to make deliveries he never bothered them. He was unable to state
when these occasions took place and offered the explanation that the trucks just happened to
drive by him and that was all there was to it.
Schwertfeger, who was on the second floor to pile the lumber which was being unloaded,
corroborated Davis' testimony regarding Carbone's statement that hecould stop unloading the
lumber because he would have to take it back. Schwertfeger testified that nothing was said to
him by anyone and he completed his work of piling the lumber. He testified further that
Milostan's carpenter foreman. Dan Murphy, was in and out of the premises while the job was
going on but during the time the above-described events took place, Murphy was no, there.
Carbone did not impress me as a truthful witness. His testimony regarding his chance meeting
with the Jay-K truck in downtown Utica was in my opinion implausible. Indeed, his admission
that he followed Jay-K trucks on other occasions, when considered in the light of the entire
record and his otherwise inadequate explanations therefor, reveals a pattern on his part to
follow Jay-K trucks, at least, during the week preceding March 20. I do not credit his
testimony. I find based on the straight-forward testimony of Davis and Schwertfeger, the
latter a neutral in this proceeding who has no interest in the outcome, that Carbone and his
Plymouth coupe were on the picket line displaying Teamsters' and Carpenters-District
Council's picket signs in front of the Jay-K yard for about a week prior to March 20; that
Carbone left the picket line to follow the Jay-K truck to Kleins Credit Jewelers on March 20;
that Carbone engaged the carpenters on the job in conversation; that Carbone did not speak
with Murphy, the foreman; and that Carbone told Davis he could stop unloading the lumber
because he would have to take it back.
At the end of their lunch period the carpenters remained on Klein's premises but did not
perform any work.
Thereafter Milostan received a telephone call from Murphy and was advised that a question
had arisen regarding Jay-K lumber coming on the job and the carpenters were not disposed to
work with such lumber. Milostan came out to the Klein project at about 1:30 p. m. Shortly
thereafter and as a result of Murphy's telephone call, Milostan reassigned the carpenters to
another of his projects. The carpenters thereupon left Klein's premises.
Klein and Milostan then instructed Murphy to purchase other lumber and materials so that
the alteration could be completed. That afternoon Klein requested Kelly to take back the
Jay-K lumber giving as a reason that the carpenters would not complete the job with such
lumber. The following morning at about 8 a. m. the Jay-K lumber was removed from Klein's
premises and lumber purchased from another supplier was delivered. On Milostan's instruc-
tions his carpenters returned to the Klein project to go on with the job.
Conclusions
The picket line at Jay-K was set up and continued in existence under the sponsorship and
authority of both the Teamsters and Carpenters-District Council. It is clear from the record
that throughout the period of picketing at the Jay-K business premises signs of both the
Teamsters and the Carpenters-District Council were displayed by the "live" pickets as well
as on the parked automobiles 4 and prominent among the pickets from time to time were offi-
cers and business agents of the Respondents. Since it has been found that Carbone was a
regular picket for at least a week prior to the Klein incident and displayed the picket signs of
the Teamsters and the Carpenter-District Council on his Plymouth coupe, it follows and I find
that the Respondents were responsible for Carbone's acts performed in furtherance of the
purposes for which the picket line was established. See International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487; Reinstatement of
Agency (1933), 228-237.
We turn next to the responsibility of the Respondents for Carbone's activities at Kleins
Credit Jewelers. I have heretofore found that Carbone left the picket line to follow the Jay-K
truck to Klems Credit Jewelers and that as a matter of fact at or about this time Carbone
was engaged in a pattern of following the Jay-K trucks and "bothered" them except when de-
liveries were being made to private homes. While the record is barren of evidence showing
that the Teamsters and Carpenters-District Council specifically authorized or ratified the
4 Except that as heretofore found the Carpenters-District Council's picket sign was removed
after the original charge in this matter was filed with the Board on April 22, 1953.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1333
following of Jay-K trucks by Carbone the absence of such proof is not fatal , particularly since
the evidence is clear that Carbone on these occasions was acting within the scope of his au-
thority as a picket . In following the Jay-K truck to Kleuis Credit Jewelers , Carbone was on
,,an excursion from the picket line"5 in furtherance of the picket line purposes . Accordingly
I conclude and find that the Respondents were responsible for Carbone 's activities at Klems
Credit Jewelers.
Carbone was observed on Klein's premises in conversation with Milostan 's carpenters.
What he said to the carpenters does not appear in the record . It is significant , however, that
immediately upon leaving the carpenters , Carbone told Davis that he could stop unloading the
lumber because he would have to take it back. The foregoing viewed in the light of Milostan's
assignment of the carpenters to another of his projects because they were not disposed to work
with Jay-K lumber; the removal of the Jay -K lumber from Klein's premises and upon receipt
of lumber from another supplier the subsequent reassignment of the carpenters to go on with
the Klein job ; the failure of the Respondents to call any of Milostan 's carpenters or Foreman
Murphy , all members of the Carpenters ,6 can lead only to the inference and the conclusion
that Carbone induced and encouraged the employees of Milostan in the course of their employ-
ment to refuse to handle or work on Jay-K lumber an object thereof being to force or require
C. T. K. Real Estate Corporation tocease doing business with Jay-K and with the further object
of forcing or requiring Jay-K to recognize or bargain with Respondents as the collective-bar-
gaining representatives of its employees , although Respondents had not been certified as the
bargaining agents of these employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act
and I so find.
The contract in existence between Milostan and the District Councils provides as follows:
Article V, Section 5: Members of the Union shall not be obliged to work with non-Union
men. Members of the Union shall not be obliged to work on any project where the trade
autonomy of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is in jeopardy.
Article 1 , Section 2 : The trade autonomy of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America consists of the milling , fashioning , joining , assembling , erecting,
fashioning or dismantling of all material of wood, hollow metal, or fiber , or of products
composed in part of wood , hollow metal , or fiber; the laying of all cork and compo and all
other resilient floor, wall or ceiling covering , all shingles , the erection and dismantling
of machinery and the cleaning of such machinery as it pertains to the process of erection,
installation or dismantling of such machinery and the manufacture of all wood materials,
where the skill, knowledge , and training of a carpenter are required , either through the
operation of machine or hand tools. When the term Carpenter and Joiner is used, it shall
mean all the subdivisions of the trade as herein specified.
Counsel for the Respondents urges that by the aforesaid provisions of Milostan and the
Carpenters agreed that there was no obligation on the part of the employees to work on any
project with "unfair " or "nonunion " materials . I cannot accept this interpretation. On the
contrary as counsel for the General Counsel points out in his brief , no mention of "unfair" or
"nonunion " goods is made in eitheroftheaforesaid provisions or for that matter in the entire
contract . The only restrictions referred to in thesaid contract clauses , if they can be charac-
terized as restrictions , are that union members "shall not be obliged to work with nonunion
men" or "where the trade autonomy ... is in jeopardy ." It is a strained interpretation to
read into the said contract clauses that union members shall not be obliged to work on a project
with "unfair " or "nonunion" materials.
That article I, section 2, of the contract concerns itself solely with the jurisdictional claims
of carpenters is made apparent with the constitution and laws of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America is read . Article I, section 2, of the contract contains
practically the same language as section 7 of the constitution labeled "Trade Autonomy." The
constitutional provision, however, is followed by an explanatory statement shedding light on
5 International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union ( Sunset Line and Twine Company),
supra
6 The failure to come forward with evidence available creates a presumption that if produced
it will expose facts unfavorable to that party . N. L. R B. v. Ohio Calcium Co., 133 F 2d 721
(C. A. 6).
7 Local 125 is a constituent local of the District Counsel which organization negotiates con-
tracts with the Utica Builders ' Exchange . Milostan is a member of the latter organization.
13 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its intent, to wit: "Our claim of jurisdiction, therefore, extends over the following divisions
and subdivisions of the trade." (Emphasis supplied.) "Carpenters and Joiners, Railroad
Carpenters, Bench Hands, Stair Builders, Millwrights ... and all those engaged in the running
of woodworking , or engaged as helpers to any of the above divisions or subdivisions or the
handling of materialon any oftheabove divisions or subdivisions " Thus it is clear that when
"Trade Autonomy" is contained in a carpenter ' s contract the parties are referring to the juris-
dictional claims of carpenters on a job and not, as contended by counsel for the Respondents, their
right to desist from working on a project with "unfai r" or" nonunion" materials . The decisions in
Conway's Express v. N. L. R. B., 195 F. 2d 906 (C. A. 2), and Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., 105
NLRB 740, would thus appear to have no particular relevance here.
The complaint also alleges that employees of C. T. K. Real Estate Corporation and Kleins
Credit Jewelers were induced and encouraged to refuse in the course of their employment to
handle or work on jobs or materials an object thereof being to force or require C. T. K. Real
Estate Corporation and/or Klems Credit Jewelers to cease doing business with Jay-K and with
the further object of forcing or requiring Jay-K to recognize or bargain with Respondents as
the representatives of Jay-K' s employees although Respondents have not been certified as
such representatives under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
As hereinabove found Schwertfeger was the only employee of Klein designated to assist in
the unloading of Jay-K lumber and to pile the lumber on the floor where the alteration was being
made. The General Counsel contends in his brief that since Schwertfeger heard Carbone's
statement to Davis that he might as well stop unloading the lumber because he would have to
take it back, "the tendency" ofsuchstatement would be to induce and encourage Schwertfeger.
I find no merit in this contention. No evidence was adduced by the General Counsel to show
that the Respondents' demand for a boycott of Jay-K was either addressed to Schwertfeger or
intended to be transmitted to him in the form of an appeal or command from the Respondents.
There was, therefore, no "inducement" or "encouragement," of Schwertfeger within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4). See Conway's Express, 87 NLRB 972, 980-1. In view of this
finding I find it unnecessary to consider the question raised by counsel for the Respondents
whether the inducement of a single employee violated the Act.
Upon the foregoing and the record as a whole I find that the Respondents in violation of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) induced and encouraged employees of Chester Milostan & Son to
engage in a concerted refusal to handle or work on Jay-K lumber, objects thereof being (a) to
force or require C. T. K. Real Estate Corporation and/or Kleins Credit Jewelers to cease
doing business with Jay-K, and (b) to force and require Jay-K to recognize or bargain with
Respondents as the collective-bargaining representatives of its employees although the Re-
spondents were not certified as the bargaining agents of these employees in accordance with
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
C. The Sunset incident
On or about April 27, 1953, John Helbock, truckdriver for the Blount Lumber Company,
millwork and hardwood flooring manufacturers in Lacona, New York, left his plant with a
truckload of supplies to be delivered to firms in the Utica area. As he was driving his truck
into the Jay-K yard at about 9:30 a. m. to deliver an order of hardwood flooring, his first
delivery of the day, Helbock observed a number of automobiles parked in front of the Jay-K
premises, as well as several men standing there one.of-whom was carrying a picket sign.8
Helbock did not honor the picket line and drove his truck into the Jay-K yard. In accordance
with his usual custom, Helbock went into the truck and placed the hardwood flooring on the
tailgate from which point it was taken by Jay-K's employees to storage sheds in the yard.
Helbock did not pick up anything at the Jay-K yard and proceeded in his truck to the Sunset
Lumber Company to make the next delivery.
At Sunset, Helbock parked the truck in frontof the building where it is always unloaded. Just
then he observed an automobile pull up to the side of the road opposite him and saw two un-
identified men leave it. Helbock went to the yard office looking for Raymond (Red) Heinrich,
yard foreman for Sunset. Heinrich was not in the office. Helbock met employee Edwin Bielby
8 Helbock did not testify regarding the wording on the picket sign. Kelly testified that the
Carpenters-District Council ceased displaying their picket signs shortly after the original
charge in this matter was filedwith theBoard on April 22, 1953. Since Helbock entered Jay-K's
yard on April 27, 1953, and observed only one person carrying a picket sign, I find that the
picketing on the said date was being carried on by the Teamsters.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1335
in the yard near the main office and was told by the latter that his truck coluld not be unloaded.
Helbock then saw "Red" Heinrich near the main office who also told him that his truck could
not be unloaded. Helbock left Sunset without completing the delivery. On his way to a truck
terminal in Utica, Helbock was followed by the automobile containing the two unidentified men
that had stopped across the road from him at Sunset.
Edwin Bielby is a truckdriver and yardman in the employ of Sunset Lumber Company. He is
1 of the 4 regular employees, all of whom are members of the Teamsters. Bielby has been
the Teamsters' steward at Sunset for the past 2 years.
As Bielby was loading his truck in the Sunset yard between 10 and 11 a. m. he saw an auto-
mobile with two men in it following the Blount truck. One of the occupants of the automobile
came up toBielby and inquired "if the[ Sunsetl yard was union" and if he was the union steward
on the job. Upon Bielby's affirmative reply a men told him that the Blount truck crossed the
picket line at Jay-K and that it could not be unloaded by the employees of Sunset.
Bielby went to the main office where he reported to "Red" Heinrich that the Blount truck
was in; that some men in a car had followed it and that he was told by one of the men that
Sunset employees could not unload the Blount truck. Returning to his truck to finish loading it,
Bielby met Helbock and told him that Blount truck could not be unloaded.
Bielby was thereafter directed by "Red" Heinrich to take the Sunset truck out on delivery.
Before leaving the yard, however, Bielby told employee Denslow "how these men followed the
[Blount] truck in and weren't supposed to unload it."
The Blount truck made deliveries to Sunset about once every 2 weeks. It was the practice of
Blount's truckdriver to place the millwork on the tailgate of his truck and any Sunset employee,
"whoever happens to be there," carries the materials from the truck to the storage shed.
Raymond Heinrich, yard foreman for the Sunset Lumber Company, credibly testified that
Bielby, among other employees, generally unloaded the Blount truck and any other suppliers'
trucks making delivery to Sunset. In the latter part of April 1953, while the Blount truck was
parked waiting to be unloaded, Bielby came to Heinrich and said, "You hadn't better unload
that truck, there is a couple of union men over there." Heinrich then met Helbock who asked
what he should do since Bielby told him that his truck could not be unloaded. In an effort to
ascertain what it was all about, Heinrich tried to contact Carmen Citro on the telephone, but
without success. Heinrich did not direct any of his employees to unload the Blount truck and
decided to let it leave Sunset without being unloaded.
At the hearing the parties stipulated that prior to the events at Sunset described above,
Blount was not in contractual relationship with any labor organization; the Teamsters did not
have a labor dispute with Blount; the Teamsters had never declared to its membership or to
the public that Blount was unfair; and the Teamsters had not been advised by any other labor
organization that Blount was unfair or was involved in a labor dispute with them.
Conclusions
Since Bielby was the Teamsters's steward at Sunset it follows that Respondent Teamsters is
chargeable with Bielby's activities and conduct within the scope of his general authority. See
Howland Dry Goods Company, 85 NLRB 1037, enfd. 199 F. 2d 709 (C. A. 2); Roy Stone Transfer
Corporation, 100 NLRB 856; Shen-Valley Meat Packers, Incorporated, 105 NLRB 491.
Furthermore, Bielby as the Teamsters' steward was the "normal conduit of union instruc-
tions to members" employed at Sunset. Thus Bielby's statement to employee Denslow regard-
ing the following of the Blount truck and that "we weren't supposed to unload it" together with
the fact that Bielby did not unload the truck but instead left the yard to make a delivery, must
be interpreted as a statement of the Teamsters' position and as such was "inducement" and
"encouragement" within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. See Roy Stone Transfer
Corporation, s, upra.
Counsel for the Respondents contends that article IV, section 9 of the collective-bargaining
contract 9between the Teamsters and Sunset, the so-called "hot cargo" clause, is a complete
91 will not burden this report with a detailed recital of the evidence regarding the issue of
whether the contract was in effect at the time of the Sunset incident, as contended by the
General Counsel Suffice it to say that the parties to the contract considered themselves bound
by all of its terms except wages during the interim period and when, in May 1953, agreement
was reached on wages Sunset paid the same retroactive to the anniversary date of the con-
tract February 28, 1953. 1 find no merit to the General Counsel's contention.
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
defense to any alleged unfair labor practice arising out of the Sunset incident. It provides as
follows:
The Union reserves the right to stop any of its members at any time or under any cir-
cumstances from making any pickups, drops or deliveries at any place where labor
trouble exists. The Union reserves the right to allow any of its members to handle any
merchandise involved in a labor dispute and under no circumstances will any merchan-
dise be allowed to be taken from the plant by any person for forwarding directly or in-
directly to any destination where a labor dispute exists.
Blount was not involved in any labor dispute with the Teamsters. Its truck did not carry any
of Jay-K materials or other so-called "unfair" goods. Nor do I find that a labor dispute arose
when Blount's truck crossed the Teamsters' picket line at Jay-K. Thus there was no require-
ment that the Teamsters' members at Sunset pick up merchandise at a place where a labor
dispute was taking place. Blount's merchandise was on Sunset premises and no labor dispute
was taking place there. Secondly it is undisputed that all of the merchandise on the Blount
truck was only Blount's products which had not been declared unfair nor was it involved in a
labor dispute. In view of these circumstances I find that the Conway principle is not relevant
here. I find further that the "hotcargo" clause in the instant contract did not afford protection
to the Sunset employees in refusing to unload merchandise from the Blount truck, a duty
regularly performed by them.
It is clear and I find that we are dealing here with a situation of the Teamsters bringing
pressure on a completely neutral tertiary employer (Blount) by refusing to allow its members,
employees of the secondary employer (Sunset), to unloadBlount's merchandise for the purpose
of effecting, by such measures, ultimate pressure upon the primary employer (Jay-K), i.e.,
to get Blount to cease doing business with Jay-K.
Upon the foregoing I conclude and find that the Teamsters in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (B), induced and encouraged the employees of Sunset to engage in a strike or concerted
refusal in the course of their employment to handle or transport goods, articles, commodities,
or to perform services for their employer, objects thereof being (a) to force and require the
Blount Lumber Company to cease doing business with Jay-K, and (b) to force and require
Jay-K to recognize or bargain with the Teamsters as the collective-bargaining representative
of its employees although the Teamsters was not certified as the bargaining agent of these
employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., set forth in section I, above, and other
employers have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead and have led to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, the
undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings
of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 182, Utica, New York and Vicinity, AFL, and Mohawk Valley District Council,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, and its affiliate United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 125, AFL, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 182, Utica, New York and Vicinity, AFL, has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging
C. A. BATSON CO. 1337
employees of Chester Milostan & Son and employees of Sunset Lumber Company to engage in
a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle or work on goods,
articles, materials, or commodities or to perform services for their respective employers,
objects thereof being (a) to force and require C. T. K. Real Estate Corporation and Blount
Lumber Company to cease doing business with Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., and (b) to
force the said Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., to recognize or bargain with Local 182
Teamsters as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees although Local 182
Teamsters was not certified as the bargaining agent of these employees in accordance with
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
3. Mohawk Valley District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL, and its affiliate United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local 125, AFL, have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) and (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees of Chester Milostan & Son to
engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, handle or
work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform services for their em-
ployers, objects thereof-being (a) to force and require C. T. K. Real Estate Corporation to
cease doing business with Jay-K Independent Lumber Corps., and (b) to force and require
Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., to recognize and bargain with Local 125 Carpenters as the
collective bargaining representative of its employees although Local 125 Carpenters was not
certified as the bargaining agent of these employees in accordance with the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
C. A. BATSON CO. and JAMES G. HEBSHIE
LOCAL 721, INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING
& COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA, A.F.L.
and JAMES G. HEBSHIE . Cases Nos . 1-CA-1479 and 1-
CB-Z36. June 15, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 19, 1954, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean
issued his Intermediate Report in the above - titled proceedings,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices , and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent Company and the Respondent Union
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs, and the General Counsel filed a brief.
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 Intermediate Report , the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the cases , and hereby adopts the
findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the following additions and modifications.
1. As did the Trial Examiner, the Board finds that the Com-
pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
108 NLRB No. 194.