Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 70

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 674 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local
No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
and California Trucking Association, Inc. Case
20-CB-2242
December 21, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On August 4, 1971, Trial Examiner Herman
Corenman issued the attached Decision' in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed an answering brief, and the Charging Party filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record' and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
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 and hereby orders that
Respondent Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck
Drivers Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Oakland, California, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is denied, since in our
opinion the record, including the transcript, exhibits, and exceptions and
briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed
May 12, 14, and 18, and June 2, 1970, by California
Trucking Association, Inc., herein called CTA, with the
office of Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, the General Counsel of the Board
issued a complaint on June 9, 1970, against Brotherhood of
Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, herein called Respondent or
Local 70, alleging that it is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and
Section 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer denying
that it violated the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on
October 29, 1970, January 11, 12, 15, 19, 26, 27, and 28, and
February 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11, 1971, at San Francisco,
California. All parties were represented by counsel and
were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file
briefs. Briefs were received from all parties on June 1, 1971,
and they have been carefully considered.'
Upon the entire record2, in this case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find, that
at all times material herein CTA has been a voluntary
association of employers existing for the purpose, inter alia,
of representing and assisting through the procedures of
multiemployer collective bargaining its employer-members
in negotiating and entering into labor contracts with the
collective-bargaining representatives of their employees,
including the Respondent. During the past year, a
substantial number of employer-members of CTA engaged
in freight transportation enterprises furnishing interstate
transportation services and transporting commodities in
interstate commerce. During the past year, the employer-
members of CTA referred to above, in the course and
conduct of their business operations, received in excess of
$50,000 for transporting freight in interstate commerce. At
all times material herein, CTA and its employer-members
have constituted an employer engaged in commerce and in
operations affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1 Exhibits 20 through 260 were not received from the court reporter
until June 16, 1971.
2 The Respondent's letter of June 9, 1971, requesting that the hearing be
reopened so that Respondent can subpena records from employers
concerning the existence of contracts with the Respondent as testified to by
Respondent's president, Mr Muniz, at the hearing is hereby denied,
inasmuch as the General Counsel in his letter of June 22, 1971, in
opposition to Respondent's request to reopen the hearing, concludes as
follows-
Counsel for the General Counsel agrees whole-heartedly with
Respondent's Counsel that " it seems strange" that the individual
contracts [which counsel for the Respondent at the hearing agreed to
supply to the court reporter as exhibits ] have "disappeared." Without
accepting Respondent's explanation for non-production of the
contracts, Counsel for the General Counsel will not press further for
production of the documents, and requests that the Trial Examiner
accept Mr. Mumz's uncontradicted testimony that Respondent
entered into individual contracts with certain members of C.T.A. on
various dates after the current National Master Freight Agreement
and Joint Council 7 Supplement Agreement became effective
The letters from the parties relating to my denial of Respondent's request
to reopen the record may be found in a postheanng exhibit which I have
labeled for identification as Trial Examiner's Exhibit
194 NLRB No. 106
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 70 675
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The pleadings establish, and I find, that the Respondent
is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
In essence, the overriding issue in this case is whether the
Respondent is bound by the National Master Freight
Agreement and its Joint Council No. 7 Supplement,
effective for the contract period April 1, 1970, to June 30,
1973. In its answer, at paragraph III the Respondent admits
the allegations of paragraph X of the complaint that
Respondent "has refused to accept and be bound by terms"
of the April 1, 1970, to June 30, 1973, agreement aforesaid.
In justification for its refusal to be bound, Respondent
alleges in its answer "that at no time was authority given by
said Respondent Union to any person, firm, or organiza-
tion to bargain on its behalf and at no time was it bound by
any agreement negotiated or purportedly negotiated as
referred to herein "
Paragraph IV of the Respondent's answer admits the
allegations of paragraph XI(b) of the complaint that "at all
times since on or about April 3, 1970, Respondent has
refused to accept, execute or give full force and effect to the
new National Master Freight Agreement and the new
Supplemental Agreement referred to in paragraph IX
above [in the complaint], in order to force or require C.T.A.
and/or its employer-members to bargain with Respondent
on an individual basis rather than through T.E.I., their
designated bargaining representative." In justification of
this admitted conduct, the Respondent in paragraph IV of
its answer alleges that at "no time was authority given by
said Respondent Union to any person, firm, or organiza-
tion to bargain on its behalf and at no time was it bound by
any agreement negotiated or purportedly negotiated as
referred to herein." It also alleges as a defense for its
conduct above described that "as of the date of the filing of
this answer, no signed copy of any agreement referred to
herein has been furnished to Respondent."
Although Respondent makes this admission above-
outlined in paragraph IV of its answer, nevertheless it
denies that it has caused and engaged in strikes, work
stoppages, and picketing at the premises of CTA employer-
members in order to force or require CTA and/or its
employer-members to bargain with the Respondent on an
individual basis rather than through TEI, their designated
bargaining representative, or that it engaged in the other
conduct alleged in paragraph XI(a), (c), and (d) of the
complaint.3
By virtue of the denials in Respondent's answer, at issue
3 During the hearing the General Counsel was permitted , over the
objection of Respondent , to amend par XI(a) of the complaint to read as
follows
During the period from on or about April 2, 1970, to on or about July
31, 1970 , Respondent, by its officers, agents and representatives,
including those named in Paragraph V above , has threatened , caused
and/or engaged in strikes, work stoppages and picketing at the
premises of C T A's employer-members , including but not limited to
Transcon Lines , Delta Lines , Navajo Freight Lines, Pacific Motor
also is the authority of the National Negotiating Committee
of Trucking Employers, Inc., herein called TEI, to act as
collective-bargaining agent for CTA and its employer-
members, as well as the authority of the National Freight
Industry Negotiating Committee of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters to negotiate for, and in behalf of,
Local 70 with TEI and to bind it through the negotiation of
the National Master Freight Agreement and its Joint
Council 7 Supplement for April 1, 1970, to June 30, 1973.
Also in issue is whether agreement was reached for a new
National Master Freight Agreement and Joint Council 7
Supplement, and if so, whether the Respondent is bound by
it.
If the Respondent is bound by the National Master
Freight Agreement, and its Joint Council Supplement, it is
clear that its conduct admitted by it in paragraphs III and
IV of its answer is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) of
the Act. If, on the other hand, the Respondent is not bound
by the aforesaid agreement and was not a member of the
multiunion group which bargained for the April 1, 1970, to
June 30, 1973, National Master Freight Agreement with the
TEI, in that event, its conduct admitted by it in paragraph
III and IV of the answer would not constitute unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act.
B. Background
The Respondent is affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, herein sometimes called the
International or IBT, and is bound by and governed by the
International constitution. The Respondent is the majority
representative of the truckdrivers and helpers of approxi-
mately 66 motor carriers in Alameda County, California,
who are members of the CTA and who have authorized the
CTA and TEI to represent them in nationwide collective
bargaining with the National Freight Industry Committee
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The
Respondent has approximately 8,500 members. Its office is
in Oakland, California.
The Respondent, by written powers of attorney given
respectively in October 1963 by its then president, A. N.
Leishman, and secretary-treasurer, William Rodger, and in
November 1966, by its then president, S. F. Royster, and its
secretary-treasurer, A. N. Leishman, authorized the
National Over-the-Road and City Cartage Policy and
Negotiating Committee4 to negotiate for, and in behalf of,
the Respondent a National Master Freight Agreement,
together with riders, supplements or addenda. The union
negotiating committees did negotiate National Master
Freight Agreements for the 3-year terms 1964 to 1967 and
1967 to 1970. The Respondent concedes that it was bound
by the 1964 to 1967 and the 1967 to 1970 National Master
Freight Agreements and Joint Council 7 Supplements
which were negotiated by the TEI, for and in behalf of the
Trucking, Ringsby System, DiSalvo Trucking Company, and Santa Fe
Trail Transportation Company, in order to force or require C T A
and/or its employer-members to bargain with Respondent on an
individual basis rather than through T E I , their designated bargaining
representative
4 The name of this national negotiating committee was shortened for
the 1970 to 1973 negotiations to "National Freight Industry Negotiating
Committee "
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CTA and its authorizing members, and by the National
Over-the-Road and City Cartage Policy and Negotiating
Committee for and in behalf of the Respondent and other
Teamster locals, as the representatives of employees of
authorizing motor carriers.
C. The 1970 Negotiations
The 1970 negotiations took place chiefly in Washington,
D.C., and again, as in the previous negotiations for a
National Master Freight Agreement involved the same two
parties, on the one side, the nationwide multiemployer
group which had authorized TEI to represent it, and on the
other side, the National Freight Industry Negotiating
Committee affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. Approximately 66 motor carriers in the
Alameda, California, area, whose Teamsters employees
were represented by Local 70, were among the hundreds of
motor carriers nationwide who had authorized the CTA
and/or TEI to represent them in these national negotia-
tions.
Contrary to its practice in the two previous negotiations
of the National Master Freight Agreements in 1964 and
1967, the IBT did not solicit powers of attorney from its
affiliated unions for the 1970 negotiations. This fact was
publicized by a letter dated December 7, 1970, and was
announced by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
General Vice President Frank E. Fitzsimmons, who also
served as chairman of the National Freight Industry
Negotiating Committee at the first meeting in Washington
on January 7, 1970, where, among other matters, creden-
tials were exchanged between the TEI and the National
Freight Industry Negotiating Committee.
The aforesaid December 7, 1970, letter (G.C. Exh. 57)
read in part as follows:
We have not solicited new powers of attorney this
year from the various local unions that are party to the
National Master Freight Agreement and supplements
that are applicable to their members. Under the
provisions of Article 16, Section 4(a) of the Internation-
al Constitution, all of the local unions that are presently
party to-such agreements are required to remain parties
to such agreements. You already have a list of such
local unions.5
The National Master Freight Agreement for the term
April 1, 1967, to March 31, 1970 (Resp. Exh. 5), which
Local 70 concedes was binding on it by its terms at section
4, provided that:
The employees covered under this Master Agreement
and the various Supplements thereto shall constitute
one bargaining unit. It is understood that the printing of
this Master Agreement and the aforesaid Supplements
in separate Agreements is for convenience only and is
not intended to create separate bargaining units.
Sometime prior to December 22, 1969, the local unions
affiliated with Joint Council of Teamsters No. 7, including
Local 70, had requested permission of general vice
president of the International, Frank Fitzsimmons, to be
excluded from the multiunion multiemployer collective-
5 Art 16, sec 4(a) of the International's constitution (G C Exh 49)
provides in part as follows
Local Unions which are parties to such contracts may not withdraw
bargaining unit covered by the National Master Freight
Agreement and appropriate supplements thereto, and had
requested permission to bargain as a single unit with their
appropriate employers. But after conversations held
between representatives of the local unions, including the
Respondent, and General Vice President Fitzsimmons and
International representatives, the effect of which was to
recognize the advisability of a Joint Council No. 7
Committee to deal with matters contained in the appropri-
ate Supplemental Agreement, the local unions decided to
remain part of the multiunion bargaining unit covered by
the National Master Freight Agreement. Following the
aforesaid discussions, nine of the local unions, one of which
was Local 70, the Respondent, by its chief officer and
director and secretary- treasurer , Al Leishman, signed a
document dated December 22, 1969, acknowledging their
discussions with Fitzsimmons and which concluded with
the following language : (See G.C. Exh. 24)
Therefore, the undersigned Local Unions herein desire
to withdraw their prior request for a separate bargaining
unit and remain part of the multi' union bargaining unit
covered by the National Master Freight Agreement.
Under date of November 24, 1969, the National Freight
Industry Negotiating Committee directed letters (G.C. Exh.
20) signed by Frank E. Fitzsimmons, chairman of the
committee, to all employers covered by the National
Master Freight Agreement of its "desire to negotiate
changes and revisions in the terms and conditions of such
agreement-for the contract period commencing April 1,
1970, as provided in Article 37 thereof." (Resp. Exh. 5)
Article 37, section 2, of the 1967-70 National Master
Freight Agreement provides as follows:
Where no such cancellation or termination notice is
served and the parties desire to continue said agreement
but also desire to negotiate changes or revisions in this
agreement, either party may serve upon the other a
notice at least 60 days prior to March 31, 1970, or
March 31 of any subsequent contract year, advising
that such party desires to revise or change terms or
conditions of such agreement.
Preliminary to the commencement of contract negotia-
tions, General Vice President Frank Fitzsimmons, in
October 1969, upon the recommendation of each of the
National Area Conference directors affiliated with the
International designated a number of prominent leaders
from each area familiar with the problems in the respective
areas to serve on the National Freight Industry Negotiating
Committee. Leaders from the states comprising the
Western Conference included the secretary-treasurers of
three Teamster locals affiliated with Joint Council 7,
namely Alex Leishman from the Respondent Local 70 at
Oakland, California, Tim Richardson from Local 85 at San
Francisco, and Fred Hofmann from Local 287 at San Jose,
California. These three executive officers were named to
the Joint Council 7 Committee.
The National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee
solicited new contract proposals from the hundreds of
locals throughout the United States who had been covered
from such bargaining unit except upon six (6) months' notice and for
good cause shown to the satisfaction of the appropriate Conference
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70
by the National Master Freight Agreement and the
appropriate supplements. The committees which included
the representatives of Joint Council 7, among whom was
Leishman, then boiled these many proposals down to a set
of proposals for submission to the TEI at the forthcoming
contract negotiations. These boiled down proposals were
submitted to a convention of two representatives from each
of the hundreds of locals covered by the National Master
Freight Agreement, who met at the Palmer House in
Chicago, Illinois, on December 8, 1969. The meeting was
chaired by General Vice President Frank Fitzsimmons. The
representatives attending approved the presentation of
these proposals by the National Freight Industry Negotiat-
ing Committee at the forthcoming bargaining negotiations
with TEI. Among the hundreds of representatives from the
various locals who attended this Palmer House meeting was
Al Leishman, Respondent Local 70's secretary-treasurer
and principal officer. The first meeting between the
National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee and the
TEI was held on January 7, 1970, at the Hilton Hotel in
Washington, D.C. At this meeting, General Vice President
Fitzsimmons read the roster of local unions, approximately
350 in number, represented by the National Freight
Industry Negotiating Committee. The TEI in turn present-
ed the list of employers they represented. Included in the
list of locals named by Fitzsimmons was the Respondent
Local 70. Secretary-Treasurer of Local 70 Alex Leishman
attended this united meeting and made no objection to
Local 70 being represented by the National Freight
Industry Negotiating Committee. The two negotiating
parties made an exchange of written proposals, but there
were no other negotiations at this first meeting. Leishman,
having been appointed a member of the Joint Council 7
negotiating committee, participated in the preparation of
the proposals submitted by the National Freight Industry
Negotiating Committee to the TEl at the Washington
Hilton Hotel on January 7, 1970.
Because of their experience and familiarity with problems
in the California area, Gordon Kirby from the CTA and
Motor Carrier Officials Lawlor, Preston and Anderson,
whose firms were members of CTA, were designated by the
TEI to serve on the employer committee, and Hofmann
from Local 287, Leishman from Local 70, Richardson from
Local 85 and IBT General Organizer King were selected by
the National Committee to serve on the union committee to
negotiate changes in the Joint Council 7 Supplemental
Agreement. This Joint Council 7 committee met in
Washington, D.C., on February 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26,
and on March 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, 1970, to negotiate a
Joint Council 7 supplement to the National Master Freight
Agreement. As a designated representative, Al Leishman
attended all of these meetings and actively participated in
the Joint Council 7 negotiations, and through his vigorous
representation achieved his position especially on matters
which affected the Respondent Local 70, which was
affiliated with Joint Council 7.
Except for five monetary items which, under the ground
rules only the National Committee could negotiate, the
employer and union committees for a Joint Council 7
supplement reached agreement on all other items which
they were authorized to negotiate. Accordingly, the Joint
677
Council 7 Supplemental Agreement was memorialized in
writing and signed at Washington on March 13, 1970 (G.C.
Exh. 17), by the members of the union and employer
committees, including Al Leishman who signed as a
member of the union committee. The so-called five dead-
locked items or money items; namely, holidays, vacation,
health and welfare, pensions, and funeral leave, were
referred back to the National Committee.
Union and employer negotiators of the Joint Council 7
Supplemental Agreement attended a meeting of the
National Negotiating Committee in Washington on April
17, 1970, to resolve the Joint Council 7 deadlocked items.
Leishman attended along with the Joint Council 7 union
committeemen. The deadlocked items were resolved by the
National Committee. The employer and union negotiators
of the National Master Freight Agreement concluded a
tentative National Master Freight Agreement on April 2,
1970. Among other changes in the National Master Freight
Agreement, the tentative agreement provided for a general
wage increase of $1.10 per hour during the contract berm,
increases in payments to the health and welfare funds,) and
pension funds, an extra holiday, and improved vacation
benefits.
Sometime in the latter part of April or early May 1970,
the terms of the tentative agreement , and its appropriate
supplements (G.C. Exhs. 25, 25(a), 25(b), and 25(c)) were
submitted nationwide to the hundreds of thousands of
employees covered by the National Master Freight
Agreement and their appropriate supplements for approval
or refection. This national referendum was supervised by
the U.S. Department of Labor. The balloting resulted in
ratification of the tentative agreement. The tentative nature
of the agreement was described in the cover letter from
General Vice President Fitzsimmons to all involved
members as follows:
PLEASE NOTE: Employers have agreed that this
monetary agreement may be reopened for further
negotiations by the Union if the employers covered by
this agreement enter into a more favorable monetary
settlement with local unions which are not a party to the
National Master Freight Agreement.
The Chicago locals which did not belong to the
multiumon multiemployer unit were successful in procuring
an overall increase of $1.65 per hour over a 3-year contract
term. Consequently, as per the tentative agreement,
negotiations were reopened on the National Master Freight
Agreement on wages in early July 1970 and resulted in an
improved wage agreement in which the employer represent-
atives agreed to pay a $1.85 per hour increase during the
April 1, 1970, to June 30, 1973, contract term.
Following final settlement of the Joint Council 7
Supplement by the National Committee on April 17, 1970,
the union and employer representatives of the Joint
Council 7 Committee met on June 19 at the offices of the
Western Conference of Teamsters to finalize the language
of the Joint Council 7 Supplemental Agreement in keeping
with the agreement already reached. Leishman attended
this meeting along with other union committeemen. A final
meeting of the Joint Council was held on July 29, 1970, at
the offices of the Western Conference of Teamsters in
Burlingame, where the representatives reviewed the print-
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
er's galley proofs and finalized vacation and health and
welfare language. Although notified, Mr. Leishman did not
attend the July 29 meeting. Joseph Diviny, president of
Joint Council 7, signed the Joint Council 7 Supplement
August 10, 1970, on behalf of the affiliated local unions,
including Local 70. The president and secretary of CTA
signed in behalf of the members who employed persons
performing work under the various local unions' jurisdic-
tions.
The various locals affiliated with Joint Council 7, with the
cooperation of the CTA, had copies of the Joint Council 7
Supplemental Agreement punted. Respondent Local 70
refused to cooperate in printing of the Joint Council 7
Supplement. Consequently, the CTA alone procured their
printing.
Local 70's Renunciation of the National Master
Freight Agreement and Strikes and Work
Stoppages To Force CTA Members To
Bargain Individually
Although the 1967 to 1970 contract, which contained a
no-strike clause, had not been terminated, and had been
opened only for negotiations of modifications, and despite
the absence of an impasse in negotiations, Respondent
Local 70 began strike and picketing activity against CTA
members in Alameda County on April 1, 1970. This strike
activity, picketing and resulting work stoppages affected
practically all CTA members in Alameda County whose
Teamsters employees were represented by Respondent
Local 70. Local 70 picketing continued at most carrier
terminals during the first 3 days of April 1970. The
Alameda County Superior Court of the State of California
issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Local 70's
strike and picketing; and on April 7, 1970, the aforesaid
state court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Local
70 from picketing and other strike activity. In support of its
preliminary injunction, the Court stated in its order as
follows:
The Court [has] concluded that the strike and work
stoppage activity of defendant Local 70 and its agents is
presently premature under the procedures for the
negotiation of revisions and changes to the collective
bargaining agreement of the parties, and that such
strike and work stoppage activity is in violation of the
agreement of the parties respecting such negotiating
procedures.
Respondent Local 70's strike activity in April was carried
on without sanction from the International and under date
of'Apnl 6, 1970, the following telegram was sent to counsel
for the CTA by Einar Mohn, International Director
Western Conference of Teamsters: (See G.C. Exh. 7)
The following telegram was sent to all Freight Locals as
of this date April 6 1970: Quote
Under Article 37 of the National Master Freight
Agreement and the notice- given by your Local Union
and the National Freight Negotiating Committee the
1967-1970 Freight Contract was continued while the
parties negotiated for requested amendments. On April
2 the National Negotiating Committee, as your duly
authorized agent under the International Constitution
entered into a tentative agreement with the employers
covering the National Master Freight Agreement and
monetary issues, retroactive to April 1, with only the
area supplements to be completed, including your area,
all subject to a ratification vote as provided by the
International Constitution. No Local Union has the
authority under the International Constitution for
conduct its own ratification vote on this agreement. If
your members are not working, you are instructed to
return them to work immediately, and not to take any
further action with respect to the Freight Agreement
until you hear from this office. As soon as negotiations
of the area supplements are completed you will be given
all the necessary information to discuss with your
members at a union meeting before the ratification vote
is conducted.
During the strike activity in early April 1970, James
Muniz, president of Local 70, in a radio interview with the
news media, announced that the purpose of the strike was
to negotiate a better contract. Muniz referred to the
demands of the Chicago locals in the trucking industry in
the Chicago area, and he lamented the fact that other areas
were now forging ahead of the Bay Area locals who, Muniz
stated, once had the prime pickup and delivery contract in
the nation.
On May 18, 1970, following the counting of the ballots in
the national referendum, it was officially announced by the
negotiating parties that the National Master Freight
Agreements and all appropriate supplements had been
ratified by the membership nationwide.
It was made clear by the conduct of Respondent Local 70
sometime before May 18, 1970, and presumably while the
national referendum was being conducted that it was
seeking to break away from the multiunion multiemployer
bargaining unit and attempting to undertake separate
bargaining with CTA motor carriers whose employees it
represented.
Thus, under date of May 13, 1970, Local 70 officers
Leishman and Muniz directed identical letters to CTA and
all its member-employers which read as follows: (G.C. Exh.
9)
Enclosed herewith, please find copy of our communi-
cation of this date to General Vice President, Frank E.
Fitzsimmons, of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.
We are prepared to negotiate the terms and
conditions of an agreement, including supplemental
agreement, as you see fit.
Please notify this Local Union immediately of a
convenient time and place for negotiations.
The enclosed letter, which was a copy of the May 13,
1970, letter, directed by Local 70 to International General
Vice President Frank E. Fitzsimmons, read as follows:
We hereby take this opportunity to notify you that the
membership of this Local Union has' instructed the
officers to determine whether or not they are bound by
the terms of the so-called Master Freight Agreement.
We have determined, and our findings are as follows:
1. This Local shall not be and does not consider
itself bound by any negotiated terms or conditions of
any Supplemental Agreement affecting the territorial
jurisdiction or members of Local No. 70.
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70 679
2. This Local Union was promised and understands
that all negotiations were to be conducted, presently
and for the future, on the basis of full autonomy to
negotiate and by itself to ratify the terms of any such
Supplemental Agreement.
3. No extension agreement was ever signed to the
knowledge of this Local Union which is binding upon
this Local Union and no copy of such extension
agreement was ever furnished to this Local Union after
the expiration date of the present Master Freight
Agreement on or about March 31, 1970.
4. The ratification or voting procedures are com-
pletely inadequate, and do not have adequate safe-
guards and are contrary to any understanding this
Local Union has; namely, no separate negotiations and
ratification procedures are being conducted on behalf
of this Local Union and ballots were sent to individuals
who were not employed under any pre-existing Master
or Supplemental Agreement, and many members who
are employed or were employed under those agreements
were not, in fact, sent ballots.
5. It is our belief that a Power of Attorney was
required for each new contractual negotiations and no
such Power, of Attorney was granted by this Local for
the 1970 negotiations, and the membership of this Local
Union at no time authorized any officer or agent
thereof to execute any such Power of Attorney.
6. It is our desire to fully cooperate, with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters and to fully
comply with all constitutional and contractual provi-
sions which may be lawfully binding upon us. At the
same time, we will exhaust all peaceful legal limits open
to us and we will reserve the right to take appropriate
action to enforce our lawful demands dealing with the
requests of the membership of Local No. 70.
7. In accordance with the above-mentioned princi-
ples, we are instructing our members not to return the
ballots forwarded to them because we believe that their
return would imply that we consider ourselves bound by
the negotiations, and we wish to re-emphasize that we
do not consider ourselves bound by those negotiations.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to call upon us; and because of the urgency of
this matter, if we do not hear from you within forty-
eight (48) hours, we will assume full agreement with the
principles and statements made herein.
In reply to Local 70's May 13, 1970, letter directed to
him, General Vice President Fitzsimmons dispatched the
following telegram to Local 70 on May 18, 1970:
I have just received your letter dated May 13, 1970, in
which you stated that you have determined that you are
not bound by the so-called Master Freight Agreement. I
am in complete disagreement with every reason stated
for such conclusion. You are clearly bound under the
International Constitution and since the contract has
now been approved any strike or other action which
you may take will be in violation of the current
agreement. A detailed letter will follow with respect to
this matter.
The aforesaid May 18 telegram was followed on May 19,
1970, by a letter from General Vice President Fitzsimmons
to Secretary-Treasurer Leishman and President Muniz of
Local 70. The letter read as follows:
In response to your letter dated May 13, 1970, I have
already wired you as per the attached. In further reply,
please be advised as follows:
1. Under the Constitution of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Article XVI, Section 4, and
appropriate resolutions adopted by the General Execu-
tive Board, the various Supplemental Agreements
including the supplemental agreement applicable to
Local Union 70 and known as the Joint Council No. 7
Supplemental Agreement, are all part and parcel of the
National Master Freight Agreement, are voted up or
down with the Master Freight Agreement, and, once
accepted, are binding upon all Local Unions and their
members.
2. We have no knowledge of any promise made to
Local 70, or of any understandings entered into with
Local 70, that Local 70 would have the authority to
ratify or reject the Joint Council 7 Supplement by
separate vote. No person has been authorized by this
office or by the General Executive Board to enter into
any such understanding with Local 70. Such under-
standing would be in complete violation of the
Constitution of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.
3. There never has been an extension agreement
entered into with respect to the 1967-1970 National
Master Freight Agreement , since such extension
agreement was not necessary. Article 37 of the National
Master Freight Agreement for the period from 1967 to
1970 provided the Unions with a right either to
terminate or to continue the Agreement and ask for
amendments. A decision was made to continue and ask
for amendments. The notices which Local 70 was
directed to send to its employers, as well as notices
which were sent by the National Negotiating Commit-
tee and the Western Conference of Teamsters on behalf
of Local 70 to Local 70's employers all clearly set forth
the intention of the Local Union and the National
Negotiating Committee to continue the existing Agree-
ment but to negotiate amendments. That Agreement,
therefore, was never terminated and, accordingly, no
extension agreement was necessary.
4. The ratification and voting procedures provided
for by the International Constitution have previously
been challenged in court proceedings and had been
sustained as being legal and valid. The actual voting
was conducted under the supervision of the United
States Department of Labor. There may have been
some errors made in the sending of the ballots. If so, this
resulted from the failure of the Local Union to provide
the International Union with an accurate up-to-date
mailing list. Wherever such errors were called to the
attention of the National Negotiating Committee and
the U.S. Department of Labor, they were rectified
immediately. In any event, the margin of votes favoring
the adoption of the Agreement was sufficiently large so
that any few errors which may have been made would
have had no effect on the outcome of the referendum.
5. No new power of attorney is or was required for
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the negotiation of the National Master Freight
Agreement. Even though powers of attorney were
solicited in the past, this was not necessary under the
Constitution. The Constitution provides the manner in
which Local Unions first determine whether there shall
be a national agreement. Once that determination is
made, as it was made for the 1964-1967 contract,,the
Constitution provides a manner in which a Local Union
may seek permission to withdraw from the national
bargaining unit. Local 70, together with the other
Locals in Joint Council 7, at one time did seek such
permission to withdraw within the time permitted by
the Constitution. However, thereafter, all said Locals,
including Local 70, by appropriate resolution withdrew
said request and specifically agreed to remain part of
the national unit. Local 70, therefore, is bound by the
provisions of the Constitution relating to the National
Agreement.
By reason of all the foregoing, it is clear that Local 70
is a part of the national bargaining unit, and is bound
by the national negotiations.
Since the National Master Freight Agreement
together with the Joint Council 7 Supplement have now
been duly ratified by the membership in accordance
with the provisions of the International Constitution, it
is my duty to advise you that Local Union 70 and its
members are bound by said Agreement and Supple-
ment, and that any strikes or work stoppages to amend
or alter said Agreement and Supplement would be in
violation of said Agreements, and unauthorized by the
International Union.
Events Following Shortly Before and After the
May 18, 1970, Announcement That the Contract
Had Been Ratified by the Membership
It was agreed to, and announced, by the employer and,
union negotiators that monetary items would be retroactive
to April 1, 1970, and other provisions would be placed into
effect May 18, 1970, the date ratification was announced.
Accordingly, many CTA members started placing into
effect modified provisions contained in the Joint Council 7
Supplement; in particular the revised seniority clause which
lengthened the time period in which a casual employee
could obtain seniority status as well as the clause dealing
with the revised bidding procedure. Under the, new bid
procedure, the employees were given the opportunity to bid
job classification and shift, but not for routes, which were
to be assigned by the employer.
Thus in June 1970, when Transcon Lines, a CTA
member, notified Local 70 that it was placing into effect the
revised bid procedures set forth in the Joint Council
Supplemental Agreement, Leishman and Muniz of Local
70 replied in a letter dated June 11, 1970, as follows:
In response to your communication of June 9, 1970,
we object to the procedure outlined therein and will not
tolerate any changes.
Such changes are not required by any real or
imaginary agreement . The document you refer to in the
first paragraph of your letter has never been seen by us.
If you have any copies signed by a representative of this
local union, please forward a copy to us.
When Ringsby Truck Lines, another CTA member,
began to place into effect the new bid procedure, Local 70's
business agent, Roy Nunes, warned the Ringsby's terminal
manager that the terminal would be struck if the new
bidding procedure, was instituted, and in the following
week, Local 70 struck Ringsby for 2 hours until the
company agreed to Local 70's demands on the bidding
procedure. On this occasion, Nunes told Ringsby that
Local 70 would not adhere to the new contract and that
Ringsby would have to retain the bidding procedure under
the old contract; that Local 70 was not a party to the new
contract. Nunes also told Ringsby 's terminal manager that
Local 70 was going to negotiate or try to negotiate
separately with some of the companies, including Ringsby.
The record shows that following the State Court
Preliminary Injunction dated April 7, 1970, many of the
CTA motor carvers whose employees were represented by
Local 70 found themselves being picketed by altered Local
70 picket signs to disguise the identity of Local 70 which
was under State Court injunction not to picket or strike.
Thus a work stoppage began on May 8, 1970, at the Navajo
Freight Lines Terminal in Oakland, a CTA member; the
Local 70 picket sign altered to read Local 705 by the
addition of a hand letter "5" after the preprinted "70." On
that same day, Local 70's Business Agent Chuck Mack told
Navajo Terminal Manager Atchison that "the pickets were
there, that Local 70 was going to honor the picket line and
that they would not work." Local 70's disguised picketers of
Navajo which began on May 8, 1970, continued with
interruptions through May 18 or 19; the pickets carrying
signs reading Local 705, 208, 457, 104, and 170.6
On June 1, 1970, Local 70's business agent, Chuck Mack,
called Navajo Terminal Manager Atchison by telephone
and asked what Atchison's intentions were regarding a new
contract. Atchison told Mack that Navajo was bound by
the National Master Freight Agreement and the supple-
ments and planned to live up to those agreements. Mack
replied that Local 70 did not recognize the National Master
Freight Agreement or the Supplement Agreement, that he
was going on vacation and he wished Atchison would wait
before implementing the new contract until he returned
from vacation so he could personally shut Navajo down.?
On June 1, 1970, Local 70's business agent, Lou Riga, met
with officials of the Delta Lines, a C.T.A. member, at the
Emeryville, California terminal in the presence of three
Local 70 union stewards. Riga told the group that Local 70
was not going to recognize the new supplement or the
National Master Freight Agreement, and that he had been
instructed by Local 70's president, Muniz, to inform the
employer that if the Delta Lines attempted to place into
effect either of these agreements, Delta would be struck by
Local 70. Delta's director of labor relations, Bacigalupi,
replied that as far as Delta Lines was concerned, it was
6 Terminal Manager Atchison phoned a member of the executive board note that Local 70's business agents carry the contracts and are accepting
of Local 170, which is a Massachusetts Local, and was told that Local 170 and insisting on all the monetary and other benefits of the National Master
had no dispute with Navajo. Freight Agreement and Joint Council 7 Supplement
7 Although Respondent claims that there is no contract, it is ironical to
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 70 681
bound by both of the agreements and would live up to
them.
On June 15, 1970, Local 70's business agent, Leroy
Nunes, and its president, James Muniz, visited C.T.A.
member, Transcon Lines terminal, and talked to Terminal
Manager Gary Bowen in the presence of five Local 70
union stewards and told him to pull down from the bulletin
board the bids that he had posted under the new bidding
procedure provided for in the new Joint Council 7
Supplement. Muniz told Bowen he was not to implement
any "so-called new agreement, but to abide by the old
agreement until such time as Transcon Lines would
negotiate with Local 70 directly for a contract." Muniz told
Terminal Manager Bowen that if he didn't pull down the
bids and if he attempted to comply with the new
supplement, that Local 70 would take positive action
against Transcon, and it would be sorry. Muniz also told
Bowen that it was harassing all of the carriers to get them to
negotiate directly with Local 70 for a contract. The bid
sheets were mysteriously removed, without authority, from
the company bulletin board, and Bowen made no attempt
to post them again in the face of Muniz' threat "to take
positive action."
The Encmal terminal at Alameda, California, a C.T.A.
member, was harassed by Local 70 picketing with both
Local 70 signs and Local 70 altered signs on May 18, 1970.
On that same day, Local 70's business agent, Leroy Nunes,
phoned Encinal Terminal Manager Brosnan and requested
amnesty for drivers in Local 208. The letter of amnesty was
picked up the following morning by another Local 70
business agent. But on the following day, May 19, picketing
continued. Terminal Manager Brosnan phoned Local 70's
business agent, Larry Diaz, and inquired why the pickets
had not been removed. Diaz told Brosnan that Local 70
was also requesting amnesty for members of Joint Councils
42 and 7 and ILWU Locals 6 and 10. Brosnan agreed to
give the amnesty except as to the ILWU locals because they
were with another division of Encinal. Brosnan asked Diaz
what would happen if Encinal pulled out of the C.T.A.,
Diaz replied that Encinal's troubles would be over.
On July 6, 1970, Local 70's business agents, Frietas and
Sarmento, visited the Oakland Terminal of the Santa Fe
Trail Transportation Company, a C.T.A. member, and
engaged Terminal Manager Crispen in conversation. The
two business agents told Crispen that the Company had an
employee named Martinez at the Oakland Terminal who
had worked 15 days and had established seniority. Crispen
replied that the new contract (Joint Council 7 Supplement)
which the Company was following stated that the
employee's seniority status shall occur when he works 30
days in probationary or a trial basis, hence Martinez had no
seniority. Crispen suggested to the two business agents to
take the matter up through the grievance procedure of the
contract. The two business agents threatened to picket the
terminal. At the end of this conversation, Business Agent
Frietas went out and placed pickets at the terminal, and, as
a consequence, the employees walked off the job. The
picketing and work stoppage continued during the balance
8 The uncontradicted evidence also shows, and I find, that Local 70
picketed and struck the Oakland terminal of the Pacific' Motor Trucking
Company in early April 1970 for several days, at which time the Local 70's
of the week until the following Monday morning. On the
morning of July 8, 1970 , Local 70's business agent, Frietas,
visited the Santa Fe Oakland Terminal while it was being
picketed by Local 70. Frietas told Crispen that if the
Company did not stop complying with the new contract,
that he would also place pickets at the Santa Fe terminal in
Richmond , California , and if it was necessary at the
Company's Los Angeles terminal . Crispen again told
Frietas to follow the grievance procedure of the contract,
but Frietas refused . On that same day, Local 70 also
picketed the Santa Fe Richmond terminal.
A work stoppage by Local 70 members employed at the
Oakland terminal of the Pacific Motor Trucking Company,
a C.T.A. member, began on May 8, 1970. The picketing and
work stoppage lasted 10 days . On the first 2 days, the
pickets carried signs marked Local 208 and on subsequent
days the signs were changed with crayons to read 104, 170,
and other numbers.8
In keeping with Local 70's strike action against almost all
of C.T.A. members in the East Bay area for several days in
the first part of April 1970, Local 70 also picketed and
struck the Oakland Terminal of DiSalvo Truck Lines with
the use of Local 70's signs altered to read 170 in the period
May 16 to 18, 1970 . Additionally, in late June or early July
1970, Local 70's business agent , Dick Sarmento, ordered
DiSalvo's president , Charles J. Lawlor, to remove from the
company bulletin board a bid sheet following the bid
procedure of the new Joint Council 7 Agreement. When
Lawlor phoned Sarmento and told him he was not going to
remove the bulletin , Sarmento threatened to close down the
DiSalvo Truck Lines ; and Sarmento came over to the
Oakland Terminal of DiSalvo and pulled the bid sheet off
the bulletin board.
Analysis and Conclusion Concerning Respondent
Local 70's Conduct since April 1, 1970
It is established without contradiction, and in fact is
admitted by the Respondent's answer, that at all times since
April 3, 1970, it has refused to accept and be bound by the
terms of the National Master Freight Agreement and its
supplement applicable to members affiliated with Joint
Council 7, including Respondent Local 70. I find that as a
member of the multiunion-multiemployer group, the
Respondent was bound by the agreements of the National
Freight Industry Negotiating Committee and the Joint
Council 7 Committee. As a member of the multibargaining
group, the Respondent's acts disavowing its obligations as a
member of the multiunion group, coming after negotiations
for a new contract had been all but completed, was
untimely under Board and court law. The conduct of the
Respondent in renouncing and refusing to be bound by
negotiations of its representatives thereby constituted a
refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
Additionally, the evidence is uncontradicted that the
Respondent in early April 1970 struck and picketed and/or
threatened to strike almost all of the C.T.A. members
whose employees represented by Local 70 were covered by
the National Master Freight Agreement and Joint Council
business agent phoned Terminal Manager Hellwig and told him Local 70
was "going to close down all the terminals in Oakland because they were
not satisfied with the negotiations that were going on "
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 Supplement and struck and picketed, among others,
bargaining unit C.T.A. members, Transcon Lines, Delta
Lines, Navajo Freight Lines, Pacific Motor Trucking,
Ringsby System, DiSalvo Trucking Company, and Santa
Fe Transportation Company on various dates above recited
in greater detail in April, May, and June, 1970, for an
objective of forcing C.T.A. bargaining unit employers to
bargain with them individually and break away from the
multiemployer unit.
I find that the above-described conduct of the Respon-
dent Local 70, by its officers, agents, and members, in
engaging in strikes, picketing, work stoppages and in
threats thereof, in concert with other labor organizations
against C.T.A. member employers, who belonged to the
multibargaining unit, and who were hence bound by the
negotiations of their group representative, C.T.A. and
T.E.I., restrained and coerced the aforesaid employers in
the selection of their representatives for the purpose of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act,9 and
constituted a refusal to bargain in violation of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act.10
Respondent Local 70's Status as a Member of the
Multiunion-Multiemployer Bargaining Unit
The record discloses without contradiction that Respon-
dent Local 70 became a part of the multiunion-multiem-
ployer bargaining unit in the negotiations for the 1964-67
and the 1967-70 contracts. In those negotiations, Local 70
together with hundreds of other locals expressly authorized
the National Over-the-Road and City Cartage Policy and
Negotiating Committee, appointed by the International, to
represent them in collective bargaining with the employer
group. Contracts were consummated which the Respon-
dent concedes were binding on them. Negotiations for a
1970 to 1973 agreement began no later than January 7,
1970, and were practically consummated on April 2, 1970.
But the Respondent made no unequivocal move to
disassociate itself from the multiunion unit until it notified
the C.T.A. employer-members and the International by its
letters of May 13, 1970, of its withdrawal from the unit. The
withdrawal, made after collective-bargaining negotiations
had begun and were all but completed, was untimely and
violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Although the Respon-
dent executed no power of attorney to the National Freight
Industry Negotiating Committee to negotiate the 1970-73
contract as it did in the negotiations culminating in the
1964-67 and 1967-70 contracts, it took no unequivocal
action to withdraw prior to the commencement of
negotiations. On the contrary, it manifested a clear
intention to remain in the multiunion-multiemployer
bargaining unit by its action of December 22, 1969, in
acknowledging in writing that it was not withdrawing from
the bargaining unit. Moreover, its May 13, 1970, withdraw-
al was in contravention of the International constitution by
which it was bound and by the terms whereof it was
prohibited from withdrawing from the bargaining unit
"except upon 6 months notice and for good cause shown
... approved by the General Executive Board of the
International Union." But even if no effect were to be given
to the International's constitutional provision relating to
withdrawal from the bargaining unit , it would be sufficient
to conclude that Respondent Local 70 was a member of the
multiunit and its withdrawal was untimely and, therefore,
in violation of the Act under Board and court law. Field and
Sons, Inc., 189 NLRB No. 59; Intercity Petroleum
Marketers, Inc., 173 NLRB 1420; N.L.R B. v. Sheridan
Creations, Inc., 357 F.2d 245 (C.A. 2); Hearst Consolidated
Publications, Inc., 156 NLRB 210; Retail Associates, Inc.,
120 NLRB 388 ; Publishers Association of New York City, et
al. v. N.L.R.B., 364 F .2d 293 (C.A. 2); Anderson Lithograph
Co., 124 NLRB 920 , enfd . sub nom . N.L.R.B . v. Jeffries
Banknote Co., 281 F.2d 893 (C.A. 9); Detroit Window
Cleaners Union, 126 NLRB 65 ; Milk & Ice Cream Dealers of
Greater Cincinnati, 94 NLRB 23 ; York Transfer & Storage
Co., 107 NLRB 139.
The ground rules for withdrawal from a multiemployer-
multiumon bargaining unit were set forth by the Board in
Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388, 395 , where it spoke
as follows:
We would accordingly refuse to permit the withdrawal
of an employer or a union from a duly established
multiemployer bargaining unit, except upon adequate
written notice given prior to the date set by the contract
for modification , or to the agreed-upon date to begin
the multiemployer negotiations . Where actual bargain-
ing negotiations based on the existing multiemployer
unit have begun, we would not permit , except on
mutual consent , an abandonment of the unit upon
which each side has committed itself to the other,
absent unusual circumstances . It is -clear that under the
ground rules to be promulgated , we would reach the
same result as found in the present case.
In The Evening News Association, Etc., 154 NLRB 1494,
the Board recognized the right of a labor organization to
withdraw from multi -bargaining in the same manner and to
the same extent as had been granted to employers, namely
that the withdrawal be unequivocal and timely, that is
before the agreed-upon date to begin the multiemployer
negotiations . In the instant case , it is clear that Local 70's
withdrawal was untimely.
In N.L.R.B. v. Sheridan Creations, Inc., 357 F.2d 245, 248
(C.A. 2), the court expressed its agreement with the Board's
ground rules for withdrawal from a multi-bargaining unit
as follows:
Multi-employer bargaining is based on the consent of
the parties to treat with one another through the agreed
units. A shift in membership after negotiations have
begun has lively possibilities for disrupting the bargain-
ing process . In a case such as this, good faith withdrawal
of a small unit might in practice have minimal or no
effect. However, the potential for disruption is sufficient
to justify the Board in adopting a uniform rule for all
cases that withdrawal is not timely once bargaining has
begun . We cannot say that no such potential exists, or
that its incidence would be so infrequent that the
9 Hoisting & Portable Engineers Local 701, etc., 141 NLRB 469; Ice 893, 896 (C A 2); United Association of Journeymen, etc, Local 525, 135
Cream, Frozen Custard, etc, Teamsters Local 717, 145 NLRB 865, Local NLRB 462, 471
294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 126 NLRB 1, enfd. 284 F 2d 10 Ibid
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 70 683
Board's judgment that the uniform rule is needed is
without a reasonable foundation or arbitrary in nature.
The Respondent's May 13, 1970, Letter to the
International and the International's May 19,
1970, Reply to Letter
The Respondent's May 13, 1970, letter to International
General Vice President Frank E. Fitzsimmons, asserting
justification of its refusal to be bound by the terms of the
1970 to 1973 National Master Freight Agreement, expresses
in part the same defenses that the Respondent Local 70
asserts in this case. Inasmuch as the content of the
Respondent's May 13, 1970, letter have been set forth
earlier in this decision, I will not repeat it here. It is
sufficient to note that International General Vice President
Fitzsimmons' reply letter of May 19, 1970, convincingly
refutes the contentions made in the Respondent's May 13,
1970, letter. The facts and arguments set forth in Mr.
Fitzsimmons' May 19 reply letter are amply supported by
the record in this case, and the Respondent's assertion in its
May 13, 1970, letter that it was to have full autonomy in the
negotiation of a supplemental agreement and that the
ratification or voting procedures were inadequate and
contrary to their understanding, does not have support in
the record. I am in total agreement with the statement of
facts and legal conclusions in Mr. Fitzsimmons' May 19
reply letter to the Respondent.
The Existence of a Signed Agreement
Although the Respondent's May 13, 1970, letter to
International General Vice President Fitzsimmons conced-
ed, by implication, the existence of a National Master
Freight Agreement and a Joint Council 7 Supplement, its
refusal to be bound by the terms thereof were not grounded
on a contention that there was no signed agreement. But
during the hearing, Respondent's counsel contended there
was an absence of evidence that the National Master
Freight Agreement or the Joint Council 7 Supplement had
ever been signed. The Respondent's brief on this point
closes with the following contention:
Inasmuch as the General Counsel has yet to produce an
executed bargaining agreement, setting forth the terms
and conditions which he now seeks to enforce against
Local 70, it is respectfully submitted that there has been
a failure of proof and the General Counsel has failed to
meet his burden.
The Respondent's contention aforesaid, I conclude, is
without merit. There is overwhelming and uncontradicted
evidence in the record as to the terms of both the National
Master Freight Agreement and the Joint Council 7
Supplement. The terms of these contracts may be found in
the following documents in the record: The Joint Council 7
Supplement (G.C. Exh. 17) signed March 13, 1970, by all of
the members of the employer committee and the union
committee, including the signatures of Mr. Al Leishman,
Local 70's secretary-treasurer; the Joint Council 7 Supple-
ment in completed form (G.C. Exh. 18) signed by Joint
Council 7 President Joseph J. Diviny and by CTA executive
officers on August 10, 1970, acknowledging that the
agreement had in fact been signed by March 13, 1970, by
the Joint Council 7 Committee. Other documents evidenc-
mg the terms of the Joint Council 7 Agreement are in
evidence as General Counsel's Exhibits 36 and 37. General
Council Exhibit 36 is the working guide showing all
language changes in the Joint Council 7 Supplement and
was used as a ready reference until the contract was finally
punted in booklet form. General Counsel's Exhibit 37 is the
punted booklet containing the complete terms of the Joint
Council No. 7 Local Pickup and Delivery Supplemental
Agreement for the period April 1, 1970, to June 30, 1973,
which I find is binding on Local 70 as fully as if Local 70
had signed it, and I find that Local 70 officials are required
by the Act to sign it, if requested. See Section 8(d) of the
Act; also H. J. Heinz Co. v. N.LR.B., 311 U.S. 514; 61 S.
Ct. 320.
Evidence that the National Master Freight Agreement
was executed by the employer and union members of the
National Committee is found in General Counsel's Exhibit
19, as well as in the printed booklet that is circulated
nationwide and is the National Master Freight Agreement
for the contract term April 1, 1970, to June 30, 1973. This
printed booklet is found in the record marked General
Counsel's Exhibit 26, and on page 81 thereof bears the
printed names of the national negotiators for the employees
and for the employers. Additional evidence of the terms of
both the National Master Freight Agreement and the Joint
Council 7 Supplement may be found in the material sent
out to the hundreds of thousands of Teamsters members
throughout the nation setting forth the terms of the new
National Master Freight Agreement and the appropriate
Joint Council Supplement mailed to the affected employees
in the national referendum conducted under the supervi-
sion of the United States Department of Labor in late April
and early May 1970. These documents setting forth the
contract terms of both the National Master Freight
Agreement and the Joint Council 7 Supplement are found
in the record as General Counsel's Exhibits 25, 25a, 25b,
and 25c; and on May 18, 1970, it was officially announced
that the members in nationwide balloting had ratified the
contracts.ii
But aside from the fact that there is uncontradicted
evidence in the record of executed contracts, the Act does
not require that a collective-bargaining agreement be in
writing or executed by the parties. In Hamilton Foundry Co.
v. Foundry Workers, 193 F.2d 209 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 343
U.S. 966, it was held that a contract may be validly entered
into even though the written instrument evidencing the
terms of the contract has not been executed by the parties.
Accord Rabovin v. N.L.R.B., 195 F.2d 906 (C.A. 2);
Roadway Express Inc. v. General Teamsters, etc., Local 249,
330 F.2d 859 (C.A. 3).
In Rabovin, supra, the Court stated the law as follows:
11 As I have found earlier in this Decision, ratification of the agreement larger wage package were reopened following the success of the Chicago
was made with the understanding that if the Chicago locals, who were not locals which were not in the bargaining unit, and as a result of additional
part of the multibargaining unit, were able to secure a larger wage package negotiations in July 1970, an increased wage package was negotiated by the
than the multigroup had negotiated, wages could be reopened for further national negotiators
negotiation As I have found earlier in this Decision, negotiations for a
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"There is nothing in the Act which compels the conclusion
that collective bargaining contracts must be firmly attested
by the parties; rather Section 8(d), codifying the rule of H.
J. Heinz, Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S. Ct. 320,
specifically provides for a written agreement `if requested
by either party'-clear evidence that a writing is not
mandatory as a matter of law."
From a practical standpoint, it is significant to note, and
cannot be overlooked, that all of the other local unions
affiliated with Joint Council 7 have fully accepted and have
acknowledged themselves bound by the terms of both the
National Master Freight Agreement and the Joint Council
7 Supplement. Only Local 70 contends that it is not bound;
but with apparent inconsistency, it accepts and insists on all
of the benefits, monetary and otherwise, which flow from
the contract terms; and although the Respondent at the
hearing contends there is no contract, still Local 70 business
agents are known to carry with them copies of the National
Master Freight Agreement and the Joint Council 7
Supplement.12
The Role of Al Leishman as a Member of the
National Freight Industry Negotiating Committee
As I have found earlier in this Decision, Mr. Al
Leishman, Local 70's secretary-treasurer and the principal
executive officer of that local, was designated by General
Vice President Frank E. Fitzsimmons, upon the recommen-
dation of Einar Mohn, the director of the Western
Conference of Teamsters, to serve on the negotiating
committee. Appropriately, Leishman was designated to
serve on the Joint Council 7 Committee which negotiated
the Local 7 Supplement Agreement with which Joint
Council Local 70 and approximately eight other locals were
affiliated. Leishman, together with Mr. Tim Richardson,
secretary-treasurer of Local 85 in San Francisco, and Mr.
Fred Hoffman, secretary-treasurer of Local 287 in San
Jose, were the only three officials selected from the
approximately nine locals comprising Joint Council 7. They
were selected because of their knowledge, experience and
skills and because they were executive officers of large and
powerful locals in the Bay Area.
Mr. Mumz testified that Local 70 had never authorized
Leishman to represent it in negotiations and did not
authorize Joint Council 7 to bargain in its behalf. Muniz
also testified that Local 70 did not authorize Mr. Joseph
Diviny, president of Joint Council 7, to execute the Joint
Council 7 Supplemental Agreement.
Presumably, Mr. Muniz means to state that no formal
action was taken by the Local 70's membership resulting in
the preparation in each instance of a formal document
expressly granting the authority to Leishman, to Joint
Council 7 or to Mr. Diviny, its president.
Section 2(13) of the Act provides, however, that: "In
determining whether any person is acting as an agent of
another person responsible for his acts, the question of
whether the specific acts performed were actually author-
ized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling."
It is clear that Local 70 acquiesced in Mr. Leishman's role
12 Under date of July 9, 1970, a temporary restraining order issued by
the United States District Court of the Northern District of California
against Local 70, upon application of the Board's Regional Director for
as a member of the National Freight Industry Negotiating
Committee and his role in negotiating the Joint Council 7
Supplemental Agreement. Local 70 acquiesced in his
signing the December 22, 1969 document (G.C. Exh. 24)
along with other Joint Council 7 affiliated local unions
acknowledging their membership in the multiunion-em-
ployer group and made no move to disclaim it while
bargaining proceeded through the months of January
through April 1970. It permitted Leishman to attend the
several prenegotiation conferences in 1969 concerned with
collating and boiling down union proposals to be submitted
to the employer group. It permitted him to actually
participate as a member of the negotiating committee to
bargain the terms of the Joint Council 7 Supplemental
Agreement which was to be binding on all of its affiliated
locals, including Local 70, a procedure which demanded
Leishman's presence in Washington through much of
January, February, and March, and in April 1970. During
all of this activity on the negotiating committee, Mr.
Leishman's salary was paid by the Local 70 as well as his
expenses. Moreover, Local 70 President James Mumz also
attended the March 31, 1970, negotiations in Washington
and gave a report to the membership on the status of the
negotiations.
But even if Leishman had not been selected by General
Vice President Fitzsimmons to serve on the negotiating
committee for a National Master Freight Agreement and
Joint Council 7 Supplement, I would nevertheless find,
under the facts in this case, that Local 70 was part of the
multiunion-multiemployer bargaining unit and hence
bound by the 1970-73 National Master Freight Agreement
and its Joint Council 7 Supplement. In this connection, it is
pointed out that, approximately six of the local unions
affiliated with Joint Council 7 were unrepresented by
committeemen from their respective local unions. Yet, they
correctly considered themselves bound by the negotiated
agreements because of their membership in the multiunion-
multiemployer bargaining unit. I have concluded that Local
70 enjoyed no different status than the other local unions
affiliated with Joint Council 7 and that Local 70 was bound
by the negotiated agreements just as they were. But
inasmuch as Local 70 had its chief executive officer,
Leishman, present in Washington, and who actively and
effectively participated in the negotiations and who made it
a point especially to advance the interests of Local 70 in the
negotiation of the Joint Council 7 Supplement, there is even
greater reason to bind Local 70 with the results of the
bargaining.
The Existence of Minor Variations in Contract
Terms at the Local Level Does Not Destroy the
Multiunion-Multiemployer Bargaining Unit
The existence of slight variations in the contract terms
between some of the affiliate locals of Joint Council 7 does
not destroy the multiunion-multiemployer bargaining unit.
It is clear, and I have found, that at least since 1964 there
has been a national multiunion bargaining unit of which
Local 70 has been a part, by reason, among other things, of
Region 20, pursuant to Sec 10(j) of the Act On July 20, 1970, the
restraining order was continued in force and effect by the court.
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 70 685
its affiliation with Joint Council 7 and also with the
International, by whose constitution it is bound. Since
1964, all agreements nationwide have been merged into the
National Master Freight Agreement and its several
supplements throughout the nation. These supplements,
together with the National Master Freight Agreement,,
constitute a single contract covering the trucking industry.
This fact is clearly stated at article 2, section 2, of the
National Master Freight Agreement, providing in part as
follows: (See G.C. Exhs. 2 and 26 for the years 1967-70 and
1970-73 respective.)
There are several segments of the Trucking Industry by
this agreement, and for this reason, supplemental
agreements are provided for each of the specific types of
work performed by the various classifications of
employees controlled by this Master Agreement.
All such Supplemental Agreements are subject to and
controlled by the terms of this Master Agreement and
are sometimes referred to herein as Supplemental
Agreements.
It is not disputed that with respect to some local unions
affiliated with Joint Council 7, there are differences in
health and welfare plans, Saturday work, overtime, and
other matters. These differences are historical variations
that prevailed before joint bargaining, and it was agreed
and understood that these historical variations at the local
level would not be prejudiced by group bargaining. Thus,
article 2, section 5, of the National Master Freight
Agreement (G.C. Exh. 26) provides:
Riders or Supplements to this agreement providing for
better wages, hours and working conditions, which have
previously been negotiated by Local Unions and
Employees affected and put' into effect, shall be
continued. No new Riders or Supplements to this
Agreement shall be negotiated by any of the parties
hereto except in those instances agreed to by the parties
hereto.
Article 6, section 1, of the National Master Freight
Agreement also provides in part:
The Employer agrees that all conditions of employment
in his individual operation relating to wages, hours of
work, overtime differentials and general working
conditions shall be maintained at not less than the
highest standards in effect at the time of the signing of
this Agreement-
Allowance for historical differences may be found in the
Joint Council 7 Supplemental Agreement to the National
Master Freight Agreement 1967-70 at Article 60 of the
Supplemental Agreement which reads as follows:
All past practices existing between the Employer and
the Local Union established prior to July 1, 1961, shall
remain in force and effect, except as nullified or
changed in this agreement from the agreement which
was in effect June 30, 1961.
The Joint Council 7 Supplemental Agreement for the
period April 1, 1970 to June 30, 1973 (G.C. Exh. 37),
contains the following language on "Past Practices" at
article 62:
Within 60 days of the issuance of this Supplemental
Agreement to the affected Unions and the Employers,
all past practices mutually agreed to shall be reduced to
writing and signed by said Employer and signed by said
Employer and Local Union. Failure of the parties to
comply with this requirement shall result in the alleged
practice becoming null and void. Any and all existing
Agreements will be subject to renewal approval in
writing by both parties within the 60 day period named.
It is well settled by Board precedent that the existence of
local differences does not operate to destroy the multibar-
gaining unit. See for example The Kroger Co., 148 NLRB
569, where the Board in holding a multiemployer unit to be
appropriate, notwithstanding a history of individual
adjustments, said as follows:
Petitioner further contends that the history of individu-
al adjustments negates the establishment or existence of
a multiemployer unit. We do not agree. The necessary
implication of this argument is that in multiemployer
bargaining a union and an individual employer member
of the group are automatically precluded from negotiat-
ing separately on limited matters of peculiar concern to
the individual employer, unless such employer with-
draws from the group. This is patently unrealistic. The
problems of each member of a multi employer group
are understandably not always identical. While it may
be to the best interest of the employers and labor
organizations involved to bargain as a group about all
matters of general concern-the obvious reason for the
formation and continuation of any multiemployer
unit-it may likewise be in the best interest of all
concerned not to burden the group negotiations with
the limited problems of an individual employer. Hence,
we do not believe that the exercise of a mutually
recognized privilege to bargain individually on limited
matters, as in the present case, is inconsistent with the
concept of collective bargaining in a multiemployer
unit... .
The fact that in past bargaining over a 17-year period 14
limited individual adjustment arose from apparently
dozens of agreements, all of which were jointly
negotiated, does not, in itself, establish a future
unequivocal intent not to be bound by group action
generally.
In this respect the situation here is not unlike the one
where bargaining in a multiplant unit leaves certain matters
for local determination at each separate plant. Cf. General
Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120
NLRB 1215, 1220-21, and cases cited in footnote 10
thereof. See also Radio Corporation of America, 135 NLRB
980, where the Board in dismissing an 8(a)(5) case against
RCA found that RCA had not refused to bargain with a
newly certified local of the IBEW by insisting that both
parties were bound by the national agreement, even though
"such important issues as rates of pay, work to be
performed and area craft rates were left to negotiation in
the local agreement."
Local 70 conduct, in (1) renouncing and refusing to be
bound by the National Master Freight Agreement and its
Joint Council 7 Supplement, (2) in demanding individual
bargaining of CTA members, (3) in striking and picketing
to compel individual bargaining from such CTA members
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in derogation of their collective-bargaining representatives
and (4) in negotiating separate and different contracts with
some CTA employer-members in derogation of the
National Master Freight Agreement and its Joint Council
Supplement,13 thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
TEI and CTA and its members , described in section I,
above , have a close, intimate , and substantial relation 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 the Respondent has violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Local 70, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. TEI, CTA, and its employer-members named in
Appendix A attached hereto, and each of them are
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent represents, and at all times material
herein has represented, a majority of the truckdrivers and
helpers employed by employer-members of CTA, named in
Appendix A hereto attached, within the Respondent's
geographical jurisdiction.
4. Respondent Local 70 at all times material herein was
and is a member of a multiunion-multiemployer bargaining
unit in which the multiunion group was represented in
collective bargaining by the National Industry Freight
Negotiating Committee affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters; and the multiemployer unit
consisted, among others, of TEI, CTA, and its employer-
members named in Appendix A attached hereto; and the
aforesaid multiunion-multiemployer bargaining unit is a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of the Act.
5. By refusing to be bound by the National Master
Freight Agreement and the Joint Council 7 Pickup and
Delivery Supplemental Agreement for the contract term
13 Only one of the separate "contracts" which Mr Muniz testified he
negotiated with individual CTA employer-members is in evidence It is
G.C. Exh. 26 and reads as follows:
Frank's Trucking agrees to negotiate a local pickup and delivery
agreement with Teamsters Local 70 of the National Brotherhood of
Teamsters
If it is finally determined that Local 70 is party to National Master
Freight Agreement, or if Local 70 agrees that it is party to the
National Master Freight Agreement, then, at that time, any agreement
April 1, 1970, to June 30, 1973, which had been negotiated
for the aforesaid appropriate bargaining unit, the Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
6. By demanding separate and individual bargaining
with each of the CTA employer-members named in
Appendix A and by striking and picketing some of them for
the purpose of breaking them away and separating them
from the multiemployer bargaining unit, the Respondent
has restrained and coerced, and is restraining and coercing,
employers in the selection of their representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(B) of the Act, and
has refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(b)(3).
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:14
ORDER
Respondent, its officers, agents , and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to give full force and effect to the National
Master Freight Agreement and its Joint Council 7 Local
Pickup and Delivery Supplemental Agreement for the
contract term April 1, 1970 , to June 30, 1973.
(b) Recognizing or giving force and effect to individual
contracts negotiated with separate employer-members of
CTA.
(c) Requesting and demanding, and seeking separate
bargaining and collective -bargaining-agreements from the
CTA employer-members listed on Appendix A attached
hereto and from any other employer-members of the CTA
who belong to the multiemployer group represented by
CTA and TEI.
(d) Picketing , striking, and threats thereto , restraining
and coercing CTA employer-members named in Appendix
A, in the selection of their representatives for the purposes
of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify in writing the CTA and each of its employer-
members named in Appendix A that it will adhere to and
be bound by the terms of the National Master Freight
Agreement and its Joint Council 7 Local Pickup and
Delivery Supplemental Agreement for the contract term
April 30, 1970 to June 30, 1973, and sign said agreements
upon request.
(b) Notify in writing all CTA employer-members named
in Appendix A with whom it has negotiated separate
that may have been negotiated between Frank 's Trucking and Local
70 shall become null and void.
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 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.
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 70
agreements that they are null and void, and the Respondent
will cease giving effect to them.
(c) Post at its union offices in Oakland, California, and
distribute to its membership by mail or other means, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 15 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being duly signed by a representative of
the Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 20 signed
copies of said notice in sufficient numbers to be posted by
each of the CTA employer-members named in Appendix A
attached hereto, at their places of business, if said
employers are willing.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.16
Enterprise Transport Company
Frank's Trucking
Fraser Trucking Co., Inc.
Garrett Freightlines, Inc.
Haslett Company
Hills Transportation Company,
A Subsidiary of Containerfreight Corporation
IML Freight, Inc.
Illinois-California Express, Inc.
L & V Trucking, Inc.
Lodi Truck Service
M & N Truck Line
Manufacturers Distribution Terminal
March Transport Co.
Moore Truck Lines
Morris Draying Company
15 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."
16 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20; in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
CTA MEMBERS FOR WHOM WE HOLD
AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT
COVERING LOCAL 70 PICKUP & DELIVERY
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
A & B Garment Delivery of San Francisco, Inc.
Alltrans Express California, Inc.
Associated Freight Lines
Atlas Freight Lines
Atthowe Transportation Co.
Beckman Express & Warehouse Co.
Bigge Drayage Co.
C-Line Express, Inc.
California Motor Transport Co.
Camall Trucking, Inc.
Coast Drayage dba Coast Lines
Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware
Crescent Truck Lines
Ronald L. Day Transportation Co.
Delta Lines, Inc.
Di Salvo Trucking Company
East Bay Drayage & Warehouse Co.
Encinal Terminals
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
Northwestern Drayage & Warehouse
O.N.C. Motor Freight System
Pacific Intermountain Express Co.
Pacific Express Transportation
Pacific Motor Trucking Company
Peters Truck Lines
Ringsby-Pacific, Ltd.
Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc.
Ruddway Drayage, Inc.
Safe Transportation Company
The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company
Security Transportation Company
Senna Trucking Co., Inc.
Shippers Express Company
Sterling Transit Co., Inc.
Stewart Drayage Lines
System 99
T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.
Transcon Lines
Tri-County Freight
United Truck Line
Valley Copperstate System
Walton Drayage & Warehouse Co., Inc.
Warren Transportation Co.
Wells Cargo, Inc.
Western Gillette, Inc.
Willig Freight Lines
Yellow Freight System, Inc.
687
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to abide by and give full force
and effect to the National Master Freight Agreement
and its Joint Council 7 Local Pickup and Delivery
Supplemental Agreement for the contract term April 1,
1970, to June 30, 1973 , and we will sign the same on
request.
WE WILL NOT request, demand , or seek a separate
collective-bargaining agreement from CTA employer-
members named in Appendix A attached to and made a
part of the Trial Examiner's Decision or from any other
employers belonging to the multiunion -multiemployer
bargaining unit involved in this case.
WE WILL NOT recognize or give force , effect, or
validity to individual contracts negotiated by us with
separate employer-members of CTA who are named in
Appendix A attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision
or with separate employers who are part of the
multigroup bound by the National Master Freight
Agreement and its Joint Council 7 Local Pickup and
Delivery Supplemental Agreement.
WE WILL NOT by strikes , picketing, or threats thereof,
restrain or coerce the CTA employer-members named
in Appendix A attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision or any other CTA employer-member who
belongs to the multiemployer group , in the selection of
their representatives for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL notify in writing the CTA and each of its
employer-members named in Appendix A attached to
the Trial Examiner 's Decision that we will adhere to
and are bound by the terms of the National Master
Freight Agreement and its Joint Council 7 Local Pickup
and Delivery Supplemental Agreement for the contract
term April 1, 1970, to June 30, 1973.
WE WILL notify in writing all CTA employer-
members named in Appendix A attached to the Trial
Examiner 's Decision with whom we have negotiated
separate collective -bargaining agreements , that they are
null and void and that we will cease giving effect to
them.
Dated By
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS & AUTO TRUCK
DRIVERS LOCAL No. 70,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS
OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
(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 556-0335.