General Drivers, Local 89

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 485 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

GENERAL DRIVERS,
General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No. 89, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and its
agent , Dick Fischer and The Vertner Smith
Company. Case 9-CB-1584
September 18, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On May 23, 1969, Trial Examiner Sidney J.
Barban issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent Union 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial
Examiner also recommended that the complaint's
inclusion of Union Agent Dick Fischer as an
individual Respondent subject to a separate remedial
order be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions, with supporting brief, to the
dismissal as to Agent Fischer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
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
entire record in the case, including the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
LOCAL 89 485
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent Union, General Drivers,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Louisville, Kentucky, its officers,
agents. and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT Oi- THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Trial Examiner' This matter was
heard before me at Louisville, Kentucky, on April 17,
1969, upon allegations in the complaint issued February
27, 1969 (based upon charges filed by the Charging Party,
herein called "Smith" or "the company," on January 13.
1969), that the above-named Respondents threatened.
restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. General Drivers, Warehousemen
and Helpers Local Union No. 89, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
"the Union," filed an answer admitting allegations of the
complaint sufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction
under current standards of the Board, and to support a
finding that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act, but denying the commission of any
unfair labor practices. Respondent Dick Fischer did not
file an answer to the complaint , but it is noted that the
complaint does not allege that Fischer specifically engaged
in any conduct in violation of the Act.
Upon the entire record in this case, from observation of
the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party and the
Union, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
'Member Zagoria would not adopt the Trial Examiner' s recommended
dismissal of the complaint as it alleges that the Respondent Union ' s agent,
Dick Fischer, had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged and proved
Fischer is an admitted agent of the Respondent Union, was named
individually as a Respondent in the complaint , and, contrary to the Trial
Examiner, the complaint did allege that Fischer engaged in specified
violations of See. 8(b)(1)(A). Fischer riled no answer to the complaint, did
not testify at the hearing , and the allegation -, of the complaint as to
Fischer are deemed as admitted . In view of this admission , and as the Trial
Examiner found that Fischer was in charge of the picket line , observed and
was aware of the acts of misconduct by the striking employees and took no
measure to correct or prevent their repetition , he is the proper object of a
remedial order Drivers. Salesmen . Warehousemen . Milk Processors,
Cannery. Dairi Employees and Helpers Union Local 695. !Toni Pellitterr
Trucking Service, Inc 1. 174 NLRB No 115.
Chairman McCulloch and Member Brown find the Pellitteri case
inapposite The facts in that case show that the union agents had engaged
in unlawful secondary boycott activity as well as merely failing to restrain
coercive conduct on the part of pickets In the present case, Union Agent
Fischer has not engaged in any affirmative unlawful conduct Accordingly,
they find it inappropriate to impose individual responsibility
1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
For a considerable period of time, possibly since 1953,
the Union has represented certain employees of Smith,
including drivers and warehousemen engaged in the
warehousing and distribution of products sold by the
Company. In the latter part of August 1968, the company
and the Union began negotiations for a
collective-bargaining contract to succeed the then current
contract expiring on September 30, 1968. The negotiations
were unsuccessful, and the Union set up a picket line at
the Company's warehouse location early on the morning
of December 3, 1968. Across the street from the
Company's location, the Union also established a shack,
apparently open facing the street, where strikers and
pickets congregated when not walking the picket line.
Pickets walking in front of Smith's property numbered
from one to five or six, from time to time walking to and
from the shack across the street.
I78NLRB No.80
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Picket activities related by Dennis
Very shortly after the beginning of the strike, Smith
began hiring replacements for the striking employees.
These were customarily brought across the picket line and
onto Smith's property in cars driven by management
officials and salesmen.
James Dennis, vice president and sales manager of
Smith, testified that on occasions when he was
transporting replacement employees in and out of the
Company's plant, some of the pickets, particularly Union
Steward Max Myers and Al Ciarlante who had previously
been the union steward, would shout curses at the
employees being brought in to work. According to Dennis'
undenied testimony, among other extreme vulgarity. the
replacements were referred to as "scabs." and told that
"we know who you are, you son-of-a-bitch," and that "we
will get you." The activities of the pickets was described
as "belligerent," "'hostile" and "loud." On two occasions,
Dennis was followed by striking employees as he was
taking replacement employees home after work. In an
effort to prevent the strikers from discovering the home
addresses of the replacements, Dennis took them to his
home. where they remained until arrangements could be
made to transport them to their own homes. One of these
replacement employees, William Russell, recalled being
followed on an occasion when Dennis was taking him
home, and on one occasion that Max Myers said
something to him as he was crossing the picket line.
2 Picket activities involving Russell
William Russell also asserted that the pickets on a
number of occasions followed him while he was making
deliveries, and would picket at the delivery stops he made.
Sales Manager Dennis testified that other drivers also
reported such activity. On one such occasion, on
December 23, when Russell was making a delivery with
another man, they were followed by Al Ciarlante, who ran
up to the cab of the truck they were in, and tried to pull
Russell out by his hair. When Ciarlante was persuaded to
let Russell go, Ciarlante said, according to Russell's
undenied testimony, that "this Christmas was going to be
bleak and that he talked to one of the other drivers. . .
and he found out how much money he had been making
since the strike was going on and he said he could have
used this money-and he might also make my Christmas
unhappy by putting me in the hospital." After Russell
came hack to the truck from making his delivery,
Ciarlante told Russell that "some day he would see me in
the store or shopping center and he said he would get
me." Russell stated that at the time, Ciarlante was drunk
Ciarlante was seen on the picket line and at the picket
shack thereafter on a number of occasions
3. Picket activities involving hrancies
On this same day, December 23, O'Neal Francies,
another replacement employee who had been hired by
Smith, while on a delivery trip with a salesman employed
by the Company referred to as Mr Carp. was followed by
Max Myers and another striker. When they stopped,
Myers, in vulgar language similar to that related b}
Dennis. as noted above, asked Carp where "he" had
gotten "the scabs." During the period that Francies
remained with the truck, while Carp went inside to make
deliveries, according to Francies' uncontroverted
testimony, "there was Max out there cussing and talking
and he asked me, what are you son-of-a-bitches doing up
here taking our jobs. We've got families to feed And I
said, so do 1, and he said how do you expect to be around
here and I said I expect to be here until they run me off.
and he said, well you son-of-a-bitch, it might not be very
long." Myers continued to picket the company plant
thereafter.
4 Picket activities involving Daniels
Larry H. Daniels, who was hired by Smith. on
December 31, 1968, stated that when he attempted to
drive into the company' s premises that day, he was
stopped by pickets who told him that they would not let
him through. Daniels drove away and parked his car. He
then walked back to the plant and apparently walked past
the pickets. After passing the picket line into the plant,
Daniels stated he was cursed and was told that when "I
came back out of the company, they would get me, that
they had my number." When he returned to his car, by a
back way, after making his application for employment,
Daniels found that the valve stems in three of his tires had
been tampered with and the tires were flat. He returned to
the company plant by the back entrance and called for
assistance to inflate his tires. When he returned to his car,
he found all four tires were flat. Thereafter, while a
service station attendant, Stephen Flynn, was there
attempting to inflate the tires on Daniels' car, two men
later identified as Max Myers and Al Ciarlante. drove up,
got out of their car, and came over to where Daniels was
standing near Flynn kneeling at one tire on Daniels' car
One of these two, identified at the hearing as Max Myers,
according to Daniels' testimony, "shouted that he was
going to teach me to break a picket line and that I would
never break any more." Myers then hit Daniels under the
eye When Flynn made a movement, he was told to mind
his own business and go about his work. A scuffle then
ensued. Daniels stated that he was hit again. on the nose,
that he attempted to break away but was restrained by the
two men, in the course of which Ciarlante pushed him.
Daniels was eventually able to get to the other side of his
car and got in. He states that the two men left after he
said he was going after a gun. Flynn's testimony, although
differing in some details and emphasis, substantially
corroborates Daniels. Neither Myers nor Ciarlante
testified '
Ciarlante was stopped by the police that afternoon and
searched. on the street a short distance from the plant. At
the time Business Agent Fischer was at the picket shack
watching
5 Picket activities involving Kamer
Robert L. Kamer was employed by Smith on January
6, 1969 On January 9. as he was leaving work in his car
he was cursed by one of the striking employees, and was
'Daniels called the police about this incident, and later testified before a
grand jury which indicted Ciarlante for assault Daniels asserted that
although he had seen Myers on the picket line or at the shack across the
street prior to the time he appeared before the grand jury, he had been
unable to make positive identification of Myers before the time of the
hearing in this matter, when he had an opportunity to see Myers at close
range for the first time since December 31 The Union's brief suggests that
Daniels' testimony, particularly his statement that he walked through the
picket line after being barred from driving through, is incredible However.
since neither Myers, who was present in the hearing room, nor Ciarlante,
who was apparently available , testified, and no other reason to discredit
Daniels appears, Daniels' account of the occ,urence is credited
GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL 89 487
followed by a car which stopped behind him at a traffic
light some distance from the Company's plant Kamer
identified the driver as the same person who had cursed
him at the plant Three other occupants of the car got out
and came up to Kamer's stopped automobile. Kamer's
uncontradicted account of the incident, in pertinent part,
was ". . . they approached my car, they started calling
me out and cussing me out and calling me every name
they could think of and told me I was taking their jobs
and that they would fix me and all this. and one of
them [later identified as striking employee Ronald
Gnagie] took his hand, back handed, and hit my
windshield and the side window on the driver's side of the
car . and the other one [later identified as striking
employee Robert Perrott] kicked the side of it [the car]
in " At the time, a third man, unidentified, "was at the
back of the car bouncing up and down on it." The side
glass in Kamer's car was shattered in the incident. Kamer
swore out warrants for the arrest of Gnagie and Perrott,
but agreed to an abatement of the matter at the time of
trial upon the agreement of the men to the payment of
S50 for damages to his car. Kanter identified both Perrott
and Gnagie as pickets at the company premises before
and after the incident. Gnagie thereafter ceased his picket
activities, but Perrott continued to picket up to the time
of the hearing
6 1 he activities of Fischer
During this period, Dick Fischer, business agent of the
Union, and admittedly an agent of the Union, was at or
near the picket line nearly every day. According to
Dennis. Fischer appeared on the picket line usually "about
three times a day. In the morning he would come. and at
noon, and he would come in the evening." Fischer would
remain for periods of an hour to an hour and a hall Ile
was often at the shack across the street with pickets who
were congregated there Dennis identified Fischer as
present at the shack on occasions when pickets called to
replacement employees crossing the picket line as testified
to by Dennis. Daniels stated that Fischer was on the
picket line when he went into the plant on December 31,
to make his application for employment, Daniels adding,
"tie was actually on the side." Fischer clearly remained in
the area for some time alter the time of the altercation at
Daniel's car Fischer was present at the time set for the
trial of Perrott and Gnagie, who were represented by
counsel who regularly represents the Union and its
members. The same counsel represented Ciarlante at a
hearing to set bail after his indictment. Fischer and Union
Steward Myers were on the committee which represented
the Union in negotiations for a collective-bargaining
contract with the company.
CONCLUSIONS
The threats of the pickets made to the replacement
employees at the picket line and elsewhere, the following
of replacement employees on their way home after work,
and the acts of actual violence against these employees
and their property detailed above were obviously intended
to, and had a tendency to. restrain and coerce employees
of the company in their right guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act to refrain from the Union's strike activity. That
such activity may not have frightened one or more of
these employees, as the Union asserts, is immaterial,
inasmuch as this conduct had a tendency to coerce and
restrain the employees generally from working (and thus
to join the Union's strike activity), which was the result
the Union and the strikers sought.
The Union argues. however, that even it the strikers'
actions were coercive (which the Union does not admit),
they were the private actions of individual pickets for
which the Union may not be held personally responsible.
The issue then is the responsibility, if' any, of respondents
Union and Fischer for the coercive acts which occurred
It has long been established that unions are liable under
the Act, in accordance with the "ordinary law of agency,"
for the acts of an agent "within the scope of the agent's
general authority, or the 'scope of his employment'
even though the [union] has not specifically authorized or
indeed may have specifically forbidden the act in
question." See ILWL', CIO, et al (Sunset Line and Twine
Cumpanv), 79 NLRB 1487, 1507, 1509. The burden of
proving the existence, nature, and extent of the agency
relationship is upon the party asserting it-in this case the
General Counsel-but in the absence of direct evidence,
"such inferences as are reasonable may he drawn and may
sustain the General Counsel's burden of proof where as
here there is no evidence to rebut them " See Teamsters,
Local 536 (The Connecticut Foundry Company), 165
NLRB No. 133, see also N.L.R.B v IBTCWH of A.
290 F.2d 99, 104 (C A 2) In determining whether the
Union should he held responsible for the acts with which
we are concerned, Section2_(13) of the Act makes clear
that "the question of whether the specific acts performed
were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not
be controlling."'
Respondent Fischer is admittedly an agent of the Union
and clearly was in general charge of the strike and
picketing activities involved here. He was engaged in
negotiation with the company for a collective-bargaining
contract before the strike which resulted from the failure
of those negotiations, and from his constant and regular
attendance at the picket line activity was manifestly the
Union agent assigned to guide and direct the strike and
picket activities. This is implicitly conceded in the Union's
brief.'
However, quite apart from the Union's responsibility
for Fischer's conduct in respect to the activities to which
he was assigned, the complaint does not specifically allege
that Fischer engaged in any acts or activity in violation of
the Act for which he should be held personally and
individually responsible Because of this, and upon
consideration of the record as a whole, it will be
recommended that the allegation of the complaint naming
'it is this provision of the Act , in particular , as the Board has held,
which makes the decisions in United Mine Workers v Gibbs, 393 U S
7 15, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters v U S, 330 U S 395 (relied
upon by the Union in this matter) inapplicable to the resolution of agency
issues under the Act, for in Gibbs and the Carpenters case, the Supreme
Court was applying the standard of the Norris -LaGuardia Act which
requires proof of authorvation or ratification to establish responsibility, a
standard different from the ordinary law of agency Sec Sunset Line and
Twine, supra at 1509, IBTCWH of A. Local Union No 377
(All-American Stamp and Premium Corp of N Y., et ali, 159 NLRB
1313, 1314
'In asserting lack of proof of Union responsibility for acts of the pickets.
the brief states , "This is not, however, to say that Respondent Fisher [sic]
is not an assistant business agent of the respondent Union, or indeed he
is" Further , it is asserted that not only was Fischer not present at the
picket line when threats were made , but "[t]here is no intonation in the
testimony that Mr Fisher was present , knew about or otherwise condoned
the actions testified to that took place away from the picket line, except
those of the 'roving pickets ' " Lastly, it is asserted that "[t]here is no
evidence that the organizer , which in this Lase we would describe as Fisher,
engaged in any of the misconducts ." (Un br pp 9, 9-10, 12)
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dick Fischer as a separate and individual respondent. and
thus subject to a separate remedial order, shall be
dismissed.
As to the responsibility of the Union, at the outset,
there can be no question but that the Union was
responsible for the strike and picket line at the company's
premises, which manifestly was designed to "hamper or
stop the Company's operations" by "withdrawal of its
labor force" and to dissuade or impede other employees
"from working during the strike " See Sunset Line and
Twine, supra, at 1510: see also United Rubber, Cork.
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, et al
(Tennessee Wheel and Rubber Company), 166 NLRB No.
33, (TXD). In aid of these and other purposes associated
with the strike, the Union utilized striking employees as
pickets at the Smith location and approved their following
company trucks and picketing points of delivery See, e.g.,
in 3.
The activities complained of were performed by striking
employees of the company, not strangers to the Union. At
the picket line they were under the almost daily guidance
and control of Fischer. Because of the character and
duration of the activities at the picket line, Fischer's
constant attendance upon, and engagement in the
picketing, and his continuing relationship with the pickets,
including Shop Steward Myers. at the line and at the
picket shack, it is found that Fischer was aware of these
activities. This is particularly shown in respect to the
threats of the pickets on the line made to Daniels on
December 31. Inasmuch as there is no evidence that
Fischer took any action to restrain or control the pickets
in their coercive activities (which, in fact, furthered the
purposes of the Union in establishing the line), it is found
that Fischer adopted, accepted, and ratified that conduct,
and, in fact, by his passive acceptance of these actions
encouraged and confirmed those actions in behalf of the
Union See Sunset Line and Twine, supra at 1508
("authorization or ratification may be manifested by
conduct, even passive acquiescence, as well as by words.")
Indeed, having utilized the picket line and these pickets
for the purpose of deterring employees from going on the
company's premises to work, Respondent is responsible
for the actions of the pickets at the picket line within the
reasonable scope of their employment for that purpose,
even though the authority or power granted "is wrongly
used," See N L.R.B v. ILWU, Local 10, et a!, (Pacific
Maritime Assn.), 283 F.2d 558, 564 (C A.9), or even may
have forbidden, Sunset Line and Twine, supra. In the
absence of any evidence that the actions of the pickets
were solely on behalf of the individuals involved, and not
in behalf of the Union's purposes as they appear to be, it
is inferred that the pickets were carrying out the purposes
of the Union. and the Union is responsible for their
actions. See, e g.. Local 612. IBTCWH of A (Deacon
Truck Line, Inc ), 146 NLRB 498. 503 (" . it is well
settled that a labor organization is responsible for violence
in which its pickets engage at a picket line"): see also the
excellent discussion by Trial Examiner Sharnikow in
United Furniture Workers of America, CIO (Colonial
Hardwood Flooring Company, Inc.), 84 N LRB 563, at
587-588 ("the utterance of threats and the employment of
force by pickets" at the picket line "are incidental to the
authorized patrol and, though forbidden, are reasonably to
be expected by the labor organization when it sets forth
the picket line," and are thus within the "scope of
employment- of the pickets for which the labor
organization is responsible): cf. Selby-Battersbv and
Company, et al. v. N.L R.B, 359 F.2d 952 (C.A. 4)
(holding a labor organization responsible for the activities
of those engaged in an enterprise initiated by the
organization which could have been reasonably
anticipated).
Additionally, it is found that in his position as shop
steward, Myers was an agent of the Union and acted in its
behalf in his threats made to the replacement employees
on and away from the line, as well as in his attack upon
Daniels away from the picket line Where, as here, there
is no evidence of the shop steward's duties (other than
that he was part of the bargaining committee), it will be
inferred that he possesses the usual authority of a union
steward. See Local 1016, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al.
(Booher Lumber Co, Inc.), 117 NLRB 1739, 1746.
Among the normal duties and authority of the shop
steward are the functions of acting as a channel of
communication between the Union and the employees,
transmitting instructions, advice and counsel from the
Union and reporting upon Union matters to the Union.
He is generally, at the level of immediate contact with the
employees, responsible for carrying out the instructions
and purposes of the Union, and is so understood by the
persons with whom he deals. His position is roughly
comparable to that of a foreman on the factory floor, and
the Union's responsibility for his conduct within the
apparent scope of his employment is comparable to that
of the employer for the actions of the foreman. See
N L R B. v. Brewery & Beer Distributor Drivers, Helpers
and Platform Men, Local 830, IBTCWH of A, 281 F.2d
319 (C.A. 3), Local 349, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and
Controls), 149 NLRB 430, 458, in 52.
From his position as shop steward, it is found that
Myers regularly reported and made known to Fischer the
activities of the pickets, as well as his own activities, and
from the tact that Fischer took no action to restrain
Myers or to disavow his actions or to limit his authority
to act on behalf of the Union, but in fact permitted Myers
to continue his picket line activities unabated thereafter, it
is inferred and found that Fischer approved and ratified
those activities.
Indeed, inasmuch as it appears that the Union
authorized and encouraged the pickets to carry on their
activities away from the picket line, and in particular to
follow employees away from the plant in furtherance of
the Union's purposes, it was reasonably to be expected.
considering the pattern of coercive conduct which the
Union permissively encouraged at the picket line, that
there would be threats and attacks upon the non-striking
employees away from the picket line, in an effort to
disrupt the company's operations and impel the
non-striking employees to cease work In the
circumstances of this case, the Union, having initiated and
encouraged this pattern of conduct, may not now stand
aside and assert it has no responsibility for the foreseeable
consequences of its conduct. See United Mine Workers of
America, ei al (Solar Fuel Company), 170 NLRB No.
178 '
On the basis of the above analysis, and upon the record
as a whole, it is found that the Union, by threats,
following employees home, and attacks upon employees
'I find it unnecessary to determine whether the Union would be relieved
of responsibility for Ciarlante' s actions against Russell away from the
picket line on the ground that he was drunk at the time, as the Union
argues, since this incident does not differ substantially from others for
which the Union has been found responsible
GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL 89 489
and their property as set forth herein, restrained and
coerced employees in the exercise of their rights under the
Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Vertner Smith Company is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct found herein to be in
violation of the Act, respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section' 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Smith Company, if they are willing, at places where they
customarily post notices to employees.
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
The allegations of the complaint naming Dick Fischer
as a separate respondent shall be dismissed.
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent Union
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be
recommended that the respondent Union cease and desist
therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act as follows:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this matter, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that respondent
General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No. 89, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall.
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
their right to refrain from joining or assisting a labor
organization, or to refrain from engaging in a strike or
any concerted activity for mutual aid or protection of
working conditions. by harming or threatening to harm
employees, or by damaging or threatening to damage
property, or by following employees who are not engaged
in transport of products for their employer.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its office and meeting hall copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said
Notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by a representative
of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof. and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places.
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 9 signed
copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by The Vertner
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words, "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the Notice . In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS of . TEAMSTERS LOCAL. 89, AND
EMPLOYEES OF THE VERTNER SMITH COMPANY
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify -you that:
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of the
Vertner Smith Company by
- threatening to harm , or by harming them, or by
damaging , or threatening to damage property, because
the employees refuse to join or assist the Union. or
refuse to stop working, or refuse to join in a strike.
- following employees when they are not working, or
are not carrying products for their employer, in order to
get them to join or assist the Union , or engage in a
strike, or refuse to work for their employer.
-in any other way restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of their right not to join or assist the
Union, or engage in a strike , or to continue to work if
they want to.
GENERAL DRIVERS,
WARFHOUSEMEN AND
HFLPERS, LOCAL
UNION No. 89,
AFFILIATED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS,, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office. Room 2407,
Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3696.