Independent Routemen's Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 245 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

INDEPENDENT ROUTEMEN'S ASSN. Independent Rontemen's Association and Urban Dis- tributors, Inc. Case 29-CC-355 ' DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE October 2, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On May 30 , 1973, Administrative Law Judge George J. Bott issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter , the Charging Party and Gen- eral Counsel filed limited exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings,' and the conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Independent Routemen's Association, its officers, agents, and representatives, - shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. i No party has taken exception to the affirmative violation findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . We therefore adopt these findings pro forma Charging Party Urban and General Counsel both except , inter aha, to the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to make a specific finding that Urban is a separate independent corporation having no connection with Lorenz. In examining the record we are not convinced that this issue was fully litigated . In any event, we believe the Order entered by the Administrative Law Judge to be sufficiently broad to inhibit the Respondent from threaten- ing the stores with which Urban does business with unlawful picketing or other coercive acts. We do not, and cannot, lawfully prohibit Respondent from lawfully and truthfully publicizing at any reasonable place the existence of a labor dispute with Lorenz. To the extent that any picketing of Urban's customers, or those of similarly situated distributors , may exceed the free speech parameters, we think the Order entered herein is adequate to prevent its recurrence and, therefore , find no prejudicial error in the Administrative Law Judge's failure to make the specific findings suggested. The General Counsel has also excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibili- ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951 ). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 245 GEORGE J. Borr, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge of unfair labor practices filed by Urban Distributor's, Inc., herein called Urban or Charging Party, on January 30, 1973, against Independent Routemen's As- sociation, herein called Respondent or Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on February 14, 1973, alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.' Respondent'filed an answer and a hearing was held before me on April 11, 1973, at Brooklyn, New York. Briefs have been filed by General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case 2 and from my observa- tion of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD Urban is a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business and warehouse in Brooklyn, New York, where it is engaged in the wholesale distribution of potato chips, pretzels, and other related products. During the year prior to the issuance of the complaint, Urban pur- chased and caused to be delivered to its Brooklyn ware- house, potato chips, pretzels, and other similar products valued in excess of $50,000, directly from firms located outside the State of New York. I find that Urban is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Since this is a case concerning alleged illegal secondary picketing, there are other businesses (persons) involved, as follows: a. Lorenz Schneider Co., Inc. (Lorenz) is a wholesale distributor of potato chips and similar products, including Wise Potato Chips, Quinlan Pretzels, and Old London Doo- dles, in the metropolitan area of New York. b. Yorkshire Food Sales Corp. (Yorkshire) operates in the same territory, distributing the same products. c. Fairchester Snacks Corp. (Fairchester) also distributes the same products in the same area. d. It was stipulated that Lorenz, Yorkshire, and Fair- chester, herein collectively called Lorenz, et al., are com- monly owned and controlled.' The Board found in another i An amended complaint was issued on March 23, 1973, but it did not change the basic allegations that Respondent had illegally threatened to picket and did picket retail supermarkets with which it had no labor dispute. 2 In addition to the record made before me, the record in this case also consists of the transcript of testimony and certain exhibits in a 10(1) proceed- ing before Judge Anthony J. Travia, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 12, 1973, having found that there was no reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had engaged in conduct violative of the Act, Judge Travia ordered that the Board's amended petition for injunctive relief under Section 10(1) of the Act be denied 3 Lorenz et al. has sold various routes to other distributors, including Urban, Ed Noble (Noble), and-Ronald Altro (Altro). The Union contends that Urban is a "sub-distributor" for Lorenz General Counsel argues that Continued 206 NLRB No. 39 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD case involving the Union, and it was so stipulated, that Lorenz, et al. is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. e. Apice Bros., Inc. (Pioneer), operates a retail supermar- ket in Brooklyn. f. Krasne Supermarket, Inc. (Krasne), operates a retail supermarket in Brooklyn. g. 2737 Food Corp. (Met Foods) operates a retail super- market in New York, New York. h. Dan's Supreme Supermarket, Inc. (Dan's), operates a chain of retail supermarkets, including a supermarket in Brooklyn. i. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (A & P) operates a chain of retail supermarkets including a super- market in Brooklyn. j. Associated Food Store (Associated Flushing) operates a retail supermarket in Flushing, New York. k. Queens Village Food Center, Inc., d/b/a Associated Food Store (Associated Queens Village), operates a retail supermarket in Queens Village, New York. 1. Petzger's Delicatessen (Petzger's) operates a retail su- permarket in Brooklyn. m. First National Supermarket, Inc. (Finast), operates a chain of supermarkets, including a supermarket in Mount Vernon, New York. I find that Pioneer, Krasne, Met, Dan's, A & P, Assoicat- ed Flushing, Associated Queens Village, Finast, and Petzger's are persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(a), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.4 It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue The question is whether or not the Union's picketing and other conduct in connection with its attempts to persuade supermarkets and the public not to buy products distributed by a primary employer with which it has a labor dispute met Urban is a separate independent corporation having no connection with Lorenz. As far as the record in this case reveals, Urban appears to be legally independent of Lorenz , but I find it unnecessary to make that determination because General Counsel agreed at the hearing that regardless of Urban's and Lorenz' relationship , the Union would have no right to picket or threaten to picket other persons who sell at retail Wise Potato Chips, Quinlan Pretzels, and similar products wholesaled by Urban, Lorenz, and other distributors, as the complaint alleges. Moreover, because of the position taken, the issue of the relationship was not fully litigated. 4 All of the supermarkets listed buy Wise Potato Chips, Quinlan Pretzels, and other similar products from either Lorenz, et al., Urban, Noble, or Altro, and the Union was involved in some incident connected with its labor dispute with Lorenz , et aL, with all of them. All of the supermarkets sell groceries, meat, and nonfood items, and I take administrative notice that this industry causes large quantities of goods to flow across State lines and that it therefore affects commerce . See Sheet Metal Workers International Association (S.M. Kisner), 131 NLRB 1196, 1199; United Association of Journeymen, and Ap- prentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (A.B. Plumbing, Inc.), 171 NLRB 498, 500. the standards for lawful consumer picketing set out in N.L. R.B. v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen Local 760 (Tree Fruits Labor Relations Committee).5 I find that it did not. B. The Facts 1. Broad view of the case At the present time the Union is on strike against Lorenz, et al., for recognition. Lorenz, et al., is the key distributor of Borden products known as Wise Potato Chips, Quinlan Pretzels, and Old London snack products in the New York Metropolitan area . All of the supermarkets listed above purchase one or more of said products from Lorenz, et al., or from Urban or from other distributors who have pur- chased routes from Lorenz, et al. The Union has no labor dispute with any of the supermarkets involved herein.6 Beginning in January 1973, members of Respondent have contacted numerous supermarkets and other retail food outlets and have requested the store manager or other man- agement agent to cease selling Wise, Quinlan, and Old Lon- don products (herein sometimes collectively called Wise products). If the store's representative refused to comply with the Union's demand, the Union commenced picketing in front of the store with signs which read: On Strike Wise Potato Quinlan Pretzel Old London Drivers against Lorenz Schneider Co., Inc. Distributors In addition to picketing, the Union passed out leaflets to prospective customers, and the pickets chanted either "Pass Wise by, don't buy Wise," or "Pass them by, don't buy Wise," depending on whose version is credited. Although the legend on the picket signs is conceded, there is a dispute not only about what the pickets chanted while picketing, but also about what the Union said to store managers when they asked them to remove Wise products from their shelves. 2. Threats to picket Stanley Freedman, manager of Krasne's, testified that five of the striking drivers entered his store in January, and after informing him that they were on strike against Wise and asking him to remove Wise products from the store's shelves, warned him that "There might be a boycott or picketing, whatever you want to call it," and that they might have to "picket the stores." Bernard Kaplan, manager of Pioneer, testified that a 377 U.S. 58. 6 Consistent with my decision not to resolve the question of Urban's or any other subdistributor 's status vis -a-vis Lorenz, et aL, I find it unnecessary to reach the question of whether the Union has a labor dispute with Urban and other "subdistributors ," as the Union described them, who have purchased their routes from Lorenz, et al. INDEPENDENT ROUTEMEN'S ASSN. 247 group of drivers told him in January 1973 that they would "picket the store" if he did not remove Wise products from his store. The drivers advised him that they were on strike against Lorenz Schneider, and they reminded him that they had "pulled a strike at Waldbaum's (another supermarket)" because that store had not removed the product. Joseph Gaito, manager of Dan's, was visited by a group of striking drivers in January 1973 and told by them that they were on strike and would "picket the store" if he con- tinued to display Wise products. "We will picket you" if your store continues to sell Wise products, the drivers told Met Foods ' manager, Al Seltzer, when they contacted him in February 1973, according to Seltzer. Although Union President Warren Klaus described the Union's policy during the strike as one of informing store managers about the Union's labor dispute with Lorenz and then advising them that a "consumer awareness picket" would be placed in front of the store if they continued to sell Wise products, and although he denied that union mem- bers had been instructed to tell store managers that the Union "would picket the store," but, to the contrary, had been instructed to make it clear to them that the Union would picket the products only and not the store if they continued to sell them, Freedman's, Kaplan's, Gaito's, and Seltzer's testimony is undenied, and I find that whatever else may have been said to them in addition to what they recalled, union representatives did not make it clear enough to them that any picketing which would occur as a result of a refusal to accede to the Union's request would be aimed at appealing to customers to boycott the products and not the entire store. The assistant manager of an A & P store in Brooklyn, John Catanzaro, testified that the three striking drivers who spoke with him at the store in January 1973 told him that they "may have to picket" if he did not remove Wise prod- ucts from the stands. Walter Otto, a union agent who participated in picketing at least 50 stores, recalled visiting the Brooklyn A & P where Catanzaro works, but he said that after first handing Catan- zaro a handbill which states the Union's position on the issues involved in the strike and asks that the recipient not buy Wise products, he informed him that the Union would engage in "consumer picketing" if the store continued to sell the products. Otto also testified that he explained to Catan- zaro that by "consumer picketing" he meant that the union would be "outside, asking the people not to buy Wise Prod- ucts... It is difficult to make a choice between the respective versions of what was said in this instance. Neither witness, in my opinion, had a clear recall of what was said in connec- tion with the Union's appeal for cooperation, and Otto also appeared to be exaggerating when he said he explained to Catanzaro what "consumer picketing" meant. In any case, since the leaflet, which he said he handed to the manager, states that "All stores disregarding this request (not to buy Wise products) will be subject to picketing without notice," and says nothing about an appeal to customers, I find here, too, that the Union's statements to A & P in regard to the consequences of noncooperation were equivocal. 3. The picketing Although the Union picketed at approximately 100 loca- tions during the strike, this record contains examples of picketing at Finast Mount Vernon, Associated Queens Vil- lage, Associated Flushing, and Petzger's.7 William Walsh, then a Pinkerton employee, testified in the hearing before Judge Travia, and it was stipulated that his testimony would be the same in this hearing. Walsh was assigned to observe the pickets. He described the picket sign as it has been set out above, and he also testified that he heard the pickets at Finast Mount Vernon chant continu- ously, "Pass them, or em, by, Don't buy Wise, pass them by." He also heard a chant at Associated Flushing, but could only distinguish the word "Wise." Clinton Carbarugh, a representative of Lorenz, et al., ob- served picketing on February 15, 1973; at Associated Queens Village, and heard the pickets chant, "Pass them by, Don't buy Wise," he said. Harvey Katz, a union member and picketer, picketed at both Associated Flushing and Finast Mount Vernon. He testified that the chant used at both places was the same one that the pickets regularly used, that is, "Pass Wise by, don't buy Wise," and that he had never heard a different one. Warren Klaus, president of the Union, testified that, "Pass Wise by, don't buy Wise" was heard on every picket line he attended, and he was aware of no other. Although I lean toward crediting the Union witnesses in this instance, the conflict need not be resolved, for it seems to me that whether the pickets chanted, "Pass them, or em, by" or "Pass Wise by" before they concededly added, "Don't buy Wise" is too subtle a difference to consider in evaluating the total situation. The alleged improper portion of the chant is somewhat equivocal at most, and it does not necessarily strike me as exhorting potential customers to pass the store by, not just the product. 4. The Union's written communications to secondary employers and the public In November 1972, at the beginning of the strike against Lorenz, et al., the Union sent letters to the headquarters of all chain supermarkets in the New York Metropolitan area advising them that the driver -distributors were on strike and why. The letter notes that the drivers deliver Wise, Quinlan, and Old London Products , and, in the most significant por- tion of it, states: "In order to protect the interests of the drivers, distributor, salesmen and to solicit the aid of the public, and every store-chain or otherwise-taking in the merchandise above mentioned and displaying the same dur- ing the strike , will be picketed and the pickets will carry signs requesting your customers not to purchase those prod- ucts distributed by the Company on strike and carried by you." 8 The Union also utilized a leaflet or flyer to hand to store managers whose assistance it sought, or to members of the public who showed an interest in the pickets' activities. The 7 It was conceded that the Union used the same legend on all picket signs wherever it picketed s Resp Exh. 4. '248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leaflet, already referred to in the consideration of Otto's testimony, is headed "Strike Notice," in large type. It then,' in",the same size type, states, "Wise Potato . . . Quinlan Pretzel . . . Old London Drivers-On Strike," and, in much smaller type, briefly notes that Lorenz Schneider Co., Inc. distributes said products and will not bargain with the driv- ers. The leaflet, in large, type asks that one "Not Buy, Wise Potato, Quinlan Pretzel And Old London Products Until This Company Stops This Unfair Action," and it concludes, as indicated above, by stating that all stores will be subject "to picketing without notice" if they disregard the request .9 C. Analysis, Additional Findings and Conclusions In Tree Fruits, supra,1O a majority of the Supreme Court held, contrary-to the Board's view, that Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act was not intended to proscribe all peaceful con- sumer picketing at secondary sites. In that case the union picketed Safeway Stores requesting customers not to pur- chase Washington State apples. The Court found such pick- eting to be lawful because it was "employed only to persuade customers not to buy the struck product" pro- duced by the primary employers with which the Union had a dispute (id at 72). The Court,also noted that a union may engage in consumer picketing "directed only at the struck product" of the primary employer if such picketing is fully isolated from the neutral's own business (id. at 63). On the other hand, however, the Court distinguished the situation where "consumer picketing is employed to per- suade customers not to trade at all with the secondary em- ployer ..." (Ibid.), and it emphasized that such picketing which "persuades the customers of a secondary employer to stop all trading with him . . . was barred" (id. at 71). The Court explained: "In -the [former] case, the union's appeal to the public is confined to its dispute with the primary employer, since the public is not asked to withhold its pa- tronage from the secondary employer, but only toIboycott the primary employer's goods. On the other hand, a union appeal to the public at the secondary site not to trade at all with the secondary employer goes beyond the goods of the primary employer, and seeks the public' s assistance in forc- ing the secondary employer to cooperate with the union in its primary dispute" (id. at 63-64). In my opinion, the latter was the situation in this case. As found above, in five instances the Union's representatives did not adequately advise store managers that only the un- fair product would be picketed and that the picketing would be confined to persuading customers not to buy the product if the store continued to offer it to the public. The warnings were ambiguous at the least, uttered in terms of "picket the store," thereby putting the burden on the secondary em- ployer of determining exactly what the Union proposed to do. I have also found that the leaflet, with which Respondent's witnesses said they supplemented their ap- peals to secondary employers, was not likely to dispel uncer- tainties about the Union's strategy, for although it identifies 9 Resp . Exh. 5. 10 377 U.S. 58 the products involved and asks the secondary employers not to buy them, it flatly states that the Union will, "without notice," start "picketing" of all stores if its request is denied, and it fails to make any reference to "consumer picketing" or to qualify its warnings in any way." The Union's appeals to the public are confusing, because it did not take enough pains to make it reasonably clear that only a consumer boycott of a specific product was the Union's aim . The leaflet just referred to was also handed to customers. It is headed "Strike Notice," and in relatively small print it indicates that Lorenz Schneider is the employ- er on strike, not the market, and where it appeals for a boycott of Wise products it asks for it only until "this com- pany stops this unfair action," without making it even rea- sonably apparent that Lorenz Schneider and not the store is "Unfair." But even if leaflets could be read as an appeal for a restricted boycott, the pickets signs cannot, for they appear to have been designed to confuse instead of to enlighten the reader. The signs are not addressed to the consuming pub- lic, as in Tree Fruits, but are "ON STRIKE" signs, readily conveying an impression that the store is involved in a strike. The signs do not identify any products as such or even appeal to anyone not to purchase a specific product; they refer only to Wise "drivers," leaving the public to rap- idly decide who employs them. The signs do not inform the public that the Union has no dispute with the store. Tree Fruits and subsequent cases teach us that when a union chooses to engage in consumer picketing it assumes the burden of making it evident to the consumer that its appeal for a boycott is limited to a specific product. It must, as a consequence , clearly identify that product and the per- son with whom the Union has a dispute so that the customer will not have to assume the risk of deciding what course of action is desired of him.12 I find on the basis of all the Union's activities, including its statements to store managers, the leaflet is used in con- nection with its picketing and its picket sign, that it has not limited, or attempted to limit, its picketing to persuading customers not to buy the struck products. By threatening to picket and by picketing, as found above, Respondent Union restrained and coerced persons for a proscribed object and thus violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.13 11 The union's letter in Tree Fruits to Safeway advised it in great detail that the picketing would only be an appeal to customers not to buy "struck" apples and that pickets would refrain from any action inconsistent with such limited objective (id. at 60-61, 73-76) The letter which the Union in this case sent to chain supermarkets at the beginning, of the strike is no where near as clear as the Tree Fruits letter, but laying that point aside, and I do not rely on it in deciding this case , the record shows that it was not sent to nonchain operators or to individual stores in each chain. 12 In Tree Fruits, not only were the pickets signs addressed "To the con- sumer" and clearly identified the product, but the leaflet used by the Union, in addition to naming the product and identifying the persons with which the Union had a dispute, advised the reader that "This is not a strike against any store or market." The letter sent to store managers was also precise with respect to the nature of the picketing the union proposed to engage in. See also N.LR B v. Servette, Inc, 377 U S. 46, decided the same day as Tree Fruits, for an example of another permissible handbill. 13 Tree Fruits, supra For other discussions of a union 's obligations when it engages in consumer picketing, see Salem Building Trades Council [Cascade Employers Assn.] 163 NLRB 33, 36, enfd. 388 F.2d 987 (C.A_ 9, 1964, Cast denied, 391 U.S. 965; American Bread Company v. N L. R B , 441 F.2d 147, 154 (C.A. 6, 1969); Bedding, Curtain and Drapery Workers Union Local 140 INDEPENDENT ROUTEMEN'S"ASSN. The complaint also alleged that the Union violated Sec- tion 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. Before that section can be violated, however, it must be shown that the picketing was also calculated to "induce the employees of a secondary employer to withhold their services from the secondary em- ployer.l4 As the Board has stated, "picketing at the second- ary employer's premises alone is notper se `inducement and encouragement' within the meaning of clause (i). Whether picketing constitutes `inducement and encouragement' of employees of secondary employers to engage in work stop- pages or refusals to perform services is an issue to be re- solved in the light of all the evidence in a particular case." 15 Here the evidence shows that the picketing was aimed solely at customers and not employees of the secondary employ- ers. There is no evidence that employees of secondary em- ployers or personnel making deliveries were solicited not to perform services. The picketing was confined to public en- trances of the supermarkets and no attempt was made to block access to the store of the delivery entrances. I find and conclude, therefore, that the Union did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act, as alleged. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Urban and Lorenz et al. are persons engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By threatening to picket Krasne's, Pioneer, Dan's, Met Foods and A & P, Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The picketing by Respondent of Finast Mount Ver- non, Associated Queens Village, Associated Flushing and Petzger's violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act. 6. The Respondent Union did not violate Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act, as alleged. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: [US. Mattress] v. N.L.R.B., 390 F.2d 495, 499-503 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 392 U.S. 905; Honolulu Typographical Union No. 37 v N L.R.B., 401 F.2d 952 (C.A.D.C., 1968). In Atlanta Typographical Union No 48, 180 NLRB 1014, 1016, the Board said the test is not the Union' s good faith , and it added, "we cannot permit a union to shift its burden of struck product identification to the public to which it is appealing for support." In N L. R_B. v. San Francisco Typographical Union No 21 [San Rafael Independent Journal], 465 F.2d 53, 56 (C.A. 9, 1972), the court cited the Board's language regarding the union's burden in these cases with approval. ORDER 16 249 Respondent, its officers, agents and representatives shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing and re- straining Krasne's, Pioneer, Dan's, Met Foods, A & P, Fi- nast Mount Vernon, Associated Queens Village, Associated Flushing, Petzger's, and any other person engaged in com- merce or an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force the above-named persons, or any other person, to cease doing business with Lorenz, et al., or Ur- ban, or any other subdistributor of Lorenz, et al., under circumstances prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office and meeting place copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. (c) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region 29, sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by him, for posting by Krasne's, Pioneer, Dan's, Met Foods, A & P, Finast Mount Vernon, Associated Queens Village, Associ- ated Flushing, Petzger's, Lorenz, et al., Urban, and other subdistributors of Lorenz, et al., if willing. (d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 14 N L.R B. v. Servette, Inc, 377 U S. 46, 50 (1964). 15 Upholsterers Frame & Bedding Workers Twin City Local No. 61 (Minneap- olis House Furnishings Co.), 132 NLRB 40, 41; Fruit and Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760 (Tree Fruits), 132 NLRB 1172, 1176-77. 16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 17 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT, in any manner prohibited by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, threaten, restrain, or coerce 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Krasne 's, Pioneer, Dan's, Met Foods , A &, P, Finast Mount Vernon , Associated Queens Village , Associated Flushing , Petzger's, or any, other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce where an object thereof is/to force or require the above-named persons, or any other person , to cease doing business with Lorenz Schneider , Urban Distributors , Inc., or any other subdistributor of Lorenz Schneider. Dated By (Representative) (Title) INDEPENDENT ROUTEMEN'S AS- SOCIATION (Labor Organization) 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 direct- ed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street , 4th floor, Brook- lyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3750.