S. F. Typographical Union 21

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 542 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21 , Interna-
tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO; Freight,
Construction, General Drivers & Helpers Union
Local 287 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America;
and Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck
Drivers Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America and California Newspaper, Inc. d/b/a
San Rafael Independent Journal . Case 20-CC-965
December 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On August 17, 1970, Trial Examiner Allen Sin-
sheimer , Jr., issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en-
gaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief, the Charging Party
filed an answering brief, and the General Counsel and
the Charging Party filed limited cross-exceptions to
the Trial Examiner'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
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
modifications:
In the limited cross-exceptions filed by the General
Counsel and joined in by the Charging Party it is
pointed out that by apparent oversight the Trial
Examiner failed to find that when Montano of
Teamsters Local No. 85 induced drivers of a neutral
employer not to cross the secondary picket line of
Respondent Typographical Union No. 21, and
thereby involved the Teamsters Local No. 85 in the
process of shutting down the pier, such conduct
constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)( B) as well
as 8(b)(4)(ii)(B); 1 and, in the case of Respondent
Teamsters Local 287, he failed to include in his
recommended order a remedial provision aimed at its
187 NLRB No. 71
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). We find merit in
these cross-exceptions and shall revise the remedial
provisions accordingly.
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 Trial Examiner, as modified herein,
and hereby orders that the Respondents, San Francis-
co Typographical Union No. 21, International Typo-
graphical Union, AFL-CIO; Freight, Construction,
General Drivers & Helpers Union Local 287, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America; and Brotherhood of
Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 85,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, their officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as
modified below:
1. Renumber paragraph B, 1, as paragraph B, 1,
(a), and add the following as paragraph B, 1, (b):
"(b) Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or
restraining Star, Garden City, Powell, or Globe,
where an object is to force or require Star, Garden
City, Powell, Globe, or any other person to cease
doing business with the Journal or with each other, to
compel any of them to cease doing business with the
Journal."
2. Renumber paragraph C, 1, as paragraph C, 1,
(b), and insert, immediately preceding it, the follow-
ing as paragraph C, 1, (a):
"(a) Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging
individuals employed by Globe or by Garden City to
refuse to pick up or deliver goods, wares, or
merchandise at Pier 46A of the port of San Francisco
destined for the Journal or to refuse to perform any
other services where an object thereof is to force or
require Globe or Garden City to cease doing business
with the Journal, or with Powell, Star, or with any
other person for the purpose of causing a cessation of
business by any of them with the Journal."
3. In footnote 9 of the Trial Examiner's Decision
substitute "20" for "10" days.
4. Substitute the attached notice as Appendix B
for that recommended by the Trial Examiner.
5. Substitute the attached notice as Appendix C
for that recommended by the Trial Examiner.
I A violation of Section 8(bX4XiXB ) was not specifically alleged in the
complaint as against Teamsters Local No. 85, but the evidentiary facts
underlying this additional finding are admitted by Montano himself.
S. F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals
employed by Garden City Transportation Compa-
ny, Ltd., to refuse to pick up or deliver goods,
wares, or merchandise at Pier 46A of the port of
San Francisco destined for San Rafael Independ-
ent Journal or to perform any other services where
an object thereof is to force or require Garden City
Transportation Company, Ltd., to cease doing
business with San Rafael Independent Journal or
with Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd., Star Termi-
nal Company, Inc., Globe-Wally's Forklift Serv-
ice, Inc., or any other person for the purpose of
causing a cessation of business by any of them
with San Rafael Independent Journal.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Star
Terminal Company, Inc., Garden City Transpor-
tation Company, Ltd., Powell River Alberni Sales
Ltd., or Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc.,
where an object is to force or require Star Terminal
Company, Inc., Garden City Transportation
Company, Ltd., Powell River Alberni Sales Ltd.,
Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc., or any other
person to cease doing business with the San Rafael
Independent Journal, or with each other to compel
any of them to cease doing business with the San
Rafael Independent Journal.
FREIGHT, CONSTRUCTION,
GENERAL DRIVERS &
HELPERS UNION LOCAL
287, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102,
Telephone 415-556-3197.
543
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten , coerce , or restrain Star
Terminal Company, Inc., where an object is to
force or require Star Terminal Company, Inc., to
cease doing business with Powell River Alberni
Sales Ltd., Garden City Transportation Company,
Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service , Inc., or any
other person to compel any of them to cease doing
business with the San Rafael Independent Journal.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage individuals
employed by Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc.,
or by Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd.,
to refuse to pick up or deliver goods, wares, or
merchandise at Pier 46A of the port of San
Francisco destined for the San Rafael Independ-
ent Journal or to refuse to perform any other
services where an object thereof is to force or
require Globe-Wally's Forklift Service , Inc., or
Garden City Transportation Company, Ltd., to
cease doing business with the San Rafael Inde-
pendent Journal, or with Powell River Alberni
Sales Ltd., Star Terminal Company, Ltd., or with
any other person for the purpose of causing a
cessation of business by any of them with the San
Rafael Independent Journal.
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS & AUTO
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL
No. 85, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102,
Telephone 415-556-3197.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALLEN SINSHEIMER , JR., Trial Examiner: This proceeding
was heard at San Francisco, California, on May 6, 7, 8, and
13, 1970. The complaint herein issued on February 17,
1970, based on a charge filed January 20, 1970, alleges
violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i) (ii)(B) of the Act by virtue of
certain picketing and other conduct engaged in by the
Respondents.' The issues will be more fully set forth
hereafter.
Upon the entire record including my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the
Respondents, I make the following: 2
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY
The complaint alleges, the Respondents admit, and I find
that the Charging Party is engaged in the publication of a
daily newspaper of general circulation in San Rafael,
California, that during the past year it derived gross
revenue in excess of $200,000 from its newspaper operation
and that during said year it received goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of
California. It is further alleged, admitted, and I find that
the Charging Party, the California Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a
San Rafael Independent Journal, herein called The Journal,
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, Internation-
al Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called Typo-
graphical Union 21, Freight, Construction, General Drivers
& Helpers Union Local 287, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, herein called Teamsters Local 287, and Brother-
hood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 85,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called
Teamsters Local 85, are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Admissions
The Journal purchases from Powell River Alberni Sales
Ltd., herein called Powell, newsprint, which is shipped by
Powell from Canada to the port facility operated by Star
Terminal Company, Inc., herein called Star, at pier 46A of
the port of San Francisco, where the newsprint is stored
while awaiting delivery to The Journal. There are also
i On April 10, 1970, this case was consolidated for hearing with Case
20-CB-2205 The hearing opened May 6 and was continued to May 7 due
to unavailability of Respondent counsel On May 7, 1970, pursuant to
motion of Respondent 's counsel , the Trial Examiner severed the above case
from Case 20-CB-2205 Hearing in that case was conducted following
conclusion of the above case
2 The General Counsel on June 22 and July 22, 1970, filed a motion to
stored , in various locations at the pier , rolls of newsprint to
be delivered to many newspapers in the area other than The
Journal . These have no required or fixed place of storage
although they may be stored at the same place.
Garden City Transportation Company , Ltd., herein
called Garden City, has performed services for Powell in
the hauling of rolls of newsprint from Star 's port facility to
various customers of Powell including The Journal. Its
employees are members of Teamsters Local 287. Globe-
Wally's Forklift Service , Inc., herein called Globe , has been
engaged in the business of loading and unloading cargo by
means of forklifts from motor carriers including Garden
City on and from their trucks at various port facilities
including that operated by Star at pier 46A. Its employees
are members of Teamsters Local 85.
It was admitted and I find that at all times material Jack
Black has been a business agent of the Respondent
Teamsters Local 287 and that Henry Montano has been an
organizer for Respondent Teamsters Local 85. Donald
Abrams testified that he is and at all material times was a
representative for Typographical Union 21 and I so find.
B. Complaint and Issues
The complaint alleges as follows:
(a) Since on or about January 19, 1970, Respondent
Typographical Union has picketed at the entrance to, and
on, the Star port facility at Pier 46A of the Port of San
Francisco, where there was a shipment of newsprint to be
delivered to The Journal 's San Rafael plant.
(b) On or about January 21, 1970, Respondent Typo-
graphical Union, by its various pickets, names unknown, at
Pier 46A of the Port of San Francisco, physically
obstructed, and prevented the departure of, a Garden City
truck loaded with newsprint to be transported to The
Journal's San Rafael plant.
(c) Since on or about January 20, 1970, Respondent
Teamsters Local 287, by its agent Black, has instructed and
appealed to its members, employed as truck drivers by
Garden City, to honor the picket line of Respondent
Typographical Union at Pier 46A and to refuse to pick up,
haul, deliver or otherwise handle the newsprint cargo
shipped by Powell and awaiting, at Pier 46A, delivery to
The Journal's San Rafael plant.
(d) On or about January 21, 1970, Respondent Teamsters
Local 85, by its agent Montano, at Pier 46A, threatened
Star with a shutdown of all operations at Pier 46A where
there was newsprint to be delivered to The Journal's San
Rafael plant.
These allegations are denied by the Respondent. The
issues with respect to the allegations will be spelled out
more fully after stating the facts relating to each.
Essentially they involve the contention by Respondents
that the picketing by Typographical Union 21 at the pier
was primary and not secondary, while the Charging Party
correct the record in certain specified respects No opposition thereto has
been filed I have checked each of the proposed corrections and, except for
the proposed correction at p. 425, line 7 of "outside" to "inside" which is
not clear to me, find that all of the others are proper and should be
granted The motion to correct the record is accordingly granted except as
indicated and the transcript of proceedings is hereby corrected
S F TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 545
and the General Counsel contend that it was secondary.
The respective Respondents also contend that the action of
Black was proper in any event , and that Montano did not
threaten a shutdown as alleged.
C. Resume of the Facts
On January 7, a strike was commenced by the
Typographical Union 21 against The Journal which has its
main location at San Rafael , some distance to the north of
San Francisco . On January 19, about 10 : 30 or 11 a.m., the
Typographical Union commenced picketing at the pier
where Star conducted its operations at the port of San
Francisco . This pier is leased by Star from the port of San
Francisco . At that time several pickets appeared with two
(or more) of them carrying signs headed:
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION
AFL-CIO
ON STRIKE
INDEPENDENT-JOURNAL
UNFAIR
The picket line was established by Abrams, a representa-
tive of the Typographical Union . A driver for Garden City,
John Perkov , who had earlier that day delivered newsprint
from the pier to The Journal plant in San Rafael returned to
pick up more newsprint but observing the pickets of
Typographical Union Local 21 at the pier did not do so.
The pickets stopped a number of Garden City trucks
(including Perkov 's) which arrived at the pier , inquired
whether the driver was seeking to pick up newsprint for The
Journal , stated they were on strike against The Journal, and
that the Garden City trucks coming to the pier could pick
up newsprint for any other paper but weren 't to pick it up
for The Journal . Perkov, called his dispatcher and was told
to pick up newsprint for another newspaper . Another
driver , Edward Moisa , drove to the pier on January 19, was
stopped by the pickets, and was told it was all right to go
through since he was not picking up cargo for The Journal.
Herbert Blatt , executive vice president of the Star, went
outside to talk to Abrams who testified he identified himself
and told Blatt that he was placing pickets outside the pier
and "that their sole and limited extent was to restrict the
cargo that belonged to The Independent Journal that was
on the pier." Moore , Star's president , subsequently went
outside and spoke to Abrams who testified he told Moore
the picketing was limited to the cargo designated for The
Journal. Abrams said Moore indicated during an ensuing
discussion he thought this was a secondary boycott and that
he shouldn ' t be involved . Abrams also admitted that day he
told Jess Prince , a supervisor for Garden City, he did not
want to interfere with Garden City's operations except they
were asking him not to haul cargo to The Journal.
Sometime in the day or night of January 19, Jack Black, a
business representative of Local 287, received a phone call
from an unidentified person stating that two members of
Local 287 had crossed the picket line. Black wasn't too
clear as to what picket line was referred to but the next
morning , Black arose at 5 a .m., which was 2 hours earlier
than his normal time , and went to a lunch counter adjacent
to Garden City's locale . There he talked to two persons, one
of whom is not identified and the other , Clifford Goddard,
is Garden City's safety director and was its dispatcher.
Goddard testified that Black asked who had crossed the
picket line the day before and Goddard told him nobody
had. Black asked to talk to the drivers involved.
At that point they then went to the dispatch office and
Goddard asked for the two drivers, Jack Miner and John
Perkov , who had driven newsprint to San Rafael the day
before . Black asked them if they crossed the picket line at
San Rafael ; both said no . They stated they had taken the
trucks into San Rafael and turned their trucks over to
personnel from The Journal. According to Goddard, Black
told them that the picket line at the pier was an
"ambulatory picket line and that it would be observed."
Goddard also testified Black said the picket line was strictly
for The Independent Journal and no one else . Black told
Perkov that it was all right to get a load for other papers but
not The Journal and that he was to honor the picket line for
The Independent Journal if it were there . Both drivers
nodded in agreement.
Subsequently , Ralph Dequine , Garden City's operations
manager, spoke to Black by phone and told him that the
picket line was not primary and "you have instructed your
drivers that they were to evade the picket line ." According
to Dequine , Black answered that he had been told by Al
Winters (the "number one" business agent of Local 287)
that it was an ambulatory picket line and a legitimate one,
and that Black then said that he would recheck with
Winters and if what Dequine was saying was correct "why
he would revoke his instructions ." According to Goddard
after calling Winter, Black again told the drivers the picket
line "would be observed."
Black testified he told Goddard that it was a primary
picket line and he had "already told the people what their
rights are under the contract...." Black denied stating
that the picket line "would be observed ." Black testified he
told Perkov on the morning of January 20,
I told him it was a primary picket line, that he was
protected under the contract , that he had a perfect right
to refuse to cross that picket line , and he was protected
under the agreement . He wouldn 't be fired.
and Perkov replied , "That's all I want to know." Black
further testified after he spoke to Winter,
I told-yes, I did . I told Mr . Goddard it's a primary
picket line , and I 've already told the people what their
rights are under the contract ; there's nothing else I can
do, I'm going to leave , which I did.
Perkov testified that Black said to him:
Well, I asked Mr. Black if it was legal in what I was
doing , and he says , it was , but he says to honor- I've
got a right to honor the picket line , which he was
referring to Pier 46A, that is the picket line referring to
46A of the Independent Journal.
Black further testified he told Goddard " it was a primary
picket line , it was the people 's right to respect that picket
line if they so choose and they were protected under the
contract ." Black denied he said anything about instructions
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and said he didn't give any instructions to the people, "This
was a choice they're entitled to make for themselves."
Later that day according to Dequine, he and Black met at
a grievance session and Dequine told Black, ". . . well, I
see that- that you stuck by your guns and instructed the
drivers to honor the picket line...." Black in turn smiled
and answered, "You know that's a legal picket line."
Black's version of the foregoing was as follows: All he could
recall was that Dequine told him he was wrong and he
could fire the drivers. He responded, ". . . Ralph, you do
whatever you think is the right thing to do."
The picketing had been on a 24-hour day basis whether
or not there were any trucks or any employees or anyone
else there. On January 21, at 8 a.m. when Moore arrived,
there were about six pickets on the outside with about four
carrying signs . Sometime that morning, a Garden City
truck driven by Moisa arnved at the pier to pick up
newsprint assigned to The Journal. When he drove inside,
one of the pickets asked him what papers he was picking up
and Moisa told him The Journal. The picket said that the
drivers were honoring their picket. Moisa responded that he
was sent by his dispatcher who told him "the paper was all
cleared to be picked up." Moisa then commenced loading
the truck with a forklift driven by an employee of Globe.
The picket who had spoken to him earlier asked Moisa if he
would "do him a favor and not leave until he (the picket)
got a hold of someone . . . a Business Agent or something."
Moisa said he had plenty of time as he had to load the truck
and tie it down. Moisa tried a number of times to reach his
agent , Black, who was not in but he did speak to another
business agent, unidentified, who told him he "had the right
[not]3 to cross the pickets."
As the loading of the newsprint was being completed,
Abrams arrived, told the pickets to move inside, and
stationed one in front of the truck. Abrams did not
immediately see Moisa but he was pointed out to him.
According to Moisa, Abrams angrily demanded, "What the
hell I was picking up the paper for." Abrams said he told
Moisa that he couldn't understand why Moisa had allowed
his rig to be loaded with The Journal cargo, that other
Garden City drivers had come on the pier on the 19th and
20th, been requested not to pick up Journal paper and had
loaded for other papers and left the pier without difficulty.
Abrams also asked if Moisa had tried to get hold of his
business agent. Moisa called his dispatcher, Goddard, to
tell him the pickets were in front of the truck and wouldn't
let him off the pier. Goddard contacted Dequine. Dequine
instructed Goddard to call the police .4 After the truck was
loaded, Abrams told the pickets to get in front of Moisa's
truck which they did. At that point the truck could have
been moved, according to Moisa, "if I run over them."
Abrams confirmed that the picket was standing in front of
the cab and testified:
Q. So in order for that load to get out, either the
picket would have to get out of the way or the rig would
run over him, is that right?
A. At that point in time what you say is correct.
Moore testified he observed the pickets standing around
the truck, walked over to the area and told them that he had
tolerated their line in front of the terminal but that they
were now trespassing and they should leave. The pickets
stated, according to Moore, they were there to prevent The
Journal cargo from being moved and they couldn't
understand why Moore "couldn't leave them inside the
pier." Moore told them to get out and the pickets then
returned to the entrance of the pier with the trucks
remaining inside.
While the pickets were outside, one of Star's supervisors
reported that certain Teamsters officials were out in front
and were threatening to shut down the pier. Vice President
Blatt and President Moore went out to talk to the
Teamsters officials particularly Henry Montano who
identified himself. Moore testified he asked Montano about
the threat that had been relayed to him, to close the pier
because of the loading of newsprint for The Journal.
According to Moore, Montano responded that the
newsprint was "hot cargo" that Moore was allowing a scab
organization to transport the cargo to a plant which was in
dispute with their brothers. Moore said Montano stated in
conclusion that ". . . they were going to shut the piers
down if this [Moisa's ] truck continued to move out, and not
let any trucks come in and out whatever destination they
were destined for." Moore testified that he said Montano's
threat of shutting down the pier meant that he would be
throwing Local 85 drivers out of work for dozens of other
consignees, that Montano responded that if that was the
way Moore felt Montano was "going to shut the pier
down," and prevent trucks from coming in or out.
Moore then asked what do I have to do "to get this
operation going." Moore said Montano responded that the
pickets should be allowed inside the pier and around the
cargo and the truck. Moore then agreed to accept two
pickets inside the pier at the cargo on the condition that the
representatives call the presidents of their local union or
other representatives and advise them that all pickets, all
organizers and everything else connected with their unions
be removed completely from in front of the premises.
Thereafter Montano returned to Moore and told him his
conditions were agreed to. During this time from about I to
2 p.m., while Moore and Montano were intermittently
arguing, all trucking activity on the piers stopped. Trucks
could neither enter nor leave.
The principal difference in testimony between Moore
and Montano as to the above relates to Moore's direct
testimony that Montano threatened to shut down the pier
before Moore let him move the pickets inside by the cargo.
After so testifying, Moore on cross-examination was asked:
Q. Now, with respect to your conversation with Mr.
Montano, didn't he express a fear to you, or concern to
you that unless the picketing was limited by bringing
the pickets inside and stationing them right by the
newsprint, that the result might be to close down the
pier, and he wouldn't be able to avoid that one way or
another, or nobody could avoid it?
A. I'm sorry, sir. You're putting words in my
mouth. He did not say they would be, he said he would
3 At p. 155 of the transcript 1 7, the word "not" does not appear intended and I am so concluding and finding
However, the transcript at p 177 11 14 through 18 make it clear that such 4 The police arrived but left after observing no actual physical restraint
insertion of the word "not" between the words "right" and "to" was at the time
S. F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 547
close down the pier if we would not allow pickets inside,
and pickets around the cargo. [Emphasis supplied ]
Q. They, is that the word that he used, they?
A. That's correct.
Q. And he was referring to the pickets?
A. He was referring to Local 85 and their trucking
union, that they would stop all of their own truckers from
going in and out.
Q. Did he say that we will stop our own truckers?
Are those the words he used?
A. I don't remember the exact words he used, but
remember that I testified that I told him that he would
stop all, by throwing a picket line, and joining in this, he
would stop and prevent work from all the truckers not
concerned with this.
Q. That was your remark?
A. He said that made no difference.
Q. That was your remark?
A. That's my remark, and his remark was it made
no difference, he was going to shut down the pier.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Just what did he say?
THE WITNESS: He said he was going to prevent any
trucks from coming in and out of the pier [Emphasis
supplied.]
Montano's version of the foregoing is that he received a
call from his office about a problem at pier 46A and went
down to investigate it. Montano said he spoke to drivers
who told him as long as there was a picket line in front of the
pier, they weren't going in.
Montano further testified he spoke to Moore who said he
had a picket line in front and he had moved the pickets
outside, and "Now we've got the whole pier tied up."
According to Montano:
And I told him, I says, "Well, I can see why you have. "
I says, "Why don't you let the pickets go where the
commodity is and do the picketing and get the pickets away
from the front of the entrance and the business will go back
to normal again. "
Montano added Moore argued the pickets had no business
inside and then testified:
So I concluded that I couldn't do much good there
because there was a picket line and my people were
observing it, and I'm not about to tell them how to
exercise their rights other than inform them what their
rights are. [Emphasis supplied.] -
Then I said, "Well, I might as well go back to the
office, I'm not doing any good here." And he says, "No,
wait a minute," he says, "What can we do? What can we
do about this thing? We've got everything tied up."
I told him exactly what I said, "Take your pickets in,
let them go inside the building, picket the commodity
and they'll get away from the front of the door, and the
men will go back to work again."
So he says, "Okay," he says, "but I want only two
pickets inside of the building and nobody else; dust two
pickets, one on the truck and one standing next to the
commodity that is on the dock."
Montano was also asked and testified as follows:
Q. Did you make any statement during your
conversations with Mr. Moore at any time with respect
to Local 85 or you specifically shutting down the pier?
A. No, sir. I didn't say anything.
Q. Did you make any statement to the effect that
you or Local 85 would not permit any trucks to move
until the newsprint problem with the IJ had been
settled?
A. No, sir.
Q. Can you recall any-anything else in your
conversations with Mr. Moore that you have not yet
described to us?
A. Just that Mr. Moore accused us of tying up this
pier, and I told him, "You're mistaken, Mr. Moore,
because you're the one that has the pier tied up."
And he says, "Well, they're your trucks and they're
your members, so what are you going to do about it?"
I told him I can't do anything about it, it's not my
picket line, and our members will not go through picket
lines. [Emphasis supplied.]
Montano also testified:
At anytime during the-your stay at the-during the
period that you were at Pier 46A did you instruct or tell
any driver of a truck not to go through the line?
A. No, sir.
He then testified there was a line of trucks tied up at the
entrance . He was asked about conversations and testified
drivers asked what the situation was. Montano was also
asked:
Q. And did any of these drivers talk with you?
A. Yes. They asked me what the situation was, and
I told them, "There's a picket line over there and you have
your right to observe it by the contract, and I'll see what
else I can find out, what 's going on ." [Emphasis
supplied.]
Montano was subsequently again asked about his discus-
sion with Moore and testified:
And I told him that the teamsters were not involved.
It's a picket line on the I.J. And I said, "If you want to
resolve this thing, you should take the pickets and let
them picket where they 're [sic] truck is, and get them
away from the entrance , and the business would go
back to normal again."
He wouldn't accept this, and he was very adamant in
keeping the pickets off the private property, because
they were trespassing, and I told him so long as they're
standing out in front where my people can see them, they're
not going to go into the pier. [Emphasis supplied.]
Vice President Blatt testified as a rebuttal witness as
follows with regard to this incident. On direct examination,
he testified that Moore and Montano engaged in a
conversation and that Montano said:
"Didn't we know that was scab cargo , hot cargo, or
scab cargo," or something; words to this effect, that,
"How come we were allowing this thing ," and Mr.
Moore asked him what he meant . And they kept at each
other.
I think they both got a bit excited in the process, and
about the only thing I can really recall beyond that is
Mr. Montano finally says, "Well, I can't get any place
with you people . Fink management, and all this
business, I might as well just close the pier down, or shut
the operation down," or words to this effect . [Emphasis
supplied.]
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On cross-examination, Blatt testified:
Q. Don't you recall Mr. Montano saying that
Moore was the reason? That his activities and what he
had done is the reason that the pier was being shut
down by not letting the picketing inside?
A. That may have been said. I don't really recall, but
I wouldn't deny it, but then again I wouldn't say that it
was. I think that he said something of that nature, that if
he didn't allow the pickets in there. I'm not sure that this
was put at that time or as Mr. Moore came back in later
when they had left, walked out to themselves, I went in
the office, and I was made aware of the agreement that
they made, and whether this was part of it, leading up to
it beforehand, I'm not sure.
Q. It's true, isn't it, that Montano was accusing
Moore of being responsible for what was happening?
A. I think he did accuse him of that, yes
Q. And Moore undoubtedly was accusing Montano
for being responsible?
A. I think Moore was using the word, "What do
you mean, what do you mean," because we had
no-our business had no part of that.
Q. And you heard the words "shut down the pier," or
some reference made to the pier shutting down?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was made by Mr. Montano?
A. Right.
Q. And wasn't he accusing Mr. Moore of being the
one who was going to have to be responsible for that?
A. Yes. [Emphasis supplied.]
And on redirect examination:
Q. (By Mr. Berke) And was this because Mr. Moore
did not want pickets on the inside of his property?
A. I believe this was what Mr. yeah, this was what
Mr Montano was accusing, because Mr. Moore was not
cooperating with him. He was going to be responsible for
whatever happened. [Emphasis supplied.]
While the foregoing discussion between Montano and
Moore was taking place, Moisa was doing nothing about
the truck which he said he was afraid to move. During one
of the interruptions in the discussions between Moore and
Montano, Moisa testified that Montano advised them they
had the right not to cross the picket lines. Moisa told
Montano he didn't want to cross the picket lines and that
he'd get a hold of his business agent. Moisa tried and
couldn't reach Black and Montano also tried to telephone
Black. Later Moisa saw Montano, Moore, and Abrams
talking outside the pier. According to his recollection when
they finished talking, he was told to unload the paper.
Moisa called his dispatcher Goddard to get the permission
to unload and informed Goddard the pier was getting tied
up and he couldn't get the truck off the dock. Montano was
with Moisa during the phone call and also spoke to
Goddard. According to Goddard, Montano told him that a
lot of problems were building up at the pier and that if we
wanted him to take the truck off the pier with our driver he
could do so but he could not guarantee the safety once we
left the pier and he (Montano) would rather that we didn't.
Montano denied making any statement about guaranteeing
the safety of the Garden City truck or trucks or about them
getting off the pier.
When Montano left the pier, Moisa's truck was still
loaded. Thereafter, Garden City's Dock Supervisor Prince
arrived. He saw the truck with five or six pickets about 6 or
8 feet ahead of it. Moisa told him he was scared and the
pickets weren't going to let the truck off the pier. Prince told
Moisa to stand by while he called his superior. Shortly
thereafter Abrams came over. According to Abrams who
said his memory was vague as to the conversation he told
Prince they did not intend to interrupt the operation as far
as Garden City was concerned but they were asking them
not to haul the cargo to The Independent Journal. Abrams,
according to Prince, said that he didn't want Moisa's truck
going off the dock and if it did he wasn't sure it would get to
San Rafael or not. Abrams denied the latter statement.
Prince called Dequine who had been informed of the
events by Goddard. When Dequine was told by Prince that
Moisa was worried about getting off the dock, Dequine
said, "Hell unload it, don't let anybody get hurt." Prince
then went out and told the forklift operator to unload the
truck. No attempt had been made to move the truck while it
was loaded with the newsprint destined for The Journal.
The truck did not leave although there was more than a
load of newsprint to be delivered. From January 21, for
about 3 weeks until a temporary restraining order was
issued, two pickets remained by the cargo. During that time
no newsprint was moved from the pier to The Journal and
pickets continued to ask Garden City drivers what cargo
was being loaded whenever their trucks approached the
pier.
The pier gates were closed during the night and after the
pickets were allowed inside they were there only during the
day at the place where the newsprint was located. During
the night the signs remained but the pickets left.
D. Additional Findings and Conclusions as to the
Picketing by and Conduct of Typographical Union 21
The Respondent argues that the picketing by Typograph-
ical Union 21 at the pier, which commenced January 19,
1970, was so restricted and limited as to have the effect of
legally persuading employees not to make deliveries to or
cross a legitimate primary line at the struck premises of The
Journal in San Rafael. Respondent recognizes picketing
involves more than words alone but contends that it was so
designed and limited herein as to be indistinguishable from
oral or written effect. Whether or not oral or written
appeals might be legal, it is evident that the picketing was
not, and that it both in theory and in fact here had and
caused effects over and above those which could ordinarily
be anticipated from nonpicketing appeals. It is also evident
from the facts that the manner and method of picketing
herein does not come within any of the concepts applicable
to primary picketing. The picketing by Typographical
Union 21 occurred directly at the premises of a neutral, the
Star Terminal Company, and involved not only that
company but also other companies including Garden City,
Globe, Powell, as well as The Journal. This picketing
occurred 24 hours a day at first and was outside the pier,
S F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 549
then moved inside near the rolls of newsprint, then outside
again and then finally inside adjacent to the rolls. The
picketing in no way meets the requirements of Moore Dry
Docks since there were neither trucks nor employees of The
Journal present,6 and the picketing was at first continuous
for 24 hours even when the pier was closed and after the
pickets were moved back inside the picketing at the rolls
was throughout the day and picket signs were adjacent to
the rolls at night. Neither it does not fall within the ambit of
the Auburndale Freezer case (177 NLRB No. 108), where
the majority (in a three-to-two opinion) found a common
situs even though employees of the primary were not
present because of the alleged "presence of the primary."
Accepting the majority finding as controlling, the case is
clearly distinguishable. There are numerous significant
differences including the fact that the primary there
controlled the goods picketed at the secondary location
which it does not here. The warehouse was a place where
common carriers received the goods of the primary to
deliver to its customers and the storage at the warehouse
was a basic part of the production process of the primary.
Deliveries to the warehouse by the trucks and drivers of the
primary were made regularly and during the season, March
to July, continuously. Here, there isn't even a definite
location for the goods to be kept. At no time are employees
or equipment of the primary at the pier. Other than the fact
that the paper is one of the items needed by the primary,
there is no direct connection with the primary. The
picketing was designed to induce employees of other
employers not to handle the newsprint destined for The
Journal with an object of causing Garden City, Globe,
Powell, and Star not to do business with one another or
with The Journal. This is a typical secondary location and
situation, and should be so treated. Accordingly, I conclude
and find that the picketing at pier 46A of the port of San
Francisco by Typographical Union 21 violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.7
The evidence set forth, supra, additionally reflects that
pickets placed by Abrams were so located about Moisa's
truck as to have made it necessary "to run over" one or
more if Moisa were to have left the pier with the truck. This
is clear both from Moisa's testimony and also from
Abrams, who conceded that at one point in time ".. .
either the picket would have to get out of the way or the rig
would run over him...." It is also evident that Moisa was
frightened by the situation which included not only the
above but also the turmoil and cessation of operations at
the pier caused by the sequence of picketing, supra, from
outside to inside, then outside again and finally inside. It is
clear and I find that both by its illegal picketing and the
manner and conduct thereof, Respondent Typographical
Union additionally violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act as alleged by preventing the departure of Moisa's
Garden City truck on January 21, 1970.
3 92 NLRB 549
6 Nor even of Garden much of the time.
r See Printing Specialties and Paper Convert U v Le Baron, 171 F.2d 331
(C A 9)
E. Additional Findings and Conclusions as to the
Alleged Violation by Teamsters Local 287
The foregoing consists primarily of the conduct of Black
who got up at 5 a.m. to meet with and tell drivers Perkov
and Miner that they had a right not to cross the picket line
as set forth above. Black admitted that he told the people
what their rights are under the contract and specifically that
he told Perkov it was a primary picket line and "he was
protected under the contract, that he had a perfect right to
refuse to cross that picket line and he was protected under
the agreement." Perkov testified to similar effect that Black
told him he had a right to honor the picket line while
Goddard testified Black had told them that the picket line
was an "ambulatory picket line and that it would be
observed." Black said he told Goddard it was a primary
picket line and he had "already told people what their rights
are under the contract" and denied saying that it "would be
observed." Moisa, as set forth, had been told pursuant to a
phone call to the union office that he "had the right not to
cross the picket."
The General Counsel asserts that Black obviously had
given "instructions" to the drivers that they were not to
cross the Typographical picket line and that this in essence
was what he told Goddard as set forth. I am of the opinion
that this in substance was told to Goddard for the reason
that it appears unlikely that Black would have arisen so
early to go over to inform the pickets of their "rights" unless
he was interested in aiding the action at the picket line and
that Black conveyed this "interest" more emphatically than
a mere recitation as to the "rights" of the drivers to observe
the picket line. It also appears that the drivers Perkov and
Miner so understood and manifested their assent by
"nodding." I am accordingly crediting Goddard's testimo-
ny that Black stated that the picket line "would be
observed" and finding this amounted to an "instruction" to
the drivers.8
Further, the result would be the same even if Black's
statements to the drivers were not considered to be
"instructions." For there is no question these would induce
the drivers not to cross the picket line. The latter was not
protected by either law or contract since the Typographical
picket line as found was a secondary and not a primary or
legal picket ltne.9 Accordingly, even if Black's statements
were not instructions, Black was illegally inducing employ-
ees not to cross an illegal picket line, thereby violating
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) both by inducing them not to
perform work in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and in so
doing restraining and coercing the various employers (other
than The Journal) named herein in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
F. Additional Findings and Conclusions as to the
Alleged Violation by Teamsters Local 85
This involves first the question of whether Montano
threatened he would shut down the pier. The testimony as
to this has been set forth in detail, supra. It appears clear
8 Further basis for this finding is Dequine's testimony , supra, which I
credit, that Black said he "would revoke his instructions" if wrong.
9 The Teamsters are parties to a contract affording certain rights to
cross "primary" picket lines
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that there was a heated discussion between Moore and
Montano and in the course of the discussion that Montano
told Moore that the pier would be shut down. It is not
reasonable to expect Moore to separate from this discussion
whether Montano said that his Local 85 would shut it down
or whether that would be the effect of Moore's leaving the
pickets outside. Moore could reasonably conclude from
Montano's statements that Local 85 was shutting the pier
down, whatever Montano may have intended. The
testimony of Blatt (relied on by Respondent) does not
change this . Blatt does say Montano was blaming Moore
but he did not retract his testimony that Montano said, "I
might as well just close the pier down, or shut the operation
down," or words to this effect. I conclude from all the
testimony that Montano caused Moore to justifiably and
reasonably believe he would shut down the pier and
thereby restrained and coerced Star in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
Further Montano and Teamsters Local 85 cannot
contend otherwise in the face of Montano's statements to
the drivers including Moisa, as set forth that they had a
right not to cross the picket line. By so stating, Montano
was bringing Teamsters Local 85 into the process of
shutting the pier down and was illegally inducing drivers
not to cross the picket line and a causal factor in the drivers
unwillingness to cross the picket line. Montano had told the
drivers what was not legally correct and was thereby
inducing them to refuse to handle goods of the various
employers involved thereby restraining and coercing all of
the named employers herein (except The Journal) in
violation of 8(bX4)(ii)(B).
Accordingly, although I have found and concluded that
Moore, from the discussion, reasonably could and did
believe that Montano was directly threatening to shut down
the pier, I additionally find that by Montano' s statements
to the drivers he and Teamsters Local 85 were contributing
to the continuation of the temporary shutdown which
occurred and were a contributing factor in inhibiting its
resolution . Finally, I find that by participating and causing
the moving of the pickets inside, where they were not
legally entitled to be, Teamsters Local 85 had further
involved itself in and aided the illegal conduct of
Typographical Local 21. I further conclude and find that by
the foregoing conduct Teamsters Local 85 violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that they be
required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. California Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a San Rafael
Independent Journal is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. As found above, the Respondent, Typographical
Union, has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ii)(B)
of the Act.
4. As found above, Respondent Teamsters Local 287
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b) (4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. As found above, Respondent Teamsters Local 85 has
engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(bX4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
6. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record in this case , I hereby issue the
following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it
is recommended that the Board enter an order that:
A. Respondent Typographical Union No . 21, its
officers , agents , and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging by picketing at Pier 46A of
the port of San Francisco or otherwise inducing or
encouraging individuals employed by Garden City , Globe,
Star , Powell , or persons other than The Journal , to refuse to
perform services where an object thereof is to force or
require Powell , Garden City, Globe , Star, or any other
person , to cease doing business with The Journal , or with
each other for the purpose of causing a cessation of
business by any of them with The Journal.
(b) Threatening , coercing, or restraining Star , Garden
City, Powell , Globe, or any other person (other than The
Journal), where an object is to force or require Powell,
Garden City, Globe , Star , or any other person , to cease
doing business with The Journal , or with each other for the
purpose of causing a cessation of business by any of them
with The Journal.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices,
meeting halls , and in all places where notices to members
are customarily posted , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A."10 Copies of said notice , on forms
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
S. F. TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION 21 551
provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after
being signed by a representative of Respondent thereunto
duly authorized , shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily displayed.
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 20, in
writing , within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
B. Respondent Teamsters Local 287, its officers , agents,
and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging
individuals employed by Garden City to refuse to pick up
or deliver goods, wares, or merchandise at Pier 46A of the
port of San Francisco destined for The Journal or to
perform any other services where an object thereof is to
force or require Garden City to cease doing business with
The Journal , or with Powell , Star , Globe, or any other
person for the purpose of causing a cessation of business by
any of them with The Journal.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices,
meeting halls, and in all places where notices to members
are customarily posted , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B." 12 Copies of said notice , on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after
being signed by a representative of Respondent thereunto
duly authorized , shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are -customarily displayed.
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 20, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.13
C Respondent Teamsters Local 85, its officers , agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening, coercing, or
restraining Star where an object is to force or require Star to
cease doing business with Powell, Garden City, Globe, or
any other person to compel any of them to cease doing
business with The Journal.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices,
meeting halls, and in all places where notices to members
are customarily posted , copies of the attached notice
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by order of the
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 "
marked "Appendix C." 14 Copies of said notice , on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after
being signed by a representative of Respondent thereunto
duly authorized , shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily displayed.
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 20, in writing
within 20 days from receipt of this Decision , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.15
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
12
13
14
15
Footnote 10, supra
Footnote 11, supra
Footnote 10, supra
Footnote 11, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage by picketing at Pier
46A of the Port of San Francisco or otherwise indice or
encourage individuals employed by Garden City
Transportation Company Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift
Service, Inc., Star Terminal Company, Inc., Powell
River Alberni Sales Ltd., or persons other than the San
Rafael Independent Journal to refuse to perform
services where an object thereof is to force or require
Powell River Alberni Sales, Garden City Transporta-
tion Company Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service,
Inc., Star Terminal Company, Inc., or any other person,
to cease doing business with the San Rafael Independ-
ent Journal, or with each other for the purpose of
causing a cessation of business by any of them with the
San Rafael Independent Journal.
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Star Terminal
Company, Inc., Garden City Transportation Company
Ltd., Powell River Alberni Sales, Ltd., or any other
person (other than the San Rafael Independent
Journal), where an object is to force or require Powell
River Alberni Sales, Ltd. Garden City Transportation
Company Ltd., Globe-Wally's Forklift Service, Inc.,
Star Terminal Company, Inc., or any other person, to
cease doing business with the San Rafael Independent
Journal, or with each other for the purpose of causing a
cessation of business by any of them with the San
Rafael Independent Journal.
SAN FRANCISCO
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION No.
21, INTERNATIONAL
TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
552
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050
Federal Bldg., 450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36047, San
Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335