Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 639

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 845 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639 845
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 639, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America 1 and District Distributors, Incorporated. Case No.
5-CC-77. December 14,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 11, 1957, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Inter-
mediate 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean].
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the modification noted below 2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Drivers, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, represen-
tatives, and agents, shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing of encouraging employees of
any employer other than District Distributors, Incorporated, to
engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on goods, articles, or commodities or to perform services for
their respective employers where an object thereof is (1) to force or
require any employer to cease doing business with District Distribu-
tors, Incorporated, or (2) to force or require the latter Company to
'The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters ' certi-
ficate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this union is hereby
amended.
2 The instant case , in our opinion , comes within the rule of the Washington Coca-Cola
case, 107 NLRB 299, enfd . 220 F. 2d 380 (C. A., D. C.), in which the Board and the court
held that ambulatory picketing of trucks at retail establishments of secondary employers
was violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A).
119 NLRB No. 122.
846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognize or bargain with the Respondent Union 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 the business office of Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers
Local 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, in Washington, D. C., copies of the.
notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for-
the Fifth Region, after being duly signed by an official representative,
of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places where notices to members
of the Respondent are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be,
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,,
defaced, or covered by any other material. The Respondent's repre-
sentative shall also sign copies of the said notice which the Regional
Director shall submit for posting, the employers willing, at the prem-
ises of District Distributors, Incorporated, and the other employers
found herein to have been affected by the Respondent's unfair labor,
practices.4
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,.
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has<
taken to comply herewith.
3 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
the Trial Examiner" the words, "A Decision and Order." 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."
d These concerns , all located in Washington, D. C., are as follows : Bright Star Liquor
Store, National Liquors , Press Liquor Store , A and A Liquor Store, and Lincoln Liquors..
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by District Distributors, Incorporated ( herein called'
District or Company), the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,.
by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region ( Baltimore , Maryland), issued a
complaint against Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers , Local 639, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, .
AFL-CIO ( herein referred to as the Union, or Local 639), alleging that it had'
engaged in and was engaging in conduct constituting unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B ) and Section 2'.
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136 (herein called the
Act). Copies of the charges, complaint , and notice of hearing thereon were duly -
served upon the Respondent Union. In its answer , duly filed, the latter denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May 27, 1957, at Washington , D. C.,..
before the duly designated Trial Examiner . All parties were represented at the -
hearing at which full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine wit- -
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. -
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639 847
Oral argument in support of their respective positions was had by the General
Counsel and the Respondent. On July 2, 1957, counsel for the latter submitted an
able and comprehensive brief which I have fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
District Distributors, a Virginia corporation, is engaged within the District of
Columbia in the sale and distribution of wines, whiskies, and liquors at wholesale.
It annually purchases more than $500,000 worth of such products which are shipped
from points outside the District of Columbia to its warehouse and principal place
of business located at 3155 V Street NE., Washington, D. C. Upon the foregoing
facts, it is my conclusion, and I find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
H. 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
On about March 18, 1956, the Union requested recognition as the bargaining
agent for the Company's truckdrivers, helpers, and warehousemen. This was de-
clined. On March 22, the Union called a strike and established a picket line at
the entrance to the District premises. At the time of the hearing, picketing was
still in progress at this location.
The Company's operations are conducted from a single warehouse building.
From this point its drivers make deliveries throughout the city of Washington to
retail liquor stores, bars, and hotels. For some time District has had approximately
25 employees. Twelve of these are drivers, 1 works in the warehouse exclusively,
and 2 others work in the warehouse about half of each day. All of the drivers
spend a considerable portion of each workday at the warehouse. Thus, they all
report to the warehouse at 8 a. m. and remain there at work in the building and
in loading their trucks until about 9:30 a. in., when they. leave to make deliveries.
They normally return to the plant before lunch and leave again at I p. in. on their
second round of deliveries. They usually get back to the warehouse at 3 p. in. and
remain there for the balance of the workday. As a result, since the establishment
of the picket line on March 22, those drivers who have remained at work have
crossed it at least six times in the course of each day when entering and leaving
the warehouse area.
In addition to primary picketing at the company premises , the Union engaged in
the picketing of District's delivery trucks which gave rise to the instant proceeding.,
In carrying out this tactic one or more pickets followed each of the Employer's
trucks on its route and whenever a driver stopped to make a delivery, a union repre-
sentative carried a picket sign up and down the sidewalk beside the parked truck.2
Testimony was offered as to the manner in which this picketing was conducted at a
number of the retail outlets when District employees were making deliveries. To
that evidence, most of which was undisputed, we will now turn.3
On March 22, Bernard Horowitz, a salesman for District, stopped to make a
delivery at Galloway's Liquor Store. He did not park immediately in front of the
store entrance since that was located at the corner of a street intersection. While
a District helper delivered several cases of liquor to the store, a union picket walked
back and forth along the sidewalk, parallel to the truck. Occasionally the picket
'At the time of the hearing, the ambulatory picketing here involved had been in
progress continuously since the strike began, except for 3 days in April, when a petition for
an injunction, filed by the General Counsel under Section 10 (1) of the Act, was pending
in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. On April 29, 1957, that court
denied the aforesaid petition.
2 This placard was about 15 inches high and 27 inches wide. It read : "District Dis-
tributors, Inc., on Strike, Local Union 639, Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, AFL."
3 Some of this was from witnesses produced at the hearing in the instant proceeding;
the rest appears in the transcript of the injunction hearing which was received as an
exhibit in the unfair labor practice case upon stipulation of the parties.
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
went to a point several feet beyond the truck and near the store entrance. Horowitz
conceded , however, that he had no definite recollection of seeing the picket cross
the entrance to the store .4 That same day Horowitz stopped directly in front of
Diplomat Liquors . While he made his delivery , a picket walked up and down the
sidewalk, midway between the truck and the store , and, in so doing , crossing the
entrance of the latter . Later that day Horowitz ' truck was picketed in the same
manner when he stopped at the entrance to the Bright Star Liquor Store and made
a delivery there. At least one employee was on duty while the picketing was in
progress here. The record , however, contains no evidence that any employees at
either Galloway or Diplomat were present at the time the picketing took place at
those locations.
According to Seymour Rosenberg, a partner in National Liquors, on March 22,
the same situation occurred at his store when a District truck arrived . The picket-
ing of the truck continued while one of his employees assisted the District driver
in unloading the truck . He further testified that on several occasions thereafter when
he received merchandise from District , the picketing was repeated , and that, in
each instance , one of his own employees was on duty at the time. On the other
hand, he testified that the picketing was confined to the area next to the truck and
that none of his employees quit as a result of it.
On March 22 , when Irving S. Falk, a salesman for District , stopped outside the
Press Liquor Store, his truck was picketed . Several employees of Press were on
duty at this time, as well as on subsequent occasions when a District truck was being
picketed in front of the store . Ford A. Kalil, president of Press, testified that on
March 22 one of the pickets came into the store and handed him a union leaflet.5
At the time he did so, however , the picket did not have a picket sign on his back.
Kalil conceded that none of his employees quit work as a result of the picketing.
Jacob Aronson , a partner in the A and A Liquor Store , testified that on March 22
a District truck parked in front of his store and, while the driver made a delivery,
a union picket patrolled the sidewalk parallel to the truck . He further testified that
the picket never came up to the entrance of his store and that, although some of
his employees were on duty at the time, none of them registered any complaint or
indicated that they were disturbed by the picketing.
Ellis L . Grane, owner of Lincoln Liquors, testified that on March 22, when
District made a delivery to his store , pickets patrolled the sidewalk while one of his
employees helped unload the truck . He further testified that, in the course of their
patrolling , the pickets walked approximately halfway past the entrance to his
store. On 1 or 2 subsequent occasions when District was making a delivery to his
place of business , union pickets patrolled the sidewalk alongside the truck in similar
fashion . On cross-examination , Grane conceded that none of his employees quit
work or refused to help in unloading a District truck throughout this period.
On April 5, as Irving S. Falk was driving an automobile to deliver an order for
District Distributors , he stopped to make a deposit at a branch of the National
Capital Bank and left his car at the bank's private parking lot. While Falk was
in the bank and until he subsequently left the parking area, a union representative
who had followed him picketed his automobile . 6 In this connection , Julius C.
Randolph, a business agent for the Respondent , testified that when a District driver
made a delivery in an alley and parked his truck near the entrance , the picket would
patrol the latter and not go into the alley . He further testified , however, that when
4 At one point Horowitz testified that he was parked some 30 yards from the store. He
later amended this to 30 feet . On the other hand, Floyd Cobb , the picket , testified that the
truck wes parked almost in front of the store entrance . Both on direct and cross-
examination , however , it was plain that neither of these witnesses had an accurate recol-
lection of precisely how close to the store the truck was parked.
B This read as follows :
DISTRICT
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
DRIVERS
on STRIKE
Your cooperation will be
greatly appreciated
Truck Drivers Local 639
G At the time , Falk's car carried signs to indicate that it was being used by District
Distributors.
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 6 3 9 849
the truck was not near the entrance , the pickets would go into the alley and picket
the truck from bumper to bumper.?
At the injunction hearing Business Agent Randolph testified that members of
the Teamsters were instructed, orally, to make deliveries at the retail liquor stores
without regard to the presence of a picket line around a District truck. At the
complaint hearing the Respondent offered in evidence a typewritten copy of instruc-
tions to the pickets. The latter admonished the pickets to confine their activities
as closely as possible to the District truck and suggested that if questioned by a
deliveryman or an employee of a retail liquor establishment, the picket was to point
out that the picketing was directed only to the truck and not the retail store. These
instructions were dated May 13, 1957, some 3 days after the Regional Director
issued the complaint in this proceeding. There is no evidence that any written
advice went to the pickets at an earlier date.
In a circular letter dated March 29, 1957, and addressed to "The Owners of
Retail Liquor Establishments," the Respondent reviewed its strike against the Charg-
ing Party and asked that the store owners lend their help and cooperation by not
making any more purchases from District until the strike was over. This appeal
was renewed in another letter, similarly addressed, which, according to Randolph,
was mailed the first part of May. In the latter the store owners were told:
If you deem it necessary, please advise your employees that they are not
to take any heed to banners which request the public not to purchase the
above products. We do not desire that their employment be interrupted in
any manner.
We wish to further advise you that we have instructed all Teamster local
unions whose members deliver any merchandise to your stores to continue to
so deliver, regardless of any customer or "on strike" appeal that may be made
around your store.
We also wish to advise that we are going to ask all good union members
and friends of labor in the District of Columbia not to buy the above prod-
ucts and not to frequent any retail liquor dealer who continues to offer any
of these products to the public. These products are being delivered by
strikebreakers.
PLEASE COOPERATE WITH US AND DISCONTINUE ANY FURTHER
PURCHASES OF DISTRICT DISTRIBUTORS' PRODUCTS UNTIL OUR
CONTROVERSY IS SETTLED.
Randolph testified that, at about the same time, the Respondent mailed letters to
the joint boards and councils of most of the AFL-CIO unions in the city. In
these letters the Respondent asked that the members of the other unions cooperate
in not buying any of the products sold by District and, further, that those unions
instruct their members that the "on strike" picketing of District trucks at or near
the retail outlets was an appeal to consumers only, and was not intended to halt
their deliveries to the outlets or to keep them from doing any work in the stores.
There is no evidence in the record as to the extent to which the information in
these letters was disseminated by the officials of the other unions.
Concluding Findings
The General Counsel alleges that the conduct of the Respondent's pickets and
agents, as found above, induced and encouraged the employees of the retail cus-
tomers of District and of other persons to engage in strikes or concerted refusals
to handle District products and that objects of this conduct were (1) to force or
require the other employers to cease doing business with District and (2) to force
or require District to recognize the Respondent as the bargaining agent for its
drivers and helpers. The Respondent's principal defense to this allegation is that
the situs of the dispute was the truck, since a large portion of the drivers' time
is spent delivering orders to customers (citing Moore Dry Dock, 92 NLRB 547)
and that the picketing here involved, therefore, does not come within the proscription
of either Section 8 (b) (4) (A) or (B). Sales Drivers, Helpers & Building Con-
struction Drivers, Local Union 859, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 229 F. 2d 514 (C. A., D. C.);
7It is also true, as the Respondent points out in its brief, that, insofar as the record
discloses, the pickets were never seen unless the trucks were seen and, further, that they
always left a site whenever the truck left.
476321-58-vol. 119-55
8.50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cert. denied 351 U. S. 972; N. L. R. B. v. Business Machine and Office Appliance.
Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459, etc., 228 F. 2d 553 (C. A. 2), cert. denied
351 U. S. 962; N. L. R. B. v. Local 50, Bakery Workers, 245 F. 2d 542 (C. A. 2).
In their brief, counsel for the Respondent, in a comprehensive discussion of the
above cases and related decisions, have urged the legality of the Union's conduct.
It is the Trial Examiner's responsibility, after finding the facts in a case, to arrive
at his conclusions of law by adhering to the Board's construction of the Act, even
though the latter may, at the time, be at variance with the views of some of the
courts of appeals. That is the situation in the present instance, where the position
of the Board is contrary to that adopted by the courts in the foregoing cases. See:
Commission House Drivers, Helpers, etc., Local No. 400, etc. (Euclid Foods),
118 NLRB 130; Local 117 of United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North
America,- AFL-CIO (The Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc.), 117 NLRB 622; Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local No. 659 (Ready Mixed Concrete
Company, et al.), 117 NLRB 1266; United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
(Barry Controls, Inc.), 116 NLRB 1470, 1471; General Drivers, etc., Local Union
9134, et al. (The Caradine Company, Inc.), 116 NLRB 1559, 1560-1561; Sheet
Metal Workers International Association, Local 51 (W. H. Arthur Company), 115
NLRB 1137, 1138; Local 657, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (South-
western Motor Transport, Inc.), 115 NLRB 981, 983-985. Where there is a
difference of opinion between the Board and the courts of appeals as to a question
of law, the views of the latter may cause the Board to reconsider its position, or
the Supreme Court may be petitioned to resolve such differences. The existing
conflict on the legal issue here involved, however, certainly cannot be resolved at
the Trial Examiner's level. Consequently, with all due respect to the learned
courts that have taken a different view as to the legality of ambulatory picketing,
the Trial Examiner feels that he is bound by the decisions of the Board.
In the above-cited decisions, the Board has held that where a primary employer
has a separate place of business at which a union can publicize its dispute, the
"ambulatory situs" doctrine of Moore Dry Dock does not apply and all picketing
at the premises of secondary employers is unlawful. These cases are particularly
applicable to the instant situation where the primary employees involved in the
dispute had to cross the picket line at the District warehouse approximately six
times a day. For this reason, the Respondent is without grounds to argue that
the ambulatory picketing to which it resorted was necessary to reach the nonstrik-
ing drivers or to embarrass them. Moreover, the record here illustrates the prac-
tical impossibility of a union's confining such picketing, and its effects, to the
business of the primary employer alone. In several instances, whenever a District
truck was parked in front of a customer's store, the picket, in patrolling a path
beside the vehicle, would cross, or partially cross, the entrance to the premises
of the secondary employer.8 At times the employees of the latter would assist the
District driver in unloading an order. In so doing, the secondary employees, of
necessity, had to cross the picket lines As a result it is my conclusion that the
record, as a whole, establishes that by these tactics the Respondent extended its
appeal to the employees of District's customers and of other neutrals. A neces-
sary consequence of the Respondent's ambulatory picketing, if effective with respect
to the employees of secondary employers,10 would have been to force such employ-
ers to cease doing business with District. Since the Respondent must have
intended the necessary consequences of this activity, I find that an object of its
ambulatory picketing was to compel the secondary employers to cease doing busi-
ness with District. By this conduct, Local 639 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of
the Act. Euclid Foods, and cases cited supra. Moreover, since the Respondent
used this tactic in furthering its recognition strike against District, I find, in accord
with the applicable Board decisions, that Local 639 likewise violated Section 8 (b)
(4) (B). Ready Mixed Concrete Company, supra; International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, etc., Local No. 659, etc. (Associated General Contractors of Omaha),
8 This occurred at the Bright Star and Lincoln stores on March 22.
° See, for example, the incidents which occurred on March 22 at the National and
Lincoln stores.
10 As the Board and the courts have held, the effectiveness of secondary picketing in at-
taining its objective is not material in determining its legality under the Act. Southwest-
ern Motor Transport, supra; N. L. R. B. v. Associated Musicians, Local 802 , AFL, 226 F.
2d 900, 904-905 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Coun-
cil, 193 F. 2d 421, 424 (C. A. 10).
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 63.9 851
116 NLRB 461, 462; Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc.
(Capital Paper Company et al.), 117 NLRB 635; Southwestern Motor Transport,
Inc., supra."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of District Distributors, Incorporated, described in sec-
tion 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B)
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. There is, however,
no evidence that the Respondent engaged in any unfair labor practices other than
the ambulatory picketing, as found above. Consequently, I will not recommend
the issuance of a broad cease-and-desist order used where the commission of unfair
labor practices other than those found may be anticipated. Instead, I will recom-
mend only that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in conduct similar
to that found herein to have been an unfair labor practice.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By picketing vehicles of District Distributors, Incorporated, at the premises of
other employers with an object of (1) forcing or requiring such other employers
to cease doing business with District Distributors, Incorporated, and (2) forcing or
requiring the latter Company to recognize or bargain with the Respondent Union
although that organization has not been certified as the bargaining representative
of District employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
2. 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.]
1In holding that the Respondent's truck-following stratagem came within the proscrip-
tions of the Act, I rely only on the incidents at Bright Star, National, Press, A and A, and
Lincoln since they are the only ones in which it plainly appears that employees of those
neutrals were present when the secondary picketing occurred. Since there was no clear
evidence that neutral employees were at work during the course of the picketing at Gallo-
way's Liquor Store, Diplomat Liquors, or at the National Capital Bank parking lot, I
place no reliance on those incidents with respect to the above finding.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF DRIVERS,
CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of any employer other than
District Distributors, Incorporated, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in
the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on goods, articles, or commodities, or to perform any serv-
ices for their respective employers where an object thereof is (1) to force or
require any employer or person to cease doing business with District Distribu-
tors, Incorporated, or (2) to force District Distributors, Incorporated, to recog
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nize the undersigned union as the representative of its employees , unless and
until certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
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.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union
No. 390, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America 1 and Herbert A.
Spencer and Lee K. Spencer, co-partners, doing business as
U & Me Transfer, Palm Beach Transfer and U & Me Transfer
of Belle Glade
Howard Lasater, agent of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers, Local Union No. 390, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Herbert A. Spencer and Lee K. Spencer, co-
partners , doing business as U & Me Transfer , Palm Beach
Transfer and U & Me Transfer of Belle Glade . Cases Nos.
12-CC-1 (Formerly 10-CC-255) and 12-CC-2 (Formerly 10-CC-
256). December 14, 1957.
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 21, 1956, Trial Examiner George Bokat issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
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 Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
ease,2 and finding merit in the exceptions, hereby rejects the recom-
' The. Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters ' certificate
of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this union is hereby
amended.
2 The Charging Party's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record, the
exceptions , and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
119 NLRB No. 114.