The opinion of the court was delivered by: RAYFIEL
The National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, filed a petition for a preliminary injunction restraining the respondents, International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, and International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, Local 1814, hereinafter called International and Local 1814, respectively, from conducting and maintaining a strike at the Brooklyn plant of American Sugar Refining Company, hereinafter called Americn Sugar, pending the determination by the Board of charges filed by American Sugar against said respondents.
The said petition was filed under § 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l), hereinafter called the Act, which provides that if a person is charged with engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4)(A), (B) or (C) of 8(b) of the Act, 2 U.S.C.A. § 158(b), an investigation of such charge shall be made, and if, after such investigation, the officer or regional attorney to whom it has been referred has reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, he shall petition the United States District Court for appropriate injunctive relief pending the final adjudication of the Board.
American Sugar's charge, filed on August 3, 1959, accuses the respondents of unfair labor practices in that they, their officers, agents and representatives, jointly and severally, induced and encouraged its employees to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to process, transport or otherwise handle or work on goods and aritcles or to perform services, with the object of forcing American Sugar to recognize and bargain with them, jointly and severally, as the representatives of certain of their employees, despite the fact that the Independent Sugar Workers Union, hereinafter called Independent, had been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of § 9 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159. Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice to commit the acts so charged.
A hearing was held on August 26, 27 and 28, 1959, at which testimony was adduced and documentary and other evidence received. From the pleadings and the evidence presented at the hearing I find the facts to be as follows: Independent filed a petition with the Board for certification as the bargaining representative for certain of the employees of American Sugar. After a hearing on said petition in which Independent, American Sugar and the respondents participated, the parties entered into a consent election agreement which provided, inter alia, that the following bargaining unit of employees would be covered:
'All dock employees at the Brooklyn refinery of The American Sugar Refining Company, including table men, electric truck operators, sling makers, relief men and cleaners, shuttle men, sling collectors, sweepers, empty bag collectors, weighers, samplers, pay loader operators, and crane operators, but excluding all office and plant clerical employees, timekeepers, longshormen, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.' (Emphasis added.)
Independent received a majority of the votes cast at the election held pursuant to said agreement and, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the Board duly certified it as the exclusive bargaining representative of said unit of American Sugar's employees. International filed objections to the conduct of the election and the certification of Independent. The Board, after due consideration of said objections, found them to be without merit, and dismissed them. Despite such certification the respondents, labor organizations within the meaning of §§ 2(5), 9(b) and 10(l) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 152(5), 159(b), 160(l), as is Independent, have demanded that American Sugar recognize and bargain with them as the bargaining representatives of certain of the employees within said certified unit, and have requested, appealed to, and even directed employees of American Sugar and other employees to refuse to perform services for their respective employers.
On August 5, 1959, the respondents began a strike against American Sugar and thereafter picketed its Brooklyn, Philadelphia and Baltimore plants, and, among other things, prevented the unloading of a cargo of raw sugar from a vessel lying at its dock, which adjoins its Brooklyn refinery, from which it ships some $ 25,000,000 worth of its products annually to points outside the State of New York. There is evidence in the record to support the claim that the respondent International engaged in a strike against American Sugar, and sought to induce or encourage its employees, and those of other employers, to refuse in the course of their employment to process, transport, handle or work on the goods of or perform services for their respective employers, and that it is reasonable to believe that the purpose or object of such acts and conduct was to force or require American Sugar to bargain with it, instead of with Independent, as the representative of certain of American Sugar's employees. The evidence against respondent Local 1814, while somewhat less conclusive, is adequate to sustain American Sugar's charge and the Board's finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that both respondents have engaged in acts and conduct which are violative of § 8(b)(4)(C), and which affect commerce within the meaning of § 2, subsections (6) and (7) of the Act.
International's claim that it picketed American Sugar's plant merely to inform the public that it had violated the General Cargo Agreement, hereinafter referred to, and failed to abide by the arbitrator's decision thereunder, is negated by the incidents described herein, as well as others in the record.
The transcript of the testimony taken at the hearing discloses, among other things,
a -- that a Mr. Collazzo, a Vice President and an organizer of the respondent International, directed its members not to discharge a cargo of raw sugar from a vessel then docked at the American Sugar plant, and stated, in response to questions asked of him, that his purpose in so doing was to force American Sugar to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of wokers in several categories of employment covered by American Sugar's agreement with Independent, the certified union, and to employ only International's men in such jobs. Collazzo was accompanied by delegates and other representatives of Local 1814 on that occasion;
b -- that in a talk which he was permitted to make to members of Independent he warned them that they would be discharged if they refused to join International;
c -- that Walter Harun, a delegate for Local 1814, talked to the drivers of two trucks who were about to pick up loads of sugar from the American Sugar plant, and requested them not to load their trucks;
d -- that Anthony Pimpinella, also a delegate for Local 1814, called at the American Sugar plant on or about July 31, 1959, together with two officers of International, and told one Stroy, shop steward, that he wanted the workers in certain specific categories of employment of whom Independent was exclusive bargaining representative under its agreement with American Sugar, to join International or be replaced by members of the latter;
e -- that Pimpinella, after Collazzo's talk to the members of Independent referred to in (b) above, gave a quantity of notices, printed on stationery of Local 1814, to American Sugar's dock superintendent, which contained, among other things, a request that the members of Independent be discharged because of their refusal to join International. Since the notices were printed on its ...