Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union, Local 550, etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1285 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

MILLMEN & CABINET MAKERS UNION, LOCAL 550, ETC. 1285
(d) Post at its Springfield, Ohio, plant, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps it has taken to comply
therewith.?
I If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order"
shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in
the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order".
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with
the National Labor Relations Act, we notify you that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage you from being members of District
No. 82 of the International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT in any way interfere with your right to file charges with, or give
statements to agents of, the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in union
activities.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Michael Giles, Donald Stevens, Ferrie
Capper, and Dennis Christian, and will give them backpay due them.
STEMUN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify each of the above-named employees if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days after posting, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room
2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No.
381-2200, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union , Local No. 550, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and
Steiner Lumber Company. Case No. 20-CC-448. July 2, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that Respondent had
153 NLRB No. 85.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
brief in support thereof. The General Counsel filed as an answering
brief its brief to the Trial Examiner.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 Exam-
iner's Decision and the entire record in the case, including the excep-
tions and briefs, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,'
conclusions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that
Respondent Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union, Local No. 550, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.2
'In adopting the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent ' s picketing did not con-
stitute lawful consumer picketing , we do not find it necessary to adopt all of his reason-
ing and his distinctions between this case and N.L .R B. v Fruit and Vegetable Packers
& Warehousemen, Local 760 ( Tree Fruits ), 377 U.S. 58 . We rely particularly upon the
timing of the picketing , the absence of any effort to negate an appeal to employees of the
various secondary employers , and the absence of any appeal for specific conduct on the
part of consumers in reaching our conclusion that the picketing in this case did not con-
stitute consumer picketing lawful under the Tree Fruits decision
We also do not adopt the view expressed by the Trial Examiner that Respondent could
not have a " legitimate" dispute with Steiner Lumber Company or Las Plumas Develop-
ment Company because the employees of Las Plumas were represented by another union
which was certified as their bargaining representative Calumet Contractors Association,
133 NLRB 512.
2 The telephone number for Region 29 , appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached
to the Trial Examiner 's Decision , is amended to read: Telephone No. 556-0335
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, heard before Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy at San Fran-
cisco, California, presents primarily legal issues as to whether the Respondent Union
violated Section 8(b)(4)(1) and (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, herein called the Act.' Briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging
Party, and Respondent have been received and considered and, upon consideration
of the entire record including my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
'The charge in this matter was filed on July 23, 1964 , and the complaint issued on
September 24, 1964.
MILLMEN & CABINET MAKERS UNION, LOCAL 550, ETC. 1287
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Steiner Lumber Company is a California corporation engaged in the sale of whole-
sale and retail lumber including precut lumber to builders and contractors. Its prin-
cipal place of business is in Oroville, California. Its annual receipts from wholesale
and retail sales are in excess of $500,000, and its annual purchases of lumber, which
is shipped to it from points directly outside of California, exceed $50,000.
Las Plumas Development Company is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in Oroville, California. Its business involves the custom milling
of lumber for other businesses or individuals, including Steiner Lumber Company.
The value of the services to Steiner on an annual basis exceeds $50,000.
Virgil T. Young and John Brooks are copartners doing business as BESCO. Its
principal place of business is in Fremont, California, where it is engaged in the busi-
ness of a general contractor and builder. BESCO's sales exceed $1 million annually
and purchases of material exceed $50,000 annually. These materials are shipped
directly from outside the State of California to BESCO.
It is found that the above-named employers are engaged in commerce or in busi-
nesses affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union , Local No. 550 , United Brotherhood of Car-
penters & Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
International Woodworkers of America , Local 3 -428, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. The undisputed facts
The events here center around picketing of BESCO's premises in Fremont, Cali-
fornia, by Respondent Union. The picket legends proclaimed Steiner Lumber Com-
pany was unfair, and that precut lumber delivered to BESCO was prepared at wages
and conditions below those established by Respondent, Millmen & Cabinet Makers
Union, Local No. 550, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO. Although the claimed reason for the picketing was because of the lower
wages and inferior conditions prevailing at the Oroville plant where the lumber
which was delivered by Steiner was prepared," there is nothing in the record to indi-
cate one way or the other whether members of the Respondent Union or the employ-
ees of Steiner or Las Plumas were receiving higher wages except for the claim on
the picket legends.
The questioned picketing by Respondent occurred from July 21 until September 15,
1964,3 at the entrance to a construction project designated Cabrillo Park. BESCO,
the builder and general contractor, was building homes at this site at an annual rate
of 200 homes. A projection at the time of the hearing would indicate a minimum of
a year's work was planned.
During this period the picketing occurred on Monday through Friday from approxi-
mately 7.30 a m. until noon. There were two picket legends One read.
Steiner Lumber Co. Unfair
Pre-cut lumber being delivered to
this job by Steiner of Oroville is
prepared at wages and conditions below
those established by United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Millmen, 550, AFL-CIO,
Consumer picket.
2 Steiner Lumber Company and Las Plumas Development Company are separate business
entities in technical sense However, there are, sufficient factors present in this record
to make a finding that Steiner and Las Plumas are sufficiently affiliated so that the dispute
involves both companies These companies have common offices, directors, and stock-
holders Las Plumas was the direct employer of members of the International Wood-
workers of America, Local 3-428, AFL-CIO, in Oroville, California. However, when the
picketing commenced, directed ostensibly against Steiner, the treasurer of Las Plumas,
Lee Colby, Jr., made inquiries from Respondent Union as to the reason for the picketing.
He was atuhorized to do so by the president of Steiner, reflecting the close affiliation
existing between these two business entities
8 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates mentioned herein are in 1964
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The other picket sign read:
Steiner Lumber Company UNFAIR. Directed
to consumers only. Pre-cut lumber being
delivered to this job by Steiner Lbr. of
Oroville is prepared at wages and con-
ditions below those established by United
Brotherhood of Carpenters, Millmen, 550,
AFL-CIO.
These picket signs were carried by the pickets at the entrance used by approximately
90 employees of BESCO and its subcontractors, most of whom, if not all, were
members of craft unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO Building Trades Council of
Alameda. The entrance used by these workmen was the only feasible one for access
to the project and was also used by potential home buyers and others who had
occasion to visit the project.
The record reflects that precut lumber was manufactured by Las Plumas for
Steiner which in turn sold it to BESCO. At all times material herein, Las Plumas
was signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement with International Woodworkers
of America, Local 3-428, AFL-CIO. This Union was certified as a collective-
bargaining agent as a result of a cross-check election held by the California Depart-
ment of Industrial Relations on October 5, 1962. At all times material herein, there
was a collective-bargaining agreement in effect between Las Plumas and International
Woodworkers of America, Local 3-428, AFL-CIO.
Some of the lumber was delivered by common carrier and some was delivered by
Steiner trucks, on the following dates: July 21, 23, 29, 30, and 31; August 3, 5, 13,
14, and 15; and September 10, 11, 14, and 15. When the lumber was delivered by
Steiner trucks whose drivers were members of the Teamsters Union, it required
approximately a half hour to an hour to unload the trucks. This was the only oc-
casion when employees of Steiner were on the premises of Besco. Respondent had
no quarrel with the Teamsters employees of BESCO but only with the employees of
Las Plumas who worked in connection with the precut lumber.
After the picketing commenced, Van Bourg, attorney for Respondent, informed
BESCO's attorney, Minder, in the course of a telephone conversation, that the pickets
could be removed simply by having BESCO cease purchasing the lumber from
Steiner. Minder's call to Van Bourg was initiated because of his concern and that of
BESCO about the effect of the picketing on public relations and possible interference
with sales of homes, caused by the picketing.
The sales office of BESCO was open from 10 a.m. until 7 p.m. daily. As pre-
viously noted, the picketing took place from about 7:30 a.m. until noon, Monday
through Friday.
On or about August 17, one McKellar, a member of the local plumbers union, was
dispatched to a plumbing subcontractor of BESCO. On arriving at the BESCO
premises he noticed the picket sign and concluded he did not wish to work where
there was a picket, and he did not report to work to the subcontractor of BESCO.
Representatives of Steiner and BESCO inquired from Bagby, the business agent of
Respondent Union, as to the reason for the picketing. They were referred to Van
Bourg, the attorney for Respondent, but were unsuccessful in speaking with him.
However, as indicated above, Minder, the attorney for BESCO, did speak with Van
Bourg and was advised that the picketing could be terminated on BESCO' s ceasing
to do business with Steiner.
2. Discussion and concluding findings
By conduct set forth above, Respondent is alleged to have violated certain provi-
sions of the Act. Insofar as applicable, they read: Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (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 commerce or in an 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
in either case an object thereof is:
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer,
processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other
person ....
MILLMEN & CABINET MAKERS UNION, LOCAL 550, ETC. 1289
Applying the quoted statutory provisions to the case at hand, the picketing clearly
was designed to effect a cease doing of business between BESCO and Steiner. The
statement by Van Bourg to Respondent's attorney that the pickets could be removed
by BE,$CO ceasing buying its lumber from Steiner along with the plain import of
the picket legend establishes this objective. The means used were coercive. BESCO's
expressed concern over its public relations and the adverse sale of its homes flowing
from the picketing is established by this record. With respect to the effect of the
picketing on employees , it is noted that the pickets arrived prior to the time the
employees reported for work and were not present on Saturday and Sunday, when
only prospective home purchasers were at the site. This factor suggests that a group
of people at whom the picketing was aimed were the workmen affiliated with the
AFL-CIO Building Trades. Although the record only establishes that one employee
failed to report to work, .the effect of the picketing on this individual, a member of the
AFL-CIO craft union , exemplifies a potential effect which may have been exercised
on other employees . In this connection it is noted that the statutory term "induce
and encourage" includes attempts which do not necessarily have to succeed . Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 501 v. N.L.R.B. (Samuel Langer),
341 U.S. 694, 701-702. N.L.R.B. v. Dallas General Drivers, etc., Local 745 (Asso-
ciated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas), 264 F. 2d 642 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Laundry,
Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers, Local 928 (Southern Service Co.), 262 F. 2d
617 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America et al. (Barry Controls,
Inc.), 250 F. 2d 184, 187 (C.A. 1).
In the case at hand, there is no legitimate primary dispute between Respondent
and Steiner or Las Plumas. Since the employees of Las Plumas were recognized by
a certified union, it is not possible that Respondent Union could have a legitimate
dispute with this organization or the employer of these employees. The existence of
a lawful primary dispute is not required as a necessary element in finding a violation
of Section 8(b)(4). N.L.R.B. v. Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District
Council et al. (Sound Shingle Co.), 211 F. 2d 149 (C.A. 9). In fact, this case indi-
cates that the court regards the unfair labor practice as more reprehensible if there is
no legitimate primary dispute with the primary employer. See also National Maritime
Union of America, AFL-CIO (Weyerhoeuser Lines etc.), 147 NLRB 1317 In sum-
mary, it is found that the wording of the picket signs and the time of the picketing
establishes that it was designed to induce or encourage AFL-CIO Building Trades
men to cease work and also to coerce BESCO to cease doing business with Steiner
and hence this conduct appears to be violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (u) (B).
As its defense, Respondent claims its action is protected by the fact that its picket
labels indicated it was engaged in consumer picketing. Respondent's primary position
is that BESCO was the consumer and alternatively it claims that the picketing was
addressed to the purchasers of homes from BESCO, and that in this view of the matter
the potential purchasers of the homes would be consumers.
With respect to the role of BESCO as a consumer, the position of Respondent seems
highly unrealistic. A telephone call or a letter to BESCO, the single user of Steiner's
products under this theory of Respondent, would completely apprise BESCO of
Respondent's position. A single business entity such as BESCO does not occupy the
role of consumer within the contemplation of the Act or precedents on the permis-
sibility of consumer picketing. The term "consumer" connotes in general a group
of largely totally unknown individuals who can only be appealed to by a public dis-
play such as picketing or other advertising. The attempt to have BESCO cease doing
business with Steiner is no more than an attempt to have BESCO, the secondary
employer, cease doing business with Steiner, the primary employer.
With respect to the additional claimed objective of Respondent that the consumer
picketing was addressed to the purchasers of BESCO homes, there is a further con-
sideration . In N.L.R B. v. Fruit and Vegetable Packers & Warehousemen, Local 760
(Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58, the union picketed a Safeway supermarket with a picket
legend appealing to the public not to purchase the products of the company with
whom its primary dispute existed. The union was seeking to have Safeway not pur-
chase Washington apples and its appeal, through the picket sign and handbills to tiie
public, was clearly designed only as an appeal to have the consuming public not
purchase the Washington apples. In order to insure that the picketing would not be
construed as inducement or encouragement to the employees of Safeway not to work,
the pickets came on patrol after the employees reported to work and left before their
day was completed. Further, strict instructions were given to the pickets spelling out
that the only function they had was an appeal to the consuming public not to
purchase the products of the employer with whom they had a primary dispute.
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The distinction between the Tree Fiutts case and the facts of the case under con-
sideration is exemplified by a statement of the Court at page 70:
Peaceful consumer picketing to shut off all trade with the secondary employer
unless he aids the union in its dispute with the primary employer, is poles apart
from such picketing which only persuades his customers not to buy the struck
product The proviso indicates no more than that the Senate conferees' consti-
tutional doubts led Congress to authorize publicity other than picketing which
persuades the customers of a secondaiy employer to stop all trading with him,
but not such publicity which has the effect of cutting off his deliveries or inducing
his employees to cease work. On the other hand, picketing which persuades the
customers of a secondary employer to stop all trading with him was also to be
barred.
Applying the above-quoted language to the case at hand, it is apparent that
Respondent's objective (if it existed at all during the picketing) aimed at persuading
home buyers not to buy BESCO homes was aimed at causing them not to trade at all
with BESCO. This, of course, follows since a home buyer could scarely buy a home
with its many components without purchasing the lumber in the home.
Inasmuch as the picketing was an inducement of individuals employed by a person
engaged in commerce to cease work and was coercive of BESCO, a person employed
in commerce, both for a proscribed object, it follows Respondent has violated Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (n) (B).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Company set forth in section 1, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union, Local No 550, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
2. IWA, Local 3-428, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
3. BESCO, Steiner, and Las Plumas are each engaged in commerce or in an indus-
try affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
4. By picketing the entrance to the project of BESCO in Fremont, California,
Respondent has induced and encouraged individuals employed by BESCO and the
subcontractors of BESCO to engage in a strike or refusal, in the course of their
employment, to perform services for their respective employers and has restrained
and coerced the aforenamed Employers, in each case with an object of forcing or
requiring the aforenamed BESCO to cease doing business with Steiner and Las
Plumas.
5. By the conduct set forth in the preceding paragraph, Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (1) and (ii) (B) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case and the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, it is recommended that Respondent, Millmen & Cabinet
Makers Union, Local No. 550, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall
1 Cease and desist from picketing any entrance to the BESCO premises located
in Fremont, California, or in any other manner inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by BESCO or its subcontractors 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 restraining or coercing BESCO or any of its subcontractors where in
either case an object is to force or require BESCO or its subcontactors to cease doing
business with Steiner or Las Plumas.
JOE WHEELER ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORP . 1291
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and
all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for
Region 20 for posting by BESCO, if willing, in all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.5
& In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the b ..ard, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
5 In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT maintain a picket line at any entrance to Besco's building project
for the purpose of inducing or encouraging employees of BESCO or subcon-
tractors to refuse to work or for the purpose of causing BESCO to cease doing
business with Steiner Lumber Company or Las Plumas Development Company.
MILLMEN & CABINET MAKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 550, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---- --------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco , California, Telephone No. 556-3197, if they have
any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Joe Wheeler Electric Membership Corporation and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 558. Case
No. 10-CA-5805. July 2,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 22, 1965, Trial Examiner Phil W. Saunders issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending
153 NLRB No. 99.