188 N.L.R.B. 5 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

Local No. P-575, Meat Cutters

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 25, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 5 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

LOCAL NO. P-575, MEAT CUTTERS Local No. P-575, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL-CIO) and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work- men of North America (AFL-CIO) and Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. Case 1-CC-799 January 25, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On January 20, 1970, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Decision, attached hereto, in the above-entitled case recommending that the com- plaint, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, be dismissed in its entirety. Thereafter the General Counsel, Charging Party, and Respondent Local No. P-575 filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The Re- spondent Unions filed answering briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju- dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent they are consistent herewith. 1. Powers was the steward of Local No. P-575. Although the Trial Examiner found that Powers' threat to Kelly Beef on September 25, 1969, that the men would not work overtime because Kelly was still using meat from-Iowa Beef, had an unlawful object and resulted in an unlawful refusal to work overtime, the Trial Examiner concluded that no finding of a violation was warranted. We do not agree with this conclusion. The undisputed evidence establishes that in Sep- tember, Local No. P-575 distributed to its members the following bulletin. STRIKE, STRIKE. STRIKE. IOWA BEEF PACKERS (NEBRAS- KA) ON STRIKE SINCE AUGUST 24TH NOW IS THE TIME FOR OUR EMPLOYEES TO PUT THEIR MONIES WHERE THEIR MOUTH HAS BEEN 5 THIS COMPANY'S BEEF IS IN BOSTON NOW. PLEASE NOTI- FY YOUR EMPLOYER OF THIS. ASK YOUR EMPLOYER NOT TO BUY FROM THE "IOWA BEEF PACKERS" (NEBRASKA) FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. LISTED BELOW ARE THE INSPECTION NUMBERS (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE). IOWA BEEF PACKERS IS OPERATING WITH FOREMEN, SALES- MEN, SHIPPERS AND THEIR WIVES (ALL FINKS).... WE DON'T WANT THIS SCAB MEAT IN OUR MARKETS ... DO WE? WITH YOUR COOPERATION, THE MEMBERS CO- OPERATION. AND THE EMPLOYER'S COOPERATION, WE WILL RID THE BOSTON AREA OF THIS SCAB MEAT. WITH THIS COMBINED EFFORT, WE WILL HELP TO WIN THIS STRIKE. The bulletin listed inspection numbers from seven Iowa Beef plants in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Minnesota. Contemporaneously with the distribution of the bulletin, Craig, the president of Local No. P-575, on two separate occasions urged New York officials to stop doing business with Iowa Beef, and Local No. P-575 Steward Powers solicited President Coyne of Kelly to "stop bringing in Iowa beef." The companies refused, and on September 24 Craig, upon being in- formed that the Kelly employees were upset about handling Iowa beef, appeared at the Kelly premises and called its employees away from their work for a meeting. He appeared at the New York premises the next day and likewise called an employee meeting during their working time. At Kelly, Craig advised the men that they had to work on Iowa beef because their contract prohibited strike action. He suggested, how- ever, that they could refuse to work overtime sched- uled for 6 a.m. the next morning because the contract made overtime before 7 a.m. voluntary. The following morning and the morning after that, September 26, all of Kelly's employees failed to show up for overtime work scheduled for 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. and, as the Trial Examiner found, also refused to work 2 hours of scheduled overtime on the afternoon of September 26. The reason for these refusals was, the Trial Examiner found, as Steward Powers had stated, that Kelly was still processing Iowa beef. Similarly, after Craig called the New York employees off the job for a meeting on September 25, all failed to show up for overtime work scheduled for 6 to 7 a.m. on September 26. Thereafter, Craig threatened President Kaplan of New York with a strike because of Kaplan's conduct in connection with the instant case. The sequence of events above, as well as their tim- ing, clearly establish the violations alleged in the com- plaint. Thus, the Local No. P-575 bulletin and the statements of its president and steward show that its object throughout was to cause Kelly and New York to cease doing business with Iowa Beef because Iowa Beef was engaged in a dispute with the International. 188 NLRB No. 2 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Powers' threat, and Craig's suggestion that the em- ployees refuse to work overtime, as well as his threat to Kaplan, and the employees' refusal to perform overtime work, establish that the employees were in- duced and encouraged to strike, and that Kelly and New York were coerced, in furtherance of the Local's secondary object.' We disagree with the Trial Examiner's view that because these stoppages of work occurred largely dur- ing overtime periods which were voluntary under the contract the motive therefor was irrelevant. The Board has held with court approval that a concerted refusal to work overtime is a strike,2 and Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act prohibits strikes for a secondary object. That the overtime was designated as voluntary in the contract does not, in our view, render the con- certed refusal to perform it any the less a strike, or less coercive, particularly where, as here, the uncontrad- icted evidence shows it had been the employees' prac- tice to work overtime during these hours for 5 months at New York, and for 5 years at Kelly. We also dis- agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Sep- tember 26 work stoppage at New York was caused by matters unrelated to Iowa Beef as it is clear from the record that such unrelated matters had been settled at the end of the day on September 25. Under the foregoing circumstances, therefore, we find that Local No. P-575 induced and encouraged employees of Kelly and New York to strike, threat- ened officials of Kelly and New York with a strike, and said employees engaged in a strike in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.3 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Gen- eral Counsel failed to prove that the International Union engaged in a plan or was otherwise responsible for the Local Union's unlawful conduct. Although the International informed Iowa Beef, in a letter of September 12, 1969, "that a legal national consumer's boycott" was being arranged with its lo- cals, it made no threat, direct or implied, of unlawful action. Similarly, in its September 24, 1969, "staff- gram" sent to all its local unions, the International Union merely advised them of its dispute with Iowa Beef and requested a legal consumer boycott.4 That Local No. P-575 and one other Local,' of all its 1 Accord , Painters Local 272, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Pa- perhangers of America, AFL-CIO, et a! (Howard H Whitney), 167 NLRB 511; General Drivers, Salesmen and Warehousemen 's Local No 984, eta! (The Humko Co, Inc), 121 NLRB 1414, 1419 2 See Leprino Cheese Co, d/b/a Leprino Cheese Mfg Co, 170 NLRB No 81, enfd 424 F 2d 184 (CA 10), cert denied November 16, 1970, First National Bank of Omaha, 171 NLRB No 152, enfd. 413 F 2d 921 (C A 8) J See Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (New York Telephone Co), 162 NLRB 703, enfd 396 F 2d 591 (C A 2). Cf. N L R B v Servette, Inc, 377 U S. 46; Local 560, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (The Pennsylvania Railroad Company), 127 NLRB 1327, 1332 5 See Iowa Beef Packers, Inc, 185 NLRB No. 121 locals, engaged in unlawful conduct in support of that dispute is insufficient to establish a plan or intent on the part of the International that its primary strike was to be supported by illegal secondary action. Moreover, the International Union may not be held responsible for the unlawful conduct of Local No. P-575 merely because the International's consti- tution requires the prior approval of the International for a strike, or because the contracts with the second- ary employers herein were signed by both the Interna- tional and the Local Union. Although the provisions of the International Union's constitution permit the International to take disciplinary action against its local unions for failure to notify the International of strike action, they do not require it. In addition, there is no evidence of knowledge by the International of the work stoppages herein prior to the hearings in the instant case. Accordingly, we find insufficient evi- dence to establish that the International Union was responsible therefor.6 THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Local Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, we shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirmative ac- tion. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., New York Beef Co., Inc., and Norman S. Coyne, Shophia Coyne and Har- ry Gordon, Trustees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The above are persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The Respondents are labor organizations with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By inducing individuals employed by New York Beef Co., Inc., and Norman S. Coyne, Sophia Coyne and Harry Gordon, Trustees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, with an object of forcing the above-named persons to cease doing business with Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., the Re- spondent Local Union has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. By threatening, coercing, and restraining the 6 Accord Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, et a! (Food Employers Council, Inc), 125 NLRB 984, 995. LOCAL NO. P-575, MEAT CUTTERS above-named persons with an object of forcing said persons to cease doing business with Iowa Beef Pack- ers, Inc ., the Respondent Local Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent Local No. P-575, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL-CIO), its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Inducing or encouraging individuals em- ployed by New York Beef Co., Inc., Norman S. Coyne, Sophia Coyne and Harry Gordon, Trustees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce with whom they have no primary labor dispute, to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform services where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named persons to cease doing business with Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. (b) Threatening, restraining, or coercing the above-named persons, or any other persons engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with whom they have no primary labor dispute, where an object thereof is to force or require the above-named persons to cease doing business with Iowa Beef Pack- ers, Inc., under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Boston, Massachusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by the Respondent Local Union's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consec- utive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 1 sufficient copies of said notice on forms provided by him for posting by New York Beef Co., Inc., and Norman S. Coyne, Sophia Coyne and Harry Gordon, Trustees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., if willing. , (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, 7 within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 7 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by New York Beef Co., Inc., Norman S. Coyne, Sophia Coyne and Harry Gordon, Trustees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., or by any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of their employ- ment to perform services , where an object thereof is to force or require New York Beef Co., Inc., or Norman S. Coyne, Sophia Coyne and Harry Gor- don, Trustees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., to cease doing business with Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain New York Beef Co., Inc., Norman S. Coyne, Sophia Coyne and Harry Gordon, Trustees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., or any other persons for such an object. LOCAL No P-575, AMALGA- MATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA (AFL-CIO) (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office , Bulfinch Building, Seventh Floor, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston , Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-330. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE conduct.I The International admitted that it was engaged in a strike against Iowa at Iowa's plant at Dakota City, Ne- braska. JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed Sep- tember 25, 1969, by Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., herein Iowa, against Local P-575, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL-CIO) and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America (AFL-CIO) herein the Local and the International, re- spectively, or collectively the Respondents, the General Counsel issued complaint alleging Respondents violated Section2 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The answer of Respondents denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard by me at Boston, Massachusetts, on November 18 and 25, 1969. Briefs were received from all parties on December 20. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, including my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE COMPANIES INVOLVED Iowa is an Iowa corporation having its principal place of business at Dakota City, Nebraska. It is engaged in the slaw ter and processing of meat at several plants through- out the United States . Sales of its products are in excess of $500,000 annually and sales from its plants in Iowa, Nebras- ka and Kansas in excess of $50,000 annually are made to customers outside those States. Iowa is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act. New York Beef Co., Inc., herein New York, is a Massa- chusetts corporation having its principal place of business in Boston , Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the whole- sale distribution and sale of meat. Its gross volume of bus- iness exceeds $500,000 annually and it receives meat valued in excess of $50,000 annually from points outside the Com- monwealth of Massachusetts. It is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Norman Coyne, Sophia Coyne and Harry Gordon, Trus- tees d/b/a Thomas J. Kelly Beef Co., herein Kelly, has its place of business in Boston , Massachusetts, where it is en- gaged in the wholesale distribution and sale of meat. Its gross revenues exceed $500,000 annually and it receives meat valued in excess of $50,000 annually from points out- side the Commonwealth. It is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Local and the International are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. IV THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The complaint alleges incidents occurrin g at Kelly's and New York 's places of-business where John Craig , president of the Local , instructed employees of Kelly and New York not to work overtime and told an officer of Kelly and an officer of New York not to handle Iowa beef . In each case the alleged object was to cause Kelly and New York not to continue purchases of Iowa beef . It is also alleged that the International authorized , ratified, and participated in such B. Evidence of Violation by the Local 1. At Kelly's Edward Coyne, vice president and part owner of Kelly, testified that on the morning of September 24, Robert Pow- ers, an employee and shop steward told his father, Norman Coyne, "Norman, they say I am not doing my ob. Can you please stop bringing in Iowa beef."2 Norman e said he would try to straighten the matter out with o hn Craig. Craig came to the plant and Coyne told him he would try not to buy Iowa beef but would have to leave himself open in the event of emergency. Craig left without saying anything. About 4 p.m. Craig returned to the plant (the men were then on overtime with work still to be completed) and after speaking to Powers he told Coyne that there would be an immediate meeting of the men at the Union hall. Coyne asked that the meeting be held in the plant locker room but Craig said the room was too small and the men went to the hall. Edward Craig testified that the men would have worked until 4:30 p.m. had it not been for the meeting. The requirements of the contract (G.C.E. 4) as to overtime read, p.5: All work before 7 a.m. is voluntary. a a a s s The Employer may require the Employees to work not more than two (2) hours overtime on any workday, pprovided, however, that an Employee may be excused by the Employer from overtime work on any such day for good and sufficient reasons . Employees requested to work overtime or on a holiday set forth in paragraph 10(a) shall be notified on or before 3 p.m. Coyne testified, however, that the employees according to the contract were required to work overtime 2 hours a day for 3 days, a total of 6 hours a week. 3 On Wednesday, the 24th, all of the men had worked at least 5 1 /2 hours at 4 .m. on Wednesday and 4:30 would have concluded their 6-hour requirement. The men did not return to work on Wednes- day. The men did not report to work until 7 a.m. on Thurs- day, September 25, and Powers told Coyne the men would not work after 3:30 p.m. that day because Kell y was still using Iowa beef. There were no further refusals to work overtime at Kelly's and no refusal at any time to handle Iowa beef. For the Respondent Local John Craig testified that he received a call from Kelly's from shop steward Powers on the afternoon of the 24th and went to Kelly's about 4 p.m. There he was told by Powers and his assistant steward that the men were upset about handling Iowa beef. Craig then decided to call a meeting to straighten it out. (His reason for rejecting the locker room at the plant was that it was too I The complaint was amended at the hearing to add paragraph 15(h) to the complaint to allege a treat of strike against Somerville Meat Company on the part of the Local if Somerville continued to purchase from Iowa. The testimo- ny does not establish any threat of strike or other unlawful action and paragraph 15(h) is hereby dismissed. 2 I find no evidence of threat , restraint, or coercion in this request allegedly made by Powers 3 Just how Coyne reached this construction of the contract is not disclosed but it appears to have been the one agreed to by the parties at Kelly. LOCAL NO. P-575, MEAT CUTTERS small .) At the hall Craig told the men they had to work on Iowa beef because the contract prohibited strike action and that they could not walk out as a group . He did tell them that under the contract they did not have to start work the next day until 7 a.m. and did not have to start at 6 as requested . That ended Craig's connection with the Kelly incident, at least on this record. 2. At New York Charles Kaplan, president of New York, testified that sometime in September 1969 he had a conversation with Craig concerning the Iowa strike. His testimony: Q. (by Mr. Zankel): Could you tell me as best you remember what Mr. Craig and you said at that time? A. At that time he asked me it we would stop doing business with Iowa Beef Packers. I informed him that I thought it would be impossible in my position, my relationship with the company to cease. Q. Did that end the conversation? A. Yes. The General Counsel in his brief refers to this as solicita- tion of support for the strike. I agree and find no evidence of threats, restraint or coercion. Kaplan then testified that sometime in October he had another conversation with Craig. His testimony as to this one: TRIAL EXAMINER: What were his words? A. "What are you trying to nail me to the cross for?" I said, well, in between that time things had quieted down, and I said, "Well my business was threatened and I had to take some course of action, and I appeared as a witness." Q. Did Mr. Craig say anything else? A. He said, "WeIl, how would you like it if I pulled your men out now?" Q. Did you answer that? A. "Well," I said, .,it would cost you money if I had to sue for damages." Q. Did that end the conversation? A. Yes. While this conversation is not free from ambiguit the only reasonable construction I can place on it is that Craig was expressing his resentment of Kaplan's appearance as a witness against him at some stage of this proceeding . Neith- er Iowa nor the strike was not mentioned and I cannot in the light of Kaplan's own testimony find that the handling of Iowa beef provoked the remark. Charles Summers, treasurer of New York, was called by the General Counsel and testified that he had a meeting with Craig in early September and a second meeting on September 25. His direct testimony as to these two meetings reads: Q. I call your attention to sometime early in Septem- ber. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Craig con- cerning the Iowa Beef strike? A. Yes, he visited my plant early in September. The exact dates I can't remember, and he asked if he could speak to me in the office with the shop steward. At that time he said that I had better stop buying beef from Iowa Beef Packers or I would be letting myself in for some problems. I said, "I don't think I can stop buying from Iowa Beef Packers because we have a special situation since we are 95 per cent kosher dealers, and 9 we are not buying from any struck plant ." He said we were buying scab meat . I said, "The plant I am buying from is operating under the union . If you can supply another shipper , I might consider what you are telling me to do . But if you cannot supply any other shipper, I am going to keep buying Iowa Beef from Luverne, Minnesota." Q. The plant that you were buying Iowa products from in Luverne was a company by the name of Mid- Packing? A. Yes. Q. Which is a subsidiary of Iowa Beef? A. Yes, it is. Q. To your knowledge , was there a strike at that plant? A. No. Q. Now, did you have any further conversation with Mr. Craig after that time? A. Well , on or about September 25th , if that was a Thursday, it was on a Thursday. Q. Was it in that week? A. It was in a few weeks. Q. Around the week of the 25th , that Thursday? A. Yes. Q. Go Ahead. A. Mr. Craig paid my plant a visit again. This time he called by shop steward out to the ramp which is in front of the place , and they had a conversation for about half an hour . The next thing , they went in and called all my men off the job , took them upstairs for a meeting, which they held for close to an hour. When they came downstairs , they talked again, said I was buying scab meat and that if I didn 't cooperate with them, that my men would no longer come into work before 7 in the morning , which had been a prac- tice for the last five months, and my place had been starting work every morning at 6, and no longer work on Saturdays. MR FLAMM: Can we have who was saying this? TRIAL EXAMINER- Which one of the men actually was speaking? THE WITNESS : John Craig , They would no longer come in on Saturday work ; that I could no longer recruit extra help, which I had been doing for months from places around me for my place after work. One of the salesmen that we have had working by the name of William Mills would no longer be able to assist in doing any pushing out of any orders, helping for these orders to get out . Not any meat cutting or any meat work, but dust working to push out the orders to help us expedite the work , and he had been dome that be- cause , according to the contract , one executive could do it , and I hadn t been able or Mr . Kaplan hadn't been able to do it. The arrangement was that one man could assist; so they said that would stop. That was it. Q. (By Mr . Zankel) Was there a meeting to your knowledge held between Mr. Craig and the employees of New York Beef around that time? A. Well, I said they had called the men out to a meeting right after this conversation with the two shop stewards, and then Mr. Craig then pulled the men out and upstairs in one of my storerooms. Q. This conversation between you and Craig that you just described took place immediately after the meeting? A. Immediately after the meeting. Q. Did, in fact, the employees or any of them not perform overtime that had been scheduled for them? 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. They did not come in the next morning to work, that hour. Q. That was scheduled overtime, however, is that right? A. Yes. They were asked to come in as they usually were . Nobody showed up until 7 o'clock. Then- Q. All right- MR FLAMM' I thought he was in the midst of saying something. THE WITNESS: So I asked the men, some of the men why they didn't come in. They said, "Well, they didn't feel like it." No one man showed up. the firing of the steward and work being performed by the shipper-salesman and the foreman working on production. Craig explained that neither the shipper- salesman nor the foreman could work on production according to the con- tract. Craig and the men then went downstairs and told Summers that neither the shipper-salesmen nor the foreman could work on production and to stop harassing the stew- ard. Summers told these two employees to get to work call- ing customers. That concluded Craig's testimony with respect to New York. C. Conclusions On cross-examination, Summers was shown his pretrial affidavit taken on September 29 (the month in which the incidents referred to occurred) to contradict certain of the above testimony. Summers admitted that the affidavit rep- resented his best recollection at the time it was taken and that he made the statements contained in the following paragraph: A. "I am Treasurer and Clerk of the New York Beef Co., Inc., Sometime in early September, 1969, John Craig and the shop steward Jack Williams came to me in the company office and Craig said "You know that Iowa Beef Packers in on strike. We'd like you to stop buying from Iowa Beef Packers" . . . I answered that I wasn't buying from any plant that was on strike and since there was a special situation that we use mostly kosher cattle, the only way that I could possibly stop buying from Iowa Beef Packers was to find some other supplier. (New York Beef obtains the Iowa Beef from its Luverne, Minnesota plant, which is the only one in Iowa Beef's plants which has the kosher meat. The struck plant of Iowa Beef was located in Dakota City, Nebraska)." Again, referring to what Craig said when the employees returned from the meeting held in the plant on September 25, Summers stated in his affidavit: When they all came, Craig, Williams and Ideck called me aside and said my salesman, who at times assists in the moving out of orders could no longer do this. Summers also testified, on cross, that work before 7 a.m. and work on Saturday was voluntary and that there was no contract requirement that they work overtime .4 The only interruption of any work, overtime or otherwise occurred on September 25. As to New York, Craig testified that on the morning of September 25 he was at the dock of Sprague Company, a beef distributor whose dock was adjacent to New York's. While he was talking to the shop steward for Sprague, Jack Williams, steward for New York, came over to him with his assistant Ideck. Williams told him that Summers, of New York, wanted to fire him. Craig then went to New York and Summers told him he wanted this man (Williams) to get through, that he had given notice of quitting and was through. Craig explained that Williams had said that if he did not get a raise he would look for another job but had given no specific notice. The men gathered around and the assistant steward said something about a foreman violating the contract and, as the argument proceeded, Craig called the men to a meeting upstairs. Two issues were discussed (1) ° The New York contract contained the same clause with respect to overtime as did the Kelly contract. The contracts were identical 1. The Kelly stoppage Based on the credited testimony of John Craig,5 I find that sometime during the day of September 24 he received a telephone call from Powers, shop steward at Kelly, and was told that the men were upset about handling Iowa beef. There is no evidence that this disturbance among the men was initiated or provoked by the Local and there is no evidence that Craig's visit to the plant was for the purpose of calling a strike. After his arrival and after talking to Powers, Craig called a meeting of the employees to discuss the situation. This admittedly resulted in a work stoppage during a contractu- ally obligated period of overtime of half an Hour. (Coyne admitted, however, that some of the 12 employees had al- ready completed their agreement to work 6 hours of overtime that week and were not in violation of the parties' understanding of the contract.) At this meeting he told the men that they had to work on Iowa Beef because the con- tract prohibited strike action and also told them that the contract did not require them to report before 7 a.m. Craig was correct in his advice. It therefore seems that such advice could hardly be construed as inducement or encouragement of any individual to refuse to handle Iowa Beef. Nor was any threat made by Craig at any time of strike or other action against Kell. While there is testimony that Coyne told Craig he would try not to handle Iowa Beef there is no testimony that this was in response to any threat and I am unwilling to find unlawful action on sheer speculation. It would be more in keeping with Craig's general conduct to request Coyne not to handle Iowa Beef, a request which would be perfectly lawful. As to the meeting, I am unwilling, because of the circumstances under which it was held, to find it a violation of the Act. The purpose of this meeting was not to cause the employees to refuse to handle Iowa beef but, as previously stated, to advise them of their rights and obligations under the contract, including the obligation to continue to handle Iowa beef. It was not motivated by any objective unlawful of the Act. The General Counsel makes much of the fact that Craig sought support of the strike at both Kelly's and New York and supported a con- sumer boycott. I do not know what the General Counsel would ask a local leader to do or on what theory he trans- lates such conduct into unlawful conduct by his own ipsi dixit. I find that nothing occurred on September 24 which constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. On the 25th the men did not report to work until 7 a.m. Since this was their right under the contract I find no viola- tion. Again the General Counsel has advanced a strained 3 The General Counsel's contention that Craig could not be credited and that his testimony should be deemed admissions of unlawful activity is in- comprehensible to me. Craig, on the stand, was a credible witness, but in any event I do not know of any theory under which denials may be construed as admissions. LOCAL NO. P-575, MEAT CUTTERS contention that because the men may work beyond their contractual requirements in other weeks they were required to do so on the 25th. I can imply no waiver of a contractual right by voluntary action exceeding their obligations. If this were so no union could acquiesce in. any action which went beyond the contractual obligations mposed for any reason without establishing a conclusive waiver of its rights under the particular provision in question. Such a rigid adherence to abargaming agreement and its every term would scarcely serve to promote better management relations or even a reasonable operation of a business. Coming to the refusal to work on the afternoon of the 25th, a different question is posed. Coyne's testimony is that Powers told him the men would refuse to work overtime that day because Kelly was still using Iowa beef. At this time all of the men had completed 5-1/2 of the 6 required hours of overtime and some had completed the full 6. Granting that on the basis of this testimony (Powers was not called as a witness so it is uncontradicted) we have a clearly unlawful objective established and a resulting unlawful refusal to work overtime. Measuringg, however, the actual time of the stoppage against the public policy involved I find it a slen- der thread from which to construct a hangman's noose. The stoppage was in clear violation of Craig's orders, it was neither authorized nor ratified by the Local, and it was the sole incident of violation at Kelly's. It is undisputed that after the 25th no further difficulty was experienced. In view of these circumstances and particularly the minor interrup- tion of the Kelly's operations I would find the violation de minima and recommend that the complaint, as to Kelly, be dismissed. 11 salesman could no longer handle meat orders thereby con- firming Craig's testimony, at least in part, that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Williams matter and the alleged violation of the contract. Again, since it is estab- lished that Craig went to the New York plant only at Wil- liams' request, I cannot find that the Local had for its purpose the inducement of New York employees to refuse to handle New York beef. As to the decision to abide by the contract and to refuse to work overtime I have already expressed the opinion that employees had every right to exercise this option regardless of past practice and regard- less of motive. For the same reason I find Respondent Local did not violate Section 8(b)(4) of the Act at New York. One further point. Summers testified that in early Sep- tember Craig visited his plant and told him he had better stop buying Iowa beef or he would be letting himself in for some problems. In his pretrial affidavit, however, he testi- fied that Craig and Williams told him they would "like" him to stop using Iowa beef. Although Craig did not testify as to this conversation I am unwilling to accept the testimony at the hearing of Summers that any threat was involved. The statement in his affidavit is more in keeping with Coyne's and Kaplan's, in which only solicitation was involved. For some reason, and I am not fixing the responsibility, Sum- mers saw fit to "bolster" his testimony between the time of his pretrial affidavit and the hearing. I might add that I did not find him, on his demeanor at the hearing, a credible witness. I therefore find that Respondent Local did not threaten, coerce, or restrain New York for any objective within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. The International 2. The New York stoppage At New York I find that no unlawful work stoppage occurred. Craig testified that he was on the dock of Sprague Company, next to New York, when he was called to the New York dock by Jack Williams. Williams complained that he was being fired by New York and that a foreman and a salesman were performing work forbidden by the contract. Craig talked to Summers with the men gathered around and then called a meeting. At the conclusion of this meeting Craig told Summers he could not fire Williams and that production work would be performed in accordance with the contract. It is true that Summers testified that when the men came down from the meeting they told him he was buying scab meat and that they would no longer work overtime before 7 a.m. or on Saturdays since such work was voluntary. Summers also admitted that the men told him his Since I have found that Respondent Local did not violate the Act I must find that Respondent International did not. Furthermore I would find, on the record herein, that the International did not authorize, ratify, or have any knowl- edge of the conduct of the Respondent Local. I recommend that the complaint against the International be dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Local and Respondent International did not violate Sections 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.