Drivers and Chauffeurs local Union No. 816, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1059 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION NO. 816, ETC. 1059
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent Employer constitute and affect trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and foreign countries, within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the, Act.
3. The Respondents have not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
.complaint herein to have been committed by them.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Drivers and Chauffeurs Local Union No. 816, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Montgomery Ward and Co., Incorpo-
rated. Case No. 2-CC-525. June 7, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 23, 1960, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Intermediate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General
-Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. Briefs were filed
by the Charging Party and the General Counsel.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins] .
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions,
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recom-
mendations 2 of the Trial Examiner.
'In addition to the evidence set forth in the Intermediate Report establishing induce-
ment, we note that Brusco, a driver for Gilbert Carrier, a neutral trucking company,
testified without contradiction that when he appeared at ward's delivery entrance to make
a pickup on September 2, 1959, lie was told by Wesley, one of the pickets, "Don't pick
,up, we on [sic] strike." The General Counsel and the Charging Party except to the Trial
Examiner' s finding that the symbol F/AC meant "for the account of" rather than "for
account " The record supports this interpretation, and we correct the Intermediate
Report accordingly.
2 The General Counsel and the Charging Party also except to that portion of the recom-
mended notice reading "when we do not represent a majority of such employees in an
appropriate unit." We find merit in this exception and shall substitute for the quoted
portion the following statutory language : "unless and until we are certified as the repre-
sentative of such employees pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act."
127 NLRB No. 130.
1 060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Drivers and
Chauffeurs Local Union No. 816, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from picketing the premises of Montgomery
Ward and Co., Incorporated, 75 Varick Street, New York, New York,
or in any other manner inducing or encouraging the employees of
Montgomery Ward and Co., Incorporated, and Gilbert Carrier or any
other employer, to engage in a strike or a refusal, in the course of their
employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services, where an object thereof is (a) to force or require
Montgomery Ward and Co., Incorporated, to cease doing business
with Sidel Truck Leasing Corporation or (b) to force or require Sidel
Truck Leasing Corporation to recognize or bargain with the Respond-
ent as the representative of its employees unless the Respondent has
been certified as the representative of such employees pursuant to the
provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its business offices at New York, New York, and all
other places where notices to its members are customarily posted,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional for the Second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Second Region signed
copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Montgomery Ward and
Co., Incorporated, Gilbert Carrier, and Sidel Truck Leasing Cor-
poration, if willing, at places where they customarily post notices to
their respective employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.
3 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."
DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION NO. 816, ETC. 1061
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION
No. 816, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA AND EMPLOYEES
OF MONTGOMERY WARD AND CO., INCORPORATED , GILBERT CARRIER,
AND SIDEL TRUCK LEASING CORPORATION
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 our members that :
WE WILL NOT establish or maintain a picket line at the premises
of Montgomery Ward and Co., Incorporated, at 75 Varick Street,
New York, New York, nor in any other manner induce or en-
courage the employees of Montgomery Ward and Co., Incor-
porated, Gilbert Carrier, or any other employer to engage in a
strike or refusal in the course of their employment to perform
any services where an object thereof is (1) to force Montgomery
Ward and Co., Incorporated, to cease doing business with Sidel
Truck Leasing Corporation or (2) to force or require Sidel Truck
Leasing Corporation to recognize or bargain with us unless and
until we are certified as the representative of such employees
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION No. 816,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before the duly designated
Trial Examiner on December 15, 16, 17, and 22, 1959, and January 14, 1960, at
New York, New York, upon the complaint of the General Counsel and the answer
of the Respondent . The issue litigated was whether or not Drivers and Chauffeurs
Local Union No. 816, herein called the Respondent or the Union, violated Section
8(b)(4)(A ) and (B ) of the Act by inducing the employees of Montgomery Ward
and Co., Incorporated , herein called Ward, and the employees of truckers and
suppliers of Ward to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture , process, transport , or otherwise handle goods,
articles, materials , or commodities to force Ward to cease doing business with Sidel
Truck Leasing Corporation , herein called Sidel , and/or to force Sidel to recognize
or bargain with Respondent as collective-bargaining representative of the employees
of Sidel although Respondent was not certified as such bargaining representative
pursuant to Section 9 of the Act. The General Counsel and counsel for the Respond-
ent presented oral arguments and the parties were given until February 15 to file
briefs. Briefs were received on that date from the parties.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ward maintains its office and principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It
operates other offices, retail stores, catalogue stores, mail order offices, and distribu-
tion centers in various States of the United States, including a place of business at
75 Varick Street, New York, New York. The annual volume of retail sales of
Ward is in excess of $200,000,000. During the past year Ward caused to be pur-
chased, transferred, and delivered to its various places of business merchandise
valued in excess of $10,000,000. Merchandise valued in excess of $10,000,000 was
transported to said places of business in interstate commerce directly from States of
the United States other than the States in which said places of business are located.
Ward is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. The employment of the drivers
The source of economic consternation and distress to Ward, one of the two
largest retail and catalogue sales organizations in the world, in September 1959,
was the termination of employment of two delivery truckdrivers, Emil Wesley and
Alex Stern. Their termination provoked into multiple legal action the remedial
machinery of the National Labor Relations Board, resulting in the proceeding
herein as well as companion litigation. Wesley and Stern were terminated on
September 1, 1959, when the contract between Ward and Metropolitan Truck
Rental Service, herein called Metropolitan, a division of Hertz Corporation, was
canceled (Cancellation was effective as of the close of business, August 31, 1959.)
Wesley was first employed as a driver at Ward's fashion pool, 75 Varick Street,
New York, New York, in 1944 or 1945. From that time until September 1, 1959,
he was continuously employed making deliveries of merchandise to and from the
pool. He was a member of Local 816, the Respondent herein, when first employed
and at all times thereafter. When he was first assigned to Ward he was driving
for New York Haulage, a subsidiary of Gilbert Carriers, which had a contract to
perform trucking services for Ward. According to Wesley, sometime in 1952 the
contract between New York Haulage and/or Gilbert Carriers and Ward was termi-
nated and a contract for similar services was made by Ward with Rentways, Inc.
Wesley was notified of this by the dispatcher at Ward, went to Rentways, and was
employed to drive under the Ward contract. Later Rentways, Inc., was purchased
by Metropolitan, the contract with Ward was assumed, and Wesley continued to
make the Ward deliveries until September 1, 1959.
The experience of Stern was similar to that of Wesley except for the fact that
he was first employed when Rentways was the contracting trucker, in 1950 or 1951.
He survived the change to Metropolitan and, like Wesley, was continuously employed
making deliveries to and from the fashion pool until September 1, 1959.
The duties of the drivers were fixed and routine. There was no substantial change
in their method of operation under the successive trucking contractors. Under
Metropolitan they reported to work each morning at the Hertz garage where they
punched the timeclock They then took the trucks I to the fashion pool. At the
fashion pool they signed a timesheet and were given the merchandise to be delivered
for Ward. For each trip the drivers signed a "Truckers Load Signature Record" 2
which indicated the terminal to which the load was destined and the bills of lading
and number of pieces pertaining to each load. This was Ward's receipt for the
merchandise turned over to the driver. The driver was also given a "Retail Pool
Trip Schedule" 3 which also contained the destination and number of pieces in each
truckload. This sheet was turned in the following day together with the bills of
lading. The drivers usually made three trips each day and selected their own routes
for making deliveries. The testimony is uncontradicted that the work required little
or no supervision but such instructions as were required they received from Ward's
1 The truck bore Ward's name, 'Ward's colors, and Ward's advertising symbols to con-
form to Ward's own trucks They were owned by Metropolitan and all maintenance was
the responsibility of Metropolitan
s General Counsel's Exhibit No 6
a General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7
DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION NO. 816, ETC. 1063
shipping clerk. No complaints were made against the drivers and until its con-
clusion, which was no fault of the drivers, the arrangement was a happy one.
The terms of employment under which Wesley and Stern worked were fixed by a
collective-bargaining agreement between Motorways, Inc.,4 and the Respondent
Union.5 The drivers were paid their wages by Motorways, Inc, and all withholding
taxes, social security deductions, etc., were paid by Motorways. All benefits to the
drivers were fixed by the collective-bargaining contract. Although this contract
designated "Motorways, Inc., F/AC Montgomery Ward & Co." 6 as the employer
there is no evidence to establish that in making the contract Motorways acted as
agent of Ward. There is substantial evidence that it did not. Giles Wanamaker,
vice president of Hertz, testified that Ward neither authorized nor participated
in the negotiation of the contract nor was Ward advised of its terms. The abbrevia-
tion "F/AC" was used by Motorways to identify the contract as covering employees
of Metropolitan employed pursuant to a contract with Ward, and only for the con-
veniences such identification provided Motorways and Metropolitan.
Neither Wesley nor Stern was processed through the hiring procedures maintained
by Ward and neither received the benefits given to Ward employees. They did
receive a discount on purchases at Ward and a Christmas present from Ward but
such discounts and presents were made available to persons who were not employees
of Ward but who regularly performed services for Ward.7
2. The contracts between Ward and the truckers
The contracts between Ward and Metropolitan 8 and between Ward and Sidel,9
while not identical, were closely similar in their terms. Each provided that the
carrier-contractor should provide Ward with a trucking delivery service. The
carriers furnished two van-type, closed trucks and such additional trucks as might
from time to time be needed. All vehicles were to be owned, maintained, and
operated by the carrier at its expense. The carrier was also required to furnish
a licensed driver for each vehicle.10 Ward paid the carriers a flat weekly rate for
the two trucks regularly required and a daily rate for each additional truck. Pro-
visions were included for overtime and holiday pay when the services were so
required. Mileage in excess of 150 miles per day was on a mileage rate. All
indemnity and other insurance except cargo insurance was paid by the carrier.
3. The strike and its objects
When Wesley and Stern returned to the Hertz garage at the end of the day on
August 31, they were told by the garage manager that their employment was
terminated because the contract with Ward had been canceled. On the next day,
September 1, they, together with ,a representative of the Union named Forzano, went
to see Harry Ebhng, Ward's traffic manager at 75 Varick Street. Forzano told
Ebling, according to Ebling and the testimony is not contradicted, that he had talked
to Hertz and that the drivers had been discharged by Hertz. Forzano demanded
that the men be put back to work to which Ebling replied that the men were em-
ployees of Hertz and had never been on the Ward payroll. He told Forzano that
Sidel was the new carrier-contractor but Forzano still insisted that the drivers be
put on the payroll. Ebling then consulted with Ward's Regional Traffic Manager
Wilson and returned with the same answer-the men were Hertz employees
Forzano and the drivers then left with Forzano stating that the Union would take
the necessary action.
The next day Wesley and Stem appeared at the loading area at 75 Varick Street
and commenced picketing. This building is occupied by other businesses than
4 Motorways, Inc , was another Hertz corporation which provided a payroll service for
Meti opolitan and other Hertz subsidiaries
6 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 15.
6 F/AC meant "for the account of "
4 New York City policemen and firemen regularly protecting Ward received such
gratuities
8 General Counsel's Exhibit No 3
n General Counsel's Exhibit No 8
16 The contract between Metropolitan and Ward provided "It is understood that this
is not an agreement or partnership or employment of Carrier or any of Carrier's em-
ployees by Wards and it is expressly understood that the equipment and personnel re-
ferred to above shall at all times be under the sole and absolute control of the Carrier,
who shall have the sole right of equipment and discharge of such personnel " (Clause 11,
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 3 )
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ward and the loading area is divided into six bays. One bay is reserved exclusively
for Ward although other bays may be used by Ward if its own bay is overcrowded
and another bay is available. According to their own testimony Wesley and Stern
picketed in front of all six bays but there was no interference with deliveries to
other tenants of the building. According to witnesses for the General Counsel
trucks of carriers which were making deliveries to Ward 11 would stop when they
saw the pickets, speak to the pickets, then enter either 75 Varick Street or another
building, return and drive away without unloading. For a period from September 2
until September 19 none of the 15 carriers which made daily scheduled deliveries to
Ward completed their deliveries. As a result some 90 of the 130 Ward employees
at the fashion pool were laid off and business at the pool ceased.12 The pickets
bore signs with the legend "Montgomery Ward unfair to Chauffeurs Union, Local
816." The picketing was peaceful and conducted by Wesley and Stem only.
Stern testified that when the driver of a truck asked what the trouble was he told
him that they (the pickets) were locked out. The immediate purpose of the picket-
ing was to make it clear that a dispute existed with Ward over the termination of
their employment.
H. Kenneth Side], secretary-treasurer of Sidel Truck Leasing Corporation and
president of Florbrooke General Storage and Distributing Corporation, testified that
as a result of negotiations he entered into a contract to provide delivery service for the
fashion pool operations of Ward on September 1, 1959. The services to be provided
were those which had been provided by Metropolitan. To perform these services he
obtained one driver from Local 138 of the Teamsters, with whom he had a contract
covering some of his Jamaica operations for Ward, and the other driver he trans-
ferred from Florbrooke. This driver was a member of Local 184 but joined 138
pursuant to Sidel's contract with that Local. Both drivers were covered as to their
terms of employment by the contract between Local 138 and Sidel while working
under the Ward delivery contract.
On September 1 Kenneth Sidel returned a telephone call which he had received
from Lester Connell, secretary-treasurer of Respondent Union Local 816. He
testified that he was informed by Connell that the operations at 75 Varick Street
now performed under Sidel's contract with Ward were subject to an existing contract;
as to the drivers, with Local 816. Sidel was told that he was expected to keep
this contract in full force and effect, and that the drivers who had been laid off were
to be paid for that day and put back to work the next day. According to Sidel,
if this was not done then picketing would be the only remedy. Sidel then called
Local 138 and as a result of talking with officials of Local 138 called Connell
back. Sidel offered to assume the contract between Local 816 and Metropolitan
until its expiration date, which was August 31, 1960. At that time, however, Sidel
wanted to be free to negotiate with Local 138. Connell's reply was that at the
end of the contract he and Sidel would negotiate. Sidel did not accept this and
there were no further conversations with any representative of Local 816. Sidel
was unable to perform under its contract with Ward until the picketing ceased
about September 19.
Lester Connell was not called as a witness by Respondent.
B. Conclusions
The testimony and documentary evidence in this case are largely free from
dispute. The parties disagree in the inferences and conclusions to be drawn there-
from.
It is my finding that Wesley and Stem were employees of Metropolitan and not of
Ward. In making this finding great weight is attached to the fact that the terms
of their employment were fixed by the collective-bargaining contract between
Motorways and the Respondent. Motorways, like Metropolitan, was a subsidiary
and agent of Hertz. It is clear that in executing this contract Motorways was in
no way an agent of Ward. Ward neither authorized the making of the contract,
participated in its negotiation, nor adopted or ratified its terms. Ward owned no
stock in Motorways nor exercised any control over it. Apart from this factor which,
in the circumstances of this case, I would find controlling standing alone, Wesley
and Stem never were processed through the Ward employment procedures, were not
terminated through the Ward procedures, and enjoyed none of the Ward employee
benefits except for the discount privilege and the Christmas gift. Both of these
benefits were made available to other persons who were not employees of Ward.
n There were 15 carriers who made regular daily deliveries to Ward and these had been
placed on a regular time schedule to avoid congestion at the dock
12 The fashion pool did a business estimated at $100,000 to $150,000 daily.
DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS LOCAL UNION NO. 816, ETC. 1065
I find that both Metropolitan Hertz and Sidel were independent contractors as to
Ward. As to this finding the contracts themselves are the best evidence. Both
Metropolitan and Sidel were carriers operating a trucking and truck-leasing business
in New York, New York. Their trucks and drivers were made available to busi-
nesses in New York which found it profitable to lease trucks and drivers under
contract terms on a fee basis. The carrier-contractors operated for profit and
maintained control over their trucks and their drivers. They executed their own
collective-bargaining contracts for their employees. I find no way, despite the per-
suasive brief of counsel for the Respondent, to spell out an employer-employee rela-
tionship or an agency or ally relationship between Ward and the carrier-contractors,
Metropolitan and Sidel.
I find that the picketing of the premises at 75 Varick Street by Wesley and
Stern had dual purposes. It was designed (1) to cause Ward to cease doing business
with Sidel and to engage a carrier-contractor which would recognize Respondent as
the bargaining agent for the drivers employed under the Ward contract, or (2) to
cause Sidel to recognize Respondent as the bargaining agent for the Sidel drivers
who would work under the Ward contracts.13 The accomplishment of either ob-
jective would result in the reemployment of Wesley and Stern, a condition in which
they had some interest. I find that Wesley and Stern were agents of Respondent in
their picketing activities and Respondent has not disclaimed responsibility for their
conduct. The picketing was provoked solely by the cancellation of the Metropolitan
contract and the resulting unemployment for Wesley and Stern. They took the
only action which, so it appeared to them, might lead to their reemployment. Unfor-
tunately for them the objectives by which they sought to realize reemployment and
the means they employed have been outlawed by the statute.
In reaching the foregoing conclusions I have been guided by the decision of the
Board in New Jersey Guards Union (Otis Elevator Company), 124 NLRB 1097,
which I find indistinguishable both on the facts and the law. In that case Otis
canceled its contract for guard protection service with Burns and contracted with
Nilsen. The guards provided by Burns were members of the respondent union
therein and the guards provided by Nilsen were not. In protest against their loss
of employment the Burns guards picketed Otis. The Board held that the picketing
at the Otis premises was in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A). In the instant case
we have the additional factor that a demand was made upon Sidel to recognize
Respondent as bargaining agent for employees for whom it had not been certified.
Sympathetic as one may feel toward Wesley and Stern, terminated in their em-
ployment after years of service and through no fault of their own, I find the decision
of the Board in Otis controlling and the Respondent in violation of Section
8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it shall
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the policies of the Act. Because their is nothing in the record
before me to indicate that the action found unlawful herein is likely to be repeated
and there is no evidence that such unlawful action has been taken against other
employers by Respondent, the recommended order will be limited accordingly.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. Montgomery Ward and Co, Incorporated, and Sidel Truck Leasing Corpora-
tion are and at all times material herein were employers within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and Montgomery Ward and Co., Incorporated, is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Drivers and Chauffeurs Local Union No. 816, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has induced and encouraged the employees of Ward and other
employers to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to perform services for Ward with the object of (a) forcing or requiring Ward
is The request made upon Sidel by Secretary -Treasurer Connell that Sidel assume the
collective-bargaining contract between Motorways and Respondent and that it negotiate
with Respondent at the conclusion of the contract term is a clear request that Sidel
recognize Respondent as exclusive bargaining agent for its employees It is not denied
that Respondent was not certified as bargaining agent for Sidel employees in any appro-
priate unit.
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to cease doing business with Sidel in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act,
and/or (b) forcing or requiring Sidel to recognize sand bargain with Respondent as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees although Respondent has
not been certified as the representative of such employees in any appropriate unit in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
4. 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.]
Drivers and Chauffeurs Local Union No. 816, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Montgomery Ward and Co. , Incorpo-
rated . Case No. 2-CD-178. June 7, 1960
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that : "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of
Section 8(b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen . . .."
On September 3, 1959, Montgomery Ward and Co., Incorporated,
herein called Ward, filed a charge with the Regional Director for the
Second Region alleging that Drivers and Chauffeurs Local Union No.
816, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, herein called Local 816, had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. It was charged in substance that
Local 816 had induced and encouraged employees of Ward, and the
employees of Sidel Truck Leasing Corporation, herein called Sidel,
to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal to work for the purpose
of forcing or requiring Ward and Sidel to assign certain work to
members of Local 816 rather than to employees of Sidel, who were
members of Teamsters Local 138, herein called Local 138.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Section 102.89
and 102.90 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, the Re-
gional Director investigated the charge and provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice. The hearing was held before Oscar
Geltman, hearing officer, on February 3 and 24, 1960, at New York,
New York. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the hearing
officer are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Ward
and Local 816 filed briefs which have been duly considered by the
Board.
127 NLRB No. 124.