Teamsters, Local 542

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 542
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Lo-
cal 542 and Air Support Facilities, Inc., d/b/a
Shaker Express Delivery Service : Case 21-CC-1210
June 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On October 29, 1970, Trial Examiner Herman Marx
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. There-
after, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs
in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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 Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer'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 as modified herein.'
1. On May 6, 1970, Parker, executive secretary of the
District Council of Carpenters, served a citation on
Iseberg, a member of Carpenters and job superinten-
dent for Nielsen, the general contractor on the con-
struction work at Shaker's operation. The citation re-
quired Iseberg to show cause why he should not be
charged with violating his "obligation" as a member of
Carpenters because he allegedly used nonunion help
and because he worked behind a picket line. The Trial
Examiner found that Parker was acting as Respondent
Teamsters' agent, and that Respondent thus violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). We do not agree.
The factors relied on by the Trial Examiner to im-
pute to Respondent responsibility for Parker's actions
in fact provide no support for a conclusion that Parker
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by its picketing on the Air Lane side of the Employer's
premises during both phases I and II, particularly in view of the fact that
Respondent's pickets patrolled the area, while construction work was under
way, carrying signs stating that the picketing was "sanctioned" by, among
others, San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council, an organiza-
tion of which Respondent was not a member
515
served the citation on Iseberg as an agent of Respond-
ent Teamsters. There is no evidence in the record before
us that the Respondent was or became aware of Park-
er's citation to Iseberg, or that it ever sanctioned,
urged, condoned, or ratified it. Under these circum-
stances, we see no ground for concluding that there was
an agency relationship for purposes of this citation, and
we do not find a violation on the basis of this incident.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation of the
complaint.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) by inducing
and causing truckdrivers Whitehead and Butzin, em-
ployees of Delta Lines, not to cross the picket line while
making a delivery to Western Air Lines and picking up
a load from Airborne Freight Corporation, respec-
tively.z We find merit, however, in the General Coun-
sel's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to find
that the Respondent thereby also violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B). It is clear that in both instances the em-
ployees did refuse to cross the picket line. Since the
Respondent was thus successful in its inducement of
Whitehead and Butzin to refuse to perform services for
Delta Lines, a neutral employer, in the course of its
business with other neutral firms, for a proscribed pur-
pose, the Respondent's conduct constituted coercion of
Delta Lines and violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the
Act.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers, Local 542, San Diego, California, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order 4 as
modified below:
1. In paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, delete the phrase "and AABCO, Inc.,"
and substitute "AABCO, Inc., and Delta Lines," there-
for.
2 Chairman Miller would also find Nevedomsky's oral inducement of
employees of Periodical Distributors and Gentec not to handle goods deliv-
ered by Shaker to be violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B), as argued by General
Counsel in his exceptions . Seymour Transfer, 176 NLRB No. 69, reaffirming
Riss, 130 NLRB 943, 948-950
Members Brown and Jenkins find the Seymour Transfer case distinguish-
able, since the appeals there were found to go far beyond loading and
unloading the primary employer's trailers, and included instructions to re-
frain from all work for their neutral employers, and to sit down or leave their
employer's premises during the picketing. Supra at Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion, sec. III, C No 2 and the third paragraph from the end of sec. III, D.
' Local 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
and its Agent, Louis Celano (Polly Electnc Company), 175 NLRB No 88.
In footnote 38 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for
"10" days.
191 NLRB No. 79
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Ex-
aminer's notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of
the Act other than those found in this Decision.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
To All Employees of Western Air Lines, Weston
Trucking Company, Nielsen Construction Company,
American Air Lines, General Dynamics Corporation,
Convair Division, Airborne Freight Corporation, Be-
kins Moving and Storage Co., AABCO, Inc., and Delta
Lines
To All Members of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Local 542
We hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encour-
age any individual employed by Western Air
Lines, Weston Trucking Company, Nielsen Con-
struction Company, American Air Lines, General
Dynamics Corporation, Convair Division, Air-
borne Freight Corporation , Bekins Moving and
Storage Co., AABCO, Inc., and Delta Lines, or by
any other person engaged in interstate commerce,
or in industry affecting such commerce, to engage
in a strike or refusal in the course of such in-
dividual's employment to use, manufacture, pro-
cess, transport , or otherwise handle or work on
any goods , articles , materials, or commodities, or
to perform any services, where an object thereof is
forcing or requiring any person to cease doing
business with any other person ; or forcing or re-
quiring Air Support Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Shaker
Express Delivery Service to recognize or bargain
with this Union as the representative of the em-
ployees of Air Support Facilities, Inc., d/b/a
Shaker Express Delivery Service unless this Union
has been certified as the representative of such
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Air-
borne Freight Corporation, Western Air Lines,
Nielsen Construction Company, American Air
Lines, Bekins Moving and Storage Co., AABCO,
Inc., and Delta Lines , or any other person engaged
in interstate commerce, or in an industry affecting
such commerce, for either of such objects.
Nothing herein shall be construed to forbid us to
engage in a lawful strike or lawful picketing , as permit-
ted by the said Act.
TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN
& HELPERS,
LOCAL 542
(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 compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broad-
way, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 213-
688-5254.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN MARX, Trial Examiner: As amended, the com-
plaint in this proceeding (Case 21-CC-1210, which has been
severed from Case 21-CC- 1218) alleges, in substance, that a
labor organization , Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers, Local 542 (herein the Union or Respondent), in
support and furtherance of its position in a labor dispute with
Air Support Facilities, Inc., d/b/a Shaker Express Delivery
Service' (herein the Company or Shaker) has, by picketing
and other conduct, induced and encouraged employees of
various "persons" to engage in strikes or refusals to perform
services and threatened , coerced, or restrained such persons
and others, with an object of forcing or requiring the said
persons and others to cease doing business with the Company
or others and to force or require it to recognize or bargain
with the Union as the representative of Shaker 's employees,
although the Union has not been certified as such representa-
tive under Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein the Act2); and that by such picketing and
other conduct the Union has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158.'
' The Charging Party's name appears as amended at the hearing in this
case
' 29 U.S.C 151 et seg.
' To the extent pertinent here , Section 8 (b)(4) of the Act provides:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
(1).. to induce or encourage any individual employed by any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage
in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufac-
ture, process , transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods,
articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; of (u) to
threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in any
industry affecting commerce , where in either case an object thereof is
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 542 517
The Union has filed an answer denying, in material sub-
stance, that it has committed the unfair labor practices at-
tributed to it in the complaint!
A hearing on the issues has been held before me, as duly
designated Trial Examiner. Each of the parties appeared
through counsel and were afforded a full opportunity to ad-
duce evidence , examine and cross -examine witnesses, and
submit oral argument and briefs.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses , and having read and considered the
briefs filed with me , I make the following findings of fact;
FINDINGS OF FACT
distributor of magazines and other periodicals ; Gentec Hos-
pital Supply Company , a distributor of hospital supplies;
Delta Lines, a common carrier of freight by motor vehicle;
and Bekins Moving and Storage Co., a common carrier by
motor vehicle. At the times material here, each of these enter-
prises has employed individuals and has been a "person"
engaged in interstate commerce , and in an industry and oper-
ations affecting such commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tions 2(6), 2(7), and 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
By reason of the operations of Shaker and the other enter-
prises named above in and affecting interstate commerce, the
National Labor Relations Board (herein the Board) has juris-
diction over the subject matter of this proceeding.
1. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED; JURISDICTION
Shaker is a California corporation; maintains a place of
business at International Airport, San Diego, California,
where it is engaged in the business of providing air freight
pickup and delivery services , by truck, for other enterprises,
including air carriers which transport passengers and freight
between locations in different states; and is, and has been at
all material times, an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act and a person within the meaning of Section
2(1) of the statute.
In the course and conduct of its business with such air
carriers, the Company annually receives in excess of $50,000
for the services it performs for them ; and by reason of such
services is, and has been at all material times, engaged in
interstate commerce and in operations affecting such com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
The gravamen of the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint is that the Union in support of its position in its
labor dispute with Shaker directed picketing and other forms
of pressure for proscribed objects against various named neu-
tral enterprises or individuals in their employ . Among the
enterprises named are Nielsen Construction Company, a gen-
eral contractor in the building and construction industry;
AABCO, Inc., a formica installer; Airborne Freight Corpora-
tion, an air freight forwarder; Griley Security Freight Lines,
a common carrier of freight by truck; Western Air Lines, an
air carrier; American Air Lines, an air carrier; Weston
Trucking Company, a common carrier of freight by motor
vehicle; General Dynamics Corporation , a manufacturer of
aircraft components ; San Diego Periodical Distributors, a
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, sellmg, handling,
transporting , or otherwise dealing in the products of any other pro-
ducer, processor , or manufacturer , or to cease doing business with any
other person , or forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize
or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his em-
ployees unless such labor organization has been certified under the
provisions of section 9: Provided That nothing contained in this clause
(B) shall be construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful,
M primary strike or primary picketing.
° complaint in Case 21 -CC-1210 was issued on May 7, 1970; was
amended on May 22, 1970, and, as amended , is based on a charge filed by
Shaker on April 8, 1970 Case No. 21-CC-1210 was duly consolidated on
May 22, 1970 with Case 21 -CC-1218, which involves several labor organi-
zations in addition to the Union , and a consolidated complaint , based on the
charges in both cases and incorporating the amendments to the first com-
plaint, was issued on May 22, 1970 , but at the hearing in this proceeding,
upon motion of the Board 's General Counsel , and with the concurrence of
the other parties, the two cases were severed. Copies of that complaint, the
consolidated and amended complaint, the charge in each case , and a notice
of hearing in both cases have been duly served by the General Counsel on
all parties entitled thereto.
The hearing was held on June 15, 16 , 17, 18 and 19 , 1970 in San Diego,
California . In view of the severance, and the disposition of Case No. 21-CC-
1218 reflected in the record , the caption of this decision and the findings,
conclusions and recommended order set forth below are limited to Case
21-CC-1210.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory Statement
Shaker operates its business at the San Diego , International
Airport on premises it leases from the airport authorities. The
"front" or western boundary of the property runs generally
parallel to a thoroughfare called Air Lane, which is used by
vehicular traffic with business at the airport. The "rear" or
eastern boundary of the Shaker leasehold faces a concrete
"apron" which was formerly used as an aircraft parking area
and ramp . The northern boundary substantially parallels a
roadway which is on property used by United Air Lines and
serves a building occupied by that carrier . The roadway
(herein called the United Road for convenience of reference)
can provide access from Air Lane to the concrete apron at the
rear of Shaker 's leasehold , Such access can also be provided
by a roadway which is on or adjacent to property of an
enterprise called Interstate Hosts and substantially parallels
the Shaker property about 300 yards south of it.
In January 1970,5 Nielsen Construction Company (herein
Nielsen), as a general contractor , began the construction of
a building for Shaker on its leased premises. The structure
was to be used as a truck and air freight terminal , a portion
of it to be occupied by Shaker for its business operations and
parts by other enterprises as its subtenants, including two of
its customers, American Air Lines and Western Air Lines.
The project required the demolition of a building Shaker
had been using for its business, and was to be completed in
two stages , identified in the record as phases 1 and 2. Phase
1 was completed in or about the last week in April , but the
work on phase 2 was still in progress at the time of the hearing
in this proceeding some seven weeks later . Upon completion
according to plan, the building will be roughly rectangular in
shape, will face Air Lane, its length substantially paralleling
that thoroughfare for about 240 feet, and will be about 100
feet from front to rear. The completed phase 1 portion of the
structure consists of a little more than half of the planned
building.'
Shaker employs approximately 23 or 24 persons, some of
them truckdrivers who pick up and deliver freight for air
carriers and others in the San Diego area.
About the time the construction work began, three of the
employees communicated with a business agent of the Union,
Thomas A. Rodgers , whose functions include organization of
5 Unless otherwise specified, all dates mentioned herein occurred in
1970.
6 The dimensions are estimates inferred from testimony given by Niel-
sen's job superintendent, Edward Iceberg, in combination with a building
plan of the project (G.C Exh. 4) drawn to scale.
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, and asked Rodgers to arrange a meeting for a
discussion of organization of Shaker's employees. Such a
meeting was held on March 16 and was attended by six or
seven of Shaker's employees and by three representatives of
the Union, Rodgers, James A. Barham, its secretary-
treasurer and chief full-time executive officer, and Charles
("Nick") Nicholas, deputy secretary-treasurer.' Only one as-
pect of the meeting, which was basically devoted to the sub-
ject of organization of Shaker's employees, is in material
dispute and requires discussion and that is whether Barham
made certain remarks regarding the construction work. A
resolution of the issue bears on the legality of picketing al-
leged in the complaint to be unlawful.
The General Counsel's version of the remarks in question
rests substantially on the testimony of one of the employees,
Henry Daniels. The latter definitely identified Rodgers as one
of the three union representatives present but testified that he
could not recall the names of the other two, although stating
that he thinks one of them was named Nicholas, but that he
was not sure of that. According to Daniels, the "third man"
(by inference, Barham) said during the course of discussion
that the construction work in progress could be used as a
"baseball bat" over Shaker and could be closed down. Bar-
ham denies that he made such a statement , adding that he
heard none such by anyone else at the meeting.
The General Counsel, of course, has the burden of proof
on the relevant issue, and the fact that no other employee
present gave testimony describing such remarks at the meet-
ing,and that Daniels was unable to recall the name of the
"third man" weighs against acceptance of Daniels' testimony.
But he appeared definite that the "third man" did, in fact,
make the remarks in question, and, upon my appraisal of the
several witnesses who testified regarding the episode, I am
persuaded of the credibility of his testimony.
To begin with, there is no dispute that the construction
work was discussed at the meeting. Barham does not deny
that there was some discussion of the subject, his denial going
to the question whether remarks of the character attributed
to the "third man" were made. Nicholas, who was called as
a witness by the Respondent, does not mention the meeting
in any respect. And Rodgers, the Union's principal witness,
concedes that there was some mention of the construction
work, although claiming that it came from the employees at
the meeting. His testimony on the subject, it may be added,
has some flavor of ambiguity. He gives no specifics beyond a
claim that "they (the employees) talked about it, saying that
(Shaker) was in the process of building a building," and his
replies to questions seeking relevant specifics have an equivo-
cal cast. Thus, asked whether "some one of Shaker's em-
ployees" raised "the subject of the building," he answered, "I
don't remember directly whether he did or not," and, in
somewhat similar vein, he replied, "Not that I remember" to
a query whether he heard any representative of the Union
"make any comment about the role that the building might
play in an organizational campaign." And it is noteworthy,
too, that although Rodgers places himself and Nicholas at the
meeting without hesitation, he sounds a hedging note regard-
ing the important fact of Barham's presence, stating that he
"think(s)," but is "not sure," that Barham was there. Rodgers
appeared to me to be a perceptive witness, with a good grasp
' As the Respondent admits, by its answer, Rodgers, Barham, Nicholas,
and a business representative of the Union named Zig Nevedomsky have
been, at all times material herein, its "agents," and at all such times have
acted "on its behalf." Nicholas, it may be noted, gave his first name as
"Charles" in his testimony, but I infer that he is the same person as the
"Nick" Nicholas, alleged in the complaint to be the Union's deputy secre-
tary-treasurer. Nevedomsky is on occasion called "Ziggy."
of the issues and evidentiary factors that operate to resolve
them, and my impression was that his ambiguities were
rooted in an awareness of the importance of the relevant
subject and an unwillingness to make a full disclosure of what
he knew of the matter, rather than in a faulty recollection.'
But it is Barham's testimony, taken as a whole, that as
much as any factor leads me to deny him credence, for he
repeatedly demonstrated a lack of candor, notably in replying
to interrogation related to a "demonstration" and picketing
on May 6 near the Shaker premises by various labor organiza-
tions, including the Union. The General Counsel made re-
peated efforts to elicit testimony from him regarding prior
arrangements for the event at a meeting of representatives of
labor organizations attended by him, but the attempts yielded
little more than vague replies such as that "the problem of
Shaker was discussed," and a query as to the identity of those
present brought the vague and unresponsive reply that "as far
as I know ... there was a representative from all parts of the
labor movement there." The identity of those present was a
matter of demonstrable importance, for as of the time Bar-
ham testified, that is, prior to the severance of Case 21-CC-
1218, the complaint alleged that various labor organizations,
in addition to the Union, had violated the Act as a result of
the picketing on May 6, and, in my judgment, Barham 's reply
to the query as to the identity of those present deliberately
avoided the question.
In contrast to Barham, Daniels appeared to me to be a
credible witness, taking pains to be as accurate as his memory
permitted. I credit his relevant testimony and find, in addi-
tion, that it was Barham who made the remarks Daniels
attributes to the "third man" and that their thrust was that
the Union' could bring about a shutdown of the construction
work and use it as a means of compelling Shaker to recognize
it as the bargaining representative of Shaker's employees.
On March 20, Shaker received a letter from the Union
stating that the latter represented a majority of Shaker's em-
ployees and demanding recognition as their bargaining repre-
sentative and bargaining negotiations at a prescribed time,
date, and place. Shaker replied by letter bearing the same
date, stating that it had no reason to believe that the Union
had the requisite majority status , and suggesting "a govern-
ment sponsored secret ballot election" as the "fairest way" to
determine the Union's representative status.
On April 1, Shaker filed a petition for a representation
election with the Board's Region 21 at Los Angeles, with the
result that an election was held on May 1; that a majority of
Shaker's employees in the prescribed unit voted against the
Union; and that on May 29 the Board issued a "Certification
of Results of Election" to the effect that the Union was not
the employees' bargaining representative.
While the petition was pending, the Union engaged in
picketing in the vicinity of the Shaker leasehold at the airport
and in so-called "ambulatory" picketing in the vicinity of
other enterprises located away from the airport, while truck-
ing employees of Shaker were there on its business. The
Union has never been certified as the bargaining representa-
tive of any of Shaker's employees under Section 9 of the Act,
8 Two witnesses, George Chelette and John Pope, who were among the
employees present, later picketed the Shaker premises, are no longer in
Shaker's employ, and were called by the Union, shed'no light on the subject
Chelette testified that he heard no discussion of the'new building, but that
is not an effective denial that there was such a discussion, particularly in
view of Rodgers' admission that there was some talk about the building
Pope was somewhat equivocal about the matter, first stating that the subject
was not raised, then volunteering that "the Union didn't say (anything)
about a building," and then testifying that the "drivers there might have
said, `There's a building going up "' I am unable to accord his testimony
effective weight.
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 542 519
and, as is.clear from the record as a whole, an object of the
picketing was to compel Shaker to recognize and bargain with
the Union, as demanded in its letter of March 20.'
The central questionrhere is whether various of the picket-
ing activities, and other conduct to, be described later, were
aimed at "secondary" or neutral employers or their em-
ployees with a view to effecting a cessation of business with
Shaker as a means of compelling it to recognize and bargain
with the Union. For convenience of discussion, the activities
in question will be considered below in three separate catego- -
ries: (1) Those at the airport during the phase 1 construction
work; (2) activities there during the phase 2 period; and, (3) ,^
the "ambulatory" picketing episodes.,
B. The Alleged Misconduct at the Airport During the Phase:
1 Construction Work
Substantially ; since the, -construction work began, Shaker
has been using an area in the open air, about 200 by 100 feet
in dimension, on the.concrete apron= to the rear of the project
for its truck loadiiig and other freight handling operations.10
Throughout the phase-1 construction period, vehicular traffic
between Air Lane and the apron area, consisting both of
Shaker's trucks and those of enterprises that did business
with it, has used either the United Road to the north of the
Shaker leasehold or the Interstate Road several hundred
yards to the south. Since about May 1, only the Interstate
Road has been thus available because the other access route
has been barred by a gate.
By April 7, the construction work on phase 1 had almost
been finished , with some 4 days of work remaining for com-
pletion. The completed portion included the space Western
Air Lines had sublet in the northern portion of the structure,
and by April 7 Western was occupying its alloted space, with
a dock or freight-handling area at the front (or Air Lane side)
of the building. American Air Lines was occupying a building
near or adjacent to the south side of the construction site but
was also using a trailer on Shaker 's leasehold on or near the
concrete apron to the southeast of the construction work.
Various other enterprises, including Airborne Freight Corpo-
ration, which were to be tenants in the completed building,
also temporarily occupied trailer space on April 7 in the
nearby vicinity southeast of the phase 1 area. And by that
date (as well as for much of April thereafter) Shaker had a
dispatch office toward the rear of the phase 1 construction
area.
The Union began to picket in the vicinity of the Shaker
leasehold about 6:30 a.m. on April 7 before any construction
employees reported for work, posting several pickets in front
(on the Air Lane side) of the premises, and some four to six
in the rear along or near the concrete apron." Those picketing
included Rodgers, who was in charge of the activity for the
Union; Nicholas; and a third business agent of the organiza-
tion, Zig Nevedomsky. The picketing on the Air Lane side on
April 7 covered much of the frontage of the phase 1 construc-
tion, but except for a relatively brief period on that date, in
circumstances to be described later, did not include that por-
' Such an object is plainly inferable from various circumstances , in combi-
nation, notably the Union 's assertion of majority status and its bargaining
demand in its letter of March 20; Shaker's rejection of the demand; the
commencement of picketing little more than 2 weeks later , attended by
picketing signs stating that Shaker is "unfair ," and "refuses to bargain" with
the Union; and the continuance of picketing with such signs even after the
election , which the Union lost.
1° The estimated dimensions of Shaker's work area on the apron are
inferred from a combination of Iseberg 's testimony and the building plan
(G.C Exh. 4).
" The record reflects immaterial differences as to the number of pickets.
tion of the structure occupied by Western Air Lines. At the
rear of the building, the picketing on or near the apron sub-
stantially traversed the length of the leasehold area, including
not only the site of Shaker's operations, but of the trailers
occupied by American Air Lines, Airborne Freight Corpora-
tion, and other enterprises.
The pickets carried signs containing legends to the effect
that Shaker was, "unfair" to the Union and "refuses to bar-
gain" with'it; and that the picketing was "sanctioned" by
three central labor^bodies, one of them named on the signs as
"Bldg., Trades Council," another as "Central Labor Coun-
cil," andathe.third as "Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42."
The first,^whose full name is San Diego Building and Con-
struction Trades Council (and will' be called the Building
Trades Council below), is an association of local unions repre-
senting employees in the building and construction crafts in
the San Diego area. The Respondent Union is not a member
of the Building Trades Council. The name "Central Labor
Council" was a reference (and will refer here) to "San Diego
County Labor Council," an organization of local unions in
the San Diego area affiliated with the AFL-CIO."
Nielsen's job superintendent, Edward Iseberg , who is a
carpenter, by trade, working in that capacity at the project, as
well as supervising Nielsen's employees there, reported for
work at about an hour.-after the picketing began. Iseberg is
a member of a Carpenters local union in San Diego (identified
only as "Carpenters' Local 2398") which is affiliated with a
regional organization of Carpenters locals identified in the
record as the "District Council of Carpenters," which, in
turn, holds membership in the Building Trades Council.
Two employees of Nielsen, who are supervised by Iseberg,
also reported that morning after the start of the picketing, as
did two painters in the employ of a subcontractor of Nielsen,
Jess B. Worthington, and a tile setter in the employ of a
subcontractor called San Diego Tile. The two painters left
without actually performing any work, and the tile setter
worked for about an hour and a half and then departed,
leaving his work for the day unfinished.
The picketing of the area under construction, substantially
as described above, continued for all or most of the rest of
April and deterred employees of subcontractors from work-
ing at the project. Thus on April 8, two employees of a
concern named AABCO, Inc., who were supposed to install
formica in the building under a contract between their em-
ployer and Nielsen, came to the project site, but after ap-
proaching the picket line and looking at a picket sign left the
area and performed no work that day." The employees of a
number of other subcontractors, unidentified in the evidence,
who were slated to work that day did not do so. The record
does not establish the identity of any subcontractors who
were supposed to participate thereafter in the phase I work,"
but, in any case, it is clear, and I find, that the picketing on
1' As Barham testified, the Union is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO
One may infer from that that the Union is not a member of the Central Labor
Council, but whether or not one draws that inference , the end results here
remain the same
^, As the two employees were leaving, Iseberg made an "obscene" ges-
ture toward Rodgers whom he considered responsible for their departure,
and Rodgers retorted that he would "split" or "bust" Iseberg's head. The
threat, which was not carried out, was obviously responsive to, and pro-
voked by, Iseberg 's obscene behavior and, I am persuaded, was not designed
to intimidate Iseberg into a cessation of his work. For those reasons, apart
from any other , I find no merit in the General Counsel 's claim that as a result
of Rodgers ' threat, the Union violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act
16 The complaint sets forth the names of a number of Nielsen 's subcon-
tractors, but the evidence specifically identifies only one of these, AABCO,
Inc , as having any work to perform during the phase 1 period after the
picketing began. The painting and tilesetting subcontractors , Jess B . Worth-
(Cont.)
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Air Lane side was a factor in the delay in the completion
of phase 1 until late in April and induced or encouraged
individuals respectively employed by Nielsen and various of
its subcontractors , including AABCO, Inc., to suspend or
cease work they were slated to perform at the project.
The Union had no labor dispute either with Nielsen or any
of its subcontractors , nor were any employees of Shaker em-
ployed in the construction work ; yet there are compelling
indications that the construction employees were targets of
the picketing at least on the Air Lane side in order to bring
about work stoppages on the project and thereby bring pres-
sure to bear on Shaker to yield to the Union 's demand for
recognition and bargaining . Such an aim was expressly visu-
alized by Barham, the Union 's principal full-time executive,
at the meeting with some Shaker employees on March 16
when he told them , in substance , that a shutdown of the
construction work could be used as a "baseball bat" with
which to bring Shaker to terms with the Union . Much the
same attitude is reflected , by implication , in a position ex-
pressed by Nicholas at the construction site on April 7, the
day the picketing began . On the occasion in question , Iseberg
asked Nicholas to remove the pickets from the Air Lane side
of the project "and not to bother my construction," but Nich-
olas took the position , in effect, that the picketing on that side
was justified since the structure was "being built for Shaker."
In the context of circumstances , the thrust of this, plainly,
was that the pressure on the construction enterprises and
their employees in the form of the picketing was a means of
bringing Shaker to terms.
It is noteworthy , too, that the picket signs expressly stated
that the picketing was "sanctioned" by the Building Trades
Council . Without implying any view as to the effect to be
given to comparable expressions of acquiescence in, or sup-
port of, picketing in any other situation , in the circumstances
presented , notably in the light of the positions expressed by
Barham and Nicholas , and of the fact that the Union is not
a member of the Building Trades Council, the statement that
the picketing activity was "sanctioned" by that organization
evidences a purpose by the Union to enmesh neutrals in the
labor dispute between the Union and Shaker by inducing
work stoppages at the project by construction employees
represented by unions affiliated with the Council.
The existence of such a purpose is not negated by the fact
that Shaker 's dispatch office toward the rear of the construc-
tion site was visible from the front of the structure , nor did
the picketing lose its tainted purpose because individuals
other than construction personnel entered the construction
area from the front . By far the greater portion of such incur-
sions involved no business with Shaker, or anyone else for
that matter, consisting of daily trips by a few American Air
Lines employees to a portable lavatory maintained by
Nielsen. Evidence that there were several occasions (de-
scribed principally by Rodgers ) when individuals , apparently
having business with Shaker , walked through the construc-
tion site to reach its dispatch office or its operational area to
the rear of the construction project does little to illuminate
the Union 's purpose in picketing the front of the project.15
ington and San Diego Tile, who had work to perform on April 7, are not
named in the complaint.
1'' , Compare N.L.A.B. v. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, 428 F.2d 994 (CA 2), holding that in the course of a strike, de
minimis use by personnel of the struck employer of a "reserved gate" set
aside at the site of the dispute for use by a "secondary" employer provides
no legal justification for picketing of the gate I dispense with details of an
effort by Iseberg, by means of a barricade around the front perimeter of the
construction site and of posted signs, to bar all but construction personnel
from the site or, in other words, to erect a species of "reserved" or "separate
gates" for construction employees, for the end results here are the same,
Nor, in the light of the paucity of such occasions, the remarks
of Barham and Nicholas, the publicized sanctioning of the
picketing by the Building Trades Council, and the fact that
Shaker's operating areas were located at and toward the rear
of the leasehold, do I find a persuasive indicator of the pur-
pose of the picketing in front of the construction site in Rodg-
ers' testimony to the effect that he had,heard prior to the start
of the activity that individuals having business with Shaker
at the rear used the site as an access route from the Air Lane
side.
Summarizing the matter, I find that an object of the picket-
ing of the construction area on the Air Lane side was to
induce or encourage employees of Nielsen and its subcontrac-
tors to cease or refuse to work at the project and thereby to
effect a cessation of business between Shaker and Nielsen and
between Nielsen and its subcontractors, with an ultimate aim
of compelling Shaker to recognize and bargain with the
Union; and that, by such picketing, the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act."
Moreover, picketing was not the only pressure aimed at
neutrals at the airport during the phase 1 construction period,
as evidenced by some episodes variously involving Western
Air Lines and Western Trucking Company (respectively,
Western and Weston herein).
On the morning of April 7, while the picketing was in
progress, Nevedomsky and Rodgers called on Western's
freight supervisor, Paul Suda, in the new structure, and Neve-
domsky told Suda, in substance, that Western should not
"tender any freight to Shaker," and that the Union would
picket Western's premises if the practice continued." Shortly
after the conversation, the Union extended its picket line on
the Air Lane side to include Western's premises in the build-
ing, but discontinued that portion of the picketing after the
pickets had walked up and down in front of the premises four
or five times."
On April 7, also, the Union wrote a letter to Western, for
Suda's attention, stating that the Union had information that
Western's employees had been performing work "normally
performed by Shaker's employees," and that unless Western
provided "satisfactory evidence" that it was "not performing
struck work, it will be necessary to treat you as an allied
employer."
On the following day, after receipt of the letter, Suda issued
instructions to Western's employees to make no deliveries to
Shaker, but to require Shaker to call for freight from Wes-
tern's dock, which was located at the front of the new build-
ing.
whether or not one takes the evidence of Iseberg's effort into account
11 E.g., Local 761, IUE (General Electric Company), 123 NLRB 1547,
1550-1551, remanded on another issue 366 U.S 667; United Steel Workers
ofAmerica (United States Steel Corporation), 127 NLRB 823, 827, enf. as
modified 294 F.2d 256 (C.A.D.C.), United Brick & Clay Workers v. Deena
Artware, Inc, 198 F.2d 637 (CA. 6).
17 Nevedomsky does not touch on the episode in his testimony. Rodgers
does, but he does not quote either Nevedomsky or himself as threatening
to picket Western, testifying that they told Suda that it appeared to them
that Western was "allied" to Shaker and was "liable to have problems." This
of itself, in the context of circumstances, would imply a threat of picketing,
but passing that, at various points in his testimony, Rodgers, as for example
in his account of the March 16 meeting, seemed disposed to gloss over
episodes that could support a conclusion that the Union had engaged in
improper "secondary" pressures to bring Shaker to terms. In short, Suda's
account appears to me to be the more credible, and I have based the relevant
findings on it.
11 The prior threat to picket Western gives support to testimony by Suda
and Shaker's attorney to the effect that Western's premises were picketed.
I do not credit a claim by Rodgers to the contrary.
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 542 521
There is no evidence that Western had been performing
"struck work" for Shaker. On the contrary, Western was a
customer of Shaker, the latter picking up and delivering
freight for the air carrier and in the normal course of business,
Western's employees would deliver freight from its premises
in the new building to Shaker's operational area and the
latter's employees would transport freight to Western's area.
The Union does not spell out the respect in which Western
performed work "normally" done by Shaker," and, signifi-
cantly enough, as expressed by Nevedomsky to Suda, the
burden of the Union's complaint was that Western was deliv-
ering freight to Shaker. I am convinced, and find, that West-
ern had not performed "struck work" for Shaker; that, in the
context of circumstances, the statement in the letter that
Western would be treated "as an allied employer" unless it
proved that it was "not performing struck work" amounted
to a threat to picket Western's premises with an aim of bring-
ing about a work stoppage by employees of Western and
disruption of business between Western and other enterprises
unless Western ceased doing business with substantially the
same meaning; that the picketing of Western 's premises on
April 7 was an implementation of Nevedomsky's threat and
had the same underlying aim; and that an object of the picket-
ing and threats was to compel Shaker to recognize and bar-
gain with the Union.
The Weston episode occurred on April 7 and also involved
Nevedomsky. While driving near the airport at about 5:45
p.m. that day, he became angered when a Weston truck "cut"
in front of him, and he followed the truck which entered the
airport and came to a halt in the vicinity of the American Air
Lines premises near the construction site. Another truck,
which had been driven by an employee of Weston named
Gilbert Cota, who is a brother of the operator of the vehicle
followed by Nevedomsky, was in the area, having made a
delivery to American Air Lines. Upon arrival in the area,
Gilbert's brother had told him about the traffic episode, and
Gilbert had cautioned his brother (who was apparently aware
that Nevedomsky was following him) "not to say anything"
in case the other driver "was going to start any trouble."
Arriving in the area, Nevedomsky approached the Cota
brothers and inquired who had been driving the truck he had
followed, and Gilbert, because his brother is younger and "a
lot smaller" than he, replied that he had operated the truck.
After some colloquy about the load on the truck and whether
any of it was to be delivered to Shaker, Nevedomsky inquired
whether the Cota brothers had occasion to make deliveries to
Shaker, and Gilbert replied in the affirmative, stating that he
had been instructed not to enter Shaker's premises (appar-
ently because of the picketing). As Gilbert testified, Neve-
domsky said that he did not wish "to see us" (Weston drivers,
as I infer) at Shaker's premises; and shortly thereafter left the
American Air Lines area but after a brief absence returned
with one of the pickets. Then, in the presence of an American
Air Lines employee who had appeared on the scene, follow-
ing some additional colloquy, including an inquiry by Neve-
domsky whether Weston had "an ICC license," and an assur-
ance by the American Air Lines employee that Weston was
thus certificated, Nevedomsky told Gilbert Cota that drivers
for Weston "weren't supposed to go across any picket lines"
and, if that were done, he "was going to put a picket on our
" Testimony by Rodgers that he saw employees of each of the two
enterprises use fork-lifts belonging to the other in transporting freight be-
tween the two areas does not establish that Western was performing work
"normally performed" by Shaker, and, in any event, the several instances
when the fork-lifts were thus used obviously played no role in the writing
of the letter of April 7 since, according to Rodgers, they occurred later in
April.
truck no matter where it was at."20 This, in the circumstances
presented, amounted to a threat that unless drivers in Wes-
ton's employ observed the Union's picket line, or, in other
words, refused to perform services for Weston in its business
relations with Shaker, the Union, by picketing Weston trucks,
irrespective of their location, would attempt to bring about a
cessation of business between Western and enterprises other
than Shaker. The threat, plainly, was an implementation of
the Union's object of compelling Shaker to recognize and
bargain with it.
I find, for the reasons stated, that the Union separately
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by (1) picket-
ing in front of Western's premises, as described above; and (2)
Nevedomsky's remarks to Gilbert Cota to the effect that
drivers for Weston "weren't supposed to go across any picket
lines," and that if they did so he would have trucks driven by
them picketed no matter where they were located. I also find
that the Union separately violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of
the Act as a result of (1) the picketing threat made by Neve-
domsky to Suda; and (2) the statement in the Union's letter
of April 7 to Western that, unless Western provided "satisfac-
tory evidence" that it was "not performing struck work, it
will be necessary to treat you (Western) as an allied em-
ployer."
C. The Alleged Misconduct at the Airport During the Phase
2 Construction Work
Phase 2 of the construction project began, following sub-
stantial completion of phase 1, about the beginning of May,
and about that time Shaker moved into permanent office
space in the completed phase 1 portion of the project, but
continued to use the area at the rear for its freight-handling
operations. At about the same time, the American Air Lines
trailer was moved to a location on the Air Lane side of the
phase 1 structure, resting in front of Shaker's newly occupied
space.
On the morning of May 6, representatives of a number of
labor organizations , including the Union , staged a "demon-
stration" and engaged in picketing activities, both in front
and at the rear, of the Shaker leasehold. The origin of the
30 Findings as to the discussion are based on Gilbert Cota's testimony.
Nevedomsky 's version differs materially . The large differences are that he
pictures himself as rebuking Cots and then as asking the latter whether he
was hauling freight; and a "guy . from American Air Lines" (presumably
the one mentioned by Cota) as saying "It's our freight " In view of the traffic
episode it is plausible that Nevedomsky would administer the rebuke, and
at first blush it detracts from the plausibility of Cota's account that he makes
no reference to the rebuke. But Nevedomsky admittedly had "cooled off"
somewhat by the time he spoke to Gilbert Cota, and it may be that, when
he had an opportunity to observe Cota's appearance and proportions, he had
second thoughts about having an exchange with Cota over the traffic epi-
sode; or transferred his ire over that incident to a supposition that Cota
might go through the picket line and addressed himself primarily to such a
possibility. In any case, the material question is what, if anything, Neve-
domsky said regarding Shaker and picketing On that subject, Nevedomsky
is notably silent, but Cota's account is given corroborative support by evi-
dence of comparably coercive statements made on other occasions by agents
of the Union, including Nevedomsky, to employees of neutral enterprises,
aimed at discouraging or disrupting business relations between such con-
cerns and Shaker. Nevedomsky's picketing threat to Suda is an example.
Other coercive behavior will be described later. Cota's account, moreover,
is not rendered implausible by the fact that the discussion occurred about
6 p.m. and that he claims that a picket was present for part of it, whereas
a picket, John Pope, testified that during the first 2 weeks of picketing, the
pickets left the area about 5 p in However, as Pope himself testified, Shaker
operated on day and mght'shifts, the day shift ending about 6 p.m, and this
adds weight to testimony by Shaker Razook to the effect that there was
picketing (by Pope, be it noted) about 6:30 p.m. on April 7 In short, I credit
Cota's testimony regarding his discussion with Nevedomsky
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affair is obscured by the evasiveness with which Barham met
questions aimed at ascertaining details of the origin of the
demonstration and of the arrangements for it. It nevertheless
appears, and I find, that arrangements for the demonstration
were made several days before it occurred at a meeting of
representatives of various labor organizations, including the
Union, the Central Labor Council, and the Building Trades
Council; and that Barham, on behalf of the Union, initiated
arrangements for the demonstration at the meeting.21
On the morning of May 6, prior to the demonstration,
which was scheduled to begin about 9 a.m., Rodgers and two
attorneys for the Union, in the vicinity of the Interstate Road,
distributed printed instructions on a letterhead of the Central
Labor Council to those who were to participate. The docu-
ment included directions that the demonstration be limited
on the Air Lane side to the "front" of Shaker's office and not
be conducted "in front of the freight loading pit or the con-
struction site"; that at the rear the activity be limited to the
area from the southern boundary of the United Air Lines
facility to the "south end of the incomplete Shaker ware-
house"; that the demonstrators bear in mind that the demon-
stration was "directed at only Shaker" and no other em-
ployer; and that the "guidelines" for the event "be followed
with extreme caution." In connection with the instructions,
it may be noted that about a week earlier the United States
District Court had entered a restraining order under Section
10(1) of the Act directed at various aspects of the Union's
picketing activity. (The terms of the order do not appear.)
The demonstration began about the scheduled time and
continued for approximately 2 hours, taking place both on
the Air Lane side of Shaker's premises and at the rear, with
approximately 25 demonstrators on each side. The demon-
strators included Nevedomsky, Rodgers, and Nicholas; Ar-
mon-Henderson, business manager and executive secretary of
the Building Trades Council; Leslie Parker, executive secre-
tary of the District Council of Carpenters; R.R. Richardson,
executive secretary of the Central Labor Council; and repre-
sentatives of various other labor organizations (which need
not be identified here). The relevant record as a whole war-
rants an inference, and I find, that Henderson, Parker, and
Richardson participated in the demonstration not only 'as
representatives of their respective organizations, but on be-
half and as agents of the Respondent Union.
The demonstrators picketed and "yelled" (details of the
shouting do not appear), some carrying signs of the type
previously described, others holding placards identifying one
or another of the organizations sympathetic to the Union,
and others carrying no signs. Those at the rear of the premises
traversed much the same route as the picketing in the area
previously described, passing Shaker's freight-handling area
and trailers occupied by enterprises with which it did busi-
21 Atone point, asked if he had "initiated" a communication to the others
present at the meeting as to the time and place of the demonstration,
Barham testified:
I can only answer you, sir, from the standpoint of not just particularly
Shaker's, but every time that there is a dispute within the San Diego
County, is that the labor movement tries to communicate.
So in answering from that point, I would say yes, that I probably said,
"All right, we got a problem with Shaker's. We might"-I have had a
half dozen other problems, too [Emphasis supplied].
Rambling and tangential as this answer is, in the light of the question it
purported to answer, it in effect concedes that Barham took the initiative for
the arrangements made Although the demonstrators were given instruc-
tions on a letterhead of the Central Labor Council, that organization has no
dispute with Shaker and it seems quite unreasonable to believe that it, rather
than the Union, took the initiative in arranging the affair. Indeed, there is
no claim that the Central Labor Council originated the idea for the demon-
stration.
ness. On the Air Lane side, the demonstrators, in the main,
patrolled in a roughly circular or "oblong" pattern in an area
substantially paralleling the space occupied by Shaker in the
building (and thus also patrolling in front of the American
Air Lines trailer which stood in front of the Shaker space).
The areas of patrolling were prescribed by two attorneys for
the Union, and one or the other was stationed in the front and
rear of the building for the purpose of keeping the demon-
strating activities within the designated areas. Both attorneys
left the scene about 11 a.m.22 By that time, a substantial
number of the demonstrators had gone, and the demonstra-
tion, as such, ended shortly thereafter, although picketing by
the Union (that is, as distinguished from participation by the
other labor organizations) continued that day and thereafter.
Iseberg and employees of subcontractors of Nielsen were
at work on the phase 2 construction site at the time the
demonstration began, but by 9:30 a,m. all employees of sub-
contractors were gone, their work -unfinished. Iseberg de-
parted at some point thereafter, without finishing his work for
the day.
Notwithstanding the distribution of the sheet of instruc-
tions to the demonstrators and the fact that the patrolling
activity on the Air Lane side was substantially confined to an
area about equal in length to the space occupied by Shaker
in the building, there are compelling indications that the
demonstration on the Air Lane side, at least, was but a seg-
ment in a continuing purpose to embroil neutrals in the labor
dispute.
To begin with, there is evidence of meaningful direct com-
munication between participants in the demonstration and
individuals with duties at the construction site.23 One such
episode occurred during the demonstration, while a truck
that belonged to an enterprise identified in the record as
Franklin Trucking was on or near the construction site with
a load of equipment intended for delivery to an excavating
contractor at the project. The driver had begun to unload the
equipment, but brought that work to a halt and drove off,
without making the delivery, immediately after one of the
demonstrators approached the truck and spoke to him. Al-
though the evidence does not probatively identify the demon-
strator by name24' and the terms of what was said do not
appear, the circumstances, notably the fact that the unloading
33 Findings as to the Union's attorneys' activities and the number and
distribution of the demonstrators are based on testimony of the two attor-
neys. Iseberg claims that there were some 80 to 100 demonstrators. Razook
gives no estimate, but says that there were "a large number of individuals"
in the demonstration; and Rodgers claims that there were only about a
dozen pickets on the Air Lane side (Perhaps he means sign-carrying pick-
ets.) In evaluating the attorneys' credibility, I have taken into account the
fact that they actively participated in this case as trial counsel for the Union
and also gave testimony on material factual matters (see Canon 5, Discipli-
nary Rule 5-102, Code of Professional Responsibility, American Bar As-
sociation), but I am convinced of the credibility of their testimony describ-
mg their efforts to confine the area, of demonstration on the Air Lane side.
It appears to me, too, that in view of their stations and responsibilities at the
scene, they were in a better position than Iseberg to estimate the number
of demonstrators.
22 I base no findings as to the purpose or effect of the demonstration on
evidence' that some demonstrators carrying picket signs in a "down" posi-
tion walked through the construction site from the front to the rear area of
demonstration and that two unidentified "Teamster business agents," who
had been demonstrating, spent some time in front of the phase 2 site talking
to a group of union representatives who were in the area on business un-
related'to the dispute with Shaker:,
24 I base no findings on hearsay evidence that the demonstrator in ques-
tion was Rodgers, nor on Razook's, speculative testimony that truckdrivers
who engaged in conversation during the demonstration with pickets while
their vehicles were "stopped out on Air Lane ... would have had (to be)
delivering to either Western or American or United."
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 542 523
process had started and that that work halted, and the truck
drove off, immediately after the demonstrator spoke to the
driver, warrant an inference that the demonstrator induced
the driver to leave.21
That view of the matter is fortified by the fact that, not-
withstanding the distribution of the instruction sheet, the
executive secretary of the District Council of Carpenters, Les
Parker, about the time the demonstration began, served Ise-
berg in front of the phase 2 construction site with a citation
requiring him to show cause on May 8 before the Council's
executive board why he should not be charged with violation
of his "obligation" as a member of a Carpenters local because
(as he was told when he appeared on May 8) he had allegedly
used "non-union help" on the project and "was working
behind a picket line" there. He was "absolved" upon his
appearance, Parker telling him that he had "a right to work
behind that picket line" and that had he not done so "we [the
Council?] would in fact be causing a secondary boycott." It
is not clear whether Parker's reference was to the "picket
line" on May 6 or the one in front of the construction site
prior to that date, but, in any case, the important question is
not what Parker meant at the May 8 meeting but his purpose
in serving the citation when he did. He did not testify, but his
purpose may nevertheless be inferred.
Iseberg testified credibly that so far as he knew, Nielsen
was not employing any "non-union people" on the project,
and there is no evidence that such help was employed there.
So far as appears, substantially all that was said on the subject
when he appeared before the executive board was that "some-
one had turned in a report that [Iseberg] was using nonunion
help." When he served the citation, Parker did not tell Ise-
berg in what respect the latter had violated his "obligation,"
and, in the light of the treatment and disposition of the al-
leged "report" that Iseberg had been employing "non-union
help," that allegation has the earmarks of an afterthought
designed to put a gloss of justification on the citation. More-
over, no good reason appears why Parker had to hail Iseberg
before the executive board to tell him that he had been jus-
tified in working behind a "picket line."
In the context of circumstances , and in view of Iseberg's
Carpenters union membership status, the service of the cita-
tion about the time the demonstration began by the executive
secretary of the District Council of Carpenters, which, as is
evident, has the function of disciplining members of Carpen-
ters locals in the San Diego area for violation of their "obliga-
tion," would reasonably convey the meaning to Iseberg that
he had run afoul of his union's rules and Parker by working
at the construction project . Taking into account the flimsy
nature of at least one of the reasons given Parker at the May
8 meeting for the issuance of the citation, the course and
result of that meeting, the timing of the citation, and the
absence of any evidence by the Respondent explaining the
timing, I am persuaded, and find, that the purpose of the
citation was to intimidate Iseberg into cessation of work at
the project on May 6.26
" Representatives of an Operating Engineers local and a Laborers local
were present in front of the construction site during the demonstration but
did not participate in it; and there is some hearsay suggestion in the record
that they were there in connection with a jurisdictional dispute over the
operation of a crane. I see no reason to conclude that that dispute had any
connection with the failure of the Franklin Trucking employee to make the
delivery.
26 Iseberg did not work at the project after May 8, the date of his appear-
ance before the executive board . The General Counsel advances no claim
that there was any connection between the citation or the meeting and his
cessation of work on May 8.
In that regard, although there is no evidence that the
Union put Parker up to the affair, it had underlying responsi-
bility for the demonstration, using Parker and representatives
of other participating labor organizations as its instruments
in the demonstration to bring Shaker to terms, and thus I find
that Parker's conduct is legally imputable to the Union.
Moreover, the participation in the demonstration by execu-
tive functionaries of the Building Trades Council and the
District Council of Carpenters, both of them regional federa-
tions of construction craft unions, points, in the light of other
factors, to an intention to embroil the construction employers
and their employees in the labor dispute. Barham had visual-
ized such a tactic at the meeting of March 16, and the Union
had, in fact, employed it during much of April, bringing
about work stoppages in that month by picketing the con-
struction site in order to bring Shaker to terms. On May 6,
as prior thereto, Shaker had no dispute with the Building
Trades Council or the District Council of Carpenters or any
of the craft unions affiliated with them nor were any of Sha-
ker's employees engaged in the construction work. That being
the case, and, in the light of the Union's previously expressed
and implemented purpose to , use work stoppages on the con-
struction project as a "baseball bat" to bring Shaker to terms,
a claim that the demonstrating activities of Henderson and
Parker amounted merely to sympathetic participation in pri-
mary picketing of Shaker's business operations burdens
credulity. To be sure, the demonstration or picket line on the
Air Lane side was substantially confined to an area in front
of Shaker's space, but the northern boundary of the phase 2
site was adjacent to that space; and, as is evident from Ise-
berg's testimony, Parker and Henderson (whose name is er-
roneously rendered as "Anderson" in the transcript of Ise-
berg's testimony) were clearly visible from the construction
site among the demonstrators on the Air Lane side, some of
whom carried signs with the statement of sanction by the
Building Trades Council and two other central labor bodies.
Significantly enough , work on the construction site ceased
soon after the demonstration began, and it is reasonable to
conclude that the demonstration on the Air Lane side was the
cause of the stoppage.
Neither Henderson nor Parker (nor, for that matter, Rich-
ardson or any other representative of any organization other
than the Union) was called as a witness to explain his purpose
in participating in the demonstration , and, especially in the
absence of such testimony , the record as a whole warrants a
conclusion that the participation of Henderson and Parker
was designed to act as a signal to construction workers to
cease working at the project.
Furthermore, in evaluating the purpose and thrust of the
demonstration, to separate it from other picketing activities
on May 6 is to take a mechanical and unduly limited view of
the record. Actually, picketing by the Union on May 6 started
well before the demonstration began and continued after it
came to an end or, in any event, after the Union's attorneys
left the scene . Following their departure, beginning about 11
a.m. and during a period of some 2 hours thereafter, pickets
for the Union, carrying signs of the type used prior to May
6, patrolled up and down in front of the construction site.27
Shaker was not engaged in operations on the construction
site; none of its employees were there; and indeed Iseberg was
the only construction worker at the site. The picketing of the
2 7 Findings as to the picketing in front of the construction site between
the departure of the Union 's attorneys and about I . p.m. on May 6 are based
on testimony of Shaker's attorney , who entered an appearance for Shaker,
but did not otherwise participate as counsel . As in the case of the Union's
attorneys, in evaluating his testimony , I have taken the fact of his appear-
ance as counsel into account.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
site, I find, was aimed at discouraging any work at the project;
and it appears to me to be a stilted interpretation of the events
of that day, especially in the light of the participation of the
construction craft union officials, the citation issued to Ise-
berg, and the induced departure of the Franklin Trucking
employee, to say that the demonstration and related picketing
on the Air Lane side lacked the purpose of enmeshing the
construction personnel in the labor dispute until picketing
was extended, about 11 a.m., the relatively short distance
required to include the frontage of the construction site.
An episode that occurred before the demonstration began
provides additional evidence of a purpose by the Union to
disrupt business relations that day between neutrals as a
means of bringing pressure to bear on Shaker. On the morn-
ing of May 6, for some time prior to the start of the demon-
stration, the Union had engaged in picketing on the Air Lane
side in front of the space occupied by Shaker and thus in front
of the American Air Lines trailer, the pickets carrying signs
of the type the Union had previously used. About 7 a.m.,
while that picketing activity was under way, a truckdriver
named Winfrey McPhatter, in the employ of General Dy-
namics Corporation, Convair Division (herein General Dy-
namics), drove his truck into the American Air Lines "pick
up area," which is located at or near its trailer to pick up a
load for his employer. He procured the load and was starting
to leave when he was stopped by one of the pickets who,
stating that McPhatter had gone through the picket line,
asked why he had done so. McPhatter replied to the effect
that he had no dealings with Shaker, "was picking up" from
American Air Lines, and did not think that he was "involved
in the picketing." The picket then said that the Union had
"helped" a Machinists local union (in a dispute with General
Dynamics, as may be reasonably inferred) and that "we [Gen-
eral Dynamics' employees] should help them." McPhatter
drove off with his load.29
Clearly, the picket regarded the picket line as aimed at
business relations between neutrals such as American Air
Lines and General Dynamics in Shaker's leasehold area, and
his purpose in soliciting McPhatter's "help" by respecting the
picket line was to induce and encourage McPhatter not to
perform services for his employer, with an object of putting
pressure on American Air Lines, a subtenant and customer
of Shaker, and ultimately on Shaker in order to bring it to
terms with the Union. Although 'the picket is not identified
by name, it is obvious that he was acting for the Union and
that his conduct is chargeable to it.
In fact, Rodgers, who was in charge of the Union's picket-
ing in the dispute with Shaker, was involved in a substantially
similar episode on the following day, May 7, with atruck-
driver named Ronald Whitehead, who is employed by Delta
28 On the following day, McPhatter returned with his supervisor, Donnie
Hisaw, and a conversation ensued between the latter and Rodgers. Hisaw
and Rodgers differ on details of what passed between them, but it is evident
from the testimony of both that Hisaw pointed out that General Dynamics'
business was with American Air Lines and not with Shaker and in effect
protested the picket's admonition of the previous day. Hisaw, like Rodgers,
quotes the latter as saying that the Union was not seeking to "prevent"
McPhatter from picking up loads at American Air Lines, but, unlike Rodg-
ers, also quotes him as stating that the Union was "asking" McPhatter not
to do so I see no useful purpose in resolving the issue, as a finding that
Rodgers made the remark in dispute would be merely cumulative, adding
nothing of substance to the remedy to be recommended below, and a con-
trary finding would not detract from the recommended remedy. For much
the same reason , I make no finding regarding picketing activity by Rodgers
and an attorney, for the Union in the vicinity of a Shaker truck and one
belonging to Griley (misspelled Riley in the transcript) Security Freight
Lines, while both trucks were at the rear of the leasehold premises and
freight was being transferred from one to the other
Lines. On the relevant occasion, Whitehead had a delivery to
make by truck for his employer to Western Air Lines in the
new building and on his way to Western saw Rodgers, who
was "resting" a picket sign on the ground, in front of the
American Air Lines trailer, which is near Western's delivery
dock on the Air Lane side. Halting his truck, Whitehead
engaged Rodgers in conversation, exchanging amenities, and
then Rodgers asked Whitehead where he was going and the
latter replied that he was on his way to Western, whereupon
Rodgers requested Whitehead not to "cross the picket line."
Whitehead turned his truck around and left without making
the delivery.29
In the circumstances, the request that Whitehead not
"cross the picket line" was as much as to ask him not to make
the delivery to Western, albeit there was no picket directly in
front of Western's space at the time. The request, plainly, was
aimed at putting pressure on Western, a subtenant and cus-
tomer of Shaker, with an object of compelling Shaker to come
to terms with the Union.
Rodgers, it may be noted, too, was involved in a somewhat
similar episode with another Delta Lines driver, Carl Butzin,
on May 13 when Butzin had an assignment to pick up a load
from Airborne Freight Corporation (herein Airborne) at its
location in the completed phase 1 portion of the Shaker build-
ing. On that occasion, arriving on the Air Lane side of the
building in his truck, Butzin saw a group of pickets, including
Rodgers, in front of the space occupied by Shaker. One car-
ried a sign of the type previously described, alluding to the
dispute between the Union and Shaker. Butzin , who had not
been in the area before, told Rodgers he had to pick up some
freight from Airborne and asked him for the location of that
firm. Rodgers replied that Airborne was located in the build-
ing and asked Butzin whether he was going to cross the picket
line. The latter stated that he would not do so and then drove
off without the freight for which he had come.
Rodgers was aware that Butzin's business was with Air-
borne and not Shaker and his query whether Butzin was
going to cross the picket line was, in my judgment, a rheto-
rical way of attempting to induce Butzin not to pick up the
load from Airborne. Plainly, too, Rodgers' conduct was an
implementation of a policy by the Union to bring about a
disruption in the business of customers and subtenants of
Shaker, including Airborne, and of others, such as Nielsen
and its subcontractors, with work to perform on the construc-
tion project.
In the light of the evidence of that policy and of its im-
plementation, I am convinced that an object of the demon-
stration of May 6 on the Air Lane side was to induce and
encourage individuals in the employ of Nielsen," and of other
employers with work to perform at the construction site and
29 Findings as to the conversation are based on Whitehead's testimony.
His omission to make the delivery is corroborated by a report he made in
the course of business on his "delivery receipt" (G.C. Exh. 7). Rodgers
denies that he told Whitehead not to "cross the picket line" but, as Rodgers
himself stated, his recollection of the conversation is "kind of vague," and
he repeatedly manifested a faulty recollection of the episode, although,
finally, after some prodding questions from the Respondent's counsel, he
gave a somewhat detailed version, making the point that he told Whitehead
that he was "mad" at an employee of Western because the latter had taunted
him with a sign that "Teamsters 542 Is Unfair to Motherhood." Whitehead
does quote Rodgers as saying that he was "mad" at the Western employee,
and the Respondent makes the argument that Whitehead has gratuitously
interpreted the remark as a request not to go through the picket line. White-
head appeared to me to have a good recollection of the episode, and I am
satisfied that Rodgers expressly asked him to respect the picket ]me.
10 Although Iseberg was in charge of the construction work for Nielsen
at the project, at least on the basis of the substantial volume of carpentry
work he performed there, I find that he was an "individual employed" by
Nielsen within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 542 525
of employers having business to transact at or near the Shaker
leasehold with American Air Lines, Western Air Lines and
Airborne Freight Corporation, to withhold services from
their respective employers; and that an ultimate aim of such
inducement and encouragement was to force or require
Shaker to recognize and bargain with the Union.
For the reasons stated, I find that the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by (1) picketing on May
6 on the Air Lane side of the Shaker leasehold , whether
before, during, or after the demonstration; and (2) the cita-
tion given Iseberg on that date. I also find that the Union
separately violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act by (1)
encouraging McPhatter not to perform services for General
Dynamics in its business relations with American Air Lines,
as described above; (2) by encouraging and inducing White-
head not to make the delivery to Western Air Lines on May
7; and (3) by encouraging and inducing Butzin not to pick up
a load from Airborne for his employer.
D. The "Ambulatory" Picketing Episodes
The General Counsel contends, in effect, that the Union
violated the Act by attempting to induce employees of three
enterprises, San Diego Periodical Distributors, Gentec Hos-
pital Supply Company, and Bekins Moving and Storage Co.
(herein, respectively, Periodical Distributors, Gentec, and
Bekins), at the respective premises of the concerns in San
Diego, to refuse to accept freight "being delivered" there by
a driver in Shaker's employ.31 Two of the episodes involved
Nevedomsky and the third, Rodgers.
Those involving Nevedomsky both occurred on May 7. On
each occasion , he and a companion followed a truck belong-
ing to Shaker and operated by one of its employees, Charles
Graves, who had successive deliveries to make for Shaker at
the premises of Periodical Distributors and Gentec.
Graves had parked his truck at the receiving dock of Peri-
odical Distributors, had unloaded the freight he had to
deliver there, and was asking the clerk to sign a receipt for
the delivery when Nevedomsky appeared. While the latter's
companion, carrying a sign to the effect that Shaker was
"unfair" to, and had refused to bargain with, the Union,
picketed "in front" of the truck, Nevedomsky, pointing to the
picket, told the clerk that the Union was picketing Shaker's
trucks and that he had a right to refuse to accept the freight.
The clerk then declined to accept the delivery, so informing
Graves.
Similarly, at the Gentec establishment, Graves had drawn
up to its receiving dock and was in process of delivering
freight there when Nevedomsky and his companion ap-
peared. While the latter, carrying the same or a similar sign,
picketed the truck, Nevedomsky told Gentec's receiving clerk
that he had a right to refuse to accept the delivery. The clerk
stated that the goods involved were medical supplies and that
he would have to accept them, and he proceeded to do so.3z
No doubt, Nevedomsky's remarks to each receiving clerk
amounted to an attempt to induce the clerk to reject the
delivery, but I do not share the General Counsel's view that
the appeal in both cases was unlawful . The fact that the
Union restored to unlawful picketing and other pressures
31 The complaint (Paras. 36 and 37), apparently by inadvertence, alleges
that, on the respective occasions involving Bekins and Gentec, freight was
"being delivered" by their drivers. The evidence establishes that it was a
driver of Shaker that was making the delivery.
32 Under cross-examination, Graves for the first time quotes Neve-
domsky as characterizing the freight as "struck," but Graves seemed doubt-
ful about the matter, and Nevedomsky denies that he referred to the freight
as "struck goods." The weight of the evidence supports Nevedomsky's
denial, and I credit it.
against neutral employers elsewhere does not necessarily
taint Nevedomsky's conduct with an unlawful secondary pur-
pose. As the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals
has pointed out, "peaceful primary picketing and its normal
incidents , including requests to neutrals not to cross the
picket line, cannot be forbidden though the union has acted
illegally elsewhere" (Local Union No. 175, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B., 294 F.2d 261, 262).
The truck constituted a "roving situs" of the primary em-
ployer, Shaker; and, as the picketing of the vehicle complied
with the Moore Dry Dock standards (92 NLRB 547, 549), the
activity was presumptively lawful. There is no indication that
the appeal to either clerk was aimed at disruption of the
business of his employer. Rather, in my judgment, it was
ancillary to the picketing of the truck, amounting to a request
that the clerk respect the picketing activity directed at Shaker
at the situs.33 And, even if one views the picketing and Neve-
domsky's suggestion as interference in the dealings between
the senders of the freight (who are unidentified in the record)
and the intended recipients, such a result appears to me to be
an "incidental effect" of the actions directed at the primary
employer.34 I find no violation of the Act either in the picket-
ing of the truck or Nevedomsky's appeal at either establish-
ment.
The episode at Bekins occurred on May 12. On the occa-
sion in question, Rodgers and an individual named Bart Ziz-
zel followed a Shaker truck driven by an employee of Shaker
named Jorge Flores who had a delivery to make at the Bekins
establishment. Upon Flores' arrival at the Bekins delivery
dock during the noon lunch period, a Bekins warehouseman,
Raymond Monk, who is a member of the Union, told him to
return after lunch. Flores complied, returning at 1 p.m., and,
backing his truck to the dock, unloaded his freight. While the
truck was at dock, Zizzel picketed the vehicle, carrying a
picket sign identifying the Union and Shaker as the labor
disputants; and Rodgers, mounting the dock, told Monk,
who had not yet signed a receipt for the freight, that "we
don't cross picket lines." Monk then rejected the frieght,
telling Flores to remove it. The latter did so and drove off
with it.3'
It is true that Rodgers did not , in so many words, threaten
Monk, but, bearing in mind Monk's membership in the
Union and the evident fact that he is subject to its discipline,
the premptory assertion by Rodgers that "we don't cross
picket lines" has the posture of a command, carrying with it
an implicit threat of reprisal for failure to heed it. I find that
in the context of circumstances, the assertion amounted to a
threat primarily aimed at preventing Monk from performing
services for his employer in dealings with Shaker, with an
33 E.g Local 379, Building Material& Excavators (Catalano Bros., Inc.),
175 NLRB No. 74 (the "Barney and Carey" episode).
34 Local 379, Building Material & Excavators (Catalano Bros., Inc.),
supra.
35 Findings as to Rodgers ' conduct are based on Monk 's testimony.
Rodgers, in substance, portrays himself as merely informing Monk that the
Union was engaged in a labor dispute with Shaker and was picketing the
truck, but this appears to me to be of a piece with other parts of his testimony
where he puts a self-serving gloss on his picketing and related activities. I
have not based findings on Flores' testimony because he appeared to me to
be disposed to exaggerate Thus he testified that Rodgers "seemed to grab"
Monk by the arm while telling Monk, "You are not crossing a picket line."
Monk does not portray Rodgers as grabbing him, and at a later point in his
testimony Flores said that Rodgers "touched" Monk on the arm. According
to Rodgers, he "pulled on (Monk's) sleeve"; and I believe that that was the
sum of the "grabbing" mentioned by Fiores . Monk seemed reluctant to give
testimony that might be regarded as adverse to the Union, and this enhances
the credibility of his testimony imputing to Rodgers the premptory state-
ment that "we don't cross picket lines ." In short, Monk 's account is, in my
judgment, the most credible of the three describing the episode.
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
object of forcing or requiring Shaker to recognize and bargain
with the Union and that, as a result of the assertion, the
Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.36
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union, set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Western, Weston, Nielsen, Airborne, American Air Lines,
General Dynamics, Bekins, AABCO, Inc., Shaker, and Delta
Lines, described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative actions designed to effecturate the
policies of the Act.
VI CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following
conclusions of law:
1. Western, Weston, Nielsen, Airborne, American Air
Lines, General Dynamics, Bekins, AABCO, Inc., Shaker,
Delta Lines, Gentec, and Periodical Distributors have, at all
times material herein, employed individuals, and respectively
are, and have been at all such times, persons and employers
engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce,
within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is, and has-been at all material times, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing or encouraging individuals employed by
Western, Nielsen, Airborne, American Air Lines, General
Dynamics, Bekins, AABCO, Inc., and Delta Lines to cease
work for an object proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(B), as found
above, the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
4. By threatening, restraining, or coercing Airborne, West-
ern, Nielsen, American Air Lines, Bekins, and AABCO, Inc.,
for such an object, as found above, the Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
36 The General Counsel in his brief imputes misconduct to the Union as
a result of activities of an individual named Al Stewart in connection with
"ambulatory" picketing at the San Diego premises of four enterprises, re-
spectively identified in the record as Western Electric, Oceanic Enterprises,
Kodmar Train, and Solotron. At all locations, with the exception of that of
Solotron, Stewart's conduct was not significantly different from Nevedom-
sky's at Periodical Distributors and Gentec, but I make no determination
regarding the legality of his conduct at any of the locations because (1) the
relevant episodes are not alleged in the complaint, and (2) in any case,
findings as to the legality of Stewart's conduct would be cumulative, neither
materially adding to, nor subtracting from, the remedy to be recommended
below.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local
542, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any individual
employed by Western Air Lines, Weston Trucking Company,
Nielsen Construction Company, Airborne Freight Corpora-
tion, General Dynamics Corporation, Convair Division,
American Air Lines, Bekins Moving and Storage Co.,
AABCO, Inc., and Delta Lines, or by any other person en-
gaged in interstate commerce, or in an industry effecting such
commerce, to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of
such individual's employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where
an object thereof is to force or require any person to cease
using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in
the products of any other producer, processor, or manufac-
turer, or to cease doing business with any other person; or
forcing or requiring Air Support Facilities, Inc., d/b/a
Shaker Express Delivery Service to recognize or bargain with
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Lcoal
542, as the representative of employees of Air Support Facili-
ties, Inc., d/b/a Shaker Express Delivery Service, unless the
said Union has been certified as the representative of such
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act; pro-
vided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to
forbid the said Union to engage in a lawful primary strike or
lawful primary picketing, as permitted by Section 8(b)(4)(B)
of the Act.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Airborne Freight
Corporation, Western Air Lines, Nielsen Construction Com-
pany, American Air Lines, Bekins Moving and Storage Co.,
and AABCO, Inc., or any other person engaged in interstate
commerce, or in an industry affecting such commerce, for
either of such objects; provided, however, that nothing herein
shall be construed to forbid the said Union to engage in a
lawful primary strike or lawful primary picketing, as permit-
ted by Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions which, I find, will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its principal office and
usual membership meeting place copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National
Labor Relations Board, after being duly signed by the Union,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the said Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Forthwith mail copies of the said notice to the said
Regional Director at the office of the said Region 21 in Los
Angeles, California, after such notice has been signed as pro-
vided above, for posting by Western Air Lines, Weston
Trucking Company, Nielsen Construction Company, Air-
borne Freight Corporation, General Dynamics Corporation,
Convair Division, American Air Lines, Bekins Moving and
Storage Co., AABCO, Inc., and Delta Lines, if they so agree,
at places where they respectively customarily post notices to
individuals in their employ.37
" In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 542
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
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 Na-
527
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that so much of the com-
plaint , in Case 21-CC-1210 be dismissed as alleges unfair
labor practices other than those found above.
tional 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 "
18 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
Paragraph 2(c) thereof shall be modified to read - "Notify the said Regional
Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."