General Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local Union 563

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 650 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Drivers and Dairy Employees , Local Union
563 and Fox Valley Construction Materials
Suppliers Association , Inc. Case 30-CC-105
November 20, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On July 17, 1969, Trial Examiner Marion C.
Ladwig 'issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support
thereof, and the Charging Party filed
cross-exceptions and brief and 'an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions,
cross-exceptions and briefs, and,the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the, findings,'
conclusions," and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.'
The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility resolutions made
by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are
incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
'We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the true objective of
the Respondent's picketing from November 21 until December 5 was to
enmesh neutral employers in its primary dispute with C & P In so finding,
we rely, in addition to the Trial Examiner's rationale, upon the fact that,
throughout this period, the Union picketed exclusively at gate I, the gate
reserved for Leach and neutrals serving Leach, while failing to post pickets
at gate 2, the entrance reserved for C & P In this connection, we note that
the "freight haulers" referred to by the Trial Examiner, were all neutral
employers doing business with Leach By -thus confining its picketing to
gate I, it is,clear that the Respondent's intention could not have been to
appeal to C & P employees who were using gate 2, but, rather, it must
have been seeking to force neutral employers, using gate I, to cease doing
business with Leach, another neutral employer, so that the latter would
cease doing business with C & P
'The Trial Examiner inadvertently omitted from his Recommended
Order and the "Appendix" attached thereto any provision to remedy the
Respondent's violation of Sec 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act In addition, the
Trial Examiner's proposed "Appendix" inadvertently fails to provide the
broad language recommended by him in "The Remedy" section of his
Decision We shall therefore amend the Order and conform the Appendix '
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board ' adopts as- its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, General Drivers
and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as modified:
1. The Trial Examiner's Recommended Order is
hereby amended by renumbering the first paragraph
thereof to read "1, (a)" and by adding the following
new paragraph immediately thereunder:
"1. (b) Cease and desist from 'threatening,
coercing, or restraining Leach Company, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or
requiring it to cease doing business with Courtney &
Plummer, Inc., with any other member of 'Fox
Valley Construction Materials Suppliers
Association, Inc., or with any other employer or,
person."
2. The notice is hereby amended by deleting the
first paragraph thereof and substituting the
following:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any
employee of any supplier or motor freight carrier
to refuse to,make any pickup or delivery at Leach
Company, or any other employer, with an object
of forcing or requiring the employer to cease
doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc,
with any other member of Fox Valley
Construction Materials Suppliers Association,
Inc., or with any other employer or person.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain
Leach Company, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
with an object of forcing or requiring it to cease
doing business with Courtney & Plummer, Inc.,
with • any - other member of Fox Valley
Construction Materials Suppliers Association,
Inc., or with any other employer or person
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner. This case was
tried at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on June 3, 1969, pursuant to
a charge filed on November 29, 1968,' by Fox Valley
Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc , herein
called the Association, against the Respondent, General
Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local Union 563, herein
called the Union, and pursuant to a complaint issued May
7, 1969. The Union engaged in picketing at a common
situs, where the primary employer, Courtney & Plummer,
Inc , herein called C, & P (a member of the Association),
was doing construction work for a neutral employer,
All dates, unless otherwise indicated, are in 1968
179 NLRB No. 109
GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION 563 651
Leach Company, herein called Leach The main issue is
whether the picketing was for an unlawful secondary
objective, of enmeshing neutrals in the Union's dispute
with C & P and the Association, in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Association,
and the Union, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION
INVOLVED
C & P, a Wisconsin corporation located in Appleton,
Wisconsin, is engaged in furnishing building materials to
the building and construction industry and also is engaged
in building and construction work It annually sells
products and furnishes services valued in excess of $1
million to enterprises which are themselves -employers
engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce
The Union admits, and I find, that C & P is an employer
engaged in commerce or in industries affecting commerce
as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Separate Gates
C &' P, acting as general contractor and materials
supplier, began on November 14 constructing a truck
parking lot at the rear of Leach's Oshkosh plant, where
Leach manufactures garbage truck bodies and refuse
containers. C & P's trucks, which were being used to haul
away excavation fill and to return with crushed stone,
-were driven through the plant's main entrance (located on
Harrison Street Road at the southeast side of the plant),
through the east parking lot, and along the north side of
the plant to the construction area
On November 19, the Union began picketing near the
main entrance, using signs, which read on one side,
"Employees of Fox , Valley Materials _ Suppliers
Association, members of Teamsters Local 563, on strike,"
and on the other side, "Our only dispute is with Fox
Valley Materials Suppliers Association." The Union had
no dispute with Leach, but had been on strike against C
& P (a member of the Association) since July The Union
had engaged in ambulatory picketing at a number of
jobsites when C & P trucks, driven by nonstriking and
replacement drivers, were making deliveries
Soon after the picketing began, C & P established for
its own use a separate gate on Harrison Street Road
about 460 feet southwest of the main entrance, and
constructed a new road from gate, around the south and
west sides of the plant property, to the construction site.
Thereafter, while work was being performed at the jobsite,
it posted reserved gate signs at the two entrances. The
sign at the C & P entrance read, "GATE NO 2 This gate
reserved exclusively for use of employees & suppliers of
COURTNEY & PLUMMER, INC All other persons
May Not use this gate." The sign at the main entrance
first read
GATE NO. 1 This Gate May Not be used by
employees & suppliers of COURTNEY &
PLUMMER, INC.
As discussed hereafter, this sign was later reworded
B Picketing After Separate Gates Established
Upon posting the reserved gate signs , C & P instructed
the employees at the jobsite to use only Gate 2. However,
some drivers who were not present at the jobsite at the
time continued to use Gate I - despite the sign - until
they received the instructions to go past that gate (upon
approaching the premises from the northeast) and to use
the second gate to-the jobsite Union picket Walter Kautz
credibly testified that after the regular drivers "found out
what they were supposed to-do, they all came in Gate
2 " That afternoon, the Union stopped picketing early,
and resumed the picketing the next morning at Gate 2
The next day, November 20, some new drivers - not
having received instructions to use, the second gate -
entered through Gate 1, past the reserved gate sign (The
number of times this occurred is-not clear Picket Kautz
was the only witness who observed all the picketing. He
did not keep any written notes, and he was evidently
confused concerning dates - recalling the picketing to
have begun on November 18, a day before other witnesses
credibly testified it began ) The General Counsel did not
offer any explanation for the new drivers failing to respect
the reserved gate sign at Gate 1 No photograph of the
sign was offered in evidence, and.no description was given
of the size of either the. sign or the r printing on it
However, the wording on the sign-is quoted in an exhibit
with "COURTNEY & PLUMMER, INC " written in all
capital letters, as heretofore indicated. Evidently -the, new
drivers, as well as some of the regular drivers the day
before, were confused by the prominence of the name on
the sign.
Upon being informed by Kautz that C & P trucks were
still going through the main entrance, the Union
instructed Kautz to picket.again at Gate 1. 1
The next morning, Thursday, November 21, the
picketing resumed at the main entrance to the Leach
plant. Sometime during the day, Leach Traffic Manager
George Brennan walked out to the pickets' car, and (in
Brennan 's words), "I asked them why they were picketing
the main gate, instead of the Courtney & Plummer gate.
They replied that it was because of the Courtney &
Plummer sign sitting at the driveway " Brennan reported
this conversation to Leach's president, and suggested that
the sign be replaced with a "Leach sign." Leach and C &
P representatives met the following day and discussed the
"wrong" sign, bearing Courtney & Plummer's name. The
sign was then changed, as, suggested by Leach's. president
and C & P's counsel, by deleting the contractor 's name, in
order that "people approaching the sign would not think
that this was for Courtney & Plummer people." The new
sign read
GATE NO I This gate, may only be used by
employees, job applicants and,suppliers of LEACH
COMPANY All other persons use Gate No 2
Also on November 21, C & P formally notified the Union
and the pickets, by letters delivered to them, that separate
gates had been established, that the signs (as originally
worded) had been posted, and that all "contractors and
suppliers" had been ,so advised The letter requested
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediate notice of any violations of the separate gates
(but, I note, made no mention of new drivers being
notified to use only Gate 2). The following day, November
22, when picketing continued at Gate I, C & P wrote the
Union a second letter, delivered Monday, November 25,
advising the Union of the change in the wording of the
Gate I sign, complaining about the pickets appealing to
and turning away suppliers, and requesting the Union to
instruct the pickets to refrain from such appeals and to
inform suppliers that the Union would take no detrimental
action against them for delivering to Leach. The letter
also requested the Union to inform C & P immediately of
"information relating to the violation of either of the
gates "
The record is not clear whether some of C.& P's new
drivers entered Gate I on Thursday, November 21, when
the'Union resumed picketing there (This was the third
day of picketing, and picket Kautz testified that on the
third day - which he recalled as Wednesday --- there
were "two of them that went through." However, he also
testified that on Thursday - which he recalled as the
fourth day of picketing -- C & P "had pretty much the
same trucks," implying that there were no new drivers
that day I also note that November 20 was the last day C
& P hired a competitor's trucks, with drivers, to assist on
the project The evidence does not reveal if any of these
drivers had entered Gate I )
No C & P trucks entered Gate-1 on November 22, the
date the sign was changed However despite this fact, and
the fact that the Union was formally advised on
November 25 that the Gate I sign had been reworded, the
picketing continued near Gate I on November 25, 26, 27
and 29, and December 2, 3, 4, and 5, when the job was
completed There was no picketing at Gate 2 at any time
after November 20, even though a large number of C & P
trucks was entering there daily. On November 29, the day
after Thanksgiving when C & P was working on the site
but Leach was closed, the Union picketed for a while at
Gate I - at a closed plant - rather than at Gate 2,
where C & P trucks were entering Picket Kautz admitted
that no C & P trucks entered Gate I after November 21,
except on December 4 (when some C & P engineering
department employees tried to enter through that gate as
the job was being completed, and all or all but one were
turned back by the Leach guards before reaching the
jobsite - this occurring after continued picketing of the
neutral gate for nearly 2 weeks)
Apart from the conflicting evidence concerning the
pickets' appeals to truckdrivers of neutral employers not
to cross the picket line at Gate 1, picket Kautz gave some
revealing testimony concerning the Union's motive in
picketing at the neutral gate He testified that he would
park on the shoulder of the road about 15 to 20 feet
southwest of Gate • 1, and would place one picket sign on
the back window of his car and another sign against the
front bumper Answering questions by the General
Counsel, he testified that when motor freight trucks would
approach Gate l (from the southwest), "I would get out
[of my car] and take our picket sign . . I would go in
front of the gate . . And the trucks would stop, freight
haulers They would ask me what the trouble was,
and I'd tell them [that] Courtney & Plummer is in here
and they belong to the Fox Valley Association, and the
drivers would not cross ' . After the truck was gone, I'd
.get in the car and sit down." He later testified, when
called as a defense witness
Q Now, was there any reason, any other reason that
you selected that particular spot to normally park you
car9
'A I thought I had a better chance to stop the trucks
from going in there, freight haulers and stuff
Concerning his conversation with one motor freight driver
at Gate I, Kautz testified that a Motor Express driver
gave him "a little rough time" "He asked me if that was
legal picketing there And I says, `I don't know, but I
was told to be here And if you want to find out anything
else, you either call Local 563, or see your business agent.'
The next day, he came back and he apologized
and he says he called his business agent and he told him
to stay out if there was a picket sign "
No motor freight trucks entered Gate I when the
Union was picketing at that gate.
Concerning the allegation in the complaint that the
Union picketed at Gate l at times when no C & P
employees were present at the construction site, the
General Counsel and C & P rely on the testimony of one
of General Counsel's witnesses, Leach Traffic Manager
George Brennan, who testified that the union pickets were
at Gate I until 4 30 p m on November 25, 26, 27, and
December 2 and 3, although C & P quit working at 3
p m. on those days However this testimony is disputed in
part by the testimony of another General 'Counsel, C & P
Construction Engineer Daniel H Howman, who admitted
that the pickets left about 3 p m. on November 25, about
3 40 p m. on November 26, and about 3 15 p m. on
November 27 1 discredit Brennan 's testimony about the
length of time the pickets remained at Gate I daily, and
credit picket Kautz' testimony that he took down the
picket signs when C & P removed the reserved gate signs,
and left in his car when all the C & P employees were
gone Concerning the General Counsel's contention that
Kautz' car was used as a signal to neutrals, there is no
evidence in this record to support the assertion
Gate 2 was near the Leach employees' credit union
building During the picketing, some of these employees
entered Gate 2 when going to the credit union
C Concluding Findings
When C & P posted the reserved gate signs on the
neutral Gate I and the primary Gate 2, it did not take
adequate steps to avoid violations of the reserved gates It
gave instructions to the drivers already at the jobsite to
use only Gate 2, but did not notify its other regular
drivers and its new drivers before they reached the jobsite
As a result, on the first 2 or 3 days of picketing
(November 19-21), some of the construction drivers
entered Gate I instead of Gate 2 to reach the construction
site - after the reserved gates had been established (The
evidence does not disclose when the primary employer,
Leach, instructed its guards to begin turning back C & P
drivers entering Gate 1') Meanwhile, C & P waited until
the third day of picketing to notify the Union in writing
about the arrangement for separate gates, and then did
not mention any steps being taken to eliminate violations
by new drivers who had been entering the jobsite through
the neutral gate on their first trip to the jobsite Finally,
at the suggestion of Leach's president and C & P's
counsel, C & P changed the wording on the Gate 1 sign
- deleting the name, "COURTNEY & PLUMMER,
INC ," to, eliminate the confusion to truckdrivers
approaching the Leach plant - and so notified the Union
in writing on Monday, November 25
On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 19, when C &
P's uninstructed, regular drivers were still going through
Gate I until notified on the jobsite to start using Gate 2,
GENERAL DRIVERS & DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION 563 653
the Union continued to picket near Gate I The next day,
Wednesday, the Union picketed at the gate reserved for C
& P's drivers, and did not picket at Gate 1 However,
while picketing at Gate 2, the pickets observed new drivers
violating the reserved gates and entering the jobsite
through Gate I The next day, November 21, the pickets
returned to Gate 1, and complained to a Leach
representative about "the Courtney & Plummer sign
sitting at the driveway " However, the Union no longer
picketed at Gate 2, where a large number of C & P trucks
were entering daily, and continued picketing at Gate I -
even after receiving formal notice of the changed sign on
November 25, and after the violations had ceased.
In the meantime, on_ and after November 21, the Union
picketed near Gate' 1, and specially appealed to the drivers
of neutral motor freight haulers not to enter. The picket
or pickets would sit in their car until a motor freight truck
would approach Then the pickets would get out of the car
and start carrying the picket signs in front of the gate.
The motor freight driver would stop and ask about the
picketing The picket would advise him that C & P was
working inside, and that C & P belongs to the
Association (whose members the Union had been striking
for months), - thereby inducing the freight hauler not to
enter. "After the truck had gone, I'd get in the car and sit
down " Union picket Kautz further admitted that he was
picketing near Gate I because "I thought I had a better
chance to stop the trucks from going in there, freight
haulers and stuff " As also demonstrated by the pickets'
failure to picket at Gate 2 after November 20, and by the
Union picketing on the morning of November 29 at the
closed Leach plant rather than at Gate 2 where C & P
trucks were entering, the Union was appealing to the
drivers of the neutral truck lines to honor the picket line,
rather than appealing to C & P's nonstriking and
replacement drivers No motor freight drivers entered the
Leach premises while the Union was picketing Gate I
The General Counsel contends that when the Union
resumed picketing at the neutral Gate I on November 21,
it failed to comply with one of the standards set forth in
the Moore Dry Dock case, Sailors' Union of the Pacific
(Moore Dry Dock Co ), 92 NLRB 547, 549, that the
picketing be "limited to places reasonably close to the
location of the situs " However, under the circumstances
of this case, I find that during the first 4 days of
picketing, "the method and manner in which the primary
entrance was designated was not such as to warrant
circumscribing the area of permissible common situs
picketing." International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 640, AFL-CIO (Timber Buildings, Inc ),
176 NLRB No 17 (1969), International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 441, AFL-CIO (Suburban
Development Co ), 158 NLRB 549 (1966) C & P, the
primary employer, permitted the reserved neutral gate to
be violated repeatedly by failing to instruct all its drivers
which gate to use before they arrived at the jobsite, and
posted a sign which was apparently misleading or
confusing to drivers approaching the Leach premises In
its brief, C & P argues that even if the Union pickets had
remained at Gate 2, the asserted violations "would not
have substantially prejudiced the Union," in view of the
limited number of violations when compared to the
hundreds of C & P truck crossings at Gate 2, and in view
of the fact that the violations would occur only on the
drivers' first trips to the jobsite. I find. though, that when
the Union honored the reserved signs, moved the picketing
to the primary gate, and then observed the violations
continuing, it had no way of knowing how long or how
frequently the violations would be permitted , and it had
the right to make its legitimate , direct appeal to the C &
P drivers on their first trip to the jobsite The primary
employer failed to provide reasonable assurances to the
Union at the time that the reserved gates would be
honored by the employer 's own drivers
By Monday , November 25, the situation had changed
C & P had changed the reserved gate sign at the primary
gate , it had given written notice to the Union of the
change , and the violations by its own drivers had ceased
for at least one workday I therefore find that by
picketing at Gate I on November 25 and thereafter,
rather than picketing at the reserved primary gate, the
Union failed to comply with the Moore Dry Dock
requirement that it picket reasonably close to the situs of
its dispute with C & P, and violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and
(u)(B) of the Act -(Although some of Leach ' s employees
used the primary Gate 2 when going to the nearby credit
union building , that fact did not justify the Union
appealing to other neutral employees by continuing to
picket at neutral Gate I )
Moreover , apart from the Moore Dry Dock standards,
there was evidence disclosing that the true objective of the
picketing was the unlawful enmeshment of neutrals from
November 21 until December 5, as alleged in the
complaint The only times the pickets carried the picket
signs and patrolled at the entrance to the Leach plant
were when motor freight trucks ' approached Although the
picket signs clearly disclosed that the dispute was with the
primary employer , the pickets was specially appealing to
the motor freight drivers not to cross the picket line -
while not even picketing at the primary gate and Union
picket Kautz admitted picketing at the neutral gate
because he thought he had a "better chance" there of
stopping the "freight haulers" from entering . I therefore
find that the picketing at Gate I had the purpose and
effect of inducing employees of neutral motor freight
carriers to refuse to deliver and pick up freight at the
Leach plant , and coercing Leach, for an object of forcing
Leach to cease doing business with C & P. Accordingly, I
find that the Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B)
of the Act from November 21 through December 5.
In its brief, the Union argues that "the Union had no
legal obligation to comply with the so-called reserved
gates system as a matter of law "; that Building and
Construction Trades Council of New Orleans, AFL-CIO
(Markwell and Hartz, Inc ), 155 NLRB 319, enfd 387
F.2d 402 (C A 5), was erroneously decided, and that the
Act "does not authorize the Board to make one rule with
respect to the scope of the right to strike for factory
workers and another, far more restrictive rule [the Moore
Dry Dock standards ] for building trades or truckdrivers "
However, even if the principles expressed in the General
Electric case, Local 761, International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO
(General Electric Co ) v N L R B., 366 U S. 667, were
applicable here instead of the Moore Dry Dock
standards, neither the operation of the Leach plant nor the
motor freight deliveries and pickups at the Leach plant
would be related to C & P' s construction of the new truck
parking lot, and picketing at the neutral gate reserved for
Leach and its suppliers would still be for a proscribed
secondary object
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By picketing from November 21 through December 5
at the Leach plant entrance with an object of forcing
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Leach to cease doing business with C & P, the Union
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (u)(B) and
Section 2(6),and (7)'of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct, and to
take affirmative action, which I find necessary to remedy
and to remove the effect of the unfair labor practices and
to effectuate the policies of-the Act .
Because of the Union's earlier violations of the
secondary boycott provisions in the Act, as found by the
Board in General Teamster, Warehouse and Dairy
Employees, Local No 126 (Courtney & Plummer, Inc ),
175 NLRB No 86, and General Drivers and Dairy
Employees Local Union 563, et al (Fox Valley Material
Suppliers Association, Inc ), 176 NLRB No 51, 1 shall
recommend the issuance of a broad order
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions, and on the entire record, I recommend
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the
following.
ORDER
Respondent, General Drivers and Dairy Employees,
Local Union 563, its officers; agents, representatives, and
successors, shall.
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging any
employee of any supplier or motor freight carrier to refuse
to make any pickup or delivery at Leach Company, or
any other employer, with an object of forcing or requiring
the employer to cease doing business with Courtney &
Plummer, Inc , with any other member of Fox Valley
Construction Materials Suppliers Association, Inc , or
with any other employer or person.
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "This Notice is Posted by Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice
In the further event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, there shall be added after the words "An
Agency of the United States Government" the words "as Enforced by the
United States Court of Appeals "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 30, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " ,
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's offices,
meeting halls, and all other places where notices to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
Upon request of the Regional Director, the Respondents
shall supply him with a sufficient number of signed copies
for posting by Leach Company and by Courtney &
Plummer, Inc , at all locations where notices to their
respective employees are customarily posted, if they desire
to do so
(b) Notify the Regional Director of Region 30, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith '
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found herein
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
Pursuant to the Recommended Order ,of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board an
Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket at any plant gate which is
reserved for employees and suppliers of Leach
Company or any other employer, with a purpose of
stopping freight haulers from entering the plant in order
to force the employer to quit doing business with
Courtney & Plummer or any other company.
GENERAL DRIVERS AND
DAIRY EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL UNION 563
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to
the Board's Regional Office, Second Floor Commerce
Building, 744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53203, Telephone 414-272-3861.