Section 8(b)(7), subparagraph (C) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (7)(C).
3. The aforesaid charges were referred to petitioner as Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the Board.
4. There is, and petitioner has, reasonable cause to believe that:
(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) Best Markets, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Food Fair Stores, Inc., is engaged in operating a chain of nine retail food stores in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area. In the operation of its business, Best Markets, Inc. annually does a gross volume of business of in excess of $ 500,000, and annually receives goods and materials from outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania valued at in excess of $ 50,000. (See Par. 5(c) of Petition and answer and testimony of A. L. Adams).
(d) Respondent is not currently certified as the representative of any of Best's employees.
(e) On or about June 16, 1961, and subsequent to the filing of the petition in the instant case, respondent filed a charge with the Board alleging, inter alia, that 'Food Fair Stores, Inc. d/b/a Best Markets, Inc.' had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. On or about June 19, 1961, and prior to the hearing in the instant case, the said charge was dismissed by petitioner, acting on behalf of the Board. Accordingly, no charge against Best Markets, Inc. under Section 8(a)(2) of the Act was pending before the Board at the time of hearing in the instant case. (See Exhibits P4-P6).
(f) Notwithstanding the aforesaid, respondent, since prior to May 5, 1961, has demanded that Best recognize and bargain with respondent as the representative of Best's sales employees, other than those in the meat, seafood and delicatessen departments, at the stores referred to in Finding of Fact 4(c) above, or has been attempting to compel Best's said employees to accept or select respondent as their collective bargaining representative.
(g) In furtherance of the aforesaid demand for recognition and bargaining or attempt to compel Best's aforesaid employees to accept or select respondent as their collective bargaining representative, respondent, since on or about and after May 5, 1961, has picketed eight of Best's stores referred to in Finding of Fact 4(c) above.
(h) The aforesaid picketing has been conducted for more than thirty (30) days without the filing of a petition under Section 9 (c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c), for a Board election.
(i) An object of respondent's picketing set forth in Findings of Fact 4(g) and (h) above, is to force or require Best to recognize or bargain with respondent as the representative of Best's sales employees, other than in the meat, seafood and delicatessen departments, at the stores of Best Markets, Inc., in the Philadelphia area, or to force or require Best's aforesaid employees to accept or select respondent as their collective bargaining representative, notwithstanding that respondent is not currently certified as the representative of such employees.
(j) The acts and conduct of respondent set forth in Findings of Fact 4(g), (h), and (i) above, occurring in connection with the operations of Best, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to and do lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
(k) Facts stated in the attached discussion.
5. It may fairly be anticipated that, unless enjoined, respondent will continue and repeat the acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 4(g), (h), (i) and (j) above, or similar or like acts and conduct.
Conclusions of Law
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this proceeding, and under Section 10(l) of the Act is empowered to grant injunctive relief.
2. There is, and petitioner has, reasonable cause to believe that:
(a) Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5), 8(b) and 10(l) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 152(5), 158(b), 160(l).
(b) Best is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
(c) Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7), subparagraph (C), of the Act, affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and a continuation of these practices will impair the policies of the Act as set forth in Section 1(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 141(b), thereof. See discussion above.
3. To preserve the issues for the orderly determination as provided in the Act, it is appropriate, just and proper that, pending the final disposition of the matters herein involved pending before the Board, respondent, its officers, representatives, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all members and persons acting in concert or participation with them, be enjoined and restrained from the commission, continuation, or repetition, of the acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 4(g), (h), (i) and (j) above, acts or conduct including picketing, in furtherance or support thereof, or like or related acts or conduct the commission of which in the future is likely or may fairly be anticipated from respondent's acts and conduct in the past.