Office & Professional Employees, Local No. 3

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1342 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
POLLY: Well, we have been begging about it for two years and they never have
done anything about it yet.
ZERBE' Well, it has gone on too long now. I will agree with you. It has been
entirely too long. The home office is going to have to evaluate the whole situation,
and I know they will do it fairly.
POLLY: It sure is rough to work like a dog and eat your check and then don't get
nothing.
ZERBE: I know it and I will do something about it within two weeks. You know
I can 't do anything until after the union is voted down because they would file unfair
labor practices.
POLLY: Why don't they get rid of Tooti? He ain 't worth a darn.
ZERBE: Well, I will agree with you. But, we will have to wait until after the elec-
tion on that.
POLLY: He causes a lot of trouble out there in the plant, and they put up with it
because he is against the union.
ZERBE: I know it and I will take care of it soon as the election is over.
POLLY: What girls he can't go with he talks about.
ZERBE: I told the lawyers to quit telling him to upset the girls. I also told them
not to fire Fannie because they would come nearer winning if they would be kind to
the people but this vicious business would work against them. They also wanted
Tooti to get a bunch of my men to whip Jake at the plant gate. I told them that they
couldn't have any of my men to get them from the outside. I said it would look bad
for three colored and four white fellows to come out of the plant and go out there
and jump on Jake.
POLLY: Well, Jake is not afraid.
ZERBE: Well, he had better be. They will get him from somewhere.
POLLY: If they raise such a ruckus about that glue, how much of that chocolate
was spilled back there today, Ted?
ZERBE: I know it was spilled today, and Gil has been talking about sabotage to
frame union people but I am not for it. I don't think you should tell employees to do
anything that is wrong.
POLLY: I don't trust Tooti. I think he deliberately left the glue valve open.
ZERBE: I do, too. But, it would have been different if this had been the only time
it had ever happened but it happens all the time and everyone knows it. From now
on I am going to check the glue valve myself every morning.
POLLY: It won't do any good now because Fannie is already gone.
ZERBE: They might try to frame somebody else. See what I mean? Now you take
Jennifer. I don't believe she will tell Jake if I talk to her about the union They are
all watching her. Well, Polly, you can rest assured that I will do everything I can to
keep them from firing you, and come by to see me any time I have some round records
and tropical fish that I would like to show you, and you are always welcome.
POLLY: Goodnight, Ted, thanks, and I will see you later.
ZERBE: Goodnight, Polly.
Office & Professional Employees , Local No. 3, AFL-CIO and
American President Lines , Ltd. Case No. 0O-CC-508. Febru-
ary 8, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 17, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Decision and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel
filed a brief.
156 NLRB No. 118.
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 3 1343
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The,
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with
the following modification : Substitute the number "20" for the num-
ber "19" in paragraph 2(b)].
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
Louis S. Penfield in San Francisco, California, on July 20, 1965, upon a complaint
of the General Counsel and upon an answer by Office & Professional Employees,
Local No. 3, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent.' The issues litigated were
whether Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Upon the entire record, including
consideration of briefs filed by the parties, and upon my observation of the witnesses,
I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
American President Lines, Ltd., herein called APL, is a Delaware Corporation
which at all times material to this proceeding functioned as a common carrier own-
ing and operating ocean-going vessels engaged in the transportation of cargo and
passengers between west coast ports of the United States and ports in various foreign
countries. During the past year, APL received in excess of $50,000 for its services
in transporting goods and passengers from points in the United States to points
located in foreign countries.
Paredes and Co. d/b/a Joseph A. Paredes and Co., herein called Paredes, is
engaged in business as a customhouse broker performing services in connection with
the importing and exporting of merchandise on behalf of its customers. During the
past calendar year, Paredes received in excess of $50,000 for services rendered to
various importing and exporting firms whose businesses were the shipping and receiv-
ing of goods and merchandise to and from various foreign countries.
Frederick Wildman and Sons, herein called Wildman, is a division of Almaden
Vineyard, Inc., and is engaged in business as a distributor , importer, and wholesaler
of wines. During the past calendar year in the course and conduct of its business
operations, Wildman shipped goods and merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 to
points located directly outside the State of California.
I find that APL, Paredes , and Wildman at all times material to this proceeding
were each employers engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is, and at all times material to this proceeding has been, a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1 A complaint was issued on May 14, 1965, based upon a charge filed with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on April 8, 1965. Copies of the
complaint and the charge have been duly served upon Respondent
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The General Counsel charges, in substance, that Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B), by engaging in picketing at the premises of APL in fur-
therance of its primary dispute with Paredes. Respondent acknowledges the picket-
ing at APL premises, but insists that it was lawful primary picketing falling within
the limits of established Board criteria for permissible picketing at a common sluts.
No substantial dispute exists as to the facts surrounding the controversy which gives
rise to this proceeding.
A. The nature of Paredes' business as a customhouse broker
A customhouse broker performs services for commercial and individual importers
designed to expedite delivery of imported goods upon their arrival in port. These
services consist in the preparation and submission of appropriate documents as
required by U.S. Customs, the delivery of such documents to appropriate sources,
and the payment for the importer of duties assessed and shipping charges due.
Paredes, a typical customhouse broker, maintains an office at 322 Jackson Street in
San Francisco, where its staff consists of President Joseph Derenzo, Vice President
Ernest Cota, Secretary-Treasurer Charles Delvalle, and seven office employees.
United States customhouse practice divides imports into two categories known as
formal and informal entries. A formal entry is an import whose value exceeds $250,
while an informal entry is an import whose value is $250 or less. Over 97 percent
of Paredes' work relates to the processing of formal entries, while the remaining
three percent concerns the lesser valued informal entries.
When an importer engages the services of a customhouse broker to handle a ship-
ment valued at more than $250, certain documents, including the commercial invoice
and the bills of lading which indicate the nature and value of the shipment and the
amount of the freight bill, are forthwith forwarded to the broker. Normally, these
are received by the broker shortly after the goods have been shipped from their
points of origin. Upon receipt of these papers, employees of the broker will imme-
diately prepare a worksheet and make out the forms needed to clear the shipment
for delivery after it arrives. When these forms have been completed, they are
assembled and held by the broker, awaiting word of arrival of the shipment. The
broker will be notified when the shipment reaches port. Immediately the broker
undertakes to pay the shipping charges due at the office of the shipper, and to take
the forms which have been prepared to U.S. Customs for assessment of the duty due.
When the duty has been assessed, the broker forthwith pays the amount required
and receives in return a customs clearance for the shipment in question. In the
meantime, the shipment will have been unloaded and spotted at a place on the
shipper's dock from which it cannot be removed until an appropriate customs clear-
ance has been submitted. After obtaining the customs clearance and a delivery
order showing shipping charges to have been paid, the broker turns over such docu-
ments to a drayman of the importer's choice. The drayman will then proceed to
the dock with the delivery order and customs clearance and present them to an
employee of the shipper and to a customs official, respectively. If the papers are
in order the drayman will then proceed to the location of the shipment and, after
the goods have been checked and counted by an employee of the shipper, the dray-
man will load the goods and deliver them to the importer. The services of the
broker on any particular shipment in the nature of a formal entry end when he gives
the customs release and other documents to the drayman who has been designated
by the importer to make delivery. In a typical formal entry the broker will normally
not inspect, or even see, the shipment, and it would be only in a rare and unusual
situation that he would have occasion to visit the shipper's dock in connection with
the performance of his services.
The procedure followed differs in some respects with regard to the so-called
informal entries. When a broker has been retained to handle an informal entry,
a representative of the broker, when notified that the shipment has arrived, goes
directly to the pier and personally checks the contents of the merchandise against
a commercial invoice which has been supplied to him by the importer. He then
waits until a customs official has figured out the duty, and, after paying the amount
demanded, the broker will direct delivery of the goods in the manner requested by
the importer. In some cases an informal entry shipment will be so small in bulk
that an employee of the broker may be able to carry it in a company car for delivery
directly to the importer. It is only in connection with such informal entries which,
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES , LOCAL NO. 3 1345
as we have seen , comprise only 3 percent of Paredes ' business that employees of the
broker will be called upon to go directly to the pier and inspect and handle the ship-
ment in the course of performing of the services for which it has been retained.
B. The operations of APL at pier 50
- APL ships dock at pier 50 in San Francisco . The facilities at this pier include
docks, loading platforms , open storage areas , and four storage sheds. All these
facilities are under the direct control of APL. Access to pier 50 is through a single
gate which is patroled by a security guard employed by APL. Goods arriving on
APL ships are promptly unloaded and placed in designated locations at the pier by
longshoremen employed by stevedoring companies under contract with APL. All
these longshoremen are covered by a collective -bargaining agreement between their
employers and International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, herein
called ILWU. APL directly employs the security guards at the pier and a number
of ships clerks . It is the function of the APL ships clerks to check and maintain
records regarding all incoming and outgoing shipments . No incoming shipment
may be moved from the pier until after submission of an appropriate delivery order
and customs clearance , and until the shipment has been inspected for damage and
the items in its counted and checked by an APL ships clerk. These APL clerks who
work at the pier are also covered by a collective -bargaining agreement with a local
of ILWU. Crews on APL ships are covered by a number of collective-bargaining
agreements with several different unions. Draymen and truckers are constantly
coming and going, making deliveries , and picking up goods for delivery at the pier.
Such truckers and draymen are usually covered by collective -bargaining contracts
between their employers and Teamsters Union.
C. The primary dispute and the picketing at the APL dock
Respondent was certified as the statutory representative of Paredes ' employees in
September of 1964. By April of 1965, however, no collective-bargaining agreement
had been consummated between it and Paredes . As a consequence , on April 2, 1965,
three of Paredes' employees , Ethel Theis, George Fish , and Dennis Dismore, went
on strike and commenced picketing at Paredess ' office on Jackson Street.
In February 1965 Frederick Wildman and Sons, an importer , had engaged the
services of Paredes to act as customhouse broker in connection with a shipment
from France of 577 cases of wine which were valued in excess of $8,000. The
invoices and the bills of lading were received by Paredes in February and its employ-
ees immediately undertook to prepare the appropriate documents needed for a
formal entry of such shipment . Preparation of such papers was done by Ethel , Theis,
one of the employees who went on strike on April 2. On or about April 5, 1965,
the Wildman shipment arrived in San Francisco aboard the President Hayes, an
APL ship. It was unloaded and placed in the so-called liquor corral in warehouse D
at pier 50 to await delivery to the consignee . Upon being notified that the shipment
was in port , Paredes delivered the forms which had been prepared to the custom-
house, and subsequently obtained a customs clearance for the cases of wine.
On Friday morning, April 7, 1965, striking employee George Fish, carrying a
picket sign which read "Jos. Paredes and Co. Employees on Strike , Office and Pro-
fessional Employees Local 3" appeared at shed D at pier 50 and commenced to picket
directly in front of the Wildman wine shipment in the liquor corral. Upon ques-
tioning, Fish told APL Terminal Manager Charles Doan that he was there "to picket
the shipment ." Doan consulted with an APL attorney and was advised that Fish
should be removed from shed D. At some time in the forenoon Fish was escorted
to the main gate by an APL security officer. He did not undertake to picket at the
main gate . At approximately 3:45 p.m. on the same afternoon Fish and Bill
Esmarch, International organizer for Respondent , appeared at the main gate and
asked Doan for permission "to picket the wine." Doan denied them permission to
enter the premises for such purpose and they departed . At or about 4 p.m. on the
same afternoon , Doan was told by Joe Campion , business agent for the ILWU local
which represented the APL ships clerks, that Campion understood that the pickets
would return on the following day. Campion told Doan that if this occurred and
they were not permitted to enter the terminal and picket the shipment of wine at
the liquor corral , but instead undertook to picket at the gate, ILWU would recognize
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such picket line as a legitimate one and the ships clerks would not undertake to
cross it to do their work at the terminal. Since failure of the ships clerks to report
for work would prevent APL from carrying on any of its normal terminal opera-
tions, Doan reported this information to his superiors. Following a discussion of
the consequences of picketing at the gate, APL officials decided that if a picket
appeared upon the following morning he would be permitted to picket at the liquor
corral. Concurrently APL officials agreed that they would regard any such picket-
ing as illegal and if it occurred APL would institute appropriate proceedings before
the Board to enjoin it.
On the evening of April 7, following a request by Paredes, APL undertook to
arrange a delivery of the Wildman wine. Doan placed an order for a ships clerk
to come to the premises after 7 p.m. Doan, however, was advised by Business Agent
Campion that since it was "not an emergency" and "was outside usual dispatch hours"
the local would not dispatch a clerk to perform the functions necessary for the wine
to be delivered.2
In connection with the effort to bring about a delivery on the evening of April 7,
Joseph Derenzo, President of Paredes personally came to the APL terminal .3 Since
no ships clerk was present APL would not direct the delivery. The record indicates
that this visit was a departure from customary procedures relating to a formal entry,
and came about solely because of the unusual circumstances which the earlier picket-
ing of the wine had brought about.
On Thursday morning, April 8, Respondent's picket reappeared and he was per-
mitted to come on the premises and picket in front of the wine shipment in the
liquor corral at shed D. Picketing in this manner continued daily thereafter during
the hours of Paredes' regular workday until April 15, at which time the pickets were
removed under circumstances which will be described below.4 It is not claimed that
during this period any aspect of APL's business at the terminal other than that which
related to the Wildman wine shipment was in any way affected by the pickets, or
by any other conduct of Respondent.
On Thursday, April 8, Doan was instructed by his superior again to attempt a
delivery of the wine shipment. Accordingly, at 11:30 a.m. that morning, Doan
instructed APL's chief clerk, Nathan Jacobsen, to assign an APL ships clerk to
deliver the wine. Jacobsen, a member of the executive board of the ILWU local,
advised Doan that he would assign the work, but that with the picket there no clerk
would carry out the order. Jacobsen further told Doan that he recognized that the
effect of a refusal to do an assigned task might precipitate the discharge of the clerk
in question, but Jacobsen stated that even if a succession of clerks was thereafter
assigned and subsequently discharged upon their refusal to effect the delivery the
ultimate result would only lead to the shutdown of the whole terminal. After receiv-
ing this representation from Jacobsen, APL made no further attempt on either that
day or on any subsequent days before permanent removal of the picket to assign
a clerk for the purpose of handling the delivery.
On Friday, April 9, Captain Dale Collins, APL's manager of industrial relations,
telephoned Esmarch in an attempt to clarify further Respondent's position should
APL decide to reverse its stand to no longer permit a picket to come into shed D.
According to the undisputed testimony of Collins, Esmarch replied, "In that case,
there is only one place we could go, and that is just outside the main gate of the
terminal. We would have to establish a picket outside the gate."
On Saturday morning, April 10, Collins observed that there were no pickets pres-
ent at the APL terminal. Collins again telephoned Esmarch to ask if the pickets had
been withdrawn. Esmarch replied that they had, and Collins then stated that if that
'Doan testified that frequently requests for clerks to report after regular dispatching
hours were honored by the local There is insufficient evidence in this record, however, to
indicate that the Local's failure to honor the request on this occasion related to the
presence of the picket at the liquor corral earlier in the day, or to any knowledge which
the Local may have had that Respondent intended to resume picketing on the following
day
3It may be noted that at the time Derenzo was at the terminal no picket was present.
* Paredes regular work hours were from 8 a in. to 5 p in No pickets appeared at shed D
on either Saturday or Sunday, April 10 and 11, which were apparently also days on
which no work regularly took place at the Paredes office.
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 3 1347
were the case he would attempt to make a delivery of the wine shipment . Esmarch
replied that while the picket had been removed "he will return Monday." Esmarch
went on to say, "I have the authority to be a roving picket. If you attempt to remove
the cargo , I am sure I will have the word or information that such is going to take
place, and I can come down ." After being so advised APL abandoned further con-
sideration of attempting a delivery over the weekend.
In a letter dated April 14 , 1965, Paredes' president , Derenzo, advised Respondent's
attorney that no employees of Paredes would be handling or moving the shipment.
This letter stated in part:
The work of Paredes and Co. with respect to this cargo is strictly limited to
paper work and to making certain arrangements for the release of the cargo.
There has not and will not be any occasion for Paredes employees to go to the
dock in connection with this shipment.
Shortly after receiving this letter Respondent directed that the picket be removed
from the terminal . On Thursday , Apri 115, 1965, at about 1:30 p.m. the picket
departed from the terminal and later in the same afternoon APL employees turned
over the wine to a drayman for delivery to Wildman in accordance with customary
procedures.
D. Discussion of the issues and conclusions
Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) (B) of the Act undertakes to limit the area in which
a union may undertake action in furtherance of a primary dispute with an employer.
While generally a union may picket the primary employer at a place where he does
business , it is enjoined by this section from picketing other employer sat their places
of business with an object of forcing or requiring them to cease handling the prod-
ucts of, or to cease doing business with, the primary employer . Complications,
however , sometimes arise when we find a number of employers engaged in work
at a common situs. The issues arising in this type of situation are commonly
resolved by what is known as the Moore Dry Dock doctrine .5 This doctrine sets
forth an evidentiary test aimed at aiding in determining in any given situation if a
union has properly limited its dispute to a primary employer, or whether its action
has exceeded permissible bounds and it has engaged in proscribed secondary con-
duct. Under the Moore Dry Dock doctrine, common situs picketing will be con-
sidered primary and permissible only if (a) the picketing is limited strictly to times
when the situs of the dispute is located on the secondary employer 's premises;
(b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal busi-
ness at the situs; ( c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the loca-
tion of the situs; and (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the
primary employer . While the Board does not undertake to apply these standards
on an indiscriminate per se basis , they may be regarded as the basic tests in deter-
mining the underlying question of a statutory violation.
In the instant case, the picket sign and the conduct of the pickets clearly estab-
lishes the basic dispute to be with Paredes. It is urged that the situs of the dispute
is not at the Paredes office alone , but that it is also at the APL terminal while the
Wildman shipment for which Paredes acted as customs house broker was located
there. It is claimed that Paredes, in performing its services as broker , functioned
at the APL pier in a manner which would support a finding that it shared a common
situs with the shipper. I do not agree.
It stands uncontradicted on this record that when a customhouse broker handles
a formal entry its relationship to the goods in the shipment is limited to inspecting
the invoices and bills of lading, to preparing the appropriate customhouse forms
based on information obtained from such documents , to paying the shipping charges
and customs duties assessed , and to giving delivery orders and customhouse clearances
to a drayman not employed by it but designated by the importer for pickup and
delivery. Paredes was retained by Wildman to perform just such services , and these
alone. Paredes was not called upon or required in the normal course of furnishing
these services to inspect, process, or otherwise handle the Wildman wine at the pier.
The visit of President Derenzo to the APL terminal was occasioned solely because
of difficulties brought about by the picketing . There is no showing that at any other
time during the entire period that the pickets were present at the pier any other
sSailora' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547.
217-919-66-vol. 156-86
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee of Paredes ever visited the terminal. Indeed, on this record it does not
appear that in the processing of any formal enrty Paredes' employees would ever
have occasion to visit a shipper's pier .6
From the foregoing it appears that Respondent picketed at the terminal not only
at times when Paredes' employees wer not present , but also in a circumstance where
there was no indication that Paredes ' normal business would require the presence
of an employee at that location . It would thus seem to follow that APL and
Paredes did not share a common situs , but that the situs of the primary dispute at
all times material to this proceeding remained on Jackson Street and that thus the
Moore Dry Dock standards would not be met. Respondent would undertake to
avoid .such a conclusion by claiming that it was not properly chargeable with knowl-
edge that the Wildman shipment was a formal entry requiring no services by Paredes
at the pier , and that since it reasonably believed that Paredes employees might be
needed to process the shipment it was permissible for it to picket at all times that
the goods remained at the pier , at least insofar as it confined such picketing to the
normal workday of Paredes. The statement of the proposition all but carries its
own refutation . I find it difficult to understand how Respondent effectively can
disclaim actual knowledge of either the general nature of Paredes' services regard-
ing formal entries, or of the fact that the Wildman shipment was such an entry.
Respondent was representing striking employees intimately familiar with the nature
of Respondent 's business generally, and one of their number had actually prepared
the formal entry papers relating to this very shipment . Moreover, it was these
strikers who were picketing the shipment and the mere viewing of 577 cases of wine
should alone have sufficed to give notice that the value of the shipment must in all
likelihood exceed $250 . Thus assuming lack of knowledge on the part of Respond-
ent's officials it 'is clear that sources of such information were readily and easily
available to them. However, even if this were not the case I would still charge
Respondent with such knowledge . The statutory purpose of Section 8(b)(4) is to
protect secondary employers from involvements in disputes that do not directly
affect their own employees . It would seem only reasonable that a union seeking to
carry the dispute beyond a clearly defined primary situs should bear the burden of
ascertaining with certainty the exact nature of the primary employer's normal busi-
ness at a presumed common situs . Under all the circumstances , I find that Respond-
ent is properly charged with knowledge not only that no Paredes employees were
present at APL premises any time it picketed , but also that the nature of the services
Paredes was performing in connection with the Wildman shipment was such that
no employees of Paredes normally would be engaged in performing duties at the
terminal . On this record , therefore , it appears that at all times when Respondent
picketed at the terminal the situs of the dispute was at Paredes' place of business
at Jackson Street, and that Paredes did not at such times share a common situs with
APL and other employers at the pier , and I so find. Since employees of Paredes
were neither present at the terminal when picketing took place nor can the location
properly be regarded as the situs of the dispute , it follows that the Respondent has
not met the Moore Dry Dock standards for lawful common siuts picketing , and that
it must assume liability if its picketing there otherwise violates statutory proscriptions.
The picketing took place in an APL shed where longshoremen employed by
stevedoring companies and clerks employed by APL were regularly working. While
there is no showing that the picketing directly affected any other terminal workmen,
it stands undisputed that attempts by APL to get its clerks to perform their usual
functions in bringing about a delivery of the Wildman shipment were blocked by
the picketing . APL was informed by, and reasonably relied upon a statement of,
officials of ILWU that a picket line at the gate would be honored by ILWU clerks,
and also that if it assigned a clerk to deliver the Wildman wine while the picket was
still there the clerk would not carry out the assignment . APL was not required to
test such assertion by undertaking assignments which it might reasonably conclude
could result in a shutdown of the entire terminal . Under the circumstances, it
appears that the picketing of the shipment was not only calculated to, but that in
Q It is not shown that Paredes handled any informal entry for any customer which
came to the APL pier during the period of the picketing As noted above , brokers or
their employees do inspect and handle informal entries at a shipper ' s premises. It is
possible that in such a case if it were shown that picketing had been limited to times
when employees of a broker were present and engaged in such processing of the informal
entry, the pier might be regarded as a situs of the broker ' s business . I do not reach such
an issue in the instant case, however , since at no time pertinent to this proceeding is it
shown that anything of this nature transpired at the APL pier.
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL NO. 3 1349
fact it actually did, result in inducing and encouraging employees of APL not to
handle the Wildman wine in the course of their employment , and I so find. The
same picketing also had the direct effect of restraining and coercing both APL and
Wildman by preventing the delivery of the wine for as long as the pickets remained,
and I so find.
The overall admitted object of all Respondent 's picketing was, of course , to press
the cause of its primary dispute with Paredes. Picketing at the Jackson Street office
was a legitimate pursuit of such object . Pressing the cause at the APL terminal,
however, where Paredes had no employees , and was not at the time engaged in its
normal business is conduct of a different character Such picketing at the terminal
could have no direct effect on any of Paredes work since, as we have seen, it was
engaged in no work at that location . The only foreseeable consequence of picketing
at the pier would be to induce or encourage employees of APL or other employers
to refuse to handle the Wildman wine , or to cause APL to refuse to render its usual
services upon the shipment . As we have seen, both of these consequences eventuated.
Absent a showing of a legitimate object in furtherance of its primary dispute with
Paredes, it must be concluded that an object of the picketing encompassed just the
consequences that resulted . Picketing for such an object is of course specifically
proscribed by the statute . Accordingly , I find that Respondent , by picketing at the
APL terminal as described above, induced and encouraged employees of APL, and
other employers , to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of their employment
to perform any services in connection with the Wildman shipment, and that by the
same conduct it also threatened or coerced APL and other employers , both with an
object that APL and other employers either refuse to handle products serviced by
Paredes or cease doing business with Paredes. I further find that by such conduct
Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of the Act.
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Paredes , APL, and Wildman , as 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section 8 ( b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. APL , Wildman, and Paredes are each employers within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (2) of the Act, and aie each engaged in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) and Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.
2. Office & Professional Employees Local No. 3, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing at the APL premises with an object of forcing or requiring APL,
or other employers , to cease handling goods serviced by Paredes , or to cease doing
business with Paredes , Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( b) (4) (i) and ( ii) (B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I recom-
mend that Respondent , Office & Professional Employees, Local No. 3, AFL -CIO, its
officers, representatives , and agents , shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing or in any other way inducing or encouraging
any individuals employed by APL, or any other person similarly engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike or refusal in the
course of his employment to use , manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise
handle or work on any goods , articles , materials , or commodities or to perform any
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
services ; or by picketing or in any other way threatening , coercing , or restraining.
APL, or any other person similarly engaged in commerce or an industry affecting
commerce , where in either case an object thereof is to force or require APL, or any
other employer , to cease handling goods or products serviced by Paredes or to cease
doing business with Paredes.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices or meeting halls , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix ." 7 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 20 , shall, after being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized repre-
sentative , be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily posted, Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that such notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional Director for Region 19,
for posting by APL and Wildman , these companies willing , at all locations where
notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.8
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Trial Examiner 's Decision , Respondent notify the Regional Director
that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words, "a
Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced by
a Decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision,
and Order."
s In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
LOCAL No. 3, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT by picketing , or any other conduct, induce , or encourage any
individual employed by American President Lines, or any other employer, to,
engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use or handle
any products or materials or to perform any services on any products or mate-
rials where an object thereof is to force or require American President Lines, or
any other employer , to refuse to handle products serviced by Joseph A. Paredes
and Co. , or to cease doing business with Joseph A. Paredes and Co.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce American President Lines, or any other
employer, by picketing or any other conduct where an object thereof is to force
or require American President Lines to refuse to handle goods or materials serv-
iced by Joseph A. Paredes and Co., or to cease doing business with Joseph A.
Paredes and Co.
OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL No. 3, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 450 Golden,
Gate Avenue , Box 36047 , San Francisco , California , Telephone No. 556-3197.