Local Union No. 227, Meat Cutters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 858 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 227, Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO and Iowa Beef Packers , Inc. Case 9-CC-
514-2
October 2, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On March 2, 1970, Trial Examiner Samuel M.
Singer issued his Decision in this case, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answering brief, cross-exceptions, and
an accompanying brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations' of
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders
that the Respondent, Local Union No. 227, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
As pointed out in a cross -exception filed by the Charging Party,
it is apparent from the context of the Trial Examiner 's Decision that
the word "not" was inadvertently omitted before the words "be shown that
the inducement actually resulted " in the second to the last paragraph of
sec III, D
As there is no evidence in the record or finding of the Trial Examiner
to support his third conclusion of law insofar as it concludes that the
Respondent was engaging in a strike, we do not adopt the phrase "engaging
in" in the first line thereof
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the remedy recommended
herein is required , for the reasons stated by him, but do not adopt
his characterization of the cease -and-desist order as "broad " See United
Building Maintenance Corp , 173 NLRB No 49
America , AFL-CIO, Louisville , Kentucky , its officers,
agents, and representatives , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SAMUEL M. SINGER, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
tried before me in Louisville, Kentucky, on December 15,
pursuant to charges filed on October 13 and 16 and a
complaint issued November 10, 1969,1 concerns allegations
that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the National Labor Relations act, as amended, by engaging
in secondary boycott activities. In general , the complaint
alleges that Respondent induced and encouraged employees
of Klarer of Kentucky (herein called Klarer) to engage
in a strike or refusal to handle products of the Charging
Party (herein called IBP or Iowa Beef) and threatened
Klarer with an object of forcing or requiring Klarer to
cease doing business with IBP.
All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses.
Briefs were received from all. Upon the entire record'
and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Iowa Beef (IBP), a Delaware corporation, is engaged
in the processing of beef products in various States, including
its Dakota City, Nebraska, plant, the facility here involved.
During the past representative year it shipped from the
plant to points outside of Nebraska products valued in
excess of $50,000.
Klarer is engaged in the processing and wholesale distribu-
tion of beef at and from its plant in Louisville, Kentucky.
During the past representative year it had a direct inflow
of beef products, in interstate commerce, valued in excess
of $50,000
I find that IBP and Klarer at all material times have
been persons engaged in commerce or industries affecting
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that assertion
of jurisdiction here is proper.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
On July 7 or 8, the Union (International) was certified
as bargaining representative of certain Iowa Beef (IBP)
Hereafter, all dates are 1969, unless otherwise indicated
' Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated February 13,
1970
185 NLRB No. 121
LOCAL UNION NO
employees at its Dakota City, Nebraska, plant. It is also
the certified bargaining representative at three other IBP
plants in Iowa (Fort Dodge, Mason City, and Lemars),
all covered by collective agreements. Unable to reach an
accord on the terms of a collective agreement at Dakota
City the Union struck that plant on August 24. The strike
is still in progress.
It is conceded that at all material times the Union
had no labor dispute with Klarer, certain of whose employees
(meatcutters and processors) in Louisville are also represent-
ed by the Union. Klarer is a customer of IBP, its beef
purchases for the Louisville plant averaging five or six
truckloads per week at a value in excess of $500,000.
B The September 30 Incidents
Early in the morning of September 30, a truckload of
IBP beef arrived at Klarer's in Louisville from IBP's Empo-
ria, Kansas, plant. The same morning (between 7:30 and
8), Business Agent Mikel gave the Union's steward at
Louisville (Hilbert) a written list of IBP plants, identifying
each by number and instructing Hilbert to contact Mikel
or Union President Kaelin if any beef arrived from the
listed IBP plants. According to Hilbert, Mikel said that
"everyone . . of these packing houses was on strike"
and should be boycotted.
At around 8 a.m. Klarer employee Nutgrass approached
the supervisor of the day beef box (Wolfe) and said that
he "thought the beef . . . being unloaded at the front
dock . . . was some beef that they had been
told . . . they were not to handle." Wolfe replied that he
had "no prior knowledge" of this, indicating that his
instructions were to unload the beef. At around 10 a in.
another Klarer employee (Goodbelt) called the matter to
Union Steward Hilbert's attention. Hilbert told him "to go
ahead and keep working until [he] contacted the Union "
Shortly afterward, Hilbert told Klarer Supervisor Wolfe
that he was "under the impression" that the beef being
unloaded came from "an establishment where there was
a consumer boycott or something similar to that and they
were not to handle it," explaining that he had obtained
a list of IBP "establishment numbers" from the Union
hall and the beef in question bore "one of them." Wolfe
again disclaimed any knowledge of the matter and referred
Hilbert to Klarer Plant Superintendent Greenwell. It is
undisputed that the Klarer employees continued unloading
the beef at this time.'
Before talking to Greenwell, Hilbert reported to Union
President Kaelin (by telephone) that the load of beef at
Klarer's came from one of the IBP plants on the list
previously handed him by Business Agent Mikel. Kaelin
instructed Hilbert "to recheck the [plant] numbers" on
the beef and advise Plant Superintendent Greenwell that
he "had a load of beef from Iowa down there." Hilbert
testified that shortly thereafter he told Greenwell that "we
had a load of beef out there from Iowa and [Hilbert]
had an inspection number [on the meat] that we shouldn't
' Based on Wolfe's credited testimony Hilbert could not remember
discussing the matter with Wolfe, but did not deny it
227, MEAT CUTTERS 859
be handling it."` Greenwell agreed to check the "establish-
ment number" on the beef and, as Hilbert claimed, found
that it had one of the numbers ("245-D") on the boycott
list Greenwell asked Hilbert to contact Union President
Kaelin so that he could discuss the situation with Kaelin,
which Hilbert did by telephone.
Greenwell first asked Kaelin "what the problem was
with the load of beef" now being unloaded Kaelin said
that the meat numbered "245-D" originated from IBP's
Emporia, Kansas, plant; and that he (Kaelin) would have
to ask the Local 227 members not to handle the beef,
explaining that "at least one [IBP] plant was on strike
... and a consumer boycott was out against the balance
of the plants." Greenwell closed the conversation by saying
that the beef was almost unloaded.'
Subsequently, Greenwell reported to Hellman, Director
of the Klarer Meat Division, that he had "some problems
with Local 227 unloading the beef." Hellman , in turn,
conferred with Union Steward Hilbert who told him that
the beef came from IBP, against whom the Union was
on strike, and that "they were informed that they were
not supposed to handle it."6 Hellman, as did Greenwell
earlier, had Hilbert get Kaelin on the telephone. When
Heilman said that "the plant from where this load of
beef came from to me is not on strike," Kaelin replied,
"we had instructions that we are not to handle beef from
any Iowa Beef Packer plants." When Hellman further men-
tioned that another load of IBP beef was due to arrive
the next morning, Kaelin said "it will not be handled
by our people." Hellman thereupon canceled the expected
beef from IBP.'
Wolfe, Klarer's beef box supervisor, credibly testified
that, around 11 a.m., he saw Business Agent Mikel and
Shop Steward Hilbert at the Klarer dock with the "list
of establishment numbers" and that he heard one of the
two tell Klarer employees (including Nutgrass, Goodbelt,
and Meredith) that they "were not to handle any more
beef from IBP after that truck was unloaded." The men
"continue[d] unloading the truck," which at the time was
"practically unloaded."'
At a later point in his testimony Hilbert stated that he said, "I
would rather our people didn ' t handle the beef "
Based on Greenwell's credited testimony I do not credit Kaelin''
testimony that he merely remarked to Greenwell , "Joe, we would appreci-
ate your not buying any more beef from Iowa Beef while we are having
this problem with the company "
Based on Hellman's uncontradicted credited testimony
Based on Hellman's credited testimony, which is in line with that
attributed to Kaelin by Greenwell in the latter 's earlier conversation
with Kaelin I do not credit Kaelin 's version of the incident , including
his testimony that Hellman had denied buying beef "directly" from
IBP; that Hellman claimed Klarer was merely handling the beef as
a distributor for the A & P "out of Chicago" (which purchased it
from IBP) for distributing it to local A & P stores and warehouses,
and that Kaelin merely told Hellman that he "would appreciate it in
the future if they would not pruchase any more Iowa beef." Hellman
credibly testified that Klarer had not purchased any beef for (nor delivered
any to) A & P retail stores for a long time, indicating that A & P
now has its own warehouse and beef buyer in Louisville.
Hilbert and Mikel admitted talking to Klarer employees at or around
11 a m. While both testified that Mikel told employees to continue
unloading , neither specifically denied Wolfe's testimony that the employees
(cont'd)
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Business Agent Mikel credibly testified, without contra-
diction, that, in accordance with Union President Kaelin's
instructions, he went to see Klarer Production Superintend-
ent Aarvig around 11:30 a in , accompanied by Shop Steward
Hilbert. Referring to Aarvig's 6 weeks' earlier assurance
that Klarer would not buy IBP beef from the struck Dakota
City plant (supra, fn. 8), Mikel said that the Union now
had "a boycott against the rest of the [IBP] plants" and
asked Aarvig not to buy the IBP meat thereafter. Aarvig
said that he "didn't even know" that Klarer was buying
IBP beef and then telephoned another Klarer official (Mikel
"presume[d]" it was Hellman) and said to him "we do
not wish to purchase this meat."°
Neither Mikel nor apparently any other Union official
had any further dealings with Klarer until Hellman's Decem-
ber 1 telephone discussion with Union President Kallim,
discussed below.
C. The December 1 Incident
On October 29, the Regional Director filed a petition
with the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, under Section 10(1) of the Act,
seeking to enjoin the conduct here alleged to be illegal.
On November 25, Respondent entered into a stipulation
that, pending final disposition of the instant proceeding,
it would not engage in such conduct, without admitting,
however, that the conduct alleged was unlawful.
On December 1, Klarer Meat Division Director Hellman
placed an order for IBP beef for delivery to the Klarer
Louisville plant. Hellman testified that being "still a little
leery" as to what the Union might do, he telephoned
Sutherland, the Union's vice president and a business agent,
and asked him "what their [the Unions] position would
be." Sutherland answered that he "would not take a stand,
either way, at this time." Hellman thereupon canceled
the order.
D. Conclusions
1. Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B), insofar as here relevant,
prohibits a union or its agents "to induce or encourage"
employees of a secondary or neutral employer to refuse
to "handle or work on any goods . . . or to perform
any services," and "to threaten, coerce, or restrain" second-
ary employers, where an object of such conduct is to
were also told not to handle future IBP deliveries , nor were any of
the employees named by Wolfe as receiving these instructions called
to rebut Wolfe's testimony According to Mikel, when he told one
of the men to continue with the unloading , he also told him he was
"sure" that when he called the matter to the attention of Klarer's produc-
tion superintendent (Aarvig), "we will not have to handle [IBP beef]
again, because [Aarvig] has already given us his word " that Klarer would
not buy any IBP beef during the strike Mikel credibly testified that
6 weeks earlier (which would fix the date before the , strike) Aarvig,
responding to Mikel's appeal "not to handle" beef shipped from Dakota
City, assured him that he would not do so
° However, according to Hellman, it was he (as director of the meat
division) and not Aarvig (production superintendent) who had the
"authority or control over the purchase of meat " Hellman reports directly
to Klarer's president and chief executive officer, Stalter.
force or require a secondary employer to cease doing business
with a primary or disputing employer Thus, a violation
of these statutory provisions requires two elements (a)
an object to bring about a cessation of business between
primary and secondary employer; and (b) inducement of
secondary employees and coercion of secondary employers
to achieve the proscribed objective.
There is no question, and I find, that an object of
Respondent's conduct was the involvement of Klarer, a
neutral to the dispute between Respondent and IBP, in
order to force Klarer to cease doing business with IBP.
The record shows that the Union, unable to come to
terms on a collective agreement covering employees at
an IBP plant (Dakota City, Nebraska), struck that plant
and instituted a boycott of beef processed in other IBP
plants. To this end, it sought to enlist the aid of Klarer,
an IBP customer at Louisville, Kentucky, not to purchase
or handle any IBP products (i.e., to cease doing business
with IBP) until [BP came to terms with the Union While
it is permissible for a union by proper means to seek
to persuade a secondary employer "to cooperate" in such
endeavor (N.L.R.B. v Servette, Inc., 377 U.S. 46, 53-
55), it is unlawful for it to seek to accomplish this objective
by illegal inducements.
2. Insofar as inducement of secondary employees is con-
cerned, the Supreme Court has said, "The words `induce
or encourage' are broad enough to include in them every
form of influence and persuasion . There is no
legislative history to justify an interpretation that Congress
by those terms has limited its proscription of secondary
boycotting to cases where the means of inducement of
encouragement amount to a `threat of reprisal or force or
promise of benefit ' " International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 501, etc. v. N L R B., 341 U.S
694, 701-702 This, a union's request or direction to
secondary employees to strike or withhold services from a
secondary employer (in order to force the latter to bring
pressure on the primary employer) constitutes illegal
inducement. Ibtd, Local 1976, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters, etc v. N L R B., 357 U.S 93, 98. Similarly,
verbal appeals and instructions to secondary employees not
"to handle" a secondary employer's products in the course
of their employment (for a like objective) also "constitute
inducement and encouragement as comprehended by
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act." Local 25, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (J. C Driscoll
Transportation, Inc.) 148 NLRB 845, 850.10 That the
Union in this case resorted to such appeals and instructions
is established by the credited evidence that Business Agent
Mikel and Shop Steward Hilbert, or either of them,
expressly instructed at least three employees (Nutgrass,
Goodbelt, and Meridith) "not to handle any more beef from
IBP after the truck then at Klarer] was unloaded."
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that Hilbert, who
was supplied with a list of boycotted IBP plants, had
transmitted his instructions concerning the handling of the
IBP beef to the Klarer employees whom he served as
10 See also Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local No 107, LB T.
(Riss & Company, Inc.) 130 NLRB 943, 948, enfd 300 F 2d 317 (CA
3)
LOCAL UNION NO. 227, MEAT CUTTERS
steward. See Highway Truckdrivers, etc (Riss &
Company, Inc.), supra, 130 NLRB 943, 948, Local 1016,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc. (Booher Lumber
Co, Inc) 117 NLRB 1739, 1746; N L R B v Local 11,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc , 242 F 2d 932, 935
(C.A. 6). That he did this is evidenced by the fact that at
least one Klarer employee (Nutgreas) told his supervisor
(Wolfe) that he thought the beef being unloaded was "beef
that they had been told . they were not to handle "tt
I find that Respondent, in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i),
induced and encouraged employees of Klarer to refuse
in the course of their employment to handle IBP beef
in order to force Klarer to cease doing business with
IBP
3 Insofar as the inducement of the secondary employer
(Klarer) is concerned, it is clear that Section 8(b)(4)(n)(B)
only "condemn[s] an attempt to induce ... [that] would
`threaten, coerce, or restrain"' the employer N.L.R.B. v.
Servette, Inc, 377 U S 46, 54 However, as stated in
NL.R.B v. Highway Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local No.
107, etc [Riss & Company, Inc ], 300 F.2d 317,320
(C.A 3), enfg. 130 NLRB 943, 947, the phrase "threaten,
coerce, or restrain," as used in that section, prohibits not
only "the use of force or violence" but also "economic
sanctions" against a secondary employer in the form of
a refusal by a union "to handle" a primary employer's
goods.12 Subparagraph (ii) was designed to foreclose threats
to neutral employers of "labor trouble and other conse-
quences" and to prohibit carrying out of such threats
by means of a "strike or other economic retaliation. 1113
Here, the record shows that in addition to noncoercive
appeals to the secondary employer (Kiarer) to refrain from
handling IBP products (e g., Business Agent Mikel's appeals
11 It is clear , and I find, that Respondent is accountable for the
conduct of Hilbert, as agent of Respondent Hilbert was the Union's
steward at Klarer, and , as such, represented it at Klarer Among other
things, it was his duty "to see that the employees and the Company
lived up to the contract ," between Klarer and Respondent It is to
Hilbert that other union officials (including Union President Kaelm)
looked to convey to Klarer officials the Union 's boycott policy, and,
as instructed , Hilbert passed on to Klarer the Union's requests not to
handle IBP beef Hilbert admitted that as union steward he was "concerned
about the Iowa beef that was being unloaded" on September 30 and
that he checked the load to determine if it was processed in a boycotted
plant Cf NL.R.B v Brewery and Beer'Distributor Drivers, etc., Local
830, 281 F 2d 319, 321-322 (CA 3), NL.R.B. v Local 815, I.B.T.,
290 F 2d 99 , 104 (C A 2), NL R.B v Cuyahoga, etc, Carpenters District
Council, 338 F 2d 958 (C A 6)
Since the evidence already alluded to amply supports a finding of
employee inducements , it is unnecessary to pass upon Charging Party's
contention (br. pp 15, 17) that Steward Hilbert, who was a Klarer
employee, also was induced not to handle IBP beef when given the
list of IBP "establishment numbers" or plant locations with instructions
to contract the Union if any IBP beef arrived See Riss & Company,
Inc., supra. 130 NLRB at 948 Apparently Hilbert understood that he
was under instructions not to handle IBP beef, since he himself testified
that he told Plant Superintendent Greenwell, "we had a load of beef
out there from Iowa and I had an inspection number that we shouldn't
be handling it " The credited evidence shows that he made similar
remarks to Company Officials Hellman and Wolfe
" See also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, etc. Local
769 v NLR.B., 405 F 2d 159 , 161-162 (CA. 9), NLR.B. v Local
825, International Union of Operating Engineers, 315 F 2d 695, 697
(C.A 3)
1' See Legislative History of Section 8 (b)(4)(u)(B), recited in NLR B
v Highway Truckdrivers, supra, 300 F 2d at 320-321 (C A. 3)
861
to Production Superintendent Aarvig), the Union made
other appeals with implicit threats of economic retaliation
if the secondary employer failed to heed the appeals Thus,
Union President Kaelin bolstered his appeal to plant Super-
intendent Greenwell with the warning that he "would have
to ask the Local 227 members not to handle the [IBP]
beef." He told another Klarer official (Hellman) that "we
had instructions that we are not to handle beef from any
Iowa Beef Packer plants"; and when advised by Hellman
that another load of IBP beef was due to arrive on October
1, Kaelin flatly said that "it will not be handled by our
people " Shop Steward Hilbert used similar language in
his appeals, telling Hellman that the Klarer employees
"were informed that they were not supposed to handle"
IBP beef. He similarly told Supervisor Wolfe that "there
was a consumer boycott . and they were not to handle
it." And, as already noted (fn 11), he said to Greenwell,
"we had a load of beef out there from Iowa and I had
an inspection number that we shouldn't be handling it."
Clearly, these statements constituted restraint and coercion
of a secondary employer for an object proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act '°
4 Respondent's reliance on N.L.R.B. v. Servette, Inc.,
337 U S. 46, seems misplaced While the Supreme Court
there held that a union's appeals to a secondary employer's
managerial personnel to discontinue handling the primary
employer's products were lawful, the Court stressed that
the union's appeals were not accompanied by unlawful
threats. The conduct there involved warnings to distribute
handbills in front of noncomplying retail stores unless the
stores heeded the union's appeals-warnings of intended
action (handbilling) expressly protected by the publicity
proviso to Section 8(b)(4) 11 Here, on the other hand, the
Union's directions to its members not "to handle" products
of a secondary employer constituted threats of action not
immunized by the statute or otherwise.
5. Finally, the fact that Klarer employees actually unload-
ed the IBP beef on September 30 is by no means determina-
tive Although, as Respondent points out, the Union's repre-
sentatives advised the men that morning to continue
unloading the partially unloaded trailer, the fact is that
they were also told "not to handle any more beef from
IBP" in the future Furthermore, when Company Official
Hellman informed Union President Kaelin that another
IBP was due the next day (October 1), the latter announced
that "it will not be handled by our people." In any event,
it is well settled that to constitute inducement within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4), it need be shown that the
inducement actually resulted in a work stoppage or otherwise
specifically affected employee activities. See N.L.R.B. v
Associated Musicians, Local 802, 226 F.2d 900, 904-905
" In reaching this conclusion I do not rely on the seemingly equivocal
December 1 incident alluded to above (section C) Cf Electrical Workers
Union, Local 38 (Hoertz Electric Maintenance Co.), 138 NLRB 160,
162
" Thus, the Cqurt stated (377 U S at 57) "[T]he warnings that
handbills would be distributed in front of noncooperating stores are
not prohibited as 'threats' within subsection (ii) The statutory protection
for the distribution of handbills would be undermined if a threat to
engage in protected conduct were not itself protected."
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction
Trades Council, 193 F.2d 421, 424 (C.A 10).
For all of the foregoing reasons I find and conclude
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Iowa Beef and Klarer are employers engaged in com-
merce or industries affecting commerce within the meaning
of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
3. By engaging in, inducing, or encouraging individuals
employed by Klarer, a person engaged in commerce, to
engage in a strike or refusal to perform services, and
by threatening, coercing, or restraining Klarer, with the
object of forcing or requiring Klarer to cease doing business
with Iowa Beef, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend the customary
cease-and-desist order and the usual affirmative relief
ordered in cases of this nature, including posting of notices.
In view of the fact that the illegal secondary activity directed
at Klarer appears to have been conducted pursuant to
a general and broad Union policy to effectuate a boycott
against Iowa Beef products, there is danger that similar
illegal activity may be directed against other secondary
employers doing business with Iowa Beef. Accordingly,
I shall recommend a broad cease-and-desist order extending
the protection of the Act to such secondary employers
in addition to Klarer.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following:
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Klarer of Kentuc-
ky, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is
to force or require Klarer of Kentucky, or such other
person to cease doing business with Iowa Beef Packers,
Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
9, after being duly signed by its authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to 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.
(b) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies
of the aforesaid notice for posting by Klarer of Kentucky,
it being willing, at places where it customarily posts notices
to its employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith."
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order
herein shall , as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
In the event that the Board 's 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."
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 9, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Local Union No. 227, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, its offi-
cers , representatives , and agents , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed
by Klarer of Kentucky, or by any other person engaged
in commerce or an industry affecting commerce , to engage
in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment
to use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle
or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or
to perform any services , where an object thereof is to
force or require Klarer of Kentucky or such other person
to cease doing business with Iowa Beef Packers, Inc.
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which both sides had the opportunity
to present their evidnece , the National Labor Relations
Board has found that Local Union No. 227, Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, violated the law and has ordered us to post this
notice and abide by its terms.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of
Klarer of Kentucky , or of any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to
strike , picket , or refuse to perform services , where an
LOCAL UNION NO 227, MEAT CUTTERS
object thereof is to force or require Klarer of
Kentucky or any other person to cease doing business
*ith Iowa Beef Packers, Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Klarer of
Kentucky, or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object
thereof is to force or require Klarer of Kentucky or
any other person to cease doing business with Iowa
Beef Packers, Inc
LOCAL UNION No. 227,
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
AND BUTCHER WORKMEN
OF NORTH AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative)
(Title)
863
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 compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room
2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.