3. The aforesaid charge was referred to the Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the Board.
4. There is, and petitioner has, reasonable cause to believe that:
(a) Local 107 is an unincorporated association 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) Local 107 maintains its principal office at 105 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and at all times material herein, respondent has been engaged within this judicial district in transacting business and in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members.
(c) Bell is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the retail and wholesale coal and fuel oil business. In the operation of its business, Bell annually has gross retail sales exceeding $500,000 and it annually purchases fuel valued in excess of $50,000 from firms within Pennsylvania, which firms purchase said fuel directly from outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(d) Local 107 is not currently certified as the representative of any of Bell's employees.
(e) On or about December 28, 1972, the Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, duly conducted an election by secret ballot among the employees of Bell in a unit consisting of all drivers, including service mechanic drivers, excluding truck mechanics, dispatchers, office clerical employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. At said election, a majority of the above employees voted against being represented by any labor organization.
(f) On or about January 8, 1973, the Regional Director of Region Four of the Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, duly issued his Certification of Results of Election certifying that a majority of the valid ballots in the aforesaid election had not been cast for any labor organization appearing on the ballot and that no labor organization is the exclusive representative of the unit of employees described in Findings of Fact 4(e), above.
(g) No charge has been filed with the Board under Section 8(a) (2) of the Act alleging that the Employer has unlawfully recognized or assisted any labor organization.
(h) Since on or about December 18, 1972, Local 107 has been engaged in picketing Bell's place of business at 126 Washington Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Signs carried by the pickets state that Bell pays less than the standard wage for the area.
(i) Local 107 has not investigated the rate being paid by Bell.
(j) Frank Amoroso, an organizer, or assistant organizer, of Local 107, made statements to William Bell and Peter DeStefano of Bell indicating that recognition and organization were objects of the picketing. Amoroso also handed out one pledge card and had more readily available.
(k) The statements and conduct referred to in Finding 4(j) were within the scope of Amoroso's authority as a representative of Local 107.
(l) An object of the picketing has been and is, to force and require Bell to recognize or bargain with Local 107 as the representative of employees of Bell and to force or require employees of Bell to accept or select Local 107 as their collective bargaining representative, notwithstanding that Local 107 is not currently certified as the representative of such employees and a valid election under the Act has been conducted within the preceding 12 months.
(m) The acts and conduct of Local 107 set forth in the above Findings, occurring in connection with the operations of Bell, 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.
5. It may fairly be anticipated that, unless enjoined, Local 107 will continue or repeat the acts and conduct set forth in these Findings, or similar or like acts and conduct.
At the outset it should be emphasized that the Court is not required to make a determination on the merits of this controversy, that is, as to whether Local 107 violated Section 8(b) (7) (B) of the Act. The Court's role in a 10(l) application was enunciated in Schauffler v. Local 1291, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 292 F.2d 182, (3d Cir. 1961), as follows:
" A Section 10(l) injunction is interlocutory in nature and only remains in force pending the final adjudication of the Board with respect to the unfair labor practice charge. . . . The Board need not show that an unfair labor practice has been committed, but need only demonstrate that there is reasonable cause to believe that the elements of an unfair labor practice are present. Nor need the Board conclusively show the validity of the propositions of law underlying its charge; it is required to demonstrate merely that the propositions of law which it has applied to the charge are substantial and not frivolous. . . .
* * *