Island Coal and Lumber Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 895 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

ISLAND COAL AND LUMBER CORP.
APPENDIX
895.
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a trial examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse, upon request , to bargain collectively with Los Angeles
Dress and Sportswear Joint Board , International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at our Los Angeles plant,
including shipping and receiving department employees and truckdrivers,
but excluding office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
WE WILL NOT promise and/or unilaterally provide a group hospitalization
or medical insurance plan in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such right
is affected by the proviso of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Los Angeles Dress and
Sportswear Joint Board , International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other
conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
All of our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization.
MUTUAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, d`e'faced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern
Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone
688-5229.
Local 1205 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Island Coal and
Lumber Corp.
Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters , AFL-CIO and
Island Coal and Lumber Corp . Cases 29-CP-20-1 and 20-2.
June 21, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1966, Trial Examiner Harry R. Hinkes issued his
Decision -in the above-entitled proceeding, finding -that the Respond-
ents had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section -8(b) (7) (C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
159 NLRB No. 77.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as ' set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision, and supporting brief. The Charging Party
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown, and Zagoria.]
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner. - . -
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 '
On 'November 19, 1965, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board by the Regional Director for Region 29 (Brooklyn , New York) issued the
complaint in this proceeding pursuant to a charge in Case 29-CP-20- 1 by Island
Coal and Lumber Corp., herein called Island Coal , against Local 1205, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein `called ' Respondent 1205,' and another charge in Case 29-CP-20-2 by
Island Coal against Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters , AFL-CIO,
herein called. Respondent Carpenters . The complaint alleges that both Respondents
picketed Island Coal , an object thereof being to force Island Coal to recognize and
bargain with - Respondents as the collective-bargaining representatives of Island
Coal employees as well as to force the employees of Island Coal to accept and
select the . Respondents ,as their collective -bargaining representatives , in violation of
Section 8 (b)(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Harry R. Hinkes
in Brooklyn ,-New York, on December 13 , 1965. All parties were represented and
were afforded full opportunity to examine witnesses and adduce relevant evidence.
Oral argument was waived . Briefs were received from counsel for each of the,
parties. Upon the entire record in this case I make the following:
- FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Island Coal and Lumber Corp. is and has been at all times 'material herein a
corporation duly organized under, and existing by virtue of, -the laws of the State
of New York. It is engaged in the sale and distribution ,` at whblesale ' annd ietail;
of lumber, hardware; building supplies, and related products with its principal office
and place of business at Route 112, Medford, county of Suffolk, State of New
York. During the 12 months immediately preceding the issuance ' of the complaint,
which period is representative of its annual , operations generally, Island Coal
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness. During the same period it purchased and caused to be delivered to its
facilities in New York State various products and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 , which products had been transported directly from States of the United
States other than the State of New York. ,
The complaint alleges, the Respondents admit, and I find that Island Coal and
Lumber Corp. is engaged" in commerce within the meaning 'of' Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
I
ISLAND COAL AND LUMBER CORP. 897
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find that Respondent 1205 is and
has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
The complainant alleges, Respondents admit, and I find that Respondent Carpen-
ters is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The complainant alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act by the
Respondents. That section of the Act makes it*
... an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to picket
or cause to be picketed or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any
employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to
recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his
employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to accept
or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative,
unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of
such employees . . . . where such picketing has been conducted without a
petition under section 9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time
not exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing: .
Provided further, That nothing . . . shall be construed to prohibit any picket-
ing or other publicity for the purpose of truthfully advising the public .. .
that an employer does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a
labor oiganization, unless an effect of such picketing is to induce any individ-
ual employed by any other person in the course of his employment, not to
pick up, deliver or transport any goods or not to perform any services.
Both Respondents admitted they were not and are not certified as representatives
of Island Coal's employees. What must be determined is whether each of the
Respondents picketed or caused to be picketed Island Coal with an object of forcing
it to recognize a labor organization as representative of its employees or forcing
its employees to accept such a labor organization as their representative, or
whether the picketing was for the purpose of advising the public that the employer
does not employ members of, or have a contract with, a labor organization.
Furthermore was an effect of such picketing to induce any individual employed by
any other person not to pick up, deliver, or transport any goods or perform
services'?
B. The alleged unlawful conduct
Island Coal maintains a retail lumberyard on Route 112 in Medford, Long Island,
New York, where it does business with homeowners, building contractors, and
others. It employs about 40 employees including 11 or 12 truckdrivers, 8 yard-
men, 5 millmen or carpenters, 5 clerks, 7 office workers, and 3 estimators.
About 5 years ago a Mr. Brovarski, representing Respondent 1025, asked Clinton
D Finger, Sr., the president of Island Coal, to sign a contract with the local. Mr.
Finger declined Thereafter, until September 1965, there does not appear to have
been any recognitional or organizational activity by either of Respondents with
respect to Island Coal.
On September 29, 1965, Bostelman, an Island Coal truckdriver, was approached
by Guy Salvio, a 1205 representative, while Bostelman was making a delivery in
Huntington, Long Island. Salvio asked him, "How is chances of getting you guys
to join tip with us?" Bostelman told him the employees were satisfied and left.
Shortly thereafter Bostelman met Salvio at another place. With Salvio was another
man, John Barlow, whom Bostelman identified as an organizer for Local 1205.
Salvio told Barlow, "This is the gentleman that I was talking to you about." Salvio
then asked Bostelman about the number of trucks in the yard and how much
Bostelman made. As Bostelman left, Barlow said, "We will get them eventually."
243-084-67-vol. 15 9-5 S
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next day, September 30, 1965, Guy Salvio stationed himself at Island Coal's
main driveway shortly after 7 a.m. Island Coal opened for business at 7:30 a.m.
Salvio carried a signed which read:
EMPLOYEES OF THIS ESTABLISHMENT
ARE NON UNION
LOCAL 1205 IBT-AFL
ASK THESE EMPLOYEES TO
JOIN WITH THEM FOR:
BETTER WAGES
BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS
JOB SECURITY
Within half an hour three more men joined Salvio. Two of the four men carried
Respondent 1205's sign. The other two carried a sign which read:
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
CARPENTERS ON THIS JOB
ARE NOT PROTECTED BY
A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL
of CARPENTERS
All four pickets walked in front of Island Coal's main entrance on Route 112 which
was used both by delivery trucks and customers. The picketing continued all day
and ended about 5:30 p.m. when Island Coal closed for the day.
On the first day of the picketing, Salvio approached Anthony Salvo, an Island
Coal lift-driver, at the front entrance where the trucks pulled in and asked him,
"Why don't you let us organize you?" When Salvo told him that he was not
interested , Salvio questioned Salvo about salaries and told him about organizational
activities elsewhere.
On the same day Salvio also asked'another Island Coal employee, Paul Carufel,
if Carufel knew "if any of the guys wanted to join the Union." He also asked
about Carufel's earnings . Salvio also approached another Island employee, Frank
Hoefner , saying, "Why don't you organize ? You will get more money."
The activity of the pickets was not confined to solicitation of Island Coal's
employees . In addition to picketing in front of the main entrance of the Company
on Route 112, picketing also took place at the Robinson Avenue entrance to the
yard which is used for deliveries to Island Coal. Although the picketing was
admittedly orderly, it was not silent nor was it passive. On September 30, 1965, a
truck from Metropolitan Trucking Company pulled up to the main gate of Island
Coal to make a' delivery. Salvio jumped on the running board, of the truck and
spoke to the driver. The driver then completed the delivery.' The next day both
1205 and Carpenters pickets approached the driver of a truck from the Rutzel
Company as he stopped at the main gate to make a delivery. The driver then
went into the office , made a phone call, and informed the Island Coal employees
that he was not allowed to go in. He then drove away without making the
delivery.
On October 2, 1965, three trucks of Henry Giorgi Company arrived at Island
Coal with a delivery of lumber. Salvio and another man spoke to the drivers and
went with them to a phone booth near the yard. The three drivers then made
delivery to Island Coal. The fourth truck, however, stopped on Route 112 and
after speaking with Salvio drove away without making delivery.
During the next week a Tompkins Bros. truck with a scheduled delivery was
parked outside the yard. The driver was seen conversing with pickets. He then
left without making a delivery. Similarly, on October 6, a delivery truck from
United States Plywood stopped at the gate and then pulled away. After October 6,
1965 all trucks that came into the yard to deliver materials were stopped by the
pickets. Some, but not all, completed their deliveries and then only after making
a preliminary phone call.
After several days of picketing, the signs carried by the 1205 pickets were
changed and their language modified to conform with that of the Carpenters' sign.
The number of pickets also declined. At first there were usually two pickets, one
carrying the 1205 sign and the other carrying the Carpenters' sign . In Novem-
ber, there was only one picket. When there was only one picket, he carried both
signs having one over his chest and the other one on his back. The picketing did
not always commence at 7 a.m. or even 7:30, when Island Coal opened for busi-
ness, but on occasion commenced as late as 8:30 a.m. and would cease as early
ISLAND COAL AND LUMBER CORP. 899
as 4:30 p.m. In addition, pickets were observed taking pictures of the lumberyard
and of the trucks arriving and making notes.
On December 3, 1965, after a full hearing pursuant to a petition filed by the
Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a temporary injunction
against 1205 and the Carpenters. Thereafter the picketing ceased.
C. The effect of the picketing
Before September 30, 1965, Island Coal was receiving about 70 percent of its
deliveries by truck and 30 percent by rail. The truck deliveries were made directly
to its yard. The rail deliveries were made to a freight yard located two and a
half blocks from Island Coal and unloaded by the Nestor & Palm Company.
After September 30, 1965, about 50 percent of the Company's supplies were
delivered in a different manner. Truck deliveries, instead of going into Island
Coal's yard, were taken to other locations or to the rail siding. From these points,
Island Coal used its own trucks and its own personnel to complete delivery to its
yard.
Thus, prior to September 30, 1965, Island Coal had received their paint and
hardware supplies by common carrier deliveries directly to its yard; after Septem-
ber 30, 1965, the two main shippers of these supplies, Long Island Motor Haulage
and Pinter Bros., refused to make deliveries all or part of the time. As a result,
Island Coal would pick up such supplies at the shipper's warehouse or at another
lumberyard, traveling several miles to do so. Island Coal's supplies of certain
lumber normally shipped by rail and delivered from the terminal by Nestor &
Palm were, after September 30, 1965, for all but three carloads, delivered from the
terminal by Island Coal's employees instead. United States Plywood, which for-
merly delivered its products directly to Island Coal's yard, stopped doing so after
September 30, 1965. Similarly, bricks delivered by the Rutzel Trucking firm were
picked up by Island Coal's .trucks- at the brick plant between September -30, and
November 24, 1965, at which" time Rutzel resumed 7 deliveries to Island Coal.
-Island Coal's supply of dimensional lumber, its largest single category of purchases,
was generally trucked to it by the Henry Giorgi Company from the Brooklyn
docks. After the three deliveries of October 2 mentioned previously, Giorgi deliv-
eries were made to other locations situated from 3 blocks to 20 miles from Island
Coal's yard. Deliveries to the yard were then made by Island Coal's trucks. In
addition, three or possibly four deliveries of millwork to Island Coal's yard by
Verby Bros. in November 1965, were not made. Eastern Tile Company delivered
to Island Coal only intermittently after picketing commenced. Goldberg, Kar
Jams, Wood Co., Sturtevant, Tompkins, and other deliverers of material to Island
Coal either stopped completely or -made some .deliveries to. other points from
which points Island Coal was required to transport such items to its yard.
Island Coal's sales for October and November 1965 were more than $50,000
below their sales for the similar months of 1964.
D. Concluding findings
Section 8 ( b)(7) of the Act makes recognitional or organizational picketing an
unfair labor practice where it has been conducted without a petition under Section
9(c) being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 30 days from the
commencement of such picketing. Here. the picketing lasted some 64 days and it
is conceded that no petition under' Section 9 (c) has been filed . The time interval
is, therefore , by definition , unreasonable.
Respondents contend that their picketing was informational in character and as
such not within the scope of Section 8(b)(7). They point to the fact that the Car-
penters' sign was addressed to the public as was Local 1205's sign after the first few
days of picketing. 1205's sign at the outset was obviously oragnizational in solicit-
ing the employees of Island Coal "to join with them for better wages, better work-
ing conditions, and job security." The mere fact that the wording of the sign was
changed to appeal to the public does not' necessarily indicate that there was a change
in the objective of Local 1205. Thus, in Local 3, IBEW (Jack Picoult d/b/a Jack
Picoult), 144 NLRB 5, the Board ;held that the organizational objective of the
Union was not dispelled by a change in its signs protesting substandard wages.
Moreover, the new sign of Local 1205 conforming with that of the Carpenters was
not sufficient to indicate the absence .of a recognitional or organizational objective
in the picketing . It should be noted that both signs notified the public that Island
Coal was not unionized and that the workers were not "protected by a collective
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,bargaining, agreement." ",As the Board -stated in Local Union 429, IBEW (Sam
Melson d/b/a Sam Melson, General Contractor), 138 NLRB 460:
We have held that a statement on a picket"sign that' an employer-does not
employ members of a labor organization clearly uriports.an object of organiza-
tion, and that a statement on a picket sign that aniemployer does not have a
contract with a labor organization clearly implies" a recogriitional and` bargain-
ing object.
I therefore find that the picketing engaged in by both Respondents was tor a rec-
ognitional or organizational objective despite the fact-that it- was addressed to the
public. • - - '
It is immaterial that-neither Union approached Island Coal to secure -recognition.
In this connection , I disregard Local 1205's solicitation of Island Coal some 5 years
ago as too remote in'time to have any significance for the picketing iii •1965. More-
over, such prior objective to force recognition does not necessarily preclude a labor
organization from engaging in a lawful activity at a-later time (McLeod v. Chefs,
Cooks, Pastry Cooks-and Assistants, Local-89, etc. (Stork Resta ''irant );' 280 F.2d
760 (C A. 2, 1960) ). I turn, therefore, to a consideration of the 1965 activities,
independent of the solicitation that took place •5 years' earlier.
A recognitional or organizational objective can be found, absent any.'direct solici-
tation of the employer, if the picketing was focused upon` the employees qua employ-
ees: Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance 'Workers' Union, Local 125,
136 NLRB 1104. That'such was the case here cannot be doubted. In addition tb.
the language of the signs, the behavior 'of The pickets' makes the recognitional or
organizational objectives clear. First, there: is uncontradicted testimony of several
Island Coal employees to the •effect'thai' agents of Local 1205 approached them and'
solicited them to join the Union.' Second, if public information were the true object
of the Respondents' picketing, it would be -natural to expect some evidence of the
pickets' active solicitation of the public and-of the'customers' commg to'Island Coal's
place of business. The record, however, is completely devoid of such 'evidence.
Instead, - it is replete with instances of "pickets actively soliciting drivers making
deliveries to Island Coal thus conveying that "signal" to organized' labor which Con-
gress - sought to curtail. - Local 3, IBEW (lack Picoult) 'supra Moreover, the pres-
ence of pickets -at Island-Coal's yard even before `it opened for business-is hardly
consistent with an argument of informational picketing to the public: Furthermore,
-had informational picketing been the true objective-it would-be expected that the
Respondents would take'steps to prevent-'interruption of deliveries to Island Coal.
The record contains no such evidence. 'Cf. Retail Clerks Union'Local 324 (Barker
Bros. Corp.) 138 NLRB 478. Finally,- the'place of the picketing is' also significant.
If, indeed, public information were all -that- Respondents sought; their picketing
should have been confined to the public entrance of Island Coal. PIt-was not, how-
ever, pickets being stationed not only at'the main entrance of the 'Company but at
other entrances where deliveries were made but customers were-not expected.
I conclude, therefore, that the Respondents" picketing was only for recognition -or
organization of Island Coal employees and, being conducted without a petition
under Section 9(c) being filed within 30 days, was violative of the Act as an unfair
labor practice.
Assuming arguendo that the picketing of the Respondents had the dual purpose of
recognizing the labor organizations or organizing Island Coal's employees as well as
informing the public that Island Coal does not have a contract with a labor organi-
zation, thus coming within the second proviso of Section 8(b)(7)(C), the picket-
ing is neveitheless an unfair labor practice if the effect of such picketing is to induce
any individual employed by any other person not to pick up, deliver, or, transport
any goods. While it is true that isolated instances of curtailment, of business or
deliveries do not in and of themselves deprive a labor 'organization of its right to
truthfully inform the public that employees are not unionized (Thomas P. Graham
v. Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 57 (Hested Stores Co.), 188
F.Supp. 847 (D.C. Mont. 1960), Ralph E Kennedy v. Retail Clerks Union Local
324 (Barker Bros. Corp.), 194 F.Supp. 131 (D.C.S. Calif. 1961 ), the record• in this
instance goes much further. The Board stated the criterion in Barker Bros., supra,
491 when it held: -
. the, presence or absence of a violation will depend upon whether the
picketing has disrupted, interfered with, or curtailed the employer' s business.
The fact, therefore, that some suppliers failed to make deliveries to Island Coal
may be inadequate to show a violation. The fact, however, that many suppliers
ISLAND COAL AND LUM BER CORP. 901
failed to enter Island Coal's yard and that 50 percent of Island Coal's supplies were
affected by the picketing is more significant as is the fact that their sales dropped
$50,000 during the picketing compared with a similar period in the previous year.
Moreover, Island Coal was required to divert its own personnel and equipment from
their usual functions to obtain deliveries by picking up supplies at other locations
sometimes as distant as 20 miles from [sland Coal's yard. To this extent it cannot
he denied that the picketing compelled it to "modify its method of doing business
with suppliers whose products were essential to its daily operations and that the
picketing has disrupted and interfeted with the Employer's business." San Diego
County Waiters and Bartenders Union Local 500 (Norburt, Inc., d/b/a Joe
Hunt's Restaurant), 138 NLRB 470, 471 It should be noted that in the San Diego
case the picketing compelled the employer to pick up his liquor supplies at sup-
pliers' warehouses (the distance not indicated) and most of his other supplies only
two blocks from him.
IV. THE REMEDY
Ha,,ing found that Respondents have engaged in certain conduct proscribed by
Section 8(b)(7) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist and
take specific affirmative action as set forth below 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, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Island Coal and Lumber Corp. is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
2 The Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
,of the Act.
3. The Respondents, by picketing Island Coal and Lumber Corp. with an object
of forcing or requiring Island Coal to recognize and bargain collectively with the
Respondents as the representatives of its employees and of forcing or requiring
.the employees of Island Coal to accept or select the Respondents as their collective-
bargaining representatives, although the Respondents have not been certified as the
representatives of such employees, and having conducted such picketing without
filing a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable period of time,
have committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(C)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I
recommend that Respondent Local 1205, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter called Respondent
1205, and Respondent Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter called Respondent Carpenters, their officers, representatives, and agents,
shall:
I Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed Island Coal and
Lumber Corp., Medford, Long Island, New York, hereinafter called Island Coal,
where an object thereof is forcing or requiring Island Coal to recognize or bargain
with either of said Respondents as representatives of the employees of Island Coal
or where an object thereof is forcing or requiring said employees to accept or
select either of said Respondents as their collective-bargaining representatives in
circumstances violative of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Respondent 1205 will post in conspicuous places at its business offices,
meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." i
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Respondent Carpenters will post in conspicuous places -at its business offices,
meeting halls, and places where notices to members are customarily posted copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 2
(c) Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
29 shall, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of the Respondents
named therein, be posted by said Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by, said Respondents to, insure that such 'notices are not altered , - defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Promptly upon receipt from said Regional Director of additional copies
of said notice , each Respondent shall cause such additional copies to be signed
as aforesaid and returned to the Regional Director for posting by Island Coal and
Lumber Corp., if that Company is willing.
(e) Each Respondent shall notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision 3 what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
2 See footnote 1, supra.
8In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Each Respondent shall notify said Regional Director , in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondents have taken
to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 1205, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed Island Coal and Lumber
Corp., Medford, Long Island, New York, with an object of forcing or requinng
Island Coal to recognize or bargain with us as representative of its employees,
or with an object of forcing or requiring said employees to accept or select
us as their collective-bargaining representative, in circumstances violative of
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
LOCAL 1205, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
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.
If members have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16
Court Street, Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 596-5386.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed Island Coal and Lumber Corp.,
Medford, Long Island, New York, with an object of forcing or requiring
Island Coal to recognize or bargain with us as representative of its employees,
or with an object of forcing or requiring said employees to accept or select
us as their collective-bargaining representative, in circumstances violative of
Section 8 (b) (7) (C) of the Act.
SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
S & L CO., OF BILLINGS 903
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 16
Court Street , Fourth Floor, Brooklyn , New York 11201 , Telephone 596-5386.
S & L Co., of Billings and Associated Industries of Billings,
Montana and Retail Clerks Union Local No . 1573, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-3273.
June 22, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25, 1966, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as
set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and a supporting brief, to which Respondents filed an answer-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed December 8, 1965, by Retail Clerks Union , Local No. 1573,
herein the Clerks or the Union , against S & L Co., of Billings and Associated
Industries of Billings , Montana 1, herein S & L and Associated or jointly the
Respondents , the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging Respondents violated
Section 8 ( a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act by refusing to continue to bargain with the
Union on the ground that the Union did not represent a majority of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
The answer denied that Respondents had refused to bargain , asserted the dates
on which it had bargained and stated it was willing to continue bargaining.
This proceeding with the General Counsel and Respondents represented was
heard by Trial Examiner John F. Funke at Billings , Montana, on March 1, 1966.
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties waived the filing of briefs.
1 The namer, of Respondents appear as amended at the hearing.
159 NLRB No. 82.