Dallas General Drivers, Etc. Local Union No. 745

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 683
entitled by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to force or
require the Company to assign the disputed work to ILA members
rather than to the Company's own employees who are not members
of that organization.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record
in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
1. Clerks and Checkers Local Union No. 1692, International Long-
shoremen's Association, Independent, and International Longshore-
men's Association, Independent, are not, and have not been, entitled
by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act to force or
require J & R Contractors, Inc., to assign the work of timekeeping
and related duties to members of said Local 1692 rather than to said
Company's own employees who are not members of said labor
organization.
2. Clerks and Checkers Local Union No. 1692 and its parent organi-
zation, International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, shall
within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of
Dispute, notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region,
in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring
J & R Contractors, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D),
to assign the particular work in dispute to members of said Local
1692 rather than to said 'Company's own employees who are not
members of said labor organization.
Dallas General Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 745 and Macatee, Inc.
Dallas General Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 745, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and Macatee, Inc. Cases Nos. 16-CB-158 and 16-CP 1. May 11,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 16, 1960, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
127 NLRB No. 93.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these
cases, and, except as noted below, hereby adopts the findings,' conclu-
sions, and recommendations 3 of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 745, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, repre-
sentatives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing, or threatening to picket, Maca-
tee, Inc., an object thereof being to force or require Macatee, Inc., to
recognize and bargain collectively with it for a period of 1 year fol-
lowing the conduct of the election of June 24, 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices,
meeting halls, and all places where notices to its members are custom-
arily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4
1 Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record,
exceptions , and brief adequately present the positions of the parties.
2 In Case No . 16-CB-158, the Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section
8(b) (1) (A ) of the Act by peacefully picketing from June 24, 1959, the date on which
Respondent lost a Board-conducted election , to November 27, 1959, the date on which this
picketing was enjoined . -In so finding , he relied on the Board 's decision in Curtis Brothers,
Inc, 119 NLRB 232, and related cases. On March 28, 1960, the Supreme Court issued its
decision in Curtis ( 362 U . S. 274 ) in which it held that peaceful picketing by a minority
union to compel immediate recognition is not an unfair labor practice under Section
8(b) (1) (A ). Accordingly , as the decision of the Court is controlling as to the allegations
in Case No. 16-CB-158, we shall, in compliance therewith , dismiss the complaint insofar
as it alleges a violation of that section in this case.
Member Fanning finds it unnecessary to determine in this proceeding whether a union's
picketing for reinstatement of economic strikers who are union adherents , standing alone,
constitutes picketing for an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (7). In his opinion, the
record contains sufficient independent evidence that Respondent 's picketing and related
conduct after November 13, 1959, was to obtain recognition from the Charging Party.
8 Respondent has excepted to paragraph numbered 1(b) of the Trial Examiner 's recom-
mended order which restrains Respondent from picketing or threatening to picket the
Charging Party to force or require it to recognize and bargain collectively with it "so
long as the Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election issued by the
National Labor Relations Board on September 2, 1959, remains in force and effect." As
Section 8 ( b) (7) (B) forbids picketing , or threats to picket for these proscribed objects for
a year following the conduct of a valid election, we find merit in Respondent 's exceptions
and shall modify the recommended order accordingly.
A In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 685
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representa-
tives of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region signed
copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Macatee, Inc., the
Company willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respond-
ent's official representatives, be forthwith returned to said Regional
Director.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
Respondent violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act in Case No.
16-CB-158, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 745, AFFILIATED WITH INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT picket or threaten to picket, Macatee, Inc., Dallas,
Texas, where an object thereof is to force or require Macatee, Inc.,
to recognize and bargain collectively with us for a period of 1
year following the conduct of the election of June 24, 1959.
DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 745, AF-
FILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Union.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges, duly filed, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, through the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth,
Texas), pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as
amended (herein called the Act), issued a complaint dated November 10, 1959,
alleging that the Respondent, or the Union, has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. A second complaint, dated November
25, 1959, was issued alleging that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (B) of the Act. On the latter date the Regional
Director issued an order consolidating the cases. The answer of the Respondent
admits certain allegations of the complaints but denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner
on January 18 and 19, 1960, at Dallas, Texas. All parties were represented by
counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence,
to present oral argument, and to file briefs. The General Counsel filed a brief which
I have considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF MACATEE, INC.
The parties stipulated that Macatee, Inc., a Texas corporation, maintains its prin-
cipal office and warehouse in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the business of
selling building materials and supplies and as a contractor in the building and con-
struction industry. Annually Macatee purchases materials and supplies which are
shipped to it from places outside the State of Texas valued in excess of $50,000 and
sells materials and performs services outside the State of Texas valued in excess
of $50,000. I find Macatee is engaged in commerce as defined in the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The initial complaint (Case No. 16-CB-158) alleges that from June 24 to No-
vember 13, 1959, the Union, by continuing to picket at Macatee's warehouse and
plant, after failing to receive a majority of the valid votes cast in a Board-directed
election, thereby violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
The second complaint (Case No. 16-CP-1), as amended, alleges that by engaging
in such activities from November 13 to 27, 1959, by threatening to picket on De-
cember 31, 1959, and by the resumption of picketing on January 4, 1960, the Union
violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act.
In its answer the Union admits picketing Macatee's warehouse and plant during
the period June 24 to November 27, 1959, but challenges the validity of the repre-
sentation proceedings and election for the reason that striking employees were not
permitted to vote in the election. The Union denies that the picketing of January 4,
1960, was a resumption of the previous picketing, but was for an entirely different
purpose, namely, to obtain reemployment of the strikers.
i Counsel for the Union and the Charging Party in separate letters dated February 2,
1960, advised me they would not submit formal briefs but rely upon their respective oral
arguments made at the conclusion of the hearing. Counsel for the Union also requests the
following corrections be made in the transcript of the hearing
Line 14, page 143. Mr. Wells : Very glad to, and stipulate further that he [Henry
Miller] is not an officer , agent or representative of the union. He is an agent
The record is corrected by striking the italicization and substituting therefor :
He is an ex- striker.
Wherever the word "advisory" appears in the oral argument of counsel, it is
corrected to read "adversary."
DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 687
B._ Chronology of events
The parties stipulated most of the substantive facts so, on the basis of the stipula-
tion , I find as follows:
On October 16, 1956, the Union was certified by the Board (Case No. 16-RC-
1912 ) as the exclusive bargaining representative for Macatee 's employees in a unit
composed of:
All truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, glass cutters, warehousemen , shipping and
receiving clerks, and machinists and mechanics at the employer 's warehouse at
Dallas, Texas , excluding office clerical employees , watchmen , guards, all other
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Thereafter the Union and Macatee entered into an agreement which expired about
April 1 , 1958. Pnor to the expiration date the Union gave timely notice of its
desire to negotiate amendments to the contract while Macatee served notice of termi-
nation of the agreement . By consent , the contract was extended until April 7, 1958.
The Union and Macatee were unable to reach agreement , so on May 12, 1958, the
Union declared a strike and conducted picketing at Macatee 's warehouse and plant
with a banner which stated:
Macatee Building Materials on strike.
Dallas General Drivers Local 745.
As appears below, there were approximately 37 employees in the unit , all of whom,
except 2, went on strike.
Subsequently , in July or August 1958, an additional picket sign was utilized bearing
the legend:
Attention Macatee Construction Employees . Please do not report to work
behind our picket line . Help Macatee Teamsters to win fair wages and a union
contract.
Thereafter a third picket sign was used bearing the above legend but with the
addition:
We are picketing Macatee only, not any other person or firm.
Picketing on the public street adjacent to Macatee 's principal place of business and
warehouse continued until November 27, 1959. The Union concedes that the pickets
used all three of the above-described signs until August 1959, when the pickets
thereafter used the initial sign, "Macatee Building Materials on strike.. .
There was no violence or threats thereof in connection with the picketing.
Throughout the period thereof a substantial number of persons observed the pickets
and crossed the picket line, without reprisal , in order to do business with Macatee.
Other persons refused to cross the picket line and enter the premises . In this respect,
a union driver for East Texas Motor Freight Lines refused to cross the picket line
on November 23, 1958, to make a pickup for shipment out of the State.
About October 15, 1958, a decertification petition was filed by an employee (Case
No. 16-RD-196) asserting the Union was no longer the statutory representative of
the employees in the above-mentioned unit.
About February 15, 1959, Macatee filed a representation petition (Case No.
16-RM-172 ) on the grounds that one or more individuals or labor organizations
claimed to represent the employees in the bargaining unit.
The cases were duly consolidated and pursuant to notice a hearing was held
before a hearing officer on March 9 and 10, 1959, in Dallas, Texas.
On June 3, 1959, the Board issued its decision and directed an election be con-
ducted among the employees in the aforesaid unit to determine whether they desired
to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining . Concerning
the strikers , the Board found that on May 12, 1958, 35 of the 37 employees in the
unit involved engaged in an economic strike, which was still current , and by May 16
Macatee had filled each position vacated by a striker and had a full complement
of 38 employees . Since the strikers had been permanently replaced, and economic
stnkers lose their right to reinstatement upon permanent replacement , it follows,
the Board held, that the strikers were ineligible to vote in the election . The Union
also contended that no election should be held while an injunction obtained against
it under Section 10(1) was pending (Case No. 16-CC-91) because the injunction
deprived the union members of Section 7 rights "which are essential in any pre-
election campaign ." The Board found this contention to be without merit for the
injunction prohibited only certain unlawful conduct by the Union and did not
extend to lawful preelection activity
Egg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,On June 24 the election was held and of the 43 eligible voters, 3 voted in favor
pf the Union and 38 against it. On June 23 the Regional Office notified the Union
that no permanently replaced striker would be permitted to vote a challenged ballot
and no striker voted in the election.
The Union filed timely objections on these grounds to the conduct of the election
which the Regional Director found , in his report , raised no material issues with
respect to the conduct of the election and recommended they be overruled and the
results of the election certified.
The Union thereupon filed exceptions to the Regional Director 's report.
On September 2, 1959, the Board issued its Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Results of Election wherein it adopted the findings and recommendations of
the Regional Director.
The Union continued its strike and picketing and on November 17, 1959 , Macatee
filed a charge (Case No. 16-CP-1 ) alleging the Union was engaging in conduct
in violation of Sections 8 (b) (1) (A ) and 7 (B) of the Act.
On November 27 picketing ceased when a temporary injunction was issued under
Section 10 ( l) of the Act restraining the Union from engaging in such picketing.
Thereafter the Union called a meeting at which time the strikers voted to end
,the strike and authorized the Union to send a letter to Macatee , dated December 9,
1959 , to the effect that the strike had been terminated and that the Union was making
an unconditional request for reinstatement on behalf of each of the striking
iemployees.
By letter dated December 14 Macatee advised the Union that it no longer recog-
nized the Union as the bargaining representative of its employees and that all the
striking employees had been permanently replaced . The letter concluded by stating
Macatee had no objection to accepting an application from any individual who
,desired to apply for a position as a new employee.
Subsequently , several strikers made individual applications for reemployment
,but were told there were no vacancies and that persons hired since the strike were
performing the work which they had previously performed.
On December 31 the Union wrote Macatee that in view of its refusal to reemploy
-the strikers the Union intended to initiate a program of peaceful picketing, the
sole objects thereof being to persuade Macatee to reemploy the strikers and to
jnduce the "strikebreakers" to relinquish their employment to the extent necessary
-to make room for strikers who desired reemployment . The Union disclaimed
making any request for recognition or bargaining.
Macatee made no response to this letter.
On January 4, 1960 , the former strikers commenced picketing at Macatee's ware-
house and plant carrying signs bearing the legend:
Lock-out by Macatee . Strike breakers quit your jobs and make room for us.
Macatee, Inc., we want our jobs back . We urge company to rehire former
strikers and abandon lock-out. We are picketing for these objects only. Dallas
General Drivers , Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union 745.
On January 8 picketing ceased following a conference between representatives of
.the Union and the Regional Director.
On January 10 the complaint (Case No. 16-CP-1) was amended to allege this
.conduct as being violative of Section 8(b)(7)(B ). The amended answer denies the
illegality of this picketing.
The stipulation and testimony supplementing portions thereof clearly establish
that an object of the strike and picketing, from the outset of this course of action,
was to force or require Macatee to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
.exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit . Thus, C. M.
Roseborough, union business agent, testified that up to November 27, 1959, the
-Union would remove the picket line only "On one condition, the company would
sign a contract with us and we would remove it." Roseborough further testified
-that the purpose of the picketing from January 4 to 8, 1960, was to obtain the
reemployment of about 29 former employees or former striking employees, all of
whom were members in good standing when they went on strike. When asked if
the Union wanted a contract with Macatee, the same as in the period up to November
27, Roseborough answered; ". . . we want a contract with every company that
-we can get, but that was not the purpose of the pickets."
The evidence fully supports the finding that an object of the strike and picketing
,during the period June 24 to November 27, 1959, was to obtain recognition and an
agreement, despite the fact that the Union did not represent a majority of the
employees in the unit involved. It is undisputed that picketing ceased on November
27, 1959, when an injunction was entered against the Union. Thereafter, the
Union made unsuccessful attempts to secure reemployment of the strikers, so on'
DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC., LOCAL UNION NO. 745 689
December 31 the Union announced its intention to picket Macatee in an effort to
induce the replacements to quit their jobs to make room for the strikers and to
persuade Macatee to reemploy the striking employees. In line with its threat the
Union picketed at Macatee's premises from January 4 to 8, 1960, the pickets carrying
signs plainly indicating the foregoing purposes of the picketing. From a realistic
and practical viewpoint I fail to see how the Union could have entertained any hope
of achieving its stated objectives when it is considered that the replacement employees
had been working behind the picket line for many months and Macatee had plainly
given its reasons for refusing to reemploy the strikers. Be that as it may, and
granting picketing was for those purposes, nevertheless I am satisfied the evidence
also supports the finding that an object of the picketing was to secure recognition
and a contract. (See Lewis Food Company, 115 NLRB 890 )
L further find, from the testimony of Arthur L. Bissonnette, vice president of
Macatee, that in the interval July to November 27, 1959, employees of Macatee
such as roofers, carpenters, and glaziers, who were members of their respective
trade unions, refused to cross the picket line to enter the plant or warehouse. During
this period other employees loaded the trucks on Macatee's premises and delivered
them to these employees outside the picket line. After the pickets were withdrawn
the men entered the premises to pick up their trucks and materials but during the
picketing of January 4 to 8, they again refused to cross the picket line.
Concluding Findings
The primary issue here is whether the election of June 24, was a valid one under
Section 9(c) of the Act, so that the Union by picketing thereafter, in the manner
found herein, thereby violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (7) (B) of the Act?
In general the Union attacks the validity of the representation proceeding and
election on the grounds that: (1) the Board's finding that the striking employees had
been permanently replaced was not only improper because of the nonadversary
character of the proceeding, but was also contrary to the evidence; and (2) the
Board should not have directed an election while the Union was subject to an
injunction obtained under Section 10(1), which deprived union members from
exercising their statutory rights essential in the preelection campaign. The Board
rejected these contentions in its Decision and Direction of Election as well as in its
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election.
It is, of course, well settled that under the Act the Board has the exclusive power
to determine the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, as well
as the designation of the representative of the employees therein and the Board
may determine the majority status by secret election or any other suitable means.3
Insofar as the representation petitions are concerned the Board did nothing more
than carry out its statutory obligations. Section 9(c)(1) provides that if a question
of representation exists the Board must resolve it through an election by secret
ballot The election details are left to the Board and voting eligibility, timing of
elections and standards of election conduct are subject to rules laid down in the
Board's Rules and Regulations and decisions .4 Accordingly, the Board on the basis
of the record established in a formal hearing on the petitions rejected the same
contentions now raised by the Union in its Decision and Direction of Election
Contrary to the arguments advanced by the Union, that record clearly shows that
the parties and their counsel were cognizant of the questions involving representa-
tion and that the questions were in fact litigated in the proceedings. Indeed, counsel
for the Union in the course of his argument in the instant complaint cases quoted
2 Section 8(b) (7) (B), which became effective November 13, 1959, declares it an unfair
labor practice for a labor organization or its agents, "to picket or cause to be picketed,
or threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an object thereof is
forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the
representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring the employees of an employer to
accept or select such labor organization as their collective bargaining representative,
unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such
employees :
w n a t s x :
(B) where within the preceding twelve months a valid election under section 9(c) of
this Act has been conducted, . . .
s N.L R B. v. Falk Corporation, 308 U.S 453, 458-459; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Com-
pang/ v N.L.R.B., 313 U S 140, 152-153.
4 Twenty-third Annual Report of the Board, p. 43.
500940-01-vol 127-45
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the testimony of a witness for Macatee , developed by union counsel on cross-
examination in the representation hearing, to support his position that the evidence
was insufficient to sustain the Board's findings that the strikers had been permanently
replaced. I have read the record in the representation proceeding and, without
attempting any review of the Board's findings, I am convinced the Board could have
come to no other conclusions than those it reached.
In the present unfair labor practice cases the Union sought to again litigate the
same issues, which I refused to permit it to do. The Board in passing upon a
similar contention in The Baker and Taylor Company case (109 NLRB 245),
stated:
It has long been the Board's policy not to permit relitigation, in a proceeding
based on charges of refusal to bargain, of the issues decided in a prior rep-
resentation proceeding. In the absence of evidence of changes in the facts
surrounding a prior unit determination, or the discovery of evidence unavail-
able to the respondent in the representation, the Board has uniformly refused
to redetermine unit issues in an unfair labor practice proceeding.5
At the hearing counsel for the Union made an offer of proof as what he expected
to prove had he been permitted to litigate the questions of permanent replacements
and deprivation of electioneering rights by reason of the outstanding injunction.
The offer reveals no new evidence or evidence that was not available at the time
of the representation hearing.
I, therefore, find and conclude that the election was a valid one and was in full
compliance with the provisions of Section 9(c) of the Act.
I have already found that, at all times material herein, an object of the Union's
picketing was to force or require Macatee to recognize and bargain with it, when
it did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit involved. It follows,
and I find, on the authority and rationale expressed in the Curtis Brothers case,6
that by thus picketing after June 24, 1959, and September 2, 1959, the Union
thereby restrained and coerced the employees of Macatee in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 and thereby engaged in conduct in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The language of Section 8(b)(7)(B) makes it clear that Congress intended to
outlaw picketing, or threats to picket, for recognition and bargaining by a minority
union where within the preceding 12 months a valid election has been conducted.
The requirements essential to show a violation of this provision have been fully
established by the evidence. Therefore, I find that by picketing under the circum-
stances herein from November 13 to 27, 1959, by threatening to picket on December
31, 1959, and by picketing from January 4 to 8, 1960, the Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Macatee , Inc., 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 engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (7) (B) of the Act, it will be recommended
that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
6 United Insurance Company, 122 NLRB 911 . Remanded to Board on other grounds,
United Insurance Company v. N L R.B., decided December 11, 1959, 272 F. 2d 446 ('C A. 7).
6 Drivers , Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 639 , etc (Curtis Brothers , Inc ), 119 NLRB
232. See also International Association of Machinists, Lodge 942, AFL-CIO (Alloy
Manufacturing Company , et al.), 119 NLRB 307; United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and its Local 511 (O'Sullivan Rubber Corpora-
tion ), 121 NLRB 1439; Local 208 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc. (Sierra
Furniture Company ), 125 NLRB 159 , and Local # 98, Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation (Pggly-Wiggly Midwest Co, Inc), 126 NLRB 362.
THE CROSS COMPANY 691
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Macatee, Inc., Dallas, Texas, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745.
Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing Macatee, Inc., on and after June 24, 1959, and September 2,
1959, an object thereof being to force or require Macatee, Inc., to recognize and
bargain collectively with the Respondent, when it did not represent a majority of
the employees in the unit involved, the Respondent thereby restrained and coerced
the employees of Macatee, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7,
in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
4. By picketing Macatee, Inc., from November 13 to 27, 1959, by threatening to
picket on December 31, 1959, and by picketing from January 4 to January 8, 1960,
an object thereof being to force or require Macatee, Inc., to recognize and bargain
collectively with the Respondent, when it was not currently certified as the repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit involved, where within the preceding 12
months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act had been conducted, the
Respondent thereby engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)
(7)(B) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
The Cross Company and International Union , United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No . 155, Inter-
national Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Case No.
7-CA-2468. May 11, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 5, 1960, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel,
the Respondent, and the Charging Union filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report, and the Respondent and the Charging Union also
filed supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
.has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean , and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommends
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions.
X127 NLRB No. 88.