Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc., Local 294

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 484 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 294 [Island Dock Lumber,
Inc.] and Lumber Yard Employees Local Union No. 1150 of
the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CC-5313. December 16, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges filed by Lumber Yard Employees Local Union No.
1150 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, herein called Carpenters, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the
Third Region, issued a complaint against International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Local 294, herein called Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (i), (ii) (A)
and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as 'amended. Copies
of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
parties. The Respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying
the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices and asserting cer-
tain matters by way of an affirmative defense.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges,
in substance, that the Respondent had engaged in and induced and
encouraged individuals employed by M. W. Kellogg Company, A. S.
Wikstrom, Inc., and Island Dock Lumber, Inc., to engage in strikes or
refusals in the course of their employment to transport or work on
goods or materials or perform services for their respective employers,
and had threatened, coerced, and restrained said employers, where
the objects of the above were (1) to force or require Wikstrom to adopt,
affirm, maintain, give effect to, or comply with an agreement inter-
preted and construed by Respondent in a manner prohibited by Sec-
tion 8 (e) of the Act; (2) to force or require Wikstrom to enter into and
give effect to an agreement, express or implied, whereby Wikstrom
would cease or refrain, or agree to cease or refrain, from handling
or using the products of, or cease doing business with, Island Dock
or with any other employer who manufactures concrete or deals in
building materials which are to be delivered to construction sites
within the jurisdiction of Respondent, by employees who are not
members of Respondents; and (3) to otherwise force or require
Wikstrom, and other persons engaged in commerce, to cease doing
business with Island Dock.
In its affirmative defense, Respondent contends that the dispute
arose over work belonging to Respondent by contract, that the Charg-
145 NLRB No. 49.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC., LOCAL 294 485
ing Party was itself guilty of unfair labor practices and had engaged
in an illegal strike to obtain the work, and that the basic dispute had
been voluntarily settled by an agreement between the parties, includ-
ing the Charging Party.
On May 1, 1963, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts and
jointly moved the transfer of this proceeding directly to the Board for
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and for the issuance by the Board
of a Decision and Order based thereon. In said motion, the parties
agreed further to waive 'a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the
issuance of an Intermediate Report.
By Order dated May 13, 1963, the Board granted the joint motion
and fixed the time for the filing of briefs. Briefs have been filed by the
General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the basis of the 'aforesaid stipulation and the entire record
in this case,' and having given due consideration to the briefs, the
Board 2 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
M. W. Kellogg Company, herein called Kellogg, is a Delaware
corporation and is engaged throughout the United States as a general
contractor in the building and construction industry. During the year
1962, Kellogg performed services valued in excess of $50,000 outside
Delaware and New York.
A. S. Wikstrom, Inc., herein called Wikstrom, a New York corpo-
ration, is a heavy construction contractor and during the year 1962
performed services outside New York valued in excess of $50,000.
Island Dock Lumber, Inc., herein called Island Dock, is a New York
corporation with its office and place of business in the city of Kingston,
New York, where it is, and has been at all times material herein,
engaged in the wholesale and retail sale and distribution of building
materials, including concrete. During the year 1962 Island Dock
purchased, transferred, and delivered to New York directly from other
States lumber, building supplies, and other goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Kellogg, Wikstrom, and
Island Dock is each engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
i The parties agreed that the entire record in this case shall consist of the formal
pleadings , the stipulation of facts, and the official transcript of the injunction proceedings
before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Merle D.
Vincent, Jr., Regional Director et al. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 294, 215 F. Supp. 240
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Fanning].
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and we further find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 294, and Lumber Yard Employees
Local Union No. 1150 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events
At all times material herein, Kellogg, as prime contractor, was
engaged in the construction of an addition to the Alpha Portland
Cement Company at Cementon, Greene County, New York. The
preliminary excavation and foundation work was subcontracted by
Kellogg to Wikstrom. Wikstrom, through its membership in the
Associated General Contractors of America, New York State Chapter,
and Respondent Teamsters Local 294, through its membership in New
York State Teamsters Council-Construction Division, were parties to
a collective-bargaining agreement containing, inter alia, the following
provisions :
ARTICLE II-RECOGNITION
1. The Employer does hereby recognize the Union as the sole
labor organization representing employees covered by the Broth-
erhood of Teamsters jurisdiction, including, but not limited to,
the classifications listed in Appendix A of this Agreement.'
ARTICLE VI-SUBCONTRACTING
1. Site work shall be defined as all work done on the site proper
and all hauling from an area outside the project area to the project
area, which outside area is operated and maintained by the prime
contractor for use in conjunction with the project.
2. The Employer agrees that the wages, hours and working
conditions provided for by this Agreement shall encompass the
entire work covered by this Agreement, thereby applying equally
to any subcontract let by the Employer on work covered by this
Agreement.
Sometime in December 1962, Wikstrom placed a verbal order with
Island Dock for the delivery of ready-mix concrete to the project site.
8Included in the list of classifications is that of drivers of "Agitator or Mixer Trucks."
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., LOCAL 294 487
Island Dock's employees, including its truckdrivers, were represented
by Carpenters Local 1150.4 George Fidler, Wikstrom's job superin-
tendent, testified that Anthony Carusone, Respondent's steward on the
Alpha project, inquired of him as to who was going to deliver con-
crete to the project. When Fidler replied that he did not know, Caru-
sone asked if Fidler "was aware of the fact that there would have to
be 294 drivers" on the trucks. Fidler stated that he told Carusone he
was aware of this "fact." Carusone admitted telling Fidler that under
their contract on-site driving belonged to the Teamsters and "that
whenever any of the trucks on the job do any work on the job, it would
be 294 men." Fidler also testified that he asked-
. . . what would happen if Island Dock drivers or any other
party who would be delivering this concrete on the job was not
union drivers, what they would do; and he said they would take
the proper steps to see that there were union drivers on the trucks.
Fidler further testified that Carusone gave him the names of sup-
pliers of concrete that used Local 294 drivers.
Because of this announcement by Carusone and a subsequent con-
versation with Robilotto, business agent of Respondent, set forth
below, Fidler called his home office and discussed the situation with
John D. Bryant, secretary and attorney for the Company. Neither
Fidler nor Bryant testified as to what decision was reached, but on or
about December 19, Yerry, the Carpenters' business agent, was advised
by another agent of the Carpenters, Lamaner, that the verbal order
for concrete previously given to Island Dock was to be canceled be-
cause Island Dock did not have members of Respondent on its trucks.
On December 21, Yerry phoned Fidler about the matter, asserting,
according to Fidler, that the Island Dock contract was being canceled
because of Respondent's pressure.
According to Yerry's testimony about the phone conversation, Fidler
related that Carusone had announced that if Island Dock drivers came
on the site, they would not be permitted to unload the ready-mixed
concrete; that he (Fidler) had consulted with Robilotto, business
agent of Respondent, and that Robilotto had said that no one could
come on the jobsite unless he was a member of Local 294; and that,
accordingly, he (Fidler) was canceling the Island Dock order. Yerry
told Fidler that if the order were canceled, the Carpenters would with-
draw their men from the job. Fidler then replied that the Teamsters
had threatened to picket the job, and if Yerry would guarantee to pre-
vent such picketing Fidler would permit the Island Dock order to
stand. When Yerry stated he could not give such a guarantee, Fidler
told him the concrete order would be canceled unless the trucks came
4 Carpenters Local 1150, the Charging Party herein, had been certified by the Board as
the representative of Island Dock's employees on September 20, 1962
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the site with Local 294 drivers. Yerry thereupon told Fidler he was
taking his carpenters off the jab on Monday, December 24,1962. Yerry
in fact called the carpenters, members of Local 1150, off the job on
December 26.
On December 27, a meeting arranged by McGonigle, labor relations
representative of Kellogg, was held at Respondent's office in Albany.
Present were McGonigle and Duncan for Kellogg, Bryant for Wik-
strom, Yerry for the Carpenters. The Respondent was represented
by Ray, its secretary and Robilotto, its business 'agent. Island Dock
was not represented, but the reason is not set forth in the record.
At the meeting, Ray asserted Respondent's jurisdiction over all on site
work in Greene County and argued that the AGC contract required
Wikstrom to employ as drivers of the concrete trucks only members
of Respondent. However, according to Yerry's uncontradicted testi-
mony, Bryant, an officer and attorney for Wikstrom, stated that
"delivery of ready-mix concrete on the job was not subcontracting
work." In reply to a question from Yerry, Robilotto stated that no-
body but Local 294 men could come on the site driving the trucks.
Likewise, Robilotto stated to Bryant, "You have to use 294 men, or
else."
Three proposals were made to resolve the impasse: (1) Wikstrom
should set up a portable ready-mix plant on site; or (2) Wikstrom
should lease ready-mix truck from some other source, using drivers
who were Respondent's members which trucks would pick up the
cement at Island Dock and deliver it; or (3) when Island Dock
drivers arrived at the site, Respondent would put its own drivers on
the Island Dock trucks to complete the delivery. After considerable
discussion, plan 3 was adopted.5 Bryant testified that it was finally
agreed that the concrete was to be purchased from Island Dock, to be
delivered by its own drivers but that, at the entrance to the site, the
trucks would be taken over by Local 294 drivers "who would complete
the actual delivery on the job site." Bryant also agreed that Wikstrom
would pay the extra cost of the Local 294 drivers. Bryant thereupon
gave a written order to Island Dock for concrete. As a result of the
conference, the Carpenters returned to work on December 28.
Following the December 27 meeting, Respondent instructed Caru-
sone that he was to call members of Respondent to man the Island
Dock trucks when they reached the site. Island Dock was scheduled to
make its first delivery of ready-mix concrete on Monday, January 7,
1963. On that day, Gilbert Grey, employedby Island Dock as a ready-
mix truckdriver, left the Island Dock premises at about 7:30 a.m.
8 Though Yerry maintained that he did not agree to the proposal , it is clear from the
testimony in the district court, that he did not oppose it. On the basis of that record, we
agree with the finding of the court that Yerry , on behalf of the Carpenters, agreed to the
proposal.
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC., LOCAL 294 489
driving a ready-mix truck which contained 7 yards of ready-mix
to be delivered to the jobsite. Grey was followed in about 20 minutes
by Paul Kennedy, another of Island Dock's ready-mix truckdrivers.
While Grey was en route to the jobsite, he was called on the truck radio
by Frank Stenson, sales manager for Island Dock, and told that pos-
sibly someone would want to go in on the truck and that his truck
would be stopped. 'Stenson told Grey not to permit anyone to ride
in or on the truck. When Grey arrived 'at the jobsite he was stopped
by a pickup truck driven by Carusone and carrying one other man in
it. The pickup truck pulled up on the left-hand side of the road in
front of Grey and came to a stop. One of the Respondent's two mem-
bers who had been called by Carusone, as testified to by him, to man
the Island Dock trucks, came from a passenger car. He asked if Grey
was authorized to take one of them onto the site in the truck or on the
truck. Grey replied in the negative. Carusone then told Grey, "Then
you can't go in the plant."
Kennedy, the driver of the second Island Dock ready-mix truck, did
not receive any communication from the Company over the two-way
radio as did Grey. Kennedy testified that when he arrived at the job-
site he noticed Grey's truck on the side of the road, its entrance to the
site blocked by the pickup truck. The same individual who had earlier
told Grey he could not drive on the site waved him over behind Grey's
truck. Kennedy testified : "He came over to the window of my cab
and said that he wouldn't allow us in there until the labor trouble was
settled."
Carusone admitted stopping the trucks. He testified that he had
pulled onto the road,and brought his pickup truck to 'a stop long before
the ready-mix trucks arrived; that he waited there and that by flash-
ing his lights he signaled the oncoming Island Dock driver-he wanted
to talk to him "or something." Carusone further testified that he told
the first driver "that they made an agreement that there were sup-
posed to be 294 men from that point on," and "... I told him he
would have to put another man on it."
Fidler also testified with respect to the above January 7 incidents.
Fidler stated that about 9:30 that morning Duncan, project engineer
for Kellogg, informed him "that there was trouble down in the yard;
that Island Dock has refused to let the union drivers on their truck,
and I better get down and see if we can get it straightened out."
Fidler then went to the Wikstrom trailer and there spoke to Island
Dock's sales manager, Stenson. Stenson informed Fidler that they
would not allow anybody on their trucks, that their counsel had advised
that for insurance purposes they should allow no one on their trucks.
The Island Dock trucks and Carusone's pickup remained in the posi-
tions described above until 'approximately 11:45 that morning. At
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that time, Stenson told the drivers to take their loads back to the
Island Dock plant and dump them. Carusone's pickup truck was
moved only after Stenson instructed the Island Dock drivers to take
their loads back. Thereafter, Wikstrom canceled its order to Island
Dock, and gave the concrete order to another supplier, Nelson Ready-
Mix of Saugerties, New York, one of the suppliers previously named by
Carusone as having drivers who were members of Respondent.
B. The Conclusions
The record is clear that in December 1962 and January 1963, Re-
spondent asserted that all on-site work had to be done by members
of Local 294, and that all subcontractors performing such work had to
employ members of Local 294. It is also clear that by the conduct
described above, Respondent finally forced Wikstrom to cancel its
contract with Island Dock and to enter into, at the least, an implied
agreement that concrete would be supplied by persons or companies
employing as drivers members of Local 294.
Respondent contends that its conduct was protected by reason of
the AGC agreement and the construction industry proviso to Section
8 (e) of the Act; 6 and that it did not threaten or coerce Wikstrom so
as to cause Wikstrom to cease doing business with Island Dock, assert-
ing that Wikstrom's decision to cancel was voluntary and came about
as a result of the December 27 agreement to which the Charging Party
was a party. It further contends that as it was protected by the pro-
viso, it could enforce its rights under the AGC agreement by picketing
or other economic pressure.
At the outset, we are confronted with a question of contract inter-
pretation-was the mixing and delivery of concrete at the project site
"on-site" work?
The record herein shows that the Island Dock drivers left their
plant for the site with dry loads of cement, sand, gravel, and aggregate,
and two tanks of water. The specifications called for a 3-minute mix.
The drivers did not mix the materials with the water on the 14-mile
drive to the site because of a fear of breakdowns. The contract between
Wikstrom and Island Dock did not call for raw materials and water
but a finished product, liquid concrete. Though the mixing may have
taken place on the site, it could equally have taken place off site, the
location of the mixing act being highly immaterial to the mixing
operation itself. The mixing operation simply consisted of the driver
setting the mixer agitator in motion by the use of a lever. The
6 The proviso to Section 8(e) reads:
Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall apply to an agreement between a
labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating to the con-
tracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of the construction, altera-
tion, painting, or repair of a building, structure, or other work. . .
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., LOCAL 294 491
mixing is not therefore necessarily-in the words of the construction
proviso-"work to be done at the site."
After the materials in the ready-mix truck are mixed according to
specifications, the liquid concrete is "delivered" by being poured from
the truck as directed by on-site employees, either into prepared build-
ing forms, into chutes, or into cement buckets. The pouring of the
concrete is the essence of and constitutes the actual delivery because
liquid concrete, by its very nature, cannot be dumped on the ground
at the construction site like other materials. While the liquid concrete
is still in the agitator truck, it has not been delivered until the actual
delivery by pouring.
In Connecticut Sand and Stone Corporation,° the Board adopted, in
the absence of exceptions, the Trial Examiner's finding therein that
the mixing and pouring of ready-mix concrete at a construction site is
merely the final act of delivery and does not come within the construc-
tion industry exemption. We now affirm that finding, and conclude
that the mixing and delivery of ready-mix concrete at construction
sites is not construction work but is the delivery of a material or
product.
The Mouse Conference Report on the 1959 amendments to the Act 8
states with respect to the construction industry proviso :
The proviso does not exempt from Section 8(e) agreements re-
lating to supplies and materials or other products shipped or
otherwise transported to and delivered on the site of the con-
struction.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the delivery of ready-mix
concrete does not come within the construction industry proviso, and
that the contract with Island Dock did not involve the subcontracting
of on-site work, but was in reality a contract for the delivery of mate-
rials. Accordingly, we find that article VI of the AGC contract-to
the extent that that article, as construed and interpreted by Respond-
ent, may require that mixing and delivery of concrete be done by
members of Respondent-violates Section 8(e) of the Act. It fol-
lows, and we find, that by its conduct-in particular, the statements
made by Respondent's representatives at the December 27 meeting,
and similar statements made by Carusone to Fidler-Respondent
forced and required Wikstrom to adopt and give effect to its unlawful
interpretation and construction of the AGC clause. We further find
that by this conduct Respondent forced and required Wikstrom to
7Teamsters Local Union No. 559, etc . ( Connecticut and Stone Corporation), 138
NLRB 532
8 H. Conf Rept. 1147 , 86th Cong , 1st sess, p. 39; II Leg Hist. 943 See also legislative
history concerning the construction industry set forth in Ohio Valley Carpenters Distract
Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc (Cardinal Industries , Inc ), 136 NLRB
977, 984-989.
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
enter into an agreement, also prohibited by Section 8(e), that limited
the persons with whom Wikstrom might contract for concrete to those
employing members of Respondent. Accordingly, we conclude that
by its conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (A) of the
Act.
We also find that by Carusone's statements to Fidler and by the
implied threats made at the December 27 meeting, Respondent re-
strained and coerced Wikstrom and Kellogg with pan object of forcing
Wikstrom to cease doing business with Island Dock in violation of
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B). Likewise, as we have found Island
Dock to be the primary employer involved in the instant dispute, we
do not find Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) (B) by its actions
directed against Island Dock on January 7. However, we do not find
that Respondent induced or encouraged employees of Wikstrom or of
Kellogg to engage in a strike or a refusal to perform any services for
their employers. Accordingly, we shall dismiss those allegations of
the complaint .9
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the companies herein
involved, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in activities which
violate Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act, we shall order
it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
0 we have considered and find no merit in other affirmative defenses of Respondent
earlier referred to. As to Respondent's contention that Wikstrom ceased doing business
with Island Dock as a result of a voluntary decision on the part of Wiks'trom, the evidence
is clear that the Island Dock contract was not canceled until Respondent on January 7
demonstrated by its coercive action that it did not intend to have concrete delivered by
anyone but its members.
We have found that the agreement of December 27 was the result of unlawful threats,
coercion, and restraint on the part of Respondent. The Respondent in its brief relies on
the decision of the district court denying the petition for an injunction in this case and
the conclusion of the court that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(b) (4) because
Island Dock, by Its- refusal to allow Local 294 men to drive its trucks, "eliminated itself
as a supplier of concrete" and therefore, "nobody coerced Wikstrom, in a manner pro-
hibited by the Act " For the reasons noted above, we rspectfully disagree with the court.
As to the defense that the Charging Party was itself guilty of an unfair labor practice,
assuming arguendo that the Carpenters' strike of December 26 was violative of the Act, it
is well settled that this does not prevent the Board from considering the charge filed by
the Carpenters. The "clean hands" doctrine of equity does not operate against a charging
party since proceedings such as this are not for the vindication of private rights but are
brought in the public interest and to effectuate the statutory policy. N.L.R.B v. Plumbers
Union of Nassau County, Local 457, etc., 299 F. 2d 497 (C.A. 2) ; N.L R.B. v. Springfield
Building and Construction Trades Council, 262 F. 2d 494 (C.A. 1).
INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., LOCAL 294 493
to effectuate the purpose of the Act. In our opinion, an order pro-
scribing unlawful conduct, not only with respect to the instant com-
panies but with any other person within its jurisdictional area, is nec-
essary. We note particularly Respondent's contention of jurisdiction
over various classifications of vehicles coming onto the project site,
the fact that Respondent's AGC agreement is with many employers,
and Respondent's demonstrated proclivity to engage in conduct un-
lawful under the Act as evidenced in other recent cases coming before
the Board and courts.lo
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record in this
case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Island Dock Lumber, Inc., A. S. Wikstrom, Inc., and M. W.
Kellogg Company, are each engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By threatening, coercing, and restraining A. S. Wikstrom, Inc.,
and M. W. Kellogg Company, with an object of forcing and requiring
the companies to enter into an agreement which is prohibited by
Section 8 (e) of the Act, and with the further object of forcing or
requiring A. S. Wikstrom, Inc., to cease doing business with Island
Dock, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (A) and (B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local 294, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall :
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing or restraining A. S.
Wikstrom, Inc., M. W. Kellogg Company, or any other person engaged
in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce, within Respond-
ent's jurisdictional area, by strikes, threats of strikes, picketing or
otherwise where an object of any of the above is either (a) to force or
require any person to enter into an agreement which is prohibited by
10 See N.L R .B. v. Local 294 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc. (Van Trans-
port Lines, Inc.), 298 F. 2d 105 ( C.A. 2), enfg. 131 NLRB 242 , where the court in enforc-
ing the Board 's order of similar breadth , noted such proclivity , citing at its footnote 2, a
list of court-enforced orders against Respondent.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 8(e) of the Act, or (b) to force or require any person to cease
doing business with Island Dock Lumber, Inc., or with any other
person.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Post at the Respondent Union's business offices and meeting
halls and at the Alpha Portland Cement Company jobsite, if Respond-
ent customarily posts notices to its members at such site, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the authorized representative of the Re-
spondent Union, be posted by the Respondent Union immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for the Third Region for posting by Island Dock Lumber,
Inc., A. S. Wikstrom, Inc. and M. W. Kellogg Company, the com-
panies willing,,at all places where notices by said companies to their
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein, insofar as it alleges
violations not found, is hereby dismissed.
it In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES OF ISLAND DOCK
LUMBER, INC., A. S. WIKSTROM INC., AND M. W. KELLOGG COMPANY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain A. S. Wikstrom, Inc.,
M. W. Kellogg Company, or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, within our jurisdic-
tional area, by strikes or threats of strikes, picketing, or otherwise
where an object of any of the above either is (a) to force or
require any person to enter into an agreement which is prohibited
by Section 8(e) of the Act, or (b) to force or require any person
MRS. FAY'S PIES, INC. 495
to cease doing business with Island Dock Lumber, Inc., or with
any other person.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
of AMERICA, LOCAL 294,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Drislane Building, seventh floor, 60 Chapel Street, Albany, New
York, Telephone No. HO 3-5581, if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Mrs. Fay's Pies, Inc. and Local 37 Bakery & Confectionery
Workers International Union of America . Case No. 21-CA-
4887. December 17, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 28, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respond-
ent 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.
1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent failed to bargain in good faith in violation of Section
8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. However, we do not limit our holding,
as did the Trial Examiner, to Respondent's: (1) failure to honor
its commitment to make retroactive wage increases; and (2) changes
1 We hereby correct the following inadvertent error of the Trial Examiner: (1) The
Respondent 's business is located in "Bell , California," instead of "Los Angeles."
145 NLRB No. 48.