Local 295, Air Freight Chauffeurs

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 480 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 295, Air Freight Chauffeurs , Handlers, Ware-
housemen and Allied Workers, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and Pandair
Freight, Inc. Case 29-CC-428
June 16, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
the Respondent Union denied all allegations that it had
committed any unfair labor practices.
At the hearing, all parties were represented by counsel.
All were given full opportunity to examine and cross-
examine witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, oral
argument was presented by the General Counsel, but
waived by the other parties. On January 13, 1975, all
parties submitted briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of
counsel, and from his observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
On February 27, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Robert E. Mullin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, the Charging
Party filed an answering brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 295, Air
Freight Chauffeurs, Handlers, Warehousemen and
Allied Workers, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E . MuLLIN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard in Brooklyn, New York, on December 16
and 17, 1974, pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,'
and a complaint issued on November 6, 1974. The
complaint presents questions as to whether the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act). In its answer
I. THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Overseas Cargo Terminals, Inc. (herein OCT), a New
York corporation, has its office and principal place of
business at 167-43 148th Avenue, Jamaica, New York,
where it is engaged in the operation of a bonded container
station providing custom inspection facilities for goods
imported into the United States. During the year prior to
issuance of the complaint, a representative period, it had
total revenues of over $180,000, of which amount services
valued in excess of $50,000 were performed for firms
located outside the State of New York.2 Upon the
foregoing facts, I find that Overseas Cargo Terminals, Inc.,
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Pandair Freight, Inc., a Delaware corporation (herein
Pandair), has its office and place of business at 167-55
148th Avenue, Jamaica, New York, where it is engaged in
business as an international freight forwarder.
Action Air Freight, Inc. (herein Action), Air Freight
Trucking (herem AFT), Bilkay's Express Co. (herein
Bilkay's), Branch Motor Express (herein Branch), Jersey
Coast Freight Lines, Inc. (herein Jersey Coast), Lapadula
Air Freight Transfer, Inc. (herein Lapadula), Springmeier
Shipping Co., Inc. (herein Springmeier), and Teterboro Air
Freight, Inc. (herein Teterboro), are over-the-road motor
carriers and, along with Pandair, are persons engaged in
commerce and in industries affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(1), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent (herein Union or Local 295) is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Statement
In a telephone conversation on October 3, 1974,3 Mark
Davidoff, secretary-treasurer of the Respondent Union,
stated to George Flandorffer, Jr., terminal manager for
OCT, that he had signed up all the employees of OCT and
told Flandorffer that he should come to the union
headquarters immediately to execute a collective-bargain-
' The charge was filed on October 8, 1974. mg documentation which was received in evidence while he was on the2 The foregoing findings are based on the credible , undemed, testimony witness stand.
of George Flandorffer, Jr., terminal manager for OCT, and the corroborat- 3 All dates herein are for the year 1974 unless otherwise noted.
218 NLRB No. 85
LOCAL 295, AIR FREIGHT CHAUFFEURS 481
ing agreement. Flandorffer declined to do so on the ground
that Morton Brautman, president of OCT, would be out of
the city until the following Monday. Davidoff then told
him "do not pick on your men from now until then" and
declared that he would speak to Brautman on Monday.
On October 7, the next Monday, there was no further
conversation with Davidoff. Instead, Local,205 established
a picket line at the entrance to the OCT premises and
extended it to include the Pandair dock. The Respondent
does not seriously contest the allegation that it engaged in
picketing in the latter area . To the contention that this was
secondary action proscribed by Section 8(b)(4) of the Act,
the Respondent's answer is a denial and a claim that
Pandair and OCT are one and the same entity so that all of
its picketing was primary. To the evidence as to the issues
involved in this case we will now turn.
B. The Relationship Between OCT and Pandair
OCT is engaged in handling inbound freight imports. As
a bonded container station, approved by the United States
Customs Service, it receives imports into the United States
in sealed containers . These shipments are trucked to the
OCT terminal by independent carriers. There they are
unloaded and a customs inspector, who is on duty during
all business hours at the OCT premises, checks the
documentation. In the meantime, OCT, which has a total
of from three to four warehouse employees, breaks down
the cargo for customs examination. Thereafter, as the
goods are released, they are picked up for shipment
throughout the United States by the truckers whom the
customs brokers and importers involved have designated.
Pandair is a licensed export freight forwarder for air and
ocean shipments . No customs agents are on duty at the
Pandair premises, for Pandair has no contact with the
Customs Service other than in those situations where it
prepares the documentation for the airline that is handling
certain exports. Pandair receives goods for export in boxes,
crates, and bales. After receipt, it arranges for the export of
these goods, booking the shipment, and preparing the
necessary documents. In the operation of its terminal,
Pandair has a staff of about 25 employees. Whereas OCT
has only one office, that being the one in Jamaica, Pandair,
in addition to its Jamaica office, has offices in Boston,
Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.
One hundred percent of the stock in both OCT and
Pandair is owned by Pandair Freight, Ltd. (herein
Limited), a foreign corporation based in Englalnd. Morton
Brautman, the president of both Pandair and OCT, has no
4 'Waldemar P. LeFeber, one of the Respondent 's witnesses, testified that
he had a job interview with Brautman prior to hit being hired by OCT. The
facts, as disclosed both by his testimony and that of Brautinan , establish
that, while Flandorffer was on vacation , LeFeber sought out Brautman to
ask for a job at OCT. The latter told him that he appeared to be qualified,
but that as to such matters as wages and hours of work he would have to
await Flandorffer's return . LeFeber acknowledged that Brautman only
indicated that he would be satisfied with him as an employee, but that all
details as to his employment had to be deferred until Flandorffer 's return
and to await the latter 's decision.
`s The OCT warehouse employees work from 8 to 5, Monday through
Fndsy, and are paid about $160 a week . The Pandair employees work from
9 to S and average about $200 a week in wages.
6 LeFeber, a warehouseman for OCT, testified that on one evening he
worked at the Pandair terminal and was paid by OCT. Flandorffer credibly
stock in either corporation. He has a contract with Limited
for his services as the chief executive foi• each company.
With the exception of an attorney Who is listed as an
assistant secretary, but who takes no active role in either
OCT or Pandair, Brautman is the only common official of
the two corporations. According to, Brautmah, he is in
charge of the day-to-day operations of Pandair, but is
present at the Jamaica terminal only about 1 week out of
every month. The balance of his time is spent, largely on
Pandair business at its branch offices throughout the
United States and abroad. In his absence,,there are four
department supervisors who operate the Pandair business.
George Flandorffer, terminal manager of OCT, is iii
charge of the day-to-day operationss of that, corporation.
Although Brautman is the nominal head, both Flandorffer
and Brautman credibly testified that the latter makes no
more than one or two visits a month,to the OCT office.
Flandorffer sets the wages and working conditions and
does the hiring and firing at OCT 4
Both the pay and the hours of OCT employees differ
from those at Pandair.5 Only once in a 4-year period was
there an interchange of personnel. That instance involved
merely one employee for a period of only a few hours.' As
noted above there is no common supervision of the
Pandair and OCT employees. Finally, the books of each
company are kept separately and audited by different
accounting firms.'
Not only is there no significant interchange of personnel,
there is no significant interchange of equipment between
Pandair and OCT, The Respondent brought out that
occasionally the Pandair warehousemen borrowed a
Hyster forklift loader, referred to generally as a "hi-lo,"
from OCT. Brautman testified that Pandair ordered a hi-
low from the Hyster factory in April 1974 and that, at the
time of the hearing and after many delays, delivery was
promised for January 1975. According to Brautman, in the
meantime and while awaiting delivery of its own forklift,
Pandair sometimes used the hi-lo which OCT owned.
Flandorffer testified that the OCT hi-lo is also borrowed by
G.M.L., an independent trucking firm that occupies the
premises next door, and by Forward Air, a shipper that is
located in a nearby building. According to Flandorffer, on
occasion, OCT, in turn, sometimes borrows another forklift
from Forward Air.
OCT and Pandair have their Jamaica offices at opposite
ends of a large terminal warehouse not far from the John
F. Kennedy International Airport. Witnesses estimated
that the building is about 200 feet long. OCT has about
4,000 square feet at its 167-43 148th Avenue address and
testified that, in September, LeFeber asked him for some overtime work,
that none was available at OCT, that he inquired on LeFeber's behalf at the
office of the president of G.M.L., a trucking firm in the same warehouse,
and after finding that no work was available there , he learned that, due to
an emergency, Pandair could use LeFeber, whereupon he arranged for the
employee to secure several hours of overtime working for Pandair. LeFeber
testified that Thomas M. Moffitt, a coworker at OCT, had also worked for
Pandair under similar circumstances. Moffitt , however, on being called to
the stand by the General Counsel, denied that he had ever worked for
Pandair. His denial was credible. He also credibly testified that he did not
know of any occasion when a Panda employee worked at the OCT
terminal.
T The accounting for Pandair is handled by the firm of Haskins & Sells,
and the accountant for OCT is David Goffman, a private entrepreneur in no
way associated with Haskins & Sells.
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pandair has about 8,000 square feet at 167-55 148th
Avenue. In between these two companies, one an importer,
the other an exporter, there is located the independent
trucking company, referred to earlier as G.M.L. The
building is owned by the Idlewild Holding Corporation,
another entity unrelated to any of the principals in this
case. OCT has a lease for the entire building and, in turn,
sublets space to Pandair, as well as to G.M.L., the trucking
firm, to B.L.G., a Swiss freight forwarder and brokerage
house, and to J & A Shipping, Inc., a customs house
broker. None of the last three named entities has any
connection with either OCT or Pandair. There are walls
throughout the building which separate the firms one from
the other. The only entrance to either OCT or Pandair
premises is via the public entrance for each on 148th
Avenue. There is no intercommunication system between
the two offices and each company has its own telephone
number.
The Respondent sought to establish that most of OCT's
work was done for Limited, the English parent company of
both OCT and Pandair. In support of this thesis, the Union
called one witness, Roger Schilder, who testified that
during the time that he had handled airway bills and other
documentation for OCT the bills were marked "Shipped by
Pandair Freight, Ltd.," and that every page of the book he
used for these entries had "Pandair Freight, Ltd." written
on it. From this evidence, Schilder came to the conclusion
that OCT dealt only with Limited. On cross-examination,
Schilder conceded that he had been hired the week before
the strike began, that he had worked only 4 full days before
joining the pickets and that most of the time he was
working as a warehouseman, rather than in the office. He
further acknowledged that his testimony as to the book-
keeping practices at OCT were actually based on less than
3 hours of office experience during the course of his very
brief employment. Subsequent to his appearance on the
stand, the General Counsel called Terminal Manager
Flandorffer who credibly testified that the OCT office kept
a separate entry book for each customer and that OCT had
numerous other customers besides Limited, for each one of
which it had an individual record book. Flandorffer further
testified, credibly and without' contradiction, that the
quantity of work for these other customers substantially
exceeded the work which was done for Limited. Flandorf-
fer's testimony in this connection was corroborated by a
large collection of billing invoices from companies other
than Limited, all of which were received in evidence .8
C. The Alleged Unlawful Activities
The picketing which the Respondent initiated on
October 7 lasted until November 22, but at Pandair it was
discontinued on or about October 25. Prominent among
the pickets were Michael Hunt, a trustee for the Respon-
dent, and Mark Davidoff, secretary-treasurer of the Union.
In addition to carrying signs that read "Overseas Cargo
8 OCT handles one type of shipment which involves goods that may
originate in Canada , but which are shipped through the Port of New York
for shipping convenience or economy. No duty is paid on these goods as
they pass through the latter, for they are destined for Europe or Africa.
Although the Respondent Union endeavored to establish that most, ifnot
all, of this particular type of shipment comes from Pandair Freight , Ltd., the
Terminal on strike, Local 295 . . ." those picketing the
Pandair premises carried signs which read "Pandair
Employees on strike" and "Employees of Pandair are not
members of Local 295."
From the outset of the picketing at Pandair, the drivers
of all common carrier trucks that sought to make deliveries
were stopped by the pickets. Among the carriers involved
were Air Freight, AFT, Branch, Commodity Haulage,
Emery Air Freight, Jersey Coast, Lapadula, Pinto Truck-
ing, Railway Express, Springmeier, Teterboro, and Wings
& Wheels.
LeFeber testified that, while a picket, he told the drivers
for several of the above-named companies that Pandair
was on strike. He further testified that Hunt, the union
official, similarly informed the drivers of many of these
same carriers. Robert Harrington, a warehouse employee
for Pandair, credibly testified that on or about October 7,
when a Railway Express truck backed up to the Pandair
dock, a picket approached the driver and warned, "Don't
go in, they're on strike." When Harrington protested to the
driver, whom he knew, that the Pandair employees were
not on strike, the picket declared "Pandair and Overseas
Cargo are one outfit, therefore, they're both on strike."
With this, the driver for Railway Express drove off without
making any attempt to unload. Jacob Rudolph, another
warehouseman for Pandair, gave similar credible testimony
as to an incident on or about October 7 when pickets
LeFeber and Schilder spoke to the driver of a Commodity
Haulage truck and immediately thereafter the driver left
the dock without making any further attempt to unload his
shipment. Rudolph's testimony was uncontradicted, not-
withstanding the fact that both LeFeber and Schilder were
subsequently called to the stand by the Respondent.
Seymour Spergel, a supervisor for Pandair, testified as to
several incidents which occurred on or about October 7
and during which pickets approached drivers for Teter-
boro, Lapadula, and Jersey Coast as they were about to
unload shipments at the Pandair dock. According to
Spergel, immediately after a conversation with the pickets,
the drivers, in each instance, discontinued their efforts to
unload and left the premises. Spergel gave similar testimo-
ny as to incidents which occurred during the following
week when drivers for Springmeier and Branch prepared to
unload but stopped doing so when the Respondent's
pickets arrived and shouted "These people are on strike;
don't deliver .... " Spergel was a credible witness and his
testimony was undenied and uncontradicted.
Brautman testified that Action Air Freight was a regular
customer of Pandair, but that during the course of the
picketing it made no deliveries to the Pandair docks. In a
letter to Brautman dated October 15, Barbara LoFrese,
president of Action Air Freight, described the pickets'
demands on her drivers and stated that a telephone call to
the Union confirmed that Local 295 was striking Pandair.
She concluded with the statement that she hoped that the
evidence developed that this was done for only'one customer of, Limited,
namely, Scherring, a Canadian pharmaceutical firm, whereas numerous
other freight forwarders use OCr for the same type of service . The latter
included Foremost Air Freight (a freight forwarder from Taipei), Airtrans (a
Brazilian fumy, and Gondrand Brothers (headquarters in Zurich).
LOCAL 295, AIR FREIGHT CHAUFFEURS 483
"troubles" would soon be over so that her company and
Pandair could resume doing business.
Although the pickets informed the truckdrivers who
approached the picket line that Pandair was on strike, no
employees of that company left work during the picketing.
Whereas on October 3, Davidoff, the Respondent's
secretary-treasurer, made a demand for recognition on
Flandorffer and OCT, no such demand was made on
Pandair. Brautman testified, credibly and without contra-
diction, that Pandair at no time received any communica-
tion from Local 295 and that no one from the Union ever
contacted him in his capacity as president of Pandair.
During the lunch hour on about Wednesday, October 16,
LeFeber and Schilder, as pickets for the Respondent,
handed out union leaflets at the entrance of Pandair.
LeFeber conceded, however, that during this brief
pamphleteering no authorization cards'were distributed to
the employees of Pandair. Other than this short-lived effort
at handbilling there was no evidence that Local 295 ever
made any attempt to organize the Pandair work force. It is
significant, in connection with the timing of this purported
organizational activity by the Respondent's pickets, that it
did not occur until after Pandair filed the 8(b)(4) charge
out of which the complaint in the instant case arose.9
D. Conclusions With Respect to the Alleged
Violations of the Act
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) reads, in relevant part, as
follows: (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization or its agents -
(4)(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any
individual employed by any person engaged in com-
merce or in any industry affecting commerce to engage
in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to
threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where
iin either case an object thereof is:
(B) forcing or requiring any person . . . 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 repre-
sentative of his employees unless such labor
organization has been certified as the representa-
tive of such employees under the provisions of
section 9 ; Provided That nothing contained in
this clause (B) shall be construed to make
unlawful, where not otherwise unlawful, any
primary strike or primary picketing; .. .
On the facts found above, it is clear that by establishing a
picket line in front of the Pandair terminal the Respondent
engaged in the inducement proscribed in Section 8(b)(4)(i)
with respect to the drivers of the numerous common
9 The charge in the present case was filed on October 8 and served on the
Respondent by registered mail on October 9.
carriers who thereafter refused, in the course of their
employment, to perform any services for their employers
on discovering the picket line at the Pandair docks.
Moreover, it is equally clear that, apart from the picket line
itself, the Respondent's agent, Hunt, and the pickets
contacted the drivers personally to induce them not to
make such deliveries. It is likewise manifest that an object
of this conduct was to force or require the carriers named
above to cease doing business with Pandair. All of this
conduct constituted a patent violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
unless the action of the Respondent is saved by the proviso
to Section 8(b)(4)(B).
The evidence, as found above, establishes that the
Respondent's only organizational activity prior to the
conduct in question was directed to the warehouse
employees at the OCT terminal. Davidoff made a demand
for recognition only as to the OCT work force. No contact
was ever had with the officials of Pandair. The only
permissible inference is that the Respondent's pressure on
Pandair was for the purpose of buttressing its demand on
OCT, thereby forcing OCT to recognize and bargain with
Local 295.
Subsequent to the filing of the charge that is involved in
the instant case the Respondent's pickets engaged in a brief
moment of handbilling at the entrance to the Pandair
terminal. This was a transparent attempt to lay the
foundation for the claim, made at the hearing, that the
Union was in the process of organizing, the employees at
Pandair. Since these pickets never distributed any authori-
zation cards and never again sought to resume their
pamphleteering, it is now found that this purported
organizing of the Pandair employees was no more than -a
strategem to conceal the Union's secondary activity in the
guise of a primary dispute. In any event, as the General
Counsel points out in his brief, when this alleged
organizing began during the second'week of the picketing,
the Respondent had already engaged in a complete and
continuing violation of Section 8(b)(4). Accordingly, it is
now found, on the facts set forth above, that the picketing
at Pandair was not only for the object of forcing and
requiring the common carriers to cease doing business with
Pandair, but also to force OCT to recognize Local 295.
The Respondent relies almost solely on the theory that
Pandair and OCT are so closely related that they are one
and the same and "allies" so that the Union's picketing of
Pandair was at all times primary and protected. For
reasons that are set forth below I can find no merit to this
argument on the facts in this case.
It is obvious that there was no ally relationship here.
Pandair did not and could not perform struck work for
OCT. Pandair is an export forwarder of freight for air and
ocean shipments. OCT, on the other hand, is involved in
the import business. Notwithstanding the fact that Braut-
man is the president of both corporations, he seldom
participates in the affairs of OCT. The day-to-day labor
relations of each company are handled by different
persons, there is no regular interchange of employees, and
the employees work different hours at different rates of pay
and under separate supervision.' Although Pandair and
OCT are owned by the same parent company, they are not
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parts of an integrated organization , nor do they participate
in different parts of the same process . The operation of one
is wholly independent from that of the other.
In Miami Newspaper Printing Pressman Local 46 (Knight
Newspapers, Inc.), 138 NLRB 1346, 1347-48 (1962), enfd.
322 F.2d 405 , 407-410 (C.A.D.C., 1963), the Board found
that two companies engaged in the same type of business at
different locations , with common ownership, officers, and
directors; but which did business as separate and autono-
mous operations were not to be regarded as a single
employer or allied to one another within the meaning of
the proviso to Section 8(b)(4)(B ). Similarly, in Local 639,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Poole's Warehous-
ing, Inc.), 158 NLRB 1281 , 1286 (1966), the Board held that
more than mere common ownership must be shown for an
employer to be 'considered a primary employer. There the
Board stated that to establish such a relationship it is
necessary to prove
such actual or active common control, as distinguished
from mere potential , as to denote an appreciable
integration of operations and management policies. [Id.
at 1286.]
Here there was no integration of management policies, nor
was there evidence of actual or active common control.
In the light of the facts found herein , I conclude and find
that Pandair and OCT are separate employers for the
purpose of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act and that by the course
of conduct described above as to Pandair and the
employees of the common carriers serving Pandair, the
Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act. Cases cited , supra, and also : American Federation
of Radio & Television Artists v. NLRB., 462 F.2d 887,
891-892 (C.A.D.C., 1972); San Francisco-Oakland Newspa-
per Guild v. Kennedy, 412 F.2d 541, 545 (CA. 9, 1969);
Bachman Machine Co. v. N.L.R.B., 266 F.2d 599, 602-605
(C.A. 8, 1959); J. G.- Roy and Sons v. N.L.R.B., 251 F.2d
771, 772-774 (C.A. 1, 1958); Milo Express, Inc., 212 NLRB
313 (1974).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sections 2(5) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. The activities of the Respondent Union, set forth
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Pandair, OCT, and the common carriers serving Pandair,
as described above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
3. By picketing the premises of Pandair Freight, Inc.,
with whom it had no labor dispute, the Respondent has
engaged in, and has induced and encouraged individuals
employed by common carriers doing business with Pandair
Freight, Inc., to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course
of their employment to perform services, and has threat-
10 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.
ened, coerced, and restrained Pandair Freight , Inc., with
an object in each case of forcing or requiring persons to
cease doing business with Pandair Freight , Inc., and of
forcing Overseas Cargo Terminals, Inc., to recognize the
Respondent , thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B)
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
Union be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to remedy the unfair
labor practices found and otherwise effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER 10
The Respondent, Local 295, Air Freight Chauffeurs,
Handlers, Warehousemen and Allied Workers, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or
encouraging any individuals employed by Pandair Freight,
Inc., or by any other person engaged in commerce or in
any industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or
refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac-
ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services, and cease and desist from threaten-
ing, coercing, or restraining Pandair Freight, Inc., or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, where, in either case, an object thereof
is to force or require persons to cease doing business with
Pandair Freight, Inc., or to force or require Overseas Cargo
Terminals, Inc., to recognize the aforesaid Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices,
meeting halls, and at all places where notices to members
are customarily posted copies of the, attached notice
marked "Appendix."" Copies of the said notice on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
11 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
LOCAL 295, AIR FREIGHT CHAUFFEURS 485
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional
Director for Region 29, for posting by Pandair Freight,
Inc., Overseas Cargo Terminals, Inc., or any common
carrier doing business with Pandair Freight, Inc., said
employers or persons being willing, at all locations where
notiLces to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
industry affecting commerce, to engage in, strikes or
refusals in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any services; or threaten, coerce, or
restrain Pandair Freight, Inc., or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where in either case an object thereof is to
force or require persons to cease doing business with
Pandair Freight, Inc., or to force or require Overseas
Cargo Terminals, Inc., to recognize the aforesaid
Union.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMEERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in , or induce, or encourage any
individual employed by Pandair Freight, Inc., or by
any other person engaged in commerce or in an
LocAL 295, Ant FREIGHT
CHAUFFEURS, HANDLERS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
ALLIED WORKERS,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA