Gen. Truck Drivers, W'housemen & Helpers Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 1044 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local
No. 980, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America ; and General Truck
Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 624, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America and Meadowsweet Dairy Farms,
Inc. Case No. 20-CP-143. May 23,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 24, 1965, Trial Examiner David Karasick issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent, General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local
No. 980, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, herein called Local 980, engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
He also found that the Respondent, General Truck Drivers, Ware-
housemen & Helpers Union, Local No. 624, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called Local 624, had not engaged in similar unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of the
complaint as to Local No. 624. Thereafter, Local 980 filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, exceptions, cross-
exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings,'- conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
'-Although the Trial Examiner correctly found that Meadowsweet Dairy Farms, Inc.,
and Raffo Brothers , a partnership , constitute a single, integrated employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, he inadvertently failed to set forth any com-
merce facts relative to the Board 's jurisdictional standards . With respect to the Em-
ployers' business operations , the record shows, inter alia, that during the year preceding
issuance of the complaint Meadowsweet processed , and Raffo Brothers transported, dairy
products for the U.S . Naval Shipyard, San Francisco , California, valued in excess of
$5,600 per month , and for the U.S. Army Terminal , Oakland, California , valued at over
$7,500 per month . Also, during the same period , Meadowsweet and Raffo Brothers pur-
chased goods and supplies valued in excess of $5,000 from firms located outside the State
of California , and Raffo Brothers furnished services valued at over $2,500 in transporting
milk from,. -evada to California . We find that, in addition to statutory jurisdiction, a
portion of the aforenamed operations clearly exert a substantial impact on national defense.
Accordingly , we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein. Ready Mixed Concrete & Materials , Inc., 122 NLRB 318, 320.
158 NLRB No. 103.
GEN. TRUCK DRIVERS, W'HOUSEMEN & HELPERS UNION 1045
Examiner only to -the extent that they are consistent with our Deci-
sion herein.
As more fully stated by the Trial Examiner, in March 1963 the
business agent of Respondent Local 980 initially sought recognition
as bargaining 'agent for certain employees of Meadowsweet Dairy
Farms, Inc., herein called Meadowsweet. Henry Raffo, president
of Meadowsweet, refused this request and in April 1963 Meadow-
sweet executed a labor agreement with Dairy Employees Union Local
#17, affiliated with the Christian Labor Association of the United
States, herein called the CLA. Thereafter, in March 1964, Grami,
secretary-treasurer of Local 980, informed Raffo that he had received
a complaint from another Teamster local union charging that Mea-
dowsweet was operating under "substandard wage and benefit con-
ditions," that the Teamsters did not recognize the CLA, and that
"something was going to have to be done about the situation."
Raffo Brothers' truckdrivers'were represented by Local 624. In
August 1964, Raffo learned that Local 624 was considering imposing
strike sanctions against Raffo Brothers because the firm was delin-
quent in respect to certain health, welfare, and pension fund con-
tributions required under its bargaining agreement with Local 624.
"During subsequent discussions of these matters between the parties,
Grami assented to Meadowsweet's suggestion that- the dispute could
be satisfactorily resolved if' Meadowsweet canceled its CLA agree-
ment and executed a contract with Local 980. However, Grami also
stated that it would be 'sufficient if Meadowsweet merely provided
written assurance that it would comply with Teamsters' area wage
and benefit standards in order to protect Local 980's agreements with
other employers.
Having failed in its attempt to secure any settlement of its dis-
agreement with Meadowsweet, Local 980, on September 21, 1964,
commenced peaceful picketing adjacent to the premises of Meadow-
sweet. As found by the Trial Examiner, the legend on its picket sign
conformed to the position taken by the Respondent, i.e., that the
picketing was for the purpose of truthfully advising the public that
Meadowsweet was maintaining wages and working conditions which
were below Respondent's area standards.
The General Counsel, contends, inter alia, that the above-described
picketing is violative of Section 8(b) (7) (A) of the National Labor
Relations Act because it occurred at a time when Meadowsweet had
lawfully- recognized the CLA and a question concerning the repre-
sentation of Meadowsweet's employees might not appropriately be
raised under Section 9 (c) of the Act. Implicit in .General Counsel's
position is the premise that there is a valid collective-bargaining con-
tract existing between Meadowsweet and the CLA and that this
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract constitutes a bar 2 to raising a.question concerning the rep-
resentation of Meadowsweet's employees. The Respondents by way
of defense principally contend that Meadowsweet's recognition of
the.CLA was unlawful and that the CLA did not represent a major-
ity of Meadowsweet's employees at the time it was recognized as their
bargaining representative.
The Trial Examiner rejected Respondents' contentions. He held
that Local 98O-violated Section 8(b) (7) (A) by its picketing because
Meadowsweet had lawfully recognized the CLA and a question con-
cerning representation could not then be raised by Local 980 under
Section 9(c) of the Act. We disagree.
The contract executed by Meadowsweet and CLA was a form
contract which CLA had executed with other employers in 1959 and,
when signed by the parties herein, contained its original effective
dates from September 1, 1959, to August 31, 1960, and an annual
automatic renewal clause . The form contract was left with Meadow-
sweet on March 27, 1963, and was executed on April 11, 1963. It
contained neither future date of termination nor modification of any
other provisions of the form contract. In fact, the contract con-
tained the wage scales negotiated at the time of its original execu-
tion in 1959 despite the fact that it contained a provision for yearly
renegotiations of wage rates. Moreover, the language used in
describing the contract's coverage is not consistent with the coverage
as construed by the parties. It is undisputed that Meadowsweet and
CLA construed and applied their contract from its inception to cover
only one employee, the full-time pasteurizer in the plant. However,
the contract purports to cover "all employees 'working on an hourly,
weekly, or monthly basis of pay" and specifically carries wage pro-
visions for "cash & carry attendants." At the time the contract was
executed, Meadowsweet employed four regular part-time employees
as cash-and-carry attendants who sold milk products at retail and
did cleanup work in and around the service dock. The full-time
pasteurizer did the same type work when he was not in the process-
ing plant.
In sum, the contract executed by the parties here was a "stale"
form contract identical to that which CLA had previously executed
with other employees in 1959; it contained no firm termination date
and hence would preclude ascertainment of the time lines of a rival
petition; it contained 1959 wage scales although executed in 1963;
it purported to cover all hourly employees including cash-and-carry
It is settled that Section 8(b) (7) (A ) Incorporates the Board 's contract-bar rules.
International Hod Carriers' Building, etc., Local 840 (C. A. Blinne Construction Com-
pany), 135 NLRB 1153 , 1156. In their briefs, the parties herein have not explicitly dis-
cussed or argued the applicability of contract -bar principles , although the Trial Examiner
has alluded to them in reaching his conclusions.
GEN TRUCK DRIVERS, `V'HOUSEMEN & HELPERS UNION 1047
attendants, yet the parties admittedly applied the contract to only
one full-time employee In our view, this contract in practical effect
as so indefinite as to terms , coverage, and duration as to lack all
stabilizing influence We find, therefore, that the contract would not
be a bar to a petition seeking representation of Meadowsweet's
employees As the General Counsel has not proved that the picket-
ing ocurred at a time when "a question concerning iepresentation
iray not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act," we
find that the picketing did not violate Section 8(b) (7) (A) of the
Act Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint 3
[The Board dismissed the complaint ]
3 Cf International Hod Carriers ' Building h Common Laborers ' Union of America, etc
(Roman Stone Construction Company), 153 NLRB 659 where picketing by the respond
out union was held violative of Section B(b) (7) (A) in part because the incumbent union's
contract unlike the contract here, was found to constitute a bar to any representation
petition
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner David Karasii .,k in San Fran-
cisco, California , on March 10 and 11, 1965 , upon charges and amended charges
filed on August 18 and December 11, 1964, respectively , and upon a complaint
issued on January 8 , 1965, alleging that General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen
& Helpers Union , Local No 980, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America , herein singly called Local 980,
and General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union , Local No 624,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, herein singly called Local 624, both of said Unions herein collectively
called the Respondents , had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8 (b)(7)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein
called the Act
Following the close of the hearing, the General Counsel fill d a brief, the
Respondents filed a copy of a memorandum and order of the Federal district court,
dated January 29, 1965 , denying the Regional Director's petition , pursuant to
Section 10 ( 1) of the Act , seeking to enjoin further picketing by the Respondents
pending final adjudication of this matter by the Board I have fully considered
both the brief of the General Counsel and the decision of the Federal district
court relied on by the Respondents
During the course of the hearing , ruling was reserved on a motion of the
Respondents to strike from the record certain exhibits and a stipulation relative
to such exhibits , as well as a further motion to dismiss the complaint with respect
to Local 624 The disposition of these motions is set forth hereafter
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, I hereby make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER
As alleged in the complaint and as admitted in the answer, I find that Meadow-
sweet Dairy Farms, Inc, herein called Meadowsweet , a California corporation
engaged in the business of processing , selling, and distributing milk and dairy
products at wholesale and retail at Santa Rosa , California , and Raffo Brothers, a
partnership engaged in the transportation of bulk milk for Meadowsweet and other
producers and processors , constitute a single , integrated employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II., THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS DIRECTLY INVOLVED
Dairy Employees Union Local # 17, affiliated with the Christian Labor As-
sociation of the United States , herein called the CLA, and the Respondents are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IN. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. The facts
Henry Raffo and Robert Raffo, president and vice-president, respectively, of
Meadowsweet, and its principal owners, in addition to conducting a wholesale and
retail dairy are also engaged as copartners in the business of transporting bulk
milk by tank truck under the name of Raffo Brothers. Both Meadowsweet and
Raffo Brothers maintain common offices and facilities located in Santa Rosa,
California, and share the same ownership, management, direction, and control
of their operations.
On or about March 10, 1963, Bert Bertolucci, a business representative of Local
980, called upon Henry Raffo. After introducing himself, Bertolucci presented
Raffo with a document which Bertolucci stated was a Teamster contract currently
in effect in the area and asked Raffo to sign it. Raffo stated that he would look
it over. On March 20 or 21, Bertolucci returned and asked Raffo if he had
signed the agreement. Raffo stated that he had not and further stated that the
contract was quite' similar to one which Raffo had with Local 624 covering his
trucking operation' and that he felt it was impossible for any man to earn $4
an hour selling milk at 'the dock. Raffo asked if Bertolucci had signed up any
of the employees. Bertolucci said that he had not. He then went on to say that
he would make a deal with Raffo, that Local 980 would not bother the employees
on the dock if Raffo would give Bertolucci the two processing men in the plant.
Raffo and Bertolucci then, became -involved in a discussion as to whether one of
the two men whom Bertolucci -had -named and who was a manager, could properly
be included within the terms of-, a collective-bargaining agreement. Bertolucci
finally stated, "Well, give me those two men and everything will be all right."
Raffo stated that he would take the matter up with the board of directors of the
corporation and. he would let Bertolucci know sometime after April 9.
On March 27, a representative of the CLA presented Raffo with the membership
card of Ray Longcor, who was the one nonsupervisory. full-time employee working
for Meadowsweet, and, left a copy of a collective-bargaining contract covering
Longcor with Raffo. This contract was executed by the secretary of Meadowsweet
on behalf of the employer on April 11. Raffo testified that he had heard of the
CLA from another employer in the dairy industry, that Raffo had visited the rep-
resentative of the CLA on a trip he had made to Los Angeles on or about
March 18, at which time he had given the CLA permission to come to the plant
and speak to Meadowsweet's employees, and that a representative of the CLA
did appear at the plant and speak to the employees on March 27.
On or about April 20, Bertolucci returned to the Meadowsweet plant and Raffo
at that time informed him that Meadowsweet had signed a contract with the CLA
upon being presented with proof that Longcor had designated that union to rep-
resent him. Bertolucci stated that the Teamsters would not tolerate the CLA in
the area and that they would run the CLA out of town 2
In the latter part of November 1963, Bertolucci spoke to Raffo again. This
time he told Raffo that he had heard from Al Brown, secretary-treasurer of
'The vehicles used in the trucking operation were kept In a garage located In the city
of Sonoma, some 20-odd miles from Santa Rosa and within the jurisdiction of Local 624.
2 The foregoing findings are based on the testimony of Raffo to which the Respondents
objected on the ground that Bertolucci had died prior to the hearing. Because of that
fact, I have accepted Raffo's testimony In the foregoing particulars only after careful
scrutiny and consideration in light of the entire record. See West Texas Utilities Com-
pany, Inc., 94 NLRB 1638 , enfd . 195 F. 2d 519 ( C A. 5) ; Sam Wallick, at al. d/b/a Wallick
and Schwalm Corp, 95 NLRB 1262, enfd. 198 F 2d 477 (CA. 3). In this connection,
Raffo in general impressed me as a reliable witness. His recounting of the time and the
general purpose of Bertolucci 's visits were , in substance , corroborated by William Grami,
secretary-treasurer of Local 980, who testified that early in 1963, he directed Bertolucci
to attempt to organize the employees and to induce Meadowsweet to execute a contract
with Local 980. In addition , as found hereafter , statements. In derogation of the CLA,
similar to that attributed to Bertolucci on April 20 by Raffo were made by representatives
of other Teamster locals acting in concert with the Respondents.
GEN. TRUCK DRIVERS, W'HOUSEMEN & HELPERS UNION 1049
Teamsters Local 302, that Raffo was bottling milk for Holt Dairy 3 and that
Raffo would have to stop doing so because Holt was a nonunion dairy operation .4
Raffo refused to comply with Bertolucci's request.
The following spring, in approximately March 1964, Raffo received a telephone
call from William Grami, secretary-treasurer of Local 980. Grami stated that he
had received a complaint from Al Brown of Local 302 that Raffo was operating
under substandard conditions.5 Raffo replied that his drivers, who were delivering
milk into Local 302's area were members of Local 624 of the Teamsters and that
Meadowsweet was operating under union conditions pursuant to a contract with
CLA. Grami, according to Raffo's undenied testimony, replied that the Team-
sters did not recognize the CLA and that something was going to have to be
done about the situation.
Grami suggested, and Raffo agreed, to a meeting with a committee from Team-
sters Joint Council No. 7.6
On August 4, 1964, Raffo received word that there would be a meeting of Joint
Council No. 7 that evening at which Local 6247 would seek to secure strike
sanction against him. Raffo called Steve Gilligan, secretary of the Joint Council,°
to inquire about the matter, and, after speaking to Gilligan,9 Raffo then called
Glen Clark, business representative of Local 624. During the course of their
conversation, Clark said that Raffo was delinquent in his health and welfare pay-
ments but also stated that Local 624 would never strike him on that account
without first calling him. Clark further said that Raffo had problems with Local
302 and 980 as well. Raffo testified without denial that Clark also said:
Henry, you had better tear up that contract you have with that CLA outfit.
Everything will be O.K. I tell you what I will do. I will arrange a meeting
of the interested parties, provided you will agree to tear up the contract you
have with the CLA organization. I guarantee you nothing will happen, and
providing [sic] we can assure you no legal repercussions will result from your
tearing up of the CLA contract.
Raffo replied that he had entered into the contract with the CLA with the under-
standing that it was a bona fide labor organization, and that he could not agree
to tear up the contract with them but that he would be happy to meet with any-
body at any time.
On the following afternoon, Clark called Raffo and told him that a meeting
had been arranged for the following morning. Raffo agreed to attend.
The morning of August 6, Raffo met with Glen Clark and Jim Bursby, busi-
ness representatives of Local 624; William Grami, secretary-treasurer, and Clair
Cate, a representative, of Local 980; and Al Brown, secretary-treasurer of Local
302. Brown stated that he was representing Steve Gilligan, who could not attend
the meeting. As previously noted, Gilligan was the secretary of Joint Council
No. 7 and business agent of Local 226. Brown stated that' he had been successful
in curtailing the supplies of milk Holt Dairy had been receiving from other East
Bay processors but that Raffo did not seem to get the message. 'Brown also
stated that the Teamsters did not recognize the CLA, that other employers had
8 Holt Dairy was operating within the jurisdiction of Local x302 which covers Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties.
e Bertolucci originally accused Raffo of bottling milk for Canyon Dairy but returned
later and stated that the dairy he had intended to name was Holt.
SMeadowsweet's operations in Santa Rosa fall within Local 980's jurisdiction
O Teamsters Joint Council No. 7 is composed of delegates who are officers of Teamster
locals in the nine San Francisco Bay area counties.
7As above noted, Local 624 was party to a contract covering the drivers of Raffo's
trucks.
8 Gilligan was also business agent of Teamster Local 226 which claims jurisdiction in
San Francisco and San Mateo Counties.
8 Gilligan told Raffo , according to the latter's testimony that Local 624 was going
to seek strike sanction against Raffo because he was delinquent in the health and welfare
payments due under Local 624 's contract and further told Raffo, when the latter admitted
this was true and stated he would pay the amounts he owed, that the matter went deeper
than that, that it involved the CLA and that Gilligan suggested that Raffo get rid of
them. A discussion on the record concerning this testimony which arose as the result of
an objection raised by the Respondents and thereafter withdrawn , indicates that it was
offered with the understanding that Gilligan 's statements were not binding upon the
Respondents . Accordingly , I place no reliance upon such statements and do not consider
them in arriving at.a determination of an object of the picketing which was later instituted.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,CIA contracts which they had -torn up , and had begun doing business with the
-Teamsters and that all their problems had been resolved and they had suffered
no legal repercussions as a result . Raffo replied that he had bargained in good
,faith with- the CLA, that Meadowsweet had signed a contract with that union,
that as far as he knew it was a bona fide labor organization and there was nothing
much that Meadowsweet could do about it . He also stated , "What you want me
to do is to tear up my C.L.A. contract , and then all will be forgiven ." Brown
declared that he had not said that . Raffo replied that he may not have said it
in so many words but he had cited instances of employers who had done so and
their problems had-been resolved.
At one point , Clark referred to Raffo 's delinquency in pension and welfare pay-
ments and stated he had assured Raffo previously that Local 624 would not strike
him without prior warning. Clark referred to another employer who had been
delinquent in his health and welfare payments and stated that Local 624 had
given him 3 years to straighten the matter out because had had some big tire
bills to pay. When Raffo replied that he would not need 3 years but any time
he could be given would be appreciated , Clark replied that they were not giving
him any time and that he was going to have to get the matter straightened out
then . Raffo said that they should put all of their cards out on the table and
.Clark answered , "We all know what we are talking about ." Grami then asked
if Raffo had received a letter which Grami had sent on August 4.10 Raffo replied
that . he had not. Grami then stated that Raffo was operating under substandard
conditions , that this was something they could not tolerate , and that Raffo was
going to have to make a written statement or agreement that he would bring up
his costs to equal those in the Teamsters ' contract, including health , welfare, pen-
sion plan, and all of the fringe -benefits.ii
10 The letter to which Grami referred was drafted by legal counsel for Local 980 and
was received by Raffo shortly after the meeting. In substance, it advised Raffo that
Local 980 regarded Meadowsweet as operating-under substandard conditions and there-
fore would be "forced to institute an informational program, through picketing and other
.publicity...." The letter also stated that Local 980 did not claim to represent Meadow-
sweet's employees and was not requesting Meadowsweet either to hire members of Local
980 or sign a contract with it.
11 The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Raffo. Brown denied having
stated that Raffo should tear up his contract with the CLA and sign a contract with the
Teamsters. He admitted, however, that during the meeting he had referred to the CLA
ins relating an incident which had occurred when an employer, within the jurisdiction of
Local 302, who had previously signed a contract with the CLA, thereafter entered into
a contract with the Teamsters, at which time he stated that the CLA would sign any kind
of. contract the employer wanted and that the employer could abrogate the contract at
any time. By 'way of explanation, Brown testified that "during sort of -a lull in the
conversation" he "related this instance of what happened at this particular meeting, and
it was just a matter of pointing out what kind of an organization this was . Grami
also denied that during this meeting either he, Brown, or Clark made a statement to the
effect that Raffo should sign up with the Teamsters. According to Grami, Raffo, on at
least one occasion , raised the question whether he was being asked to tear up his agree-
ment with the CLA and Grami kept repeating to him that, "We were not asking for a
contract. We were asking for him to come up to standards." Brown testified that,
"Mr. Raffo kept repeating, 'Apparently you want us to tear up our contract.' He made
these comments to whoever happened to be talking to him at the time. I know Mr.
Grami told him not once but several times, 'We want you to understand we do not want
to organize your place. We do not want a contract with you. All we want is for you
to pay comparable conditions, and this is all we want.' He repeated it several times
very emphatically." Although Clark was called as a witness by the Respondents, he did
not deny the testimony of Raffo that when the latter stated that they should have all of
their cards out on the table, Clark had replied: "We all know what we are talking about."
In view of the fact that Brown admittedly referred to the' CLA at this meeting and in
view of the undenled evidence that on August 4 Clark told Raffo that he had better tear
up the CLA contract, together with the finding, as noted hereafter, that on August it in
a meeting with Richard L. Cooper, an attorney- representing Raffo, Grami agreed that tt
would be sufficient if Raffo canceled his contract with CLA and ente;ed into a contract
with the Teamsters, and Clark, who was also present at the time, indicated this' wokd
'solve the problem, I am convinced and find that Broft's statements regarding , the CLA
and Clark's statement that'they all knew what they were talking about were made during
the course of this meeting as Raffo testified.
GEN. TRUCK DRIVERS, W'HOUSEb2EN & HELPERS UNION 1051
Following this meeting, Raffo retained Richard L. Cooper, an attorney, to rep-
resent him. On August 11, Cooper met with Grami, Clair Cate, and Clark. Either
Grami or Clark stated that Raffo was delinquent in his welfare payments under
his contract with Local 624. Grami declared that Raffo had entered into an
agreement with the CLA and the terms of that contract provided for wages, work-
ing conditions, and fringe benefits which were below the prevailing minimum
standards for the area as expressed in the Teamsters' contract. He further stated
that he wanted some sort of written assurance that Raffo would pay the amounts
necessary to provide these minimum standards. Cooper asked whether it would be
sufficient if Raffo canceled his contract with the CLA and entered into a contract
with the Teamsters. Grami said, "Yes." Clark indicated that the problem would
be solved if Raffo entered into the agreement with the Teamsters.lz
At Cooper's request, Grami gave Cooper a copy of the current contract between'
Local 980 and employers in the area. The meeting terminated with the under-
standing that Cooper would compare the benefits provided for in the Teamsters
contract with those set forth in the CLA contract and inform Grami by Monday,
August 17, whether Raffo would provide written assurance that he would make up
the difference in costs between the two contracts. Apparently, the parties neither
met nor communicated with one another thereafter.
Commencing on September 21, 1964, and continuing to the date of the hear-
ing in this proceeding, Local 980 instituted peaceful picketing at the premises
of Meadowsweet through the medium of either one or two pickets who carried
a picket sign bearing the following legend:
TO THE PUBLIC
MEADOWSWEET DAIRY
maintains wages &
working conditions
which are below
standards for our
members.
Please patronize
Dairies which 'have
fair contracts.
TEAMSTER LOCAL 980
Local 980 is not now, and was not at any time it engaged in picketing at
Meadowsweet's premises, certified as the collective-bargaining representative of
Meadowsweet 's employees.
B. Concluding findings
The Respondents contend that they are entitled to picket Meadowsweet because
its contract with the CLA is unlawful and for the further reason that at the time
of the execution of the contract the CLA did not represent a majority of Meadow-
sweet's employees. The General -Counsel asserts, however, that the Respondents
are barred from litigating the lawfulness of Meadowsweet's recognition of the
CLA by reason of the provisions of Sections 8(b) (7) (A) and 10(b) and of the
Act. Though taking this position, the General Counsel raised no, objection to the
evidence so offered by the Respondents. Since, in any event, the Respondents
failed to produce substantial evidence to support their , contentions, I regard it
'2 Grami denied that Cooper had asked whether the dispute could be resolved if Raffo
signed an agreement with the Teamsters and testified that the only thing Cooper said-
"that was in any way similar to that was the fact he asked me if Mr. Raffo followed. the
conditions and wages in the agreement, would that be satisfactory to us, and I told him,
yes, it would." Grami further denied that Clark had said that the problem would be
solved if Raffo entered into a contract with the Teamsters. Clark denied that Grami had
Inquired whether the dispute could be settled in such a manner but Clark's testimony
on this point is equivocal since his answer was given in response to a question whether
Cooper had made such an inquiry. As elsewhere noted, Clark did not deny Raffo's testi-
mony that on August 4 Clark advised Ratio to tear up his contract with the CLA. While
Cooper's practice as an attorney does not include the field of labor law and while this
was admittedly the first labor relations problem he had handled, I believe, from -the
manner in which the testimony of Cooper, Grami, and, Clark was delivered and on con-.
sideration of the record as a whole, that, Cooper's recollection of the conversation on
August 11 was the more accurate and that the statements were made as he testified.
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as unnecessary under the circumstances here present to determine the question of
litigability. The evidence adduced by the Respondents was not sufficient to warrant
a finding that Meadowsweet unlawfully assisted the CLA at the time the contract
with that union was executed. The additional claim that the CLA did not repre-
sent a majority of Meadowsweet's employees-at that time likewise fails of support.
The record shows that at the time the contract was executed the CLA represented
the one full-time nonsupervisory employee of Meadowsweet. This person was a
licensed pasteurizer whose compensation, hours of work, skills, place of work, and
continuity of employment distinguished him from four part-time students who
were also then employed. An authorized representative is not precluded by the
Act from representing a unit comprising but one employee, and, even though
the Board will not certify such a unit, it is not an inappropriate one under Section
9(a) of the Act.'3
Under the circumstances here present, a question concerning representation
could not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act. It has been held
that Section 8(b)(7)(A) incorporates the Board's contract-bar rules.14 The CLA
contract in this case contains a union-security clause which requires membership
"within 30 days." Such a clause is valid 15 and would, without regard to such other
grounds as might be present in this case, bar a petition seeking to raise a question
concerning representation.'6
Whether or not Meadowsweet lawfully recognized the CLA, however, the
Respondents contend that the picketing in this case was for the purpose of publi-
cizing substandard conditions under which Meadowsweet was operating and not for
an object proscribed by the Act.
It is true that the legend on the picket sign conforms to the position taken by the
Respondents. It is likewise true that Grami's letter of August 4, 1964, and his
statements to Raffo on August 6 and to Cooper on August 11 disclaimed any
intention on the part of Local 980 to require Meadowsweet to sign a contract, to
hire its members, or to grant it recognition. But other countervailing evidence
overcomes these assertions of legitimate intention. Clark's statement to Raffo on
August 4 and Brown's statement to him on August 6 to the effect that Raffo should
repudiate his contract with the CLA indicate a different intention, namely, that of
forcing Raffo to recognize and bargain with Local 980.
Admittedly, the original purpose of Local 980 in approaching Meadowsweet was
to secure recognition. When Bertolucci learned that Meadowsweet had entered
into a contract with the CLA, he declared that the Teamsters would not tolerate
the CLA in the area and would run it out of town. Thereafter, Local 980 verbal-
ized its dispute with Meadowsweet as a protestation directed against substandard
conditions. While Grami continued to express Local 980's position in those terms,
Clark and Brown, acting in concert with him, reiterated the original purpose of
Local 980-to secure recognition. Indeed, Grami's demand addressed to Raffo on
August 6 and reiterated to Cooper on August 11 that Raffo agree in writing either
to provide the wages, hours, and working conditions set forth in Local 980's con-
tracts with other employers in the area or pay their equivalents in money was in
itself a demand for recognition. Whatever else -it may mean, recognition, in its
statutory sense, connotes acknowledgement by an employer of the representative
status of a labor organization. Fulfilling Grami's demand in this case would
require such acknowledgement on the part of Meadowsweet and if there were any
doubt that it was so intended, it was dispelled by Grami's agreement on August 11,
in response to a question from Cooper, that he would regard it as sufficient if
Raffo canceled his contract with the CLA and entered into a contract with the
Teamsters, and Clark, who was also present, indicated that this would solve the
problem.'
The Respondents elicited testimony that neither Clark, Brown, nor Joint Council
No. 7 were authorized to act on behalf of or to bind Local 980 by their conduct or
statements. Notwithstanding that fact, the evidence in this record warrants the
>a Louis Rosenberg, Inc., 122 NLRB 1450, 1453.
14 Charles A. Blinn, d/b/a C. A. Blinne Construction Company, 135 NLRB 1158.
'4 New York Electric & Gas Corp ., 135 NLRB 357.
16 Paragon Products Corporation , 134 NLRB 662.
211 do not rely, as proof of recognitional purpose, on Grami's statement to Raffo in
March 1964, that the Teamsters did not recognize the CLA and something would have
to be done about it since such statement , in its context , may equally be regarded as a
protest against substandard conditions.
GEN. TRUCK DRIVERS, W'HOUSEMEN & HELPERS UNION 1053
inference that Local 302, Local 624, and Joint Council No. 7, acted in concert to
bring pressure to bear upon Raffo for the purpose of having him submit to the
demands of Local 980. Although Clark's interest in Raffo's operations was assert-
edly concerned with delinquencies in the payment of health and other benefits pro-
vided for in Local 624's contract and Brown's interest was concerned with Raffo
supplying Holt Dairy with milk, yet Clark on August 4 and Brown on August 6
took active roles in attempting to persuade Raffo to repudiate his contract with the
CLA.18 And so far as the record shows, neither Clark nor Brown after the August
,6 meeting sought to pursue their respective demands for delinquent payments on-
the one hand and cessation of milk supplies on the other. This seems strange in'
Brown's case in particular since he testified that he, like Grami, was interested ilr
inducing Raffo to meet area standards. Yet Local 302 did not ally itself with the
picketing, assertedly for that purpose, which was later instituted by Local 980.
With respect to Joint Council No. 7, Raffo testified without denial that Brown
stated at the beginning of the meeting on August 6 that he was representing Steve
Gilligan because Gilligan was unable to attend. Gilligan was a business representa-
tive of Local 226 and also secretary of Joint Council No. 7. There is no evidence
that any dispute existed between Local 226 and Meadowsweet and there is nothing
to show why the Joint Council should have been represented at this meeting since
a representative of each of the three locals ostensibly involved was present and the
Joint Council itself was composed of other locals whose representatives were neither
present nor involved. I gather from this evidence and from the record as a whole
that the representatives of Locals 302, 624, 980, and the Joint Council were acting
in concert for the purpose of forcing Raffo to submit to the demands of Local 980
and that the statements and conduct of each of such representatives in furtherance
of such concerted action are attributable to the Respondents.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the record as a whole, I am
convinced and find that the picketing of Meadowsweet by Local 980 on Septem-
ber 21, 1964, and at all times thereafter, had as an object forcing or requiring
Meadowsweet to recognize or bargain with Local 980,19 although Local 980 was
not on September 21, 1964, or at any time thereafter, certified as the representa-
tive of Meadowsweet's employees and although on September 21, 1964, and at
all times thereafter, Meadowsweet has lawfully recognized the CLA and a question
concerning representation could not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c)
of the Act, and that by such picketing Local 980 has violated Section 8(b)(7)(A)
of the Act.
The complaint alleges that Local 624, as well as Local 980, engaged in picket-
ing at Meadowsweet's premises. Ruling was reserved on motion of the Respond-
ents at the close of the General Counsel's case to dismiss the complaint with
respect to Local 624. The uncontradicted evidence shows that Local 980 alone
instituted and carried on the picketing at Meadowsweet and there is no showing
that Local 624 had any connection with or participated in such conduct. The
fact that Local 624 acted in concert with Local 980 and others in an effort to force
Meadowsweet to recognize and bargain with Local 980, as found above, is not
enough in itself to warrant a finding that it was responsible for the picketing
which later occurred. Accordingly, the Respondents' motion to dismiss the com-
plaint with respect to Local 624 is hereby granted.
18 Although Grami denied that he had ever authorized either Brown or Clark to represent
Local 980 in connection with the problem the latter local had with Meadowsweet, there
is no showing that he made this position clear to Raffo on August,6 when Brown stated
that the Teamsters did not recognize the CLA, that other employers had CLA contracts
which they had torn up and had begun doing 'business with the Teamsters and that all
their problems had been resolved. His failure to do so reasonably may be regarded as
ratification of Brown's statements.
19 In arriving at this conclusion, I regard it as unnecessary to consider or to rely on
the terms of a written agreement between Local 980 and Idaco Lumber Company, an
employer in the area engaged in the lumber -business, which was entered into in June 1963,
in settlement of a dispute as to wages and conditions of employment provided by Idaco as
compared with those provided for in Local 9801s contracts with other employers. No
showing was made as to the circumstances surrounding the dispute between Idaco and
Local,980 nor was it shown that any connection existed between Idaco,and Meadowsweet.
In view of this disposition of the matter, I hereby deny the motion of the Respondents
made during the hearing to strike from the record certain stipulated,facts and documentary
evidence concerning this matter upon which ruling was reserved
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Local 980 set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the employer, 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 Local 980 has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Meadowsweet and Raffo Brothers constitute a single employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 980 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By picketing Meadowsweet at Santa Rosa, California, with an object of
forcing or requiring Meadowsweet to recognize or bargain with Local 980 as the
representative of its employees, although Local 980 has not been certified as such
representative and after Meadowsweet had lawfully recognized another labor
organization as such representative and a question concerning representation could
not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act, Local 980 has com-
mitted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
C. W. Brooks and G. N. Dodge, Co-Partners, d/b/a Brooks Dodge
Lumber Co. and General Teamsters, Warehousemen , Cannery
Workers & Helpers Union Local 94, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America. Case No. 00-CA-34W0. May 23,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 16, 1966, Trial Examiner David Karasick issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.' The Gen-
eral Counsel filed an answering brief as well as cross-exceptions and
"argument" in support thereof.
'The Respondents ' request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, including
the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
158 NLRB No. 105.