Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 50

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 1188 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 50, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Richard
Shaw and Ronald Shaw , d/b/a Shaw Contractors
and Builders) and Jerry T. Neal. Case 14-CB-2466
October 31, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On August 14, 1972 Administrative Law Judge'
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Council filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and Deci-
sion in light of the exceptions and brief and has decid-
ed to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of
the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his rec-
ommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Chauffeurs and Helpers Lo-
cal 50, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, its officers, agents , and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Administrative
Law Judge's recommended Order.
I The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C . LADWIG This case was tried at St . Louis,
Missouri , on July 14, 1972.' The charge was filed on May
1 by an individual , Jerry T. Neal, and the complaint was
issued on June 6 . The primary issues are whether the Union,
the Respondent, (a) attempted to cause truckdriver Neal's
employer to terminate him, (b ) threatened not to give him
referrals through the exclusive referral office , and (c) coer-
cively interrogated him about his unfair labor practice
All dates are from December 1971 until July 1972.
charge, in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration
of the General Counsel's brief, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Shaw Contractors and Builders, a partnership, is a
contractor engaged in heavy and highway construction. It
has its principal place of business in Mount Carmel, Illinois,
where it annually receives goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State. I find that
the Contractor is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In late 1971, the Contractor had two service trucks in
operation in the Union's Mt. Vernon, Illinois, district.
Truckdnver Jerry Neal drove one of the trucks , servicing
projects east of Mt. Vernon. A truckdriver with greater
seniority, John Jury, drove the other truck, servicing proj-
ects west of Mt. Vernon.
A few days before Christmas, the Contractor laid off
the senior driver, Jury, and began using truckdriver Neal, as
weather permitted, to service projects located both east and
west of Mt. Vernon. After Christmas, Neal went to the
Union's Mt. Vernon referral office to pay his dues. Assistant
Business Agent Rudolph Nordin, who for years had been
referring Neal to jobs from that exclusive referral office,
told Neal that he could not work in Jefferson County (west
of Mt. Vernon), stating that that was Jury's job. Neverthe-
less, Neal continued to work as assigned by the Contractor,
and by the time of trial (in July), Jury had never been
recalled.
On May 1, truckdriver Neal filed the charge herein,
alleging that the Union was attempting to cause the Con-
tractor to discriminate against him. Thereafter, on May 24,
Jury filed a grievance against the Contractor, claiming that
Jury was entitled to the job, as the steward and senior em-
ployee. The grievance was still pending at the time of trial.
(The Contractor and the Union are in dispute over whether
Jury had been designated as the steward, and whether the
AGC construction agreement requires the Contractor to
honor seniority when laying off employees.)
B. Alleged Attempt To Cause Termination
The complaint alleges that on January 12 and again on
January 17, Union Agent Nordin attempted to cause the
Contractor "to not recall Neal from layoff status and to
thereby discriminate against Neal for the purpose of en-
couraging membership" in the Union. At the trial, after it
was developed that Neal had not been laid off, the General
Counsel contended that the question was whether the
199 NLRB No. 186
THE PEARSON BROS . COMPANY 1189
Union attempted to cause the Contractor "to terminate
Neal's employment."
The evidence, however, shows that the Union was en-
deavoring to persuade the Company to recall truckdriver
Jury to drive the service truck west of Mt. Vernon, not to
terminate Neal. As credibly testified by Contractor Partner
Ronald Shaw, he met Union Agent Nordin at a prejob
conference on January 12 and stated "we are planning to
have Jerry Neal as a service truck driver" on a new job
northwest of Mt. Vernon. Nordin refused to agree, stating
that truckdriver Jury was going to be the driver. Nordin
.,said we could work [Neal] on Wayne County and also in
what we call Job 46 ... just across the line in Jefferson
County" (that is, east of Mt. Vernon, where Neal had orig-
inally been assigned). Thus, at this meeting, it was clear that
the Union was encouraging the Contractor to employ two
drivers, instead of one-not to replace Neal on the jobs east
of Mt. Vernon.
Then on January 17, Partner Ronald Shaw and Super-
intendent Doyle Wildman met with Union Agent Nordin to
discuss a grievance in which Wildman was alleged to have
been hauling posts and fence wire in a pickup truck (the
work of a service truckdriver). As Shaw credibly testified,
"Nordin said that he would be willing to drop the ...
grievance against us if we would take Jury back" as the
service truckdriver in that area (west of Mt. Vernon). No
mention was made of Neal continuing to work east of Mt.
Vernon.
In his brief, the General Counsel argues that the Union
was in effect insisting that Neal be terminated since the
Contractor "could economically justify and afford only one
service truck driver" in the Union's Mt. Vernon District.
The Union, on the other hand, contends "there was enough
work for two men on service trucks and foremen all have
pickup trucks and when no one is around they use them for
hauling." Whether or not there was sufficient work for two
drivers, as the year before-a matter not litigated at the
trial-I find that the Union was seeking the employment of
two.
I therefore find that the Union was proposing the addi-
tion of a second driver, not the termination or replacement
of truckdriver Neal. Accordingly, I reject the contention
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by at-
tempting to cause the Contractor to terminate "and thereby
discriminate against Neal for the purpose of encouraging
membership in Respondent."
C. Alleged Coercion
The complaint alleges that in late January, Union
Agent Nordin "threatened an employee by stating that the
employee would not receive referrals from the Respondent's
exclusive hire hall if he continued activities which dis-
pleased Nordin." In support of this allegation, truckdriver
Neal credibly testified that sometime in January, when he
went to the Mt. Vernon referral office to pay his dues,
Nordin "told me to remember that I wasn't supposed to
haul anything [in Jefferson County, west of Mt. Vernon]
except between jobs and I wasn't to stay on the jobsite and
work" there. Neal replied that he did not know why he
could not, and stated that in the past he had, as a member
of the local, worked in Nashville, Illinois, about 30 miles
west of Mt. Vernon (in Washington County, which is also
in the Union's Mt. Vernon District). Nordin "told me that
it was John Jury's territory and that I couldn't work over
there," that he was running the Union, and that "I could
wind up not getting work at all ... if I didn't do as he said."
(Nordin testified that he did not remember this conversa-
tion. Neal impressed me as being a conscientious, forthright
witness.)
Having credited truckdriver Neal's testimony, I find
that Assistant Business Agent Nordin in effect threatened
to deny Neal further referrals if Neal continued to perform
work on projects west of Mt. Vernon, thereby coercing Neal
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Truckdriver Neal continued to service the projects as
assigned, and on April 11, truckdriver Jury filed intraunion
charges against him. On May 6, Neal went to the Union's
Belleville, Illinois, hall to answer the charges. When he ar-
rived, as he credibly testified, Union President Baron Trefts
held up a copy of Neal's May 1 unfair labor practice charge
file herein, and said, "What in the hell does this mean?"
Secretary-Treasurer Arthur Luekemeyer interrupted, asked
Trefts to wait a minute, and stated "he didn't think I real-
ized what it meant and he wanted to know if he could talk
to me in the office." Luekemeyer then talked to Neal in
private. "He told me that it made it look pretty bad for him
and the Union because he was [Nordin's] boss and he gave
me the understanding that he would like for me to drop the
charges and then we returned out where Mr. Trefts was."
Trefts "said something about did I realize what a black eye
it would give Local 50." Nothing further was said about the
Board charges.
Contrary to the allegation that President Trefts "coer-
cively interrogated" Neal, I find that the General Counsel
has failed to establish that Trefts' outburst, about what
"does this mean" and about how it would affect the Union,
tended to restrain or coerce Neal-particularly in view of
Luekemeyer's clearly noncoercive conciliatory remarks. I
therefore reject the contention that the Union thereby viola-
ted Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening to deny truckdriver Neal further
referrals through its exclusive referral office if he continued
to perform certain work for the Contractor, the Union en-
gaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union did not attempt to cause the Contractor
to terminate Neal, and did not coercively interrogate him,
in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it
necessary that the Respondent Local 50 be ordered to cease
and desist from the unfair labor practice found and to take
certain affirmative action.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
ORDER2
Respondent, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 50, affiliat-
ed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents , and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening to deny future
referrals through the union referral office to any employee
for performing work assigned by an employer.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its District referral
office in Mt. Vernon, Illinois, where notices to members are
customarily osted, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."? Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. -
(b) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after
trial, that we violated Federal law by threatening to deny a
member future referrals through our referral office:
WE WILL NOT deny, nor threaten to deny, Jerry Neal
or any other member any referrals for performing work
assigned by his employer.
Dated By
2 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.
3 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 50,
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
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 direct-
ed to the Board's Office , 210 North 12th Boulevard, Room
448, St . Louis , Missouri 63101 , Telephone 314-622-4167.