The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUSEN
This cause came on to be heard on on the verified petition of Bennet F.Schauffler, on the verified petition of Bennet F. Schauffler, Regional Director of the Relations Board (herein called the Board), for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l) pending the final disposition of the matters involved herein pending before the Board, and upon issuance of an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted as prayed in said petition. Respondent filed an answer to said petition. A hearing on the issues raised by the petition and answer was duly held on February 4, 1960. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence bearing on the issues, and to argue on the evidence and the law. The Court has fully considered the petition, answer, evidence, arguments, and briefs of counsel. Upon the entire record, the Court makes the following:
1. Petitioner is Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the Board, an agency of the United States, and filed the petition herein for and on behalf of the Board.
2. On or about January 8, 1960, E. A. Gallaher & Sons (herein called Gallagher), pursuant to the provisions of the Act, filed an amended charge to a charge originally filed with the Board on or about January 7, 1960, said amended charge alleging that Highway Truck Drivers Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called respondent), a labor organization, has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4), subparagraphs (A) and (B), of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4)(A, B).
4. There is, and petitioner has reasonable cause to believe:
(a) Respondent, an unincorporated association, is an organization in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
(b) Respondent maintains its principal office at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and at all times material herein has been engaged within this judicial district in transacting business and in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members.
(c) Gallagher is engaged in the transportation of property by motor vehicle pursuant to a certificate issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Gallaher operates into and through several States of the United States, including the State of Pennsylvania, and in connection therewith maintains a terminal and warehouse facilities at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. In the operation of its business, Gallagher annually receives revenue in excess of $ 50,000, for the transportation of goods from one State to another.
(d) In the operation of its business, Gallagher contracts with persons who own and operate their own trucks (herein called owner-operators), to transport goods for Gallaher on a contract basis and to deliver the goods so transported directly to the consignee thereof in the Philadelphia area, or to a Gallagher terminal or warehouse. Said owner-operators are not members of respondent, and are self-employed persons within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act.
(e) In addition, Gallaher employs persons on an hourly basis as over-the-road drivers and helpers to transport goods to Philadelphia area, as well as local city drivers. These hourly paid employees of Gallagher are members of respondent and there existed a collective bargaining agreement between Gallagher and respondent covering the wages, hours and terms and conditions of their employment.
(f) Gallagher also employs other hourly paid workers at its terminal who are not members of or represented by respondent.
(g) For some time, and particularly since on or about December 21, 1959, respondent has been engaged in efforts to force or require Gallagher to partially cease doing business with the owner-operators, and to achieve that purpose has demanded that Gallagher sign a contract or otherwise be bound by this provision, with the intent of having respondent's Master freight industry contract changed to restrict Gallagher's doing business with such owner-operators:
'In other words, you are agreeing herein to effectuate the changes in our current collective bargaining agreement which will be the same as the changes applicable to all employers in the area.' (page 3 of P-16)
(h) Gallagher has refused to accede to the aforesaid demands of respondent on the ground that to do so would force or require Gallagher, in part at least, to cease or refrain from handling, transporting or otherwise dealing in products transported or to be transported by the owner-operators, or to cease doing business with owner-operators, since in most instances the owner-operators deliver directly to a consignee in the Philadelphia area, and to cease doing business with owner-operators unless all Gallagher's usable equipment and drivers are working and unless preference is given to owner-operators having contracts with respondent or another local of respondent's international union.