Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 936 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring inconnection with operations of Bechtel and of the other members of the Association described in section I, above, 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 of commerce. V. THE REMEDY ' It having been found that Respondent from August 4 through September 7, 1956, had engaged in certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2), it will be recommended that Respondent take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily restrained Patrick J. Meehan from being employed from August 4 through September 7, 1956, the Trial Examiner recom- mends that Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of its unlawful conduct , by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages during said period. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 250, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U. S. and Canada, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Bechtel Corporation and other members of the Association are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By refusing to issue a job referral slip to Patrick J. Meehan from August 4 through September 7, 1956, thereby causing Bechtel and othez Association members to discriminate against him in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, Respondent has engaged , and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 4. By restraining and coercing Patrick J. Meehan in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers , Cosmetologists and Pro- prietors International Union of America, AFL-CIO and Chi- cago and Illinois Hairdressers Association Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Pro- prietors International Union of America , AFL-CIO and Na- tional Hairdressers ' and Cosmetologists' Association, Inc. Cases Nos. 13-CC-135 and 13-CC-137. May 14, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On September 23, 1957, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw 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 copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Charging 120 NLRB No. 122. JOURNEYMEN BAEBERS; 'HAIRDRESSERS ,' COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 937 Parties, the, General Counsel; and the Respondent filed exceptions to portions of the Intermediate Report. The Respondent filed a 'brief in support of its•ekceptions, and the General Counsel and one of the 'Charging Parties filed briefs in support of their exceptions, as well as in "support of the Intermediate Report.' 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 In- termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the-case,2 and hereby adopts the findings; conclusions, and recom- mendatioils of the Trial Examiner; with the exceptions, modifications, and additions noted below. The Respondent's activities upon which the complaint is based are centered on the picketing of two trade shows held in New York and Chicago hotels by local trade associations of cosmetologists and hair- dressers. These associations, referred to herein as the New York and the Chicago Associations, are affiliated with National Hairdressers and -Cosfnetologists Association, -Inc., referred to herein as National As- sociation. Membership iii 'the local associations consists principally of beauty-shop owners within a limited area, while membership in the National Association consists mainly of State and local associations. An important activity of the, local associations, including the two involved here, is sponsoring trade shows where products for the beauty-shop trade are exhibited by manufacturers and distributors. The associations' rent hotel space ,and- sublease to the manufacturers and distributors (referred to herein as Exhibitors), space for" booths in which to display their products and services. As-an additional attraction for their ihelnbers, the associations organize educational forums where skilled beauty operators demonstrate and discuss hair- dressing 'styles and techniques. Awards for proficiency and artistry may be given these operators but they are not otherwise paid for their participation: The Exhibitors -also provide demonstrations of beauty technique`s involving the use of their products; and for this purpose eiriploy demonstrators and models who may be either full- time employees or beauty operators who* are hired locally for the duration of the show. The Exhibitor's take orders for'their merchan- 1 As the record, exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties , the Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied t 2 Three weeks after it filed- its exceptions , Respondent wrote the Board urging an investigation of affidavits submitted by the Exhibitors at the two trade shows setting forth the amount of interstate 'sales made at the shows, on the ground that the affidavits were patently false . This was the first time that Respondent had questioned the truth of the affidavits upon which the General Counsel and Trial Examiner had relied for as- sertion of jurisdiction . Respondent offers rio fea`sori for failing to dispute the accuracy of the figures submitted by the Exhibitors when the affidavits were admitted in evi- dence, nor do we believe that the amounts are so improbable as to warrant investigation now. Moreover , as we find herein that the Exhibitors are primary Employers , we assert jurisdiction on the total amount of interstate business done by the Exhibitors, and not on the amount of business done at the shows. 938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD dise from the shop owners who attend,, and'` make future delivery from their warehouses or plants. The associations contract with display firms to build and install partitions and' decorations. The Exhibitors also ' decorate their in- dividual exhibit areas with streamers and signs. These decorations are brought into the hotels by ^ truckers, display contractors, or em- ployees of the Exhibitors. Hotel employees also help in preparing for the exhibits by moving hotel furniture and setting up displays. .. In August 1956 Respondent wrote to a large number of manufac- turers and distributors of-beauty-trade products announcing its inten- tion to organize beauty operators, and. soliciting their cooperation and assistance in that endeavor. In February 'and March 1957 Respond- ent took the initial steps in its campaign by asking the New York and Chicago Associations for immediate organization of all beauty opera- tors scheduled to participate in the shows. At times, these demands were phrased in terms of persuading the associations to require that 'beauty operators in the educational forums, as well as those employed by the Exhibitors, join the Union while at other times Respondent stated, that union members had 'to be employed for these purposes, leaving the inference that beauty operators who refused to join would have to be replaced.: However the demands were couched, it is clear that Respondent wanted a closed shop, and wanted to attain it in a quick and easy way, by forcing the associations to do its organizing for it. • When it failed in this objective, Respondent resorted to picketing the shows,, as described in the Intermediate Report. 1. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the beauty-shop owners who were to participate in the educational forums were the sole objective of Respondent's organizing campaign. We do agree with him that these individuals were primary Employers for the purposes of Section 8 (b) (4), but we also conclude that the Exhibi- tors, too, were primary Employers. Respondent itself asserts that its aim was to organize all those who worked with the tools of the trade at the two shows, and that this necessarily included operators employed by the Exhibitors. All of Respondent's actions are con- sistent with this admission. The possibility that it might have settled ,at the Chicago show for eight union memberships of self-em- ployed operators does not impair our conclusion that its primary aim was to have the shows employ only union members. 2. As the Exhibitors were primary Employers, we do not need to base assertion of jurisdiction on the amount of business which each of the Exhibitors, standing alone, may have done at the shows 3 Many of the Exhibitors annually sell and ship products valued in excess of 3Truck Drivers Local Union No. 649, etc. (Jamestown Builders Exchange, Inc.), 93 NLRB 386, 387. "Of course, if the operations, of the primary employer alone meet the minimum requirements under the Board's current policy, jurisdiction should be asserted without further inquiry." -JOURNEYMEN BARBERS; HAIRDRESSERS , COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 939 -$50,000 outside the State where their major plants or offices are located. We find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert' juris- diction here on the basis of the interstate business done by such Exhib- 'itors. Furthermore,= as Respondent's secondary picketing was -designed to take effect equally against Exhibitors, the associations .and the self-employed beauty-shop operators, we shall assert jurisdic- tion over all the primary Employers by adaptation of the rationale 'used in the Euclid Foods case for remedying violations against all the victims of a pattern of unfair labor practices.' - 3. As Respondent's picketing took place when the primary employ- ers were temporarily engaged in business on the premises of the hotels, 'which were among the secondary employers affected, its legality must be tested by the principles relevant to common situs picketing. These principles, first formulated in the Moore Dry Dock case, 92 NLRB 547, have recently been summarized in the Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks' Union, Local 1017 [Crystal Palace Market] case:5 ... that where picketing occurs at premises which are occupied jointly by primary and secondary employers, the timing and location of the picketing and the legends on the picket signs must be tailored to reach the employees of the primary employer, rather than those of neutral employers. . . . In developing and applying these standards, the controlling consideration has been to require that the picketing be so conducted as to minimize its impact on neutral employees insofar as this can be done without substantial impairment.o f the effectiveness of the picketing in reaching the primary employees. It is apparent that Respondent did not attempt to reach the primary employees at all. It showed no interest in directly soliciting mem- berships from the beauty-shop owners or the operators who were working for the Exhibitors. Its only' tactic in reaching its objective was to try to force the associations to agree to use only union beauty operators. Further, picketing began before the shows were officially opened and was conducted at times and at entrances when the Exhib- itors' material was being delivered. Thus, before the Chicago show opened, while negotiations were in progress between Respondent and 'Chicago Association, a representative -of Respondent, in explaining why picketing had begun, said, "Well, the Association or some of the Exhibitors were moving things in there last night, and you did not expect us to just sit by and watch that stuff go in." Accordingly, we find that Respondent took no action to dispel or mitigate the effect 4 118 NLRB 130 "The power of the Board thus having been invoked to deal with a pattern of conduct affecting enterprises both within and without the jurisdictional stand- ards, it seems to us only reasonable and effectuating the purposes of the Act to give the broadest scope to the remedy we apply " 5 316 NLRB 856, 858, enfd 249 F. 2d 591 (C A 9). 940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which its picketing could reasonably be expected to have on the employees of neutral employers, and in fact, took affirmative steps. to induce these employees to cease work. , 4. One of Respondent's objectives, entwined in its demand that all beauty operators at the shows be union members,. was to force or require the self-employed beauty-shop owners who participated in the educational forums to join the Union. This is a violation of the first part of . Section 8 (b) (4) (A), without regard to whether Respondent's picketing was primary or secondary.' We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the remaining portion of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) Was violated by Respondent's attempts to hamper' the operations of the shows by inducing the employees of display firms, truckers, and the hotels to cease work so as to force their employers, the associations, the self-employed beauty-shop owners; and the Exhibitors to cease doing business with one another. We have previously referred to the fact that Respondent's basic objective was to induce the associations to exclude nonunion members from doing any beauty work at the shows: This is; as we hate pointed out, tantamount to a demand for a closed shop: A union's demand for a closed shop is a demand for bargaining rights on behalf of its members. Respondent, however; was not the certified representative of the self-employed beauty operators or the employees of the Exhib- itors, and its secondary picketing in support of its objective was therefore a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (B). THE REMEDY The Trial Examiner failed to find that Respondent's activities at the New York and Chicago shows were the initial steps in its avowed campaign to organize the proprietors and employees in the beauty industry. Its letter of August 1956 to manufacturers and distributors of beauty-trade products announced its intention to organize the beauty-shop segment of its jurisdiction, and its agents in their con- versations with officials of the National, New York, and Chicago Associations specifically affirmed its intention to proceed from trade show to trade show using the same organizational tactics. We shall, therefore, make our order broad,enough to prevent Respondent from undertaking illegal picketing activities at future trade shows spon- sored by the New York and Chicago Associations as well as at all O Lakeview Creamery Company, 107 NLRB 601. The relevant provisions of Section, 8 (b) (4) (A ) read as follows : Sec. 8 (b) : "It shall be an funfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents . . . (4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use . . . or otherwise handle or work on any goods . . . where an object thereof is • (A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization . . . JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS , COSMETOLOGISTS , ETC. 941, trade shows sponsored by the National Association or its other affiliates. Although the ;Trial Examiner discussed and upheld all the allega- tions of the complaint with respect to violations of Section 8 (b). (4) (A) and (B) kin the body of his Intermediate Report, he failed to summarize-the specific violations in statutory terms in his conclusions of law. Our Order, therefore, makes it clear that Respondent is to cease, and desist from those. activities which, are alleged in the com- plaint as violations, and which we and the Trial Examiner have found. 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 hereby orders that Respondent, Journeymen Bar- bers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Union of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives and agents, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of any employer to engage in, a. strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport or other- wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is (1) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person participating in trade shows sponsored by National 'Iairdressers and Cosmetologists Association or its affiliates, to join Respondent Union, or (2) forcing or requiring any employer or other person to cease doing business with persons who lease space for exhibition or demonstration purposes at trade shows sponsored by Hairdressers Board of Trade of New York, Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association, National Hair- dressers and Cosmetologists Association, or by any association affili- ated with the latter, or (3) forcing or requiring exhibitors at the trade shows sponsored by National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Association or by any of its affiliated associations to cease doing business with said associations, or (4) forcing or requiring National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Association, its affiliated associations or the Exhibitors at their trade shows to recognize or bargain with Respondent Union as the representative of employees performing, demonstrating, or participating at said trade shows, unless Re- spondent Union has been certified as the representative of such em- ployees under 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. 942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Post at its office in Indianapolis, Indiana, copies of the notice- attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice to be- furnished by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region shall,. after-being duly signed by an official representative of Respondent be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof in conspicuous places including all places where, notices to its .members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken, by Respondent to insure that. said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. I . • (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap- peals, the notice shall be amended by substituting 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 MEMBERS OF JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS AND PROPRIETORS INTERNATIONAL UNION OY AMERICA, AFL-CIO 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 notify you that : WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of any employer to-engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use , 'manufacture , process, transport or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles, materials or commodities , or to perform any services where an object thereof is ( 1) to force or require any employer or self- employed person participating in trade shows sponsored by National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Association ' or its af- filiated associations , to join Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Union of America, AFL-CIO, or (2) to force or require any employer or other per- son to cease doing business with persons who lease space for exhibition or demonstration purposes at trade shows sponsored by Hairdressers Board of Trade of New York, Chicago and Illi- nois Hairdressers Association, National Hairdressers and Cos- metologists Association or any Association affiliated with the latter, or ( 3) to force or require Exhibitors at the trade shows sponsored by National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Associa- tion or any Association affiliated with it to cease doing business with said Associations , or (4) to force or require National Hair- dressers and Cosmetologists Association , its affiliates, or the Exhibitors at their trade shows to recognize or bargain with JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS , COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 943 Journeymen Barbers , Hairdressers , Cosmetologists and Proprie- tors International Unioii of America, AFL-CIO, as the repre- sentative of employees performing , demonstrating, ' or par- ticipating at said trade shows •unless and until certified as such representative in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS , COSME- TOLOOISTS AND PROPRIETORS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO, 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 filed by the Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association , in Case No. 13-CC-135 and by National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists-Association, Inc., in Case No. 13-CC-137, referred to hereinafter as the Chicago Hairdressers, the National Association , and the New York Hairdressers ' and sometimes collectively as the Charging Parties, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called ' the General Counsel , and the Board , by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth' Region (Chicago , Illinois ) issued a consolidated complaint on April 10, 1957, -alleging that Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers , Cosmetologists, and Proprietors International Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the' Respondent, had engaged in and was now' engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, as amended , herein called the Act. Copies of the consolidated complaint and the charges , together with notice of hearing thereon , were duly served upon Respondent and the Charging Parties. In due course the Respondent filed its anwser to the complaint. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance that Respondent had engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by - the pleadings and the evidence adduced at the hearing herein the Trial Examiner is convinced that since the issues of necessity must be set forth and considered in detail in other sections of this Report it would save time and space and avoid repetition not to enumerate them in this section of the Report, which in the final analysis is but a preliminary statement of what is to follow thereafter. Pursuant to notice hearings were held in Chicago , Illinois, and New York, New York, on various dates. The hearing opened in Chicago , Illinois, on May 14, 1957, and was transferred to New York, New York, where it was continued on May 21 and 22, 1957. From New York, the hearing was transferred back to Chicago, where it was continued and closed on June 6, 1957. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the onset of the hearing herein the parties entered into numerous stipulations regarding many matters bearing on the issue herein . Among the stipulations were numerous affidavits executed by responsible representatives of various companies who 'had entered into contracts with the Charging Parties and its affiliates (see infra) to exhibit their merchandise at shows sponsored by the latter in New York and Chicago, of which more anon . In addition the parties also stipulated that the depositions of certain individuals should likewise be admitted in evidence. All of the above stipulations were approved by the Trial Examiner and the documents referred to are a part of the record herein . Each will be discussed below in its proper setting . Although given an opportunity to do so all parties waived oral- 1 The role of the New York Hairdressers in the case will be apparent below. 944 , DECISIONS OF_ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, argument bearing upon the issues. On or about July 22, 1957, the Trial Examiner received briefs from all of the parties. They have been carefully considered by the Trial Examiner. Upon, the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS For reasons which will be. obvious below the Trial Examiner sets forth in this section of the,Report a resume of the business operations of several of the Secondary Employers 2 who exhibited their products at the American Hair Fashion Conference & Trade Show sponsored by the Hairdressers' Board of Trade of New York, Inc., herein referred to as the New York Hairdressers an affiliate of the National Asso- ciation, which was held at the Hotel Statler in New York, New York, on February 11, 12, and 13, 1957, and referred to hereinafter as the New York Show; and the same information regarding those Secondary -Employers who participated in the 34th Midwest Beauty Trade Show, sponsored by Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association, on March 3, 4, and 5, 1957, at the Hotel Sherman, Chicago, Illinois, and hereinafter referred to as the Chicago Show. ' The.resumes are taken from the,affidavits referred to above, and credible testimony of witnesses who testified at the hearing herein. (1) From the affidavits of representatives 'of Secondary Employers who participated in the Chicago Show a. Samuel J. Couller, a co-owner of Advertising Services, Chicago, Illinois, stated in his affidavit tha,t his company participated in the Chicago Show, and that the equipment, supplies and materials used by the company at the show had an approximate value of $100.00; (2)' that said materials were trans- ported by the company to the Show; (3) that the value of its products sold at the Show to customers located outside of the State of Illinois was approxi- mately $1500.00; and (4) that during the calendar year 1956 the company sold and shipped products valued at over $50,000 from its plant in Chicago, Illinois to points and places outside said state. b. Clarence Dlouhy,'president of Emil J. Paidar Company, Chicago, Illinois, stated in his affidavit that the company is a manufacturer of Barber & Beauty Equipment with its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois; (2) that the company was an exhibitor at the Chicago Show; (3) that the approximate value of the equipment, supplies and' materials used by the Company at the show was $7506-,- (4) that said materials were transported to the Show by its own truck; (5) that the approximate value of the products sold at the Show by the Company to customers and shipped to points outside the State of Illinois, was $8,300.00; (6) that during the calendar year 1956, the Company sold and shipped products valued at over $50,000, from its Chicago plant to customers located outside the State of Illinois; and (7) that "additional business generated by prospective purchasers that saw exhibit, would amount to between $10,000 and $20,000 additional." c. Marie Kutill, president of Modern Beauty Shop Inc., publisher of Modern Beauty Shop Magazine, Chicago, Illinois, stated in her affidavit that her company was an exhibitor at the "Chicago Show," held at the Hotel Sherman on March 3,, 4, and 5, 1957 She further stated that; (1) the value of the ma- terial used in connection with the exhibit was approximately $550; (2) that the materials were transported from Concord, New Hampshire, and Chicago, Illinois, by Railway Express, Cannonball Delivery Services, and by "ourselves"; (3) that the value of the business solicited and orders recovered at the show, which were ultimately shipped from New Hampshire to points outside that state was approximately $5000; and (4) that the company during the calendar year 1956 sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of New Hampshire. d. Jay Starr, controller of Caryl Richards, Inc., manufacturer of hair prep- arations at its factory in Brooklyn, New York, stated that his company par- ticipated in the "Chicago Show"; that, the approximate value of the equipment, supplies, and materials used at said show was, approximately $500.00; (2) that said equipment etc. was delivered to the Hotel Sherman by one of its local 2 See infra for a further discussion. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 945; distributors; (3) that -the approximate value of the materials' sold to customers at the show, which were ultimately shipped to points outside the State of New York was $100,000; and that (4) during the calendar year ' 1956 the. Company sold. and shipped products. valued in excess of $50,000 to. points outside the State of New Yorke 1 • ' - , , 1 1, . • , . , ' . • e: Henry Cascio, an official of Hallewell, Inc.,'manufacturers of'beauty -shop equipment .and supplies, at its plant'in' New York, New York, stated in his affidavit that his company participated in the "Chicago -Show"; .(2) that the approximate value of the materials exhibited was $4,500 which were trans- ported to the show by ABC Freight Forwarding, Co., of New York, New York; (3) ,that the 'value, of materials "sold` to' customers at the show which were .,iultimately shipped,to points outside; the State of New,York was approximately_ $45,000; and ,(4),-that,during the calendar year of 1956, the Company shipped' products valued in excess of $50,000 to'points outside the State of New York.; f. John V. Page, vice president of Rayette, Inc., manufacturer of hair prod--' ucts and beauty salon. equipment, at St. Paul,, Minnesota, stated in his affidavit that his company participated in the `.`Chicago Show ; '(2) that the approximate value of the materials, etc., used by the Company in connection with the exhibit at the show was $7,446; that, said ' materials . were transported to the show, by, the Hennepin 'Transfer Company of St. Paul, Minnesota; (3) that the approximate ; value of. materials sold to customers at the show which , were •f, ultimately, shipped ito: points outside the.State ofMinnesota, was, $20,000; and (4) that during the calendar year-1956,-the company sold and shipped, products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the State of Minnesota. 11, , ^g. David ^T. Roadley, director of industrial relations ,of Revlon; ' Inc., manu- facturer of-manicure preparations and cosmetics at. its , plant in New Jersey stated in' his affidavit that (1) the company participated in the "Chicago Show" and -that the approximate value of its products used in connection ,with its :,exhibit,was'$3,000; (2) that.the above 'products were .transported from ,its New Jersey plant to Chicago, by the Western Transportation Company of Metuchen, New Jersey;' (3) that the.tapproximate value of its products sold, at the show to customers. which were ultimately shipped to points'outside the State of,New Jersey was $22,500; and (4) that during the calendar year of 1956, the, com- -pany shipped-products-valued in excess.of- $50,000 to points outside the State ofNew•Jersey. , : . , ,,, h. Richard L.. Gelb; vice president. of. Clairol; 'Inc.,, manufacturer ,of hair ,rcoloring-products at its plant in.Connecticiut; stated' in his, affidavit.asffollows: -(1) that his, company participatedi in„the "Chicago 'Show. ; , (2)^ that-the, ,value of, the, materials etc..used by the company, in its -exhibit.wasiapproximately,$ 100; (3) that said materials etc. were, transported -to said,show by !Railway Express; (4)' that thee approximate value of its products sold: to. customers at the show which were ultimately shipped to points joutside' the, State' of Connecticut. was $10,000; 'and' (5) 'that'during the ,cdlendar year of 1956, the 'value of the'com- pany's products shipped to points outside of said State was'in. excess of $50;000. "'i! K. R. M. McKeowan, president, of `'_The Realistic Company," manufacturers of,Professional Hair Care".at its plant'i^'Cincinnati,'Oltio,. stated 'in 'his affidavit 'th''at-his 'company'participated in the,"Chicago, Show";•(2)rthat the approximate tvalue of its products used'at'said .show was '$3;380; (3), that 'said products were shipped 'to' the showffom Cincinnati,':Ohio,.by Railroad' Express,' Paicel Post, r-"Central Transfer and,, Rental Truck";' (4) thatt:the• approximatel value of its products which were sold at the show and ultimately shipped''to points outside the,State of Ohio.was' $100,000;_and'.(5)'that during the' calendar-year 1956 -" ^ tlie' value of the company's products, that' were ' shipped to points, outside said " ',stateiwas' inexcessofi $50,000.' •/ iris r-f f, • ,,r, ','J 1'i [j. Robert'H? Sclilossman; sales manager of "Helene Curtis `Sales, cIne., ' manu- "facturer' of "Hair,., Care" products; at fits ( plant' in ! Chicago," Illinois, ' stated in 'his=,affidavit that' his company- participated,, in ,the "Chicago Show";' (2)' that the- approximate' value' of .its products, exhibited' at said show was ' $5;570;i (3 ) that said products weie transported to-'said show"by the Smith' Company of Chicago; Illinois; (4)'that the approximate value of'its'products'that•were sold to customers at the show and ultimately shipped, to points outside the,-,State of Illinois wasr$200,000;'add (5) that 'during' the 'calendar year 1956, the com- pany sold and' shipped' products valued in excess of $50;000' from ' its plant in Illinois 'to points outside said 'State. ;»,cgr„n,;q r, ,,r rr c,> .', 1 r I, • r k: 'Burdett I Burton 1King, -assistant to administrative' sales manager '- of ;'Sales '''r'Affiliates,'Inc:,' distributor of Zotosr'and'Ltistron ffrom''its-plant'in'New'York, i! -New'York, stated 'in his' affidavit, that-the companyparticipated in the ""Chicago 483142-59-vol. 120-61 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Show" ; ( 2) that the equipment, supplies, etc., which it used in connection with its exhibit at said show were valued at approximately $ 1,284; ( 3) that said products were transported from its plant in New York to Chicago , Illinois, by U. S. Parcel Post, and by the New York Central Railroad from Waterloo and New York; (4) that the company sold products at the show to customers which ultimately were shipped from its plant in New York to points outside said State, valued at approximately $12,500; and (5) that during the calendar year 1956, the company sold and shipped products valued at over $50,000 from its plant in New York to points outside said State. The foregoing completes the resumes of the affidavits referred to above that per- tained to the Chicago Show. A resume of the affidavits submitted by officials of participants at the New York Show, and which as indicated above were likewise admitted in evidence at the hearing herein by stipulation of the parties follows immediately below. (2) From the affidavits of representatives of Secondary Employers who participated in the New York Show a. John V . Page, vice president of Rayette , Inc., manufacturer of hair prod- ducts and beauty parlor equipment, at its plant in St . Paul, Minnesota , stated in his affidavit that his company participated in the New York Show at the Hotel Statler in New York City on February 11, 12, and 13, 1957; (2) that the approximate value of the materials etc ., used by the company in connection with its exhibit at the show was $2,269; (3) that the materials were transported to the show in New York City by the company's own truck; (4) that the ap- proximate value of the materials sold by the company to customers at the show and which were ultimately shipped to them to points outside the State of Minnesota was $10,000 ; and (5 ) that during the calendar year of 1956, the company sold and shipped merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside said State. ' b. David T. Roadley, director of industrial relations for Revlon , Inc., manu- facturers and distributors of manicure preparations and cosmetics at its plant in New Jersey, stated in his affidavit ; (1) that the company participated in the "New York Show"; (2) that the approximate value of materials etc ., used in its exhibit at the show was $3,150 and were transported to the show by the Happy Day Trucking Co., of Edison, N. J.; (3) that the approximate value of.the company's products which were sold at the show and ultimately shipped to,customers outside the State of New Jersey was $24,000 ; and (4 ) that during the calendar year 1956, the company sold and shipped to customers outside the State products valued in excess of $50,000. c. Richard L. Gelb, vice president, Clairol, Inc., manufacturer of hair- coloring products at its plant in Connecticut, stated in his affidavit that the com- pany participated in, the "New York Show"; (1) that the approximate value of the equipment , etc., used by it in connection with its exhibit at said show was $2,000; ( 2) that said materials, etc, were transported to the show by Craftsman Displays, of Newark, New Jersey; (3) that the company sold and received orders for its products at the show which were ultimately shipped from its plant in Connecticut to customers outside the State, valued at approximately $5,000; ( 4) and that during the calendar year of 1956, the company sold and shipped products valued at over $50 ,000 from its plant in Connecticut to points outside said State. d. R. Negel, credit manager of Quality Cosmetics, Corp ., manufacturers of toilet preparations at its plant in Brooklyn , New York, -stated in his affidavit (1) that the company participated in the "New York Show"; ( 2) that the value of the materials , etc., used in connection with its exhibit at the show had an approximate value of $500; (3) said materials were delivered to the show in a salesman 's car; (4) that the company sold merchandise valued at approxi- mately $355, that was ultimately shipped to customers outside the State of New York; and ( 5) that during the calendar year 1956, the company sold and shipped products valued at over $50,000 from its plant in Brooklyn ,-New York, to points outside said State. e. Howard Rayner, a partner in the Cameo Supply Company, manufacturer of Cameo Appointment Books at its plant in New York City, stated in his affidavit that his company participated in the "New York Show"; (2) that the value of the materials , etc., that it used in connection with its exhibit was approximately $5,000; ( 3) that said materials were transported to the show by the Priestley Thompson Trucking Company; (4) that the company sold JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS , COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 947 products to customers which were ultimately shipped to points outside the State of New York, valued at approximately $5,000; and (5) that during the calendar year 1956, the company shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside said State. f. Joseph Marcus, vice president of Paragon Distributing Corporation, dis- tributor of Roux and Eternal, from the warehouse of Roux Distributing Com- pany, Inc., New York, New York, stated in his affivadit that the company participated in the "New York Show" (2) that the value of its products used in connection with its exhibit at the show was approximately $500; (3) that said products were transported to the show by the Commodore Express and Truck- ing Company from New York; (4) that the company sold to customers at the show products valued in excess of $1,000 which were ultimately shipped to points outside the State; and (5) that during the calendar year 1956, the com- pany shipped products to points outside the State of New York valued in excess of $50,000. From all of the foregoing and the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing herein, the Trial Examiner finds that the Secondary Employers named above are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section (6) of the Act, and that the Board is justified in taking jurisdiction herein.3 Further discussion in this regard will be set forth below. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the Trial Examiner finds that Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES As indicated above the issues herein revolve around the efforts of the Respondent Union to organize persons engaged in the operation of beauty salons or parlors, particularly hairdressers, cosmetologists, and the proprietors of such establishments throughout the country. This particular proceeding is concerned primarily with the conduct of the Respondent Union in its organizational campaign in the cities of New York and Chicago, all of which will be discussed in more detail below. A. The events leading up to the filing of the charges herein Sometime in the latter part of 1956, the Union decided to organize the owners and operators of beauty shops throughout the country. - Insofar as this record is concerned, 2 persons, Bert Deutsch, an organizer for the International Union for the past 15 or 16 years, and George Bynum, an organizer for the AFL-CIO, who was assigned by the latter to assist the Respondent Union in its organizational campaign, were the most active participants in the Union's campaign. The parties stipulated at the hearing herein that Bynum and Deutsch were agents of the Respondent Union at all times material herein. Their activities and the incidents that flowed therefrom will be thoroughly discussed below. In substance the General Counsel alleges in the complaint that it was the conduct of the Respondent Union acting through its agents Bynum and Deutsch that were violative of Section 8, (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. With this in mind the Trial Examiner feels that here he should sum up the allegations in the complaint in this regard. As indicated above, the General Counsel alleges and the Trial Examiner has found that it was the businesses of the Secondary Employers that justifies the Board in asserting jurisdiction herein as regards Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. B. The charging parties In Case No. 13-CC-137, the Charging Party is the National Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Association, Inc. The record shows that the National Association is a New York corporation and is a federation of State, territorial, and local asso- ciations of cosmetologists, hairdressers, concessionnaires, and honorary members. The membership of the National Association is composed of approximately 25,000 beauty-shop owners and operators, located throughout the United States, substan- tially all of whom are employers or self-employed persons engaged in hairdressing, hair styling, and other work usually associated in the operation of beauty parlors. The National Association has many affiliates, including the Chicago Hairdressers 3 See Euclid Foods, Incorporated, d/b/a Bondi's Mother Hubbard Market, 118 NLRB 130. 948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the New York Hairdressers, who, as indicated above, sponsored respectively the Chicago Show and the New York Show. In addition many, other affiliates (as well as the National Association itself) sponsor trade shows in cities all over the United States. At such shows manufacturers and distributors of materials used in the industry exhibit and demonstrate their products in order to promote their sales. In addition the exhibitors take orders for equipment, and other merchandise for future-delivery from those attending the shows.. -As indicated above, many of these exhibitors sell and ship products and equip- ment valued in excess of $50,000 to States outside of the State where their factories and distributing warehouses are located. One of the principal attractions at the shows are the educational programs which are put on by the membership of the affiliates of the National Association which is sponsoring the show. The performers on such programs are for, the most part shop owners or self-employed hairdressers and hair stylists who are members of the affiliates sponsoring the show. The record clearly shows that such was the case herein, both at the Chicago Show and the New York Show. Prior to the scheduled opening of the New York Show, February 11, 1957, and the Chicago Show, March 3, 1957, the Respondent Union made certain demands on the National Association, the New York Hairdressers, and the Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association, herein called the Chicago Hairdressers, regarding the participants in the show and the exhibitors who had reserved space at the show. As a result thereof, the Respondent Union then engaged in the course of conduct at the situs of both shows, which is the predicate for the charges, the complaint, and the hearing herein. In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner the state- ment attached to the charge in Case No. 13-CC-137, by John T. Van Aken, attorney for the National Association, sums up not only the basis for the charges herein but in effect the allegations in the General Counsel 's complaint as well. . For this reason the Trial Examiner inserts herein below pertinent excerpts therefrom: 1. Names and addresses of Respondents: Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers,, Cosmetologists and Proprietors' Interna- tional Union of America, AFL-CIO, 1141 North Delaware Street Indianapolis 7, Indiana -' - and its agents and representatives. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 714 International____________________ Washington, D. C. Local 714______________________ 3211 West Fifth Street Chicago, Illinois . and; their respective agents and representatives. 2. Basis of the Charge The above -named labor organizations (not including Local 714 of the Teamsters Union) and their agents and representatives, on or about February 8,- 1957, _and for several days thereafter; induced and encouraged employees of the Strauss Decorating Co., the Statler Hotel, and other employers, including many interstate trucking companies to engage in a strike or concerted ' refusal in the - course of their employment to use , process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities of, or to perform any services for, -the manufacturer -of beauty,-salon equipment ,and supplies and the demonstrators for the American Hair -Fashion Conference and Trade Show at the Statler Hotel in New York, New York. These manu- facturers and demonstrators were attempting to have their goods= articles, and supplies brought into the Statler Hotel for the purpose of participating in the aforementioned Conference and Trade Show, which show was sponsored by the New York, Hairdressers Board of Trade. The above-named labor organizations and their agents and representatives, on or about February 28, 1957, and for several days thereafter, induced and `•'-encouraged,the employees of the Sherman Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, of Lip- schultz Fast Freight, of Ryan Freight Line, of the Railway Express Company, and of numerous other trucking companies to refuse - to transport or otherwise handle the hoods, -articles, and materials of any- manufacturer of beauty salon equipment and supplies participating-in the 34th Annual Midwest Beauty Trade Show, as such manufacturers were attempting to have such goods, articles, and materials brought in to- the Sherman Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, for purposes of JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 949 exhibiting the same at the said Trade Show . A list of the manufacturers exhibiting at said Trade Show is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. An object of the above activities of the said labor organizations and their agents and representatives has been the forcing of certain self-employed per- sons who are and have been scheduled to participate in demonstrations and exhibits at the aforementioned Trade Shows to join the Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers , Cosmetologists and Proprietors ' International Union of America, AFL-CIO, (hereinafter referred to as the "Barbers Union"). Another object of the above activities of the said labor organizations and their agents and representatives is to require the National Hairdressers & Cosmetologists Assn. Inc. and/or its member associations and firms to recognize and bargain with the Barbers Union. Another object is to require the manufacturing companies who exhibit at the aforementioned Trade Shows to recognize and bargain with the Barbers Union, and to compel the signing of agreements with the Barbers Union, by the terms of which some or all of their employees and employees of other employers employing persons participating in demonstrations at the aforesaid Trade Show would be required to become members of the Barbers Union , notwithstanding the fact that the Barbers Union has never been certified as the representative of such employees , and that such employees do not desire to be represented by the Barbers Union. Another object of such activities is to force and require the manufacturers who have exhibited and are exhibiting , and who plan to exhibit , at the afore- mentioned Trade Shows to cease doing business with the National Hairdressers & Cosmetologists Assn. Inc., and/or its member associations and firms, and to force and require the National Hairdressers & Cosmetologists Assn. Inc. and its member associations and firms to cease doing business with any demonstrator who is not a member of the Barbers Union or whose employees are not members thereof. The above-named labor organizations and their agents and representatives have threatened to carry out similar activities at all Trade Shows sponsored by the National Hairdressers & Cosmetologists Assn. Inc., and its ,member asso- ciations and firms throughout the United States until the demands of said labor organizations have been met. A partial list of such Trade Shows to be held this year is as follows: March 31 to April 2_____________ at Atlanta, Georgia. April 7 to 8____________________ at Birmingham, Alabama. April 7 to 9_____________________ at Buffalo, New York. April 27 to 29___________________ at Longview, Washington. April 28 to 29__________________ at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. May 11 to 13___________________ at Los Angeles, California. May 25 to 27___________________ at Nashville, Tennessee. July 15 to 17___________________ at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. September 22 to 23______________ at Minneapolis, Minnesota. September 28 to 30______________ at Wichita, Kansas. October 6 to 8__________________ at Seattle, Washington. October 7 to 9__________________ at New York, New York. October 26 to 28________________ at Springfield, Illinois. October 27 to 28________________ at Indianapolis, Indiana. November 2 to 4________________ at Little Rock, Arkansas. In its answer the Respondent admitted that it was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act; (2) neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the complaint that many of the exhibitors at the shows were engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act; denied that prior to the opening of the shows in New York and Chicago it demanded that the Charging Parties herein compel all hairdressers, hair stylists, and all other persons within the jurisdiction of Respondent who were to participate in the show, to join the Union and display its card notwithstanding the fact that it was advised that said individuals were either self-employed persons, owners of shops, or employees of exhibitors, and, that if said Charging Parties failed and refused to comply with its demand that it would picket said shows; denied that it had engaged in any of the alleged unfair labor practices; and by way of confession and avoidance alleged as follows below: 18. Respondent further says that, contrary to the allegations of the con- solidated Complaint, at the times and places set out therein, whatever picketing occurred was wholly peaceful and lawful advertising by signs, announcing that the respective trade shows did not employ members of the Respondent Union. 950 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The picketing was confined solely to the said trade shows, as evidenced by said signs and by any statements made by pickets at the time. 19. The sponsors of the shows were then and there employers of labor, per- forming services at and for the shows, which was identical with the kind and character of service as is customarily performed in beauty shops. The pay may have been in money or the services may have been obtained by other inducement. That is immaterial. 20. The effect of the picketing on any neutral or Secondary Employer of other kinds of labor was merely incidental. There were no threats, nor violence, nor persuasion used or attempted to induce a concerted work stoppage, or for any other purpose. 21. The organization sponsoring the shows was a roving employer without a fixed situs. If the shows were to be picketed at all it was necessary to picket them at the identical places, times and in the manner as in the instant cases. 22. The picketing had no effect, substantial or otherwise, on interstate commerce. C. The incidents that occurred prior to and during the shows at New York and Chicago that are the basis of the charges and the complaint herein Singularly enough, there is little if any conflict in the record regarding the events with which we are concerned herein. All of the witnesses who testified before the Trial Examiner at the hearing herein impressed him as being desirous of presenting their separate versions of what transpired in an honest and straightforward manner. For this reason the Trial Examiner will attempt to set forth the facts in narrative form except where he feels that the story is best told in the winesses' own words. The New York Show Jack C. Jaffrey,4 executive director of the New York Hairdressers was general man- ager of the show and had served in this capacity for several years. On February 7, '1957, a few days before the show was to open at the Hotel Statler on February 11, Deutsch called Jaffrey on the telephone. After introducing himself he proceeded to tell him the purpose of his trip to New York, and in particular the Union' s position regarding those who were to participate in the show. The gist of his message was that he was there to ". . . organize, all of the participants, hairdressers who were going to participate in the American Hair Fashion Conference, in the show"; and the rep- resentatives and employees of manufacturers and distributors of products used in the beauty culture and hairdressing business who had engaged space at the show. He then suggested that Jaffrey get in touch with others who were associated with him in the presentation of the show and inform them of the Union's objectives, and gave Jaffrey his local address and telephone number and suggested that he get in touch with him later. The next morning, February 8, 1957, Jaffrey received a telephone call from Howard George, vice president of the Strauss Decorating Company, with whom the New York Hairdressers had a contract to decorate and install the booths for the exhibitors at the show. George asked him in substance if he had any knowledge of the Union's demands: Jaffrey told him that all he knew was what Deutsch had said in their telephone conversation the day before. George then requested that Jaffrey come up to the Hotel Wilson at once and meet with the representatives of the Union, and get the trouble settled before the show opened. Otherwise he was afraid that Strauss would be -unable to carry out its contract to decorate and install the show. Shortly, thereafter Jaffrey arrived at the Hotel Wilson and met with George and the representatives of the Union for lunch at the Fireplace Restaurant. What transpired at the luncheon follows below: . Present at the luncheon were the following: Jaffrey, George, Bynum, Deutsch, and John Eck, business agent of Local 817 of the Teamsters Union, and the repre- sentative of the furniture handlers, which, as the Trial Examiner interprets the record, is a division of Local 8,17, with which Strauss had a contract. Most of the conversation that ensued insofar as we are concerned was between Deutsch, Bynum, and Jaffrey. According to Jaffrey, they told him in substance that (1) all persons who participated in the show on the educational program would have to display a union card and (2) that "anybody in the exhibit area that had any product that ultimately found its way into the beauty industry would have to be unionized, 4 The record is'not clear as to the correct spelling of "Jaffrey." In the index it is spelled "Jaffry" but in other parts of the record it is spelled "Jaffrey" ; the Trial Examiner will do likewise. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 951 period." 5 [Emphasis `supplied.] Jaffrey told them in substance that there was nothing that he personally could do about it because the New York Hairdressers was a membership organization of shop owners like himself, and that he could not speak for them and certainly not for the manufacturers who brought in their own employees to work for them at the show. That Jaffrey's position was well taken is amply supported by the record. The record clearly shows that the hairdressers who appeared on the educational pro- ,grams, both at the New York and Chicago shows, were owners and operators of -beauty shops. Moreover, they were selected and invited to participate in the show by the committee in charge primarily because of their outstanding contribution to the profession and their artistry. This phase of the case will be more fully dis- cussed below in that section of the Report that deals with the Chicago Show for reasons which will be obvious to all concerned. Jaffrey next met with the union representatives on Sunday, February 10, in his room at the Hotel Statler, which was also the Hair Dressers headquarters during -the show. Present were the following: Bynum, Deutsch, and Eck for the Union, Louis Freiberg, national secretary of -the National Association and assigned to rep- resent it in the shows of its affiliates, Howard George, vice president of Strauss Decorating Company, Pat Favole, president of the New York Hairdressers, and Jaffrey. According to Jaffrey, most of the conversation about the show was between himself and Bynum. As the Trial Examiner interprets the record, Bynum again insisted that he get the exhibitors to sign up with the Union so that the "show could go on." Jaffrey again informed Bynum that there was nothing he could do about it, not only because he had no control over them but also because it would be next ,to impossible to get hold of their representatives at this late date, the day before the show was to open. As indicated above, Howard E. George, vice president of Strauss Decorating Company, was present at the meetings described above. The record clearly shows ,that George was vitally concerned with a settlement of the issues raised by the Union because of Strauss' contract with the New York Hairdressers. He well knew that when Bynum told Jaffrey at the meeting on February 10, that there would be "no show" unless the participants signed up with the Union, that he meant that a picket line would be thrown around the hotel. Since Strauss had contracts with the Team- sters Union whose members were to deliver its materials and equipment to the show, and with the union whose members were to install it, it would be impossible to -carry out its contract, for the simple reason that its employees would not cross the picket line. He explained his predicament to Jaffrey, Favole, and Freiberg, at their meetings, but they were powerless to assist him for the reasons set forth above. In spite of the fact that none of the officials of the New York Hairdressers were in a position to enter into a contract with the Respondent Union, Bynum and Deutsch still insisted that their demands be met. The net result was that the meeting ended in a stalemate and the Union carried out its threat and a picket line was thrown around the Hotel Statler. With the establishment of the picket line, Strauss was unable to carry out its agreement with the New York Hairdressers in regard to erecting the booths and putting up the decorations.6 Freiberg in his testimony added that Bynum, in addition to insisting that the persons who were employed by the exhibitors be members of the Union, reiterated his initial demand that ". . . every person who does any hairdressing in this show, whether they are demonstrating at the educational program or whether they are demonstrating for exhibitors, must join the Union." 7 One of the Secondary Employers mentioned, above was Clairol, Inc. At the hearing herein, Samuel Cohen, its advertising production manager, testified regarding Clairol's participation in the New York Show. According to Cohen, Clairol had contracted for space at the show to exhibit its products. Instead of a booth on "the main floor in the space set aside for exhibitors, Clairol had arranged for a 6 Excerpt from Jaffrey's testimony on direct examination which is fully credited by the Trial Examiner. Jaffrey owned and operated a shop at 717 Seventh Avenue, New York City. . 6 The record shows that while the picket line was actually established on Saturday, February 9, 1957,- nevertheless representatives of the unions who represented Strauss' employees had not yet ordered them to leave their lobs in the hotel or to respect the picket line The reason for their action was,that George was trying to bring the parties together and effect an agreement. + Excerpt from Freiberg's credible testimony. 952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD large room to set up its exhibit . Before the show opened , Clairol entered into a contract with Craftsman Displays of Newark , New Jersey, to build its display, transport it to the show , set it up in the space it had reserved , and to remove it from the hotel after the show was over . What happened to its display follows below. Cohen went to the Hotel Statler on Sunday morning, February 10, 1957, to check up on Clairol's display which was to be installed that morning by Craftsman, in the Georgian room on the second floor. This was around 11 a. in. Upon enter- ing the room he found it empty and that nothing had been installed. He left the room and started out to locate Dave Kasakoff, general manager of Craftsman Dis- play. While searching for Kasakoff he met several people who were interested in the show and was informed that the Union had set up a picket line around the hotel. He finally located Kasakoff who took him outside the hotel and showed him where the pickets were stationed early that morning when Craftsman's truck drove up to the hotel to deliver the display for Clairol. The pickets were on 32d and 33d Streets, near the entrance to the hotel used for the delivery of merchandise, etc. Craftsman's truck was parked near the entrance on 33d Street. Shortly there- after, he and Kasakoff went back into the hotel. While they were standing near the room Clairol had reserved for its display, they overheard a conversation between Bynum and one McDonald, banquet manager of the hotel. With McDonald were several of his assistants. According to Cohen, McDonald asked Bynum to at least permit the exhibitors to lay out their exhibits on tables so that the area reserved for that purpose by the sponsors of the show would be presentable. Bynum told him . there will be no show, there would be no demonstrations." Faced with such a situation Cohen told Kasakoff to send the truck home. As a result, Clairol was forced to put up a makeshift display consisting of a banner with its name on it. Later on, Clairol settled with Craftsman's for $1,450. The original bill was $1,750 but Kasakoff deducted $300 from it because Craftsman's was unable to deliver the display. Clairol's only activity at the show consisted of demonstrations of its products by its employees on the "heads" of other employees. No professional models were -involved in its demonstration. Among the depositions referred to above that-were admitted in evidence by stipulation of the parties was that of David Kasakoff, manager of Craftsman Displays. The Trial Examiner has considered it and credits his testimony therein. Insofar as the issues herein are concerned , his testimony corroborates that of Samuel Cohen, Clairol's advertising production manager, which has been discussed above. The legend on the signs carried by the pickets at the entrances to the Hotel Statler in New York, New York, on February 10, 11, 12, and 13, 1957, prior to and during the course of the show sponsored by the "New York Hairdressers" was as follows: THE HAIR FASHION CONFERENCE AND TRADE SHOW (in this hotel) DOES NOT DISPLAY THE UNION SHOP .CARD NOR DO THEY EMPLOY UNION HAIRDRESSERS AND COSMETOLOGISTS of the Journeymen Barbers Hairdressers Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Unions of America A. F. L.-C. I. 0. The Chicago Show After the New York Show was over, Bynum and Deutsch moved on to Chicago, Illinois, for the purpose of continuing the Union's campaign to organize those en- gaged in the hairdressing and cosmetology industry . Their goal was to organize all who were to participate in the Chicago Show, which was to be held in the Sherman Hotel on March 3, 4, and 5, 1957. Though the Trial Examiner has set forth above the Union 's position regarding the owners , operators , and self-employed persons of hairdressing and beauty shops, he feels that it should be reiterated at this stage of the report. Consequently , the following excerpt from Deutsch 's testimony is set forth below: A. The beauty shops and barber shops of America. Q. You are seeking to have beauty shops and barber shops hold union cards?-A. That is right. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 953 Q. In other words, become members affiliated with the Barbers Union?- A. Those working in those shops, yes. Q. Does that include the operators or proprietors of barber shops and beauty parlors, hairdressing establishments, as well as the employees in such places?- A. Yes. Q. If a barber or beauty shop operator had no employees, but was working, doing hairdressing or barbering in his own shop, and all by himself, would he be considered as a subject of your organization efforts?-A. Yes. Q. Would such a person be, under your procedure, subject to being picketed or being influenced in the recognized ways adopted by unions to put in their shops beauty-I mean union cards?-A. Yes. [Emphasis supplied.] The record shows that Bynum, who lives in Chicago, was active on the Respondent Union's behalf before Deutsch appeared on the scene. Among other things he had contacted the Teamsters Union and had been assured by its Joint Council that the picket line of the Respondent Union would be respected. In addition, he had contacted Columbus Behan, manager of the Chicago Show, and informed him of the Respondent 's intention to organize all persons who were to participate in the show. Behan did not testify at the hearing herein, but his deposition was received in evidence by the Trial Examiner upon stipulation of the parties. The circum- stances under which Behan's deposition, as well as those of other persons, has been discussed above and will not be reiterated here. Suffice it to say, that the Trial Examiner fully credits his testimony in the deposition, primarily because it was corroborated by several witnesses who did appear and testify before him at the hearing herein. According to Behan, Bynum attempted to get in touch with him around Febru- ary 12 or 13, 1957, but they did not meet until Monday, February 18, when Bynum came over to his office. At the onset of their conversation, Bynum told him who he was and why he was there. In the main their conversation was about "or- ganizing the unorganized" in the beauty culture industry, and that the Union was particularly interested in having "our people join the union," meaning the members of the Chicago Hairdressers. Behan's connection with the latter will be discussed in more detail below. Bynum then told him about what had happened at the New York Show. He pointed out that as a result of the picketing the exhibitors had a lot of trouble in getting exhibits into the show. He told Bynum that he was only an employee of the Chicago Hairdressers and was in no position to give an answer and suggested that they meet again after he had had a chance to discuss the Union's proposition with the directors of the Association. This was agreeable to Bynum and a meeting was arranged for the following Tuesday, February 26. The'record clearly shows that Behan played an important role in the events with which we are concerned herein. At the time of the hearing he had been business manager of the Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association for 34 years .8 The Chicago Hairdressers is an affiliate of the National Association. Behan was also one of the founders of the Midwest Beauty Trade Show, which is a.creature of the Chicago Hairdressers. Over the years it had been the custom for the Chicago Hairdressers to sell ex- hibit space at its shows to manufacturers and distributors of beauty-shop equipment and supplies.. By this means it finances its shows. The spaces are rented prior to the show. Prior to the opening of the Chicago Show, with which we are concerned, the management of the Hotel Sherman had erected booths for the exhibitors in the area set aside for the show. About 155 firms had reserved space at the show. The Chicago Hairdressers had no exhibit at the show. The only material that it had on hand was printed matter such as registration cards, programs, and office records. Nor did it have any employees at the show who were engaged in any work over which the Respondent Union claimed jurisdiction. The show was not open to the general public. The only persons. who were ad- mitted were members of the association, the exhibitors and their employees, and those especially invited to attend. All persons who attended the show were required to register as they entered and were given a badge to identify them, which they were supposed to wear at all times. The record also shows that in the past practically all of the equipment used by the exhibitors was carted to the show by truck. Deliveries were ordinarily made by truck at a dock located in a space at the rear of the hotel between La Salle and Clark Streets. Entrance to the dock was through an alley between the two streets. As indicated above, Behan and Bynum agreed to meet again on Tuesday, Febru- ary 26. The record contains several accounts as to what transpired at this meeting. s Heretofore and hereafter referred to as the Chicago Hairdressers. 954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After a careful perusal of the entire record the Trial Examiner is convinced that there is no dispute as to what transpired at this and other meetings of the parties. For this reason he sets forth herein a r6sum6 of the testimony of Willis S. Ryza, attorney for the Chicago Hairdressers. There were two meetings on February 26, both of which were held in Behan's offices in the Chicago Hairdressers headquarters. The first meeting was at around 10:30 a. in. and the second in the afternoon at about 2:30. In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner what transpired at these meetings is best told in the witnesses' own words. The following excerpt from Ryza's testimony, which the Trial Examiners considers pertinent to the issues herein , since it well states the position of the parties, follows below: Q. What was said at that meeting?-A. We introduced ourselves and I asked Mr. Bynum whom he represented and he stated he was a represent- ative of the AFL-CIO. I asked him which of the internationals of the AFL- CIO he represented and he stated that he was present at the request of the Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers , Cosmetologists , and Proprietors Interna- tional Union. I then asked him what the purpose of the meeting was and what the union had in mind. He stated that as we knew, the AFL-CIO was engaged in an organizational drive to organize the un -organized. Q. Pardon me, one second, Mr. Ryza. Was this what he stated to you?- A. Yes. Q. Go ahead.-A. He then continued by stating that at the top of this list were the people who did work within the jurisdiction of the Journeymen Barbers Union, and that, I then asked him what that had to do with the Association, and he stated that he was here because of the connection with the Midwest Beauty Trade Show, and that the union wanted to know if the Association would employ people who were doing work within their juris- diction, in other words, employ union members or any people who did work within the jurisdiction of the union. I then told him that perhaps he didn't understand the facts concerning- this Midwest Beauty Trade Show or the Association; that there were really two parts to the show, the first part being the exhibits by the various manufac- turers and exhibitors, and that they rented space from the Association; that they were our customers and that we had no way of telling them what they were to do in their particular exhibit areas; that they brought in whatever people they wanted and hired their own employees and we had nothing to do with that; and that the second part of the show was the educational program or programs that were put on and that the Association didn't hire anyone to do that work; that we invited various people to put on and to appear as guests to put on various hair styling demonstrations; that we didn't control them and we didn't pay them; and since we-had no employees involved in this show, that I didn't see how we could discuss any question about unionization or union membership. Mr. Bynum stated that as far as he was concerned, the union, the Associa- tion was sponsoring this show and it was up to the Association to provide people with union membership cards to do the work at this Midwest Show. He then stated this was no different than a New York Show which had been held and that had been picketed and that the show did not go on. I then stated that I understood that the show did go on. We differed as to that. I then continued with the conversation and I asked Mr. Bynum what he meant by union membership and he said, well, anyone who is doing work within the jurisdiction of the union . I said, "But if we go to these people and ask them, if they wanted to be union members and they said no, they didn't want to, where would that leave us?" He said, "Well, of course, you know that no union member will work alongside a non-union member , and that is self evident. Therefore, if you want union members to work there, they all got to be union members." I then stated to him that I didn't see how we could even go around requesting this, because these people were all our customers or accommodating the Asso- ciation by voluntarily offering their services and furthermore, that even if they were our employees, it would have to be my legal opinion to the Association that no one could be forced as a condition of employment to be a member of the union for the first 30 days of his employment. That was a provision of the Taft-Hartley Act. Mr. Bynum said he wasn't interested in the Taft-Hartley' Act, because his union wasn't subject to the jurisdiction of the Taft-Hartley Act. Secondly, as far as the other point, as far as forcing people or requiring' people to become members of the union, that there was another New York show and they had a contract there and it was no different. ` JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS , COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 955 During the morning meeting, Bynum stated that the Union had entered into a contract with the sponsors of another show which was somewhat like the shows we are concerned with herein. Ryza told him that though the situations were entirely different, nevertheless he would like to see the "type of contract" that was involved in the show he referred to in New York. Bynum then informed Ryza that Deutsch was to arrive in Chicago around 1:30 p. in. and suggested that the meeting be adjourned until sometime later in the day. Ryza agreed and as indicated above the parties met again at around 2:30 p. in. Here again the Trial Examiner feels that what transpired at the second meeting on February 26, is best told in the witnesses' 'own words. Consequently, the following excerpt from Ryza's testimony follows below: - Q. Could you tell us when that meeting was held?-A. It was held approxi- mately 2:15 in the afternoon, the afternoon of February 26 at the offices of the Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association. Q. Could you tell us who attended that meeting and what was said between the parties?-A. That meeting was attended by Mr. Behan, by Mr. Bynum, by Mr. Deutch, representative of the Respondent Union, and by myself. The people present introduced themselves and Mr. Deutch introduced himself. I stated to Mr. Deutch that we had a meeting with Mr. Bynum that morning and that I wanted to restate the Association's- position; that the Association did not have any employees and was in no position to enter into any contract or any agreement concerning the people who did participate in this show, because many of them, if not all of them, were self-employed or were the employees of exhibitors and manufacturers. I again told them about how the show is operated as far as the exhibits and the educational programs, and reiterated that there was nothing we did as far as paying these people or controlling them or telling them what to do. I just couldn't see how we could enter into an agreement or discuss an agreement. Mr. Bynum said if that is the case then there is really nothing- you -can do about it. You have to do what you have to do and we will have to do what we have to do. At that point I said; well, that was fine, if we understood each other, but I wanted to find out if the union intended to take any action. Mr. Bynum spoke about the picketing at the New York Show and Mr. Deutch didn't say yes or no. He simply said, we will have to take care of our own purposes or words to that effect. I then told Mr. Deutch and Mr. Bynum that I thought before this case went any further, before any action was taken by either side, that it might be advisable for us to meet with the union's legal counsel and discuss this matter, because I thought they were subject to the Taft-Hartley Act. In fact, I was sure they were, and that it might be better for both parties to discuss this beforehand. - Mr. Deutch and Mr. Bynum again stated they were not subject to Taft-Hartley: They didn't need legal counsel and were not interested in my legal opinions. I told them then that was all right, but if any action was taken to in any way inter- fere with the holding of this show, I wanted to tell them now that the Association would have to take whatever legal remedies were available to it. At that point the meeting pretty well broke up. On the next day, February 27, 1957, Ryza received a call from Mr Amico, vice president of the Hotel Sherman, who requested that he call a Mr. Casey, business agent of the Scrap Iron Drivers, Local 714, of the International Brotherhood of Team- sters. Ryza did so. The record is not clear as to what was said in the conversation. At any rate as a result of it, Ryza called Columbus Behan at his office, but was unable to get in touch with him because he had left for the day. Ryza then called Casey to inform him of his inability to get in touch with Behan. In the course of their conver- sation Casey informed Ryza that Bynum was then in his office, and that Bynum had given him the names of eight people whom the Respondent Union insisted must sign union cards before the show opened. Casey then read the names off to Ryza, who attempted to write them down, but succeeded in recording only seven of them. Shortly thereafter, Casey turned the phone over to Bynum who then talked to Ryza about another meeting to discuss the situation. As a result the parties agreed to meet the next morning in Ryza's office at 9:30. Since the names of the eight persons referred to above are of the utmost importance the Trial Examiner will dispose of this phase of the case below. In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner, the names of the persons given Ryza by Casey in their telephone conversation are of the utmost importance for the reason that his ultimate conclusion herein is predicated thereon. Who these persons were and the role they played in the Chicago Show and on the national scene will be thoroughly -.discussed below. 956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD As indicated Ryza was able to write down 7 of the 8 names that Casey gave him over the phone . They were as follows: Bert Bauer , Kaye Beckman, Helen Graziano, Ross Ippolito , Mari Jorgensen , Philip Parker, and Daniel Zicha. _ All but Kaye Beck- man testified at the hearing herein . As to Beckman , Behan referred to her in his deposition. The pertinent testimony of the above which the Trial Examiner fully credits will be discussed below. Bert Bauer owns and operates a beauty shop in Oak Park, Illinois. At times material herein , he had two employees . He is a member of both the National Association and the Chicago Hairdressers . He appeared on the educational program at the show at the invitation of the committee in charge of the show, and "created a hair style," which he explained was "his individual idea to present something new and to us it means an art." He received no money for appearing on the program. Neither he nor any of his employees are members of the Respondent Union. Helen Graziano owns and operates a beauty shop in the Marshall Field Annex Building, Chicago, Illinois. At all times material herein she had six employees Working in her shop. She is a member of both the National Association and the Chicago Hairdressers . She appeared on the educational program and in a panel discussion at the invitation of Columbus Behan , manager of the show. As her contribution to the program she styled a hairdress . She explained that in so doing she "expressed her own feelings" or ideas regarding the trend in hair styling. Her testimony of the purpose of the educational program impressed the Trial Examiner as being the consensus of all the participants who appeared and testified at the hearing. As she put it, the purpose of the program is to elevate ". . . our profes- sion and we have these shows to give the people that have just come out into the field more knowledge about our work." She received no compensation for appearing on the program . Neither she nor any of her employees are members of the Respondent Union. . Ross Ippolito owns and operates a beauty salon at 5671 ; West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, which is known as Coiffeur Hair Design. He had 7 full-time and 1 part-time employees working for him at times material herein. He is a Class A member of the National Association and the Chicago Hairdressers. He appeared on the educational program at the show at the invitation of the program committee. At the show he presented a style depicting his ideas of the trend for 1958 hair- dressing . He received no compensation for his appearance on the program. Like others on the program, he appeared on the show to further the interest of hair- dressers in general, and his own interests in particular . In addition to appearing on the educational program, he appeared on the fashion show on the night of March 5, which as the Trial Examiner interprets the record, is in the nature of a contest . On the program he presented a hair style and won a prize in the contest which was a plaque setting forth his achievement at the show . Neither he nor any of his employees were members of the Respondent Union at times material herein. Mari Jorgensen is one of the owners of a beauty salon in La Grange, Illinois. Her partner is Daniel Zicha s The partnership has five employees. Both she and her partner are members of the National Association and the Chicago Association. In addition , at least two of their employees are likewise members of the same organiza- tions. She appeared on the educational program at the invitation of the program committee. As she put it, she "did the opening show" and "was asked to do a style according to what I thought was the coming trend of hair styling... . She performed on the "heads" of two of her employees. Neither she nor her employees received any compensation for their performance nor did the partnership pay the employees. Both of the employees who participated on the show with her were members of the National Association and the Chicago Hairdressers, and also par- ticipated in the show at the invitation of the program committee. She testified that one of the reasons she appeared on the program was for advertising purposes to help her own business. There is no evidence in the record that either of the partners or any of their employees are members of the Respondent Union. Daniel Zicha, Mari Jorgensen's partner in the beauty salon, also appeared on the show at the invitation of the program committee. He also was a member of the National Association and the Chicago Hairdressers and a member of its Hair Stylists Committee at all times material herein. Since the business of the partnership has been discussed immediately above, it will not be reiterated here. Zicha appeared on the educational program and participated in the mode and manner described above by other participants. In addition, he competed in the Easter Parade competition on the last night of the show, and, as he put it, "... presented a head" in the parade, which in the vernacular of the day, means he presented a "hair-do." Like 9 See infra. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 957 Ippolito, he, too , won a prize in the contest , and was presented a plaque in recog- nition of his achievement . He received no monetary award. As indicated above, Kaye Beckman was 1 of 8 persons named by Casey, in his telephone conversation with Ryza , which the Respondent Union demanded should sign a union card before it would agree to permit the show to go on. The only testimony as regards her status is found in the deposition of Columbus Behan, manager of the Chicago Show. In his deposition , Behan testified that Kaye Beckman is the owner of a beauty shop in Rockford , Illinois, where she also works as an operator ; that she was a member of the Chicago Hairdressers and" the National Association ; and that she participated on the educational program on the opening night of the Chicago Show. Philip Parker , at times material herein , was president of the National Association and had been since July 19, 1956. His home is in Gary, Indiana, where he owns and operates a beauty salon . In addition , he owns and operates another salon in Chicago, Illinois. In his Gary salon he has 7 employees, in Chicago, he has 9. Parker appeared on the opening program of the Chicago Show, as a guest of the Chicago Hairdressers , as the ". . president of the National Association to extend greetings to the visiting cosmetologists and members of the National Association." He also appeared on the last night of the show for the purpose of presenting to the winners of the contests on The Easter Parade the plaques which were awarded them as prizes . He received no remuneration for his participation in the show. Parker was not a member of the Chicago Hairdressers because his official residence was in Gary , Indiana. Further evidence regarding the importance attached to the above-mentioned owners and operators by the Respondent Union in its organizational campaign to organize everybody engaged in the beauty culture field , regardless of their status as employers or employees, is also found in the uncontradicted and undenied testimony of Ryza. The testimony referred to concerns a conversation that Ryza had with one Barney Baker, an international representative of the Teamsters Union , in the presence of Bynum and Deutsch at the Hotel Sherman on February 27, 1957. For reasons stated above , the Trial Examiner feels that here again is an instance where the story is best told in the witnesses ' own words . Consequently, the following pertinent excerpt from Ryza 's testimony follows below: Q. (By Mr. Charone.) What did Mr. Baker say to you?-A. I stated to Mr. 'Baker that I was the attorney for the Association . I guess we got some difficulties here and he said yes, the picket line, but he was a-from the Inter- national of the Teamsters Union and that the picket line of the Barbers Union was sanctioned by the Joint Teamsters Council. Mr. C. MILLER : Just a minute, I object to the question , the witness assum- ing who this man Baker was without detailing any conversation conveying that information. Mr. CIIARONE: I think the witness has testified , Mr. Trial Examiner, what this Mr. Baker said in the presence of the Respondents who he was. TRIAL EXAMINER : If I understood his testimony , Mr. Baker told you that he was a representative of the Teamsters Union? The WITNESS: Yes, of the International Teamsters. Union. TRIAL EXAMINER : Well, since there has been testimony in. this record that the Teamsters honored and respected the picket line, I will permit the question and overrule the objection . Of course , Mr. Deutch , there is testimony he was present . If there is another version of it we will take that up. The WITNESS : He told me the picket line would be respected by the Joint Teamsters Council and I said , "Well, I have been trying to sit down and explain the Association's position and trying to get in touch with people from the Team- sters Council unsuccessfully . I didn 't know how this particular thing could be solved or helped because they were not our employees and we couldn't do anything about it." Mr. Baker said they were only interested in eight membership cards. I said, "If it is just eight people , any eight people, that should not be too difficult. Maybe somebody can find eight members of the Barbers Union ." He said they want only eight names of membership dues and initiation fees. I said, "What eight?" He turned to Mr . Deutch and said , "Well, is it any particular eight?" or words to that effect , and I said , well, I understood from a prior conversation that they were eight particular names that they wanted and it had to be those people. Mr. Baker, turning to Mr . Deutch , said, "Is it just eight or some particular eight?" Mr. Deutch said to Mr. Baker it has got to be those eight and then he told me , well, I guess it has got to be those eight . I said we can't tell those people to join the union or not to join. 058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mr. CHARONE: The eight people you have reference to TRIAL EXAMINER: That is all part of the conversation? The WITNESS: That is right. Q. (By Mr. Charone.) Are those names included in the attachment to the 'exhibit, rather Exhibit A of the charge filed?-A. Seven of those eight names appear as one of the exhibits to the charge. As indicated above, the next meeting of the parties was at Ryza's office on the morning of February 28. Present at this meeting were Bynum, Deutsch, and Ryza. At the onset of the meeting, Ryza told Bynum and Deutsch that he had been in- formed by officials of the Sherman Hotel that pickets had been approaching truck- drivers and telling them not to make any deliveries of materials and equipment at its loading dock that were consigned to exhibitors at the show. One of the union representatives advised him that there were no pickets at the hotel. However, either Bynum or Deutsch did make the following statement,'O " . well, the association or some of these exhibitors were moving things in there last night and you didn't expect us to just sit by and watch that stuff go in." Since Ryza's testi- mony in this regard stands uncontradicted and undenied in the record it is fully credited by the Trial Examiner. Ryza then told Bynum and Deutsch in substance that since they had "jumped the gun," so to speak, that he saw no need to prolong the meeting because he intended to immediately prepare unfair labor practices charges against the Respondent Union. With that statement the meeting broke up. Later' that morning Ryza accompanied by Edward Miller, one of his associates, visited the Hotel Sherman. What happened at that time has been set forth above in the excerpt from Ryza's testimony regarding his conversation with Barney Baker, the representative of the Teamsters Union. The Picketing and its Effect on the Chicago Show - The record is replete with uncontradicted and undenied testimony about the Respondent Union's activities on the picket line. Both Bynum and Deutsch testified that they devoted the major portion of their time in and around the picket line and on occasions relieved active pickets on the lines. It was stipulated at the hearing herein that the pickets wore signs with the same legend as those used at the New York show. The only difference in the signs was the name of the sponsor of the show. The Respondent in its answer admits that it picketed the Chicago Show. - In the circumstances the Trial Examiner is convinced that it would unnecessarily burden this report to set forth herein a resume of all the testimony in this regard. Suffice it to say that the picketing was so effective that the exhibitors were unable to utilize the space assigned them in the mode and manner they had anticipated. Inso- far as this phase of the show is concerned, it was a "flop" so to speak. What little equipment and materials that finally did reach the space reserved for the exhibitors had to be manually pulled and lugged by the exhibitors themselves through the front entrance of the Sherman Hotel. After the picketing started, Ryza stationed several of his associates in the law firm around the entrances to the Sherman Hotel to observe what happened on the picket line. None of the observers testified at the hearing herein, but the depositions of three, Joseph E. McNutt, Thomas W. James, and Donald Morowitz were admitted in evidence by stipulation of the parties. Joseph E. McNutt, an associate lawyer with Pope and Ballard, was stationed on Clark Street at the entrance to the alleyway back of the Sherman Hotel. He was there from around 10:30 a. in. on February 28, 1957, until 1:30 p. in. While he was there, he had conversations with Bynum and Deutsch and observed the activ- ities of Barney Baker, international representative of the Teamsters Union. About an hour after he arrived on the scene he saw Bynum relieve the picket stationed at the entrance to the alleyway. Shortly thereafter a truck drove up and stopped. Bynum talked to the driver who then backed his truck out of the alley and drove away. Bynum came over and talked to him and introduced himself. While they were talking, Deutsch came up and relieved Bynum. Deutsch put on Bynum's picket sign and took part in the conversation with him and Bynum. In their con- versation, Deutsch identified a man standing nearby as Barney Baker of the Team- sters Union. • A short time later, a truck belonging to Ryan Freight Line pulled into the-alley and stopped. Deutsch and Baker went over and talked to the driver. McNutt did not hear all of the conversation between the driver, Deutsch, and Baker, but he did hear -Baker tell the driver, ". . you are not delivering that stuff here." Shortly thereafter the driver drove the truck away. From all of this and 10 Ryza could not recall just which one did make the statement. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS , COSMETOLOGISTS , ETC. 959 upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner infers that the truck was loaded with equipment and materials for the show. Donald Morowitz , a law clerk for Pope and Ballard , testified in his deposition that he relieved McNutt at about 1:30 p . in. on February 28, 1957 . He, too, acted as an observer at the entrance to the alley back of the Sherman Hotel on the Clark Street side. He stayed there for about 3 hours . When he arrived at his station McNutt introduced him to Barney Baker, who in turn introduced him to Deutsch. At the time there were two pickets on the job wearing picket signs . While he was stationed at the entrance to the alley every truck that drove in was either stopped by Baker or Bynum or voluntarily did so. If the truck had materials for the show, they were told that they couldn 't deliver it. If they didn 't or were on their way to pick up materials at the loading dock , they were permitted to drive on . Typical of the language used by Bynum to truckdrivers hauling materials for the show was his statement to a driver whose truck was so loaded, "You have got stuff for the hair show and you can 't pull that stuff in. This is a strike authorized by the Joint Council of Teamsters ." The driver then drove off and did not deliver the goods. Thomas M. James, an associate lawyer in the firm of Pope and Ballard, testified in his deposition that he too was an observer on the picket line on March 1, 1957, from about 10:30 a. in. to around 1 p. in. He too witnessed many instances where trucks were stopped by either the pickets or Barney Baker . These incidents were similar to those witnessed by McNutt and Morowitz and the reaction of the truck- drivers was the same , if they were delivering materials for the show . That is, they drove off without delivering the materials on the truck . The Trial Examiner con- siders the testimony of James as cumulative and for reasons stated above, sees no necessity to reiterate here. Suffice it to say, that his testimony reaffirms the con- clusion reached by the Trial Examiner above, that the picketing was most effective in stopping the delivery of materials and equipment consigned to the exhibitors who had rented space at the show. Deutsch, who was the duly designated representative of the Respondent Union in its efforts to organize the participants in the show , testified in substance that there were from 6 to 12 pickets at the Hotel Sherman at 'all times . Though the number varied from time to time, this was due to what he and Bynum considered were sufficient to meet the requirements of the moment. In Passing Though the Trial Examiner at the onset of this Report stated , with the best of intentions , that since there was little if any dispute as to the facts he saw no reason to dwell at great length on the evidence adduced at the hearing. Regardless of his intentions , the deeper he got into the record he realized that such treatment thereof was impossible , especially in view of the well considered briefs he received from counsel for the parties . As a consequence , he finds himself in complete accord with the Scotch bard , Robert Burns: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley An' lea'e us nought but grief and pain, For promis'd joy! -To A Mouse. Concluding Findings In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner , the first question that we must dispose of here is this: What was the ultimate goal of the Respondent Union? What persons in the hairdressing and beauty culture field did they desire to organize? In the vernacular of the day, who was it "aiming at"? The Trial Examiner is con- vinced that the Union desired ( 1) that all owners and operators of beauty salons or self-employed persons in the beauty culture business join the Union and display its card in their shops; and ( 2) that having signed up the owners and operators of beauty salons then their employees would follow in their footsteps as a matter of course. That this is so is evidenced by Bynum 's refusal to accompany Jaffrey at the New York Show to each and every exhibitor and solicit their employees to join the Union . In the Trial Examiner's opinion this proves conclusively that the Union's primary objective was not the employees of the exhibitors at the shows. Another compelling factor in his reasoning in this regard is the fact that many of the em- ployees of the exhibitors and others closely associated with them in the show, such as Strauss Decorating Co. and Craftsman Display, were already members of other unions such as the Teamsters , Carpenters , and Electricians . To have attempted to 960 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD compel them to.join the union would have caused no end of jurisdictional disputes. Finally, and a most persuasive factor in the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion in this regard was the Union's offer, through Casey of the Teamsters Union, to permit the Chicago Show to go on without interruption if the Chicago Hairdressers would compel eight persons who were on its educational program to join the Union. This offer was made in spite of the fact that the Union well knew that such persons were either owners and operators of beauty salons or self-employed persons. And in face of the further fact that it had been informed on several occasions both in New York and Chicago by responsible members of the Associations that they had absolutely no control over its members as regards their personal and business affairs. Having found as above, the next question that must be disposed of is who then are the Primary and Secondary Employers in view of the issues drawn by the pleadings herein? To begin with the record clearly shows that neither the National Association nor the New York Hairdressers and Chicago Hairdressers were in any sense agents of either their individual members or the exhibitors at their shows. There is no sub- stantial evidence in this record that would justify such a finding. In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner, the question as to who were the Primary Employers was answered by the Respondent itself in Chicago when Bynum gave Casey a list of eight names which he had selected from the official program of the Chicago Show, to pass on to Ryza who was talking to Casey on the telephone at the time. Although Ryza caught only 7 of the 8 names given him in the conversation, the Trial Examiner is convinced that the 7 he did make note of are sufficient, particularly so since the Respondent made no issue of this either at the hearing or in its brief. All of the persons named by Ryza and attached to the charge in Case No. 13-CC-135, either testified at the hearing or were identified by Behan, manager of the Chicago Show in his deposition. Each and everyone of these per- sons were either owners and operators of beauty salons or self-employed persons.ii The mere fact that members of the Associations appeared on the programs at the shows in New York and Chicago did not give them the status of employees within the meaning of the Act, since they neither received any monetary remuneration for their performances nor did they expect any. To them, pride in their artistry, the adulation of their colleagues, and pride in their achievements were remuneration enough. They had the same pride in their association with other members of their profession as others do in such organizations as chambers of commerce, bar asso- ciations, and the like. By no stretch of the imagination could they be dubbed "em- ployees" of the Associations sponsoring the shows. Why then in view of all the foregoing, did the Union make demands on the Asso- ciations and picket the situs of the shows sponsored by them instead of the places of business of the owners and operators? In the considered opinion of the Trial Ex- aminer, the answer is threefold: (1) The Union was aware of the interest and pride that the members of the association who were owners and operators of beauty salons had in their affiliation; (2) the situs of the shows was a convenient place to bring its message home to them through the associations which were sponsoring the shows and use the officials in charge of the shows as an instrumentality to put the "heat" on its members, so to speak, to force them to join the union or suffer the consequence which would flow from their refusal to be parties to its demands, such as the picket- ing that has been discussed and described above; and (3) if it failed to sign up the owners and operators at the shows through its demands on the committees in charge of the shows, then it still had open to it the right to picket heir places of business, which the Union had done in the past at other places of business over which it claimed jurisdiction. In other words if one method failed, it still had another open to it. In view of all of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the owners and operators of beauty salons or self-employed persons are the parties to the primary dispute with the Respondent Union; in other words, the Primary Employers. In his complaint and supporting brief, the General Counsel alleges and contends that the objective of the above-described conduct of the Respondent Union was "to force or require employers and self-employed persons who are members of organiza- tions affiliated with National Association, including New York Association and Chicago Association, or who perform at or participate in the trade shows cr demon- strate products for -exhibitors to become members of the Respondent, and hence violative of the first part of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act." In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner, the General Counsel has proven his case in this regard 11 In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner, only Kaye Beckman might be styled a self-employed person , even though she does own her own shop. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 961 by not only a preponderance of the evidence when considered in the light of the whole record but to a far greater degree, and it is so found. As a matter of fact the evidence in support of this phase of the case stands for the most part so over- whelmingly uncontradicted and undenied that the Trial Examiner sees no necessity to cite ad infinitum numerous decisions of the Board and the courts to substantiate his finding.12 The mere fact that the Respondent Union never made any demands on the individuals who were owners and operators and self-employed persons to join the Union is of no consequence. See N. L. R. B. v. Washington-Oregon Weavers District Council, 211 F. 2d 149 (C. A. 9); Sand Door & Plywood Co., 113 NLRB 1210, enfd. 241 F. 2d 147 (C. A. 9). Nor does the Respondent Union's contention that it had a dispute with the National Association because it had hairdressers on its educational and other programs and for this reason had a right to advertise the dispute to the public by picketing the hotels where the shows were held, excuse its conduct for the following reasons: (1) The shows were not open to the general public; (2) the associations as such had no employees that were eligible for membership in the union under the provisions of its constitution, article VIII, section I; 13 (3) the associations were not the "agents" of the persons they invited to participate in the shows; and (4) even though the associations as such were employers of small staffs of clerical workers and to that extent were employers within the meaning of the Act and as such as in all secondary boycott cases had an indirect dispute with the Union because they had done "busi- ness" with the Primary Employers to the extent set forth above.14 But this relation- ship did not deprive them of the status of "neutrals" and make them parties to the primary dispute between the Respondent Union and those found above to have been the Primary Employers.15 The Trial Examiner has found above that the Respondent Union started to picket both the New York Show and the Chicago Show before they opened, and continued to do so until they closed on the dates set forth above. The Trial Examiner has also set forth above in considerable detail what transpired on the picket line and in particular those incidents which involve the delivery of materials and equipment to the exhibitors who had engaged space at the shows. The complaint alleges that the objectives of the Respondent Union in engaging in the acts described above were as follows: (2) to force or require trucking companies and other employers and persons who normally do business with National Association, and its affiliated associations, and with exhibitors at said trade shows sponsored or conducted by said associations, to cease doing business with National Association and its affiliated associations, including New York Association and Chicago Association, and with the exhibitors; (3) to force or require the exhibitors at the trade shows sponsored or conducted by National Association and/or its affiliated associations to cease doing business with National Association and/or its affiliated associations; and (4) to force or require National Association and/or its affiliated associations, including New York Association and Chicago Asso- ciation, and/or the exhibitors at their trade shows to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the collective bargaining representative of the employees or persons performing, demonstrating and participating at said trade shows. The complaint then alleges that these activities of the Respondent Union con- stitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce 16 within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Trial Examiner has found above that the truckdrivers who were hauling materials and equipment to the shows in New York and Chicago for the exhibitors were induced not to unload their trucks 'and to drive on by either the legend on the picket signs or by instructions from the agents of the Respondent Union, Bynum, Deutsch, and Baker. In the circumstances discussed and described above, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that by its conduct on the picket line the Respondent Union induced or 12 To cite but a few : N. L. R. B. v. Steinberg and Company (the muskrat case), 182 F. 2d 850, 854 (C. A. 5) ; Los Angeles Evening Herald and Express, 102 NLRB 103, 107. 1 See General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12. IS Such as mailing out information and the like from their office. 15 See N. L. it. B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council (Gould Preisner), 341 U. S. 675; N. L. R. B. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, etc. (Wadsworth Building Company), 184 F. 2d 60 (C. A. 10). 19 See infra for a moredetailed discussion. 483142-59-vol. 120-62 -1962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .-encouraged the employees of the exhibitors, trucking companies, and other neutral employees, such as Strauss Decorating Company, Craftsman Displays, and the employees of the Hotel Statler in New York, and the Hotel Sherman in Chicago .to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- _ modities or to perform any services, their object being, as set forth above in the quote from the General Counsel's complaint, and that by such conduct the Respond- ent Union violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, and Section 2 (6) -and (7) of the Act.17 In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner, the evidence supporting his -above finding is so clear and undisputed he sees no necessity of citing numerous Board and court decisions in support thereof. Regardless of the above conclusions and findings regarding violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, the Trial Examiner must still determine the question as to whether or not the Respondent's conduct had sufficient impact on interstate commerce to justify the Board in assuming jurisdiction herein. He has found above that it did. His reasoning follows below. The Trial Examiner did not elaborate on the jurisdictional question above for the reason that he felt that the picture of what transpired at the New York and Chicago shows should first be presented to all concerned so that they might have a better understanding of the issues before us. In the section of the report styled "I. The business of the Employers" the Trial Examiner has set forth resumes of numerous affidavits from responsible officials of employers who had leased space from the sponsors of the New York and Chicago shows. Each of these affidavits sets forth pertinent facts about the business of the separate exhibitors, an exami- nation of these affidavits shows that 9 exhibitors at the Chicago Show and 7 at the New York Show during the calendar year of 1956, sold and shipped products valued at over $50,000 to points outside the States where their business establishments and manufacturing plants were located. Included are many nationally known com- panies, such as Clairol, Revlon,18 Helene Curtis, and others of equal repute. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that all of the above employers or business concerns mentioned above in the section of this Report referred to, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, at the shows the business of the exhibitors (which the Trial Examiner has found above to be the Secondary Employers) entering the stream of commerce between the several States was as follows: at the Chicago Show, $530,000, and at the New York Show, $54,000. In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner, the Board's Decision and Order -in the Euclid Foods case 19 is applicable herein not only from the jurisdictional stand- point but to other facts of the case as well?o For these reasons he feels that the Board's decision in that case should be inserted herein so that the parties may have it before them, particularly because he has relied upon it to a great extent in reaching his ultimate conclusion herein: 1. Although the business of some of the secondary employers involved here, standing alone or in conjunction with the business of the primary employer, did not meet the minimum requirements, the Trial Examiner asserted juris- diction here on the basis of the aggregate business of all the secondary employers found affected by the Respondents' unfair labor practices. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that jurisdiction should be asserted. However, in asserting jurisdiction with respect to all the unfair labor practices found, we rely only on the fact that all the secondary employers were victims of a pattern of unfair labor practices and that the business of one or more of the secondary employers, each standing alone, meets the jurisdictional requirements. [Emphasis supplied.] - Our dissenting colleague would have us revert to the rule of the Jamestown Builders Exchange case, 93 NLRB 386, which the Board abandoned in the McAllister Transfer case, 110 NLRB 1769. In the latter case, the Board adopted the view of dissenting Member Peterson in the Lincoln Beer Distributors case, 106 NLRB 405, i. e., that it is not the particular business between the primary employer and the secondary employer at the location affected, but rather the entire business of the secondary employer at that location that governs in applying the Board's jurisdictional standards in secondary boycott situations. 17 See nfra the effect of the Respondent Union's conduct on interstate commerce. 19 The $64,000• Question. - 19 Euclid Foods, Incorporated, d/b/a Bonds 's Mother Hubbard Market, 118 NLRB 130. 0D See nfra. JOURNEYMEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS, COSMETOLOGISTS, ETC. 963 This approach was consistent with and gave meaning to the Board 's often ex- pressed concern that innocent third- parties not be injured by secondary boycotts. In disagreement with our dissenting colleague, we see no warrant for lessening that protection in a case such as this where at least one of several victims of secondary boycott action meets the Board's jurisdictional standards. The power of the Board thus having been invoked to-deal with a pattern of conduct affecting enterprises both within and without the jurisdictional standards, it seems to us only reasonable and effectuating the purposes of the Act to give the broadest scope to the remedy we apply. Nor do we agree with our dissenting colleague that either the rule of the McAllister case or the rule laid down today in the present case is inconsistent with Board policy in the assertion of jurisdiction in Section 8 (a) cases. For, where employer unfair labor practices are alleged , the Board asserts juris- diction on the basis of the entire operations of the employer , not just that department or portion of the business in which the alleged unfair labor practice occurred. Paul W. Speer, Inc., 94 NLRB 317; George D. Auchter Company, 102 NLRB 881 . And the Board has asserted jurisdiction in a case alleging employer interference with a union 's organizing campaign , although the em- ployer's operations did not meet jurisdictional standards, where essentially the same labor dispute underlay that case and a consolidated case involving the same employer as the primary employer in' a secondary boycott by the union, jurisdictional standards ' being met in the secondary boycott case by adding the business of the secondary employers to that of the primary employer. Reilly Cartage Co., 110 NLRB 1742. Thus, in asserting jurisdiction in the instant case, we are treating 8 (b) cases as we do 8 ( a) cases thereby providing equal protec- tion to employees against unfair labor practices of labor organizations and employers . [ Emphasis supplied.] 2. The Trial Examiner found in substance that, by picketing and other conduct, the Respondents induced and encouraged employees of various sec- ondary employers to cease work as a means of compelling the secondary em- ployers to discontinue business with the primary employer . He held that picketing at the premises of secondary employers was unlawful because not conducted according to the criteria enunciated in the Moore Dry Dock case, 92 NLRB 547. He also held that such picketing was unlawful under the rule laid down in the Washington Coca-Cola case, 107 NLRB' 299, enfd. 220 F. 2d 380 (C. A., D. C.). We agree. 'However, as the primary employer had a separate place .of business at which the Respondents could effectively publicize their dispute , we also hold that the "ambulatory situs" doctrine of the Moore Dry Dock case , even if its requirements were met, does not apply and thus all the picketing at the premises of the secondary employers was unlawful. [Emphasis supplied.] In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner , the Respondents ' reliance upon Moore Dry Dock of the roving situs doctrine is disposed of in the above excerpt from the Euclid Food case . Accordingly , its contention is rejected. The Trial Examiner has concluded and found above that the activities of the Respondent Union both before and after the shows opened in New York and Chicago were unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. In sum- mation, he feels that he should set forth those activities that have been most per- suasive - to him in reaching his ultimate conclusions and findings . To begin with his finding that the Respondent Union 's ultimate goal was to force owners and operators or self-employed persons to join a labor organization is so clearly violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act that further comment would be superfluous. From this objective flowed further activities , all of which he has found violative of the Act. As pointed out above, the Respondent Union could have legally picketed the premises of the owners and operators of beauty salons both in New York and Chicago , but it chose to confine its picketing to the premises of neutral employers, the Hotel Statler in New York, and the Hotel Sherman in Chicago . By so doing, it went beyond the Board 's doctrine of lawful common situs picketing . Again, by confining its activities to 'the area around the hotels, it not only injured neutral em- ployers, but was of such a nature -that it actually left the impression with all who suffered the consequences thereof that its activities both on and off the picket line were aimed at them . What actually happened as a result of the above-described conduct thereby dispels the Respondent Union's argument that the picketing was solely for the purpose of advising the general public that the associations sponsoring the shows did not display the Union's shopcard . What the Board said in the- 964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works case 2i clearly refutes this argument of the Respondent . There the . Board had the following to say in this regard: This broad argument , that picketing-wherever it occurred-is aimed only at publicizing a labor dispute and not at inducing work stoppage by employees who are required in their regular employment to cross the picket line, has been too often rejected to require further elaboration here .2 [Emphasis supplied.] "Wadsworth Building Company, Inc., 81 NLRB 802, enfd ., 189 F. 2d 60 (C. A. 10) cert. denied 341 U. S. 947; Denver Building and Construction Trades Council ( Gould and Preisner ), 82 NLRB 1195 , affd. 341 U. S. 675. So is it here. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Union set forth in section II, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the employers set forth in section I, above , have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent engaged in activities violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Those of the employers whose businesses are described in section I of the Report and who are therein referred to as Advertising Services; Emil J . Paidar Company ; Modern Beauty Shop , Inc.; Caryl Richards , Inc.; Hallewell , Inc.; Rayette, Inc.; Revlon , Inc.; Clairol, Inc.; The Realistic Company ; Helene Curtis Sales, Inc.; Sales Affiliates , Inc.; Quality Cosmetics , Inc.; Cameo Supply Company; and Paragon Distributing Company are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Journeymen Barbers , Hairdressers , Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Union of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Advertising Services; Emil J. Paidar Company; Modem Beauty Shop , Inc.; Rayette , Inc.; Revlon, Inc.; The Realistic Company; Clairol, Inc.; Helene Curtis Sales, Inc.; Sales Affiliates , Inc.; Quality Cos- metics, Inc.; Cameo Supply Company ; Paragon Distributing Company; Caryl Rich- ards, Inc.; Hallewell , Inc.; and employees of employers with whom the above-named employers had contracted to deliver materials and equipment , to erect booths, install displays , and decorate booths and other spaces which said employers had leased from the Chicago and Illinois Hairdressers Association and the Hairdressers Board of Trade of New York, for the purpose of exhibiting said products and equip- ment at shows sponsored by said associations at the Hotel Statler in New York, New York, on February 11, 12 , and 13, 1957, and at the Hotel Sherman in Chicago, Illinois, on March 3 , 4, and 5 , 1957, to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, objects of such conduct being to force and require their respective employers to cease doing business with the above-named sponsors of the trade shows in New York and Chicago , for the purpose of forcing and requiring employers who are the owners and operators of beauty salons, or self-employed persons who are members of the associations named above and of the National Hairdressers ' and Cosmetologists ' Association, Inc., to join said Union. In view of the foregoing , the Trial Examiner finds that the Respondent , Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetologists and Proprietors International Union of America , AFL-CIO, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and ( B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting coat- merce within the meaning of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] a See 107 NLRB 299, 302 , enfd. 220 F . 2d 380 (C. A., D. C.).