General Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1832 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that.
WE WILL NOT threaten or interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership or, activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in good standing of International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization except to the extent
that this right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.-APPARATUS SERVICE SHOP,
Employer.
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.
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union No. 697, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America 1 and R. 0.
Wetz, d/b/a R. 0. Wetz Transportation
General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union No. 697, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America i and
McJunkin Corporation. Cases Nos. 9-CD-31 and 9-CD-32. Feb-
ruary 28, 1958
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This consolidated proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the
Act, which provides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has
engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph
4 (D) of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered to hear and determine
the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen...."
On July 30, 1957, R. 0. Wetz, d/b/a Wetz Transportation, herein
called Wetz, filed with the Regional Director for the Ninth Region a
1 The Board having been notified by the APL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
amended
119 NLRB No. 230.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS 1833
charge, amended first on August 8, 1957, and a second time on Septem-
ber 17, 1957, against General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers Local Union No. 697, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called Teamsters or Respondent, alleging that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain activities proscribed by
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the amended Act. It was charged, in sub-
stance, that the Respondent had induced and encouraged the
employees of Wetz and of various other employers at construction
projects at Cresap, West Virginia, and Omal, Ohio, to engage in
strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to
handle or work on goods, with an object of forcing or requiring Wetz
to assign particular work to employees who are members of Teamsters
rather than to employees who are members of Marietta Truckers
Independent Union, Local No. 1, herein called the Independent.
On September 16, 1957, McJunkin Corporation, herein called
McJunkin, filed with the Regional Director for the Ninth Region a
charge against the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain activities proscribed by
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the amended Act. It was charged, in sub-
stance, that the Respondent had induced and encouraged the employees
of McJunkin and of various other employers at construction projects
at Cresap, West Virginia, and Omal, Ohio, to engage in strikes or
concerted refusals in the course of their employment to handle or
work on goods, with an object of forcing or requiring McJunkin to
assign particular work to employees who are members of the Teamsters
rather than to McJunkin's employees.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections 102.71
and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional
Director investigated the respective charges, ordered that the two
cases be consolidated, and provided for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice to all parties. The hearing was held before Clifford L.
Hardy, hearing officer, on November 13, 14, 15, and 22, 1957. All
parties, except Independent, appeared at the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the
hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. McJunkin filed a brief with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. Wetz and McJunkin are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
1834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Teamsters and Independent are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The dispute :
Tim FACTS
A. Background
Booth & Flinn Company is a general contractor engaged in a con-
struction project for Ohio Power Company and Olin-Mathieson Gen-
erating Corporation at Cresap, West Virginia. F. H. McGraw &
Company is a general contractor engaged in a construction project for
Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corporation and Olin Revere Metals Cor-
poration at Omal, Ohio. Wetz and McJunkin have been delivering
materials on their respective trucks to the Cresap and Omal projects.
The Wetz employees driving trucks making deliveries to the projects
are represented for collective bargaining purposes by Independent.'
The McJunkin employees making truck deliveries to the projects have
no collective bargaining representative.
B. Some of the events at Cresap on which the charges are based
About May 7, 1957, McJunkin employees Coleman and Hershey
were making a delivery of material to the Cresap project. Teamsters
steward Holderman asked them for their union cards. Upon being
advised that the McJunkin drivers did not have such cards, Holder-
man told them, in the presence of various employees working at the
job site, that they could not deliver their load.
McJunkin driver, Leasure, arrived at Cresap on June 28, 1957, to
make a delivery. Holderman asked Leasure for his Teamsters mem-
bership card. Leasure said he had none and Holderman instructed
the attendant receiving clerk not to accept the delivery.
On July 22, Wetz driver, Biehl, attempted to deliver material. Upon
Holderman's request for his Teamsters card, Biehl showed his Inde-
pendent membership card. Holderman said Independent was not a
union recognized on the Cresap job and that Biehl's truck could not
be unloaded. However, Holderman then spoke to Teamsters organizer
and representative, Gosnell, who permitted the truck to be unloaded.
Holderman told Biehl to advise his employer not to send another truck
to the Cresap project unless a Teamsters member was driving.
C. Some of the events at Omal on which the charges are based
On July 5, 1957, McJunkin trucker, Matthews, arrived at Omal to
deliver merchandise. Teamsters steward Ingram told Matthews that
2 On April 18, 1957, Independent was certified as the collective-bargaining representative
of these Wetz employees pursuant to a stipulation and certification upon consent election
in Cases Nos 9-RC-3024 and 9-RC-3036
GENERAL TEAMSTERS 1835
he could not make his delivery because he did not have a Teamsters
membership card.
Wetz driver, Mills, attempted to unload merchandise at Omal on
July 24, 1957. Teamsters steward, Sullivan, asked for his union
membership card. When Mills showed his Independent card, Sullivan
said "That card is no good here. We have been waiting on these
trucks. They have been on our local list." Sullivan then called Team-
sters steward, Ingram, who told Mills, in the presence of dockhands
and receiving clerks working at the project, that Mills' truck would
not be unloaded unless he put a Teamsters member on it. Mills there-
upon contacted Wetz who advised Mills to pay a Teamsters driver
so that the truck could be unloaded. The following day Mills' truck
and another driven by a Wetz employee, Kellar, were unloaded while
a Teamsters member stood by for about 45 minutes and received $30.3
After their arrival at the Omal project on July 29, McJunkin
employees Leasure and Hershey were told by a receiving clerk that
their truck would be unloaded right away. While they were waiting,
Teamsters steward, Sullivan, asked them for union cards which they
did not have. Chief Steward Ingram then arrived and told the
McJunkin employees, in the presence of other employees working at
the project, that they could not unload their truck unless they had
Teamsters membership cards.
McJunkin driver, Leasure, tried to unload a truck at Omal on Oc-
tober 21. When he failed to show steward Ingram a Teamsters card,
Ingram, in the presence of a McGraw driver, told Leasure to get off
the project. Leasure went to the McGraw receiving office but was
told that his truck would not be unloaded.
The above-described incidents at the Cresap and Omal projects are
representative of about 15 similar events which occurred at those job
sites involving McJunkin or Wetz employees and workers of various
Companies_ doing business at the construction sites.
Contentions of the Parties
Wetz and McJunkin contend that, by the above-described conduct,
the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. The
Respondent did not file a brief and failed to present a clear statement
of its position at the hearing. The Respondent has not advanced any
apparent defense to the charges that its conduct involving employees
at the Cresap project violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D). With respect
to the incidents that occurred at the Omal project, the Respondent
apparently contends that it was not responsible therefor. According
'Teamsters members were called for this type of standby duty in order to permit
unloading of Wetz trucks on approximately six other occasions from October 15 to
November 5, 1957.
1836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Respondent, the Omal events were attributable to a policy of
McGraw, the general contractor on the job, to permit only truck-
drivers holding Teamsters membership cards to make deliveries at
the Omal project.
Applicability of the Statute
The charges, which were duly investigated by the Regional Director,
allege violations of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and the Regional
Director was satisfied, upon the basis of such investigation, that viola-
tions of the section had been committed.
In a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act the Board is
required to find that there is reasonable cause to believe that Section
8 (b) (4) (D) has been violated before proceeding with a determina-
tion of the dispute out of which the alleged unfair labor practices have
arisen.
There is substantial uncontradicted evidence establishing that the
Respondent was responsible for the refusals to accept deliveries by
non-Teamsters drivers at the Cresap project. On the other hand, it
is necessary to review both affirmative and controverting evidence to
determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the
Respondent caused the similar conduct at the Omal project.
In support of the Respondent's contention that it was not respon-
sible for the delivery refusals at Omal is testimony by Burroughs, the
secretary of F. H. McGraw & Company and the general contractor at
Omal. Burroughs testified that McGraw has a general policy at all
its job sites of requiring suppliers making deliveries to utilize union
drivers .4 Burroughs stated that, at the time the Omal project was
started in the spring of 1956, McGraw unilaterally instituted the
policy there. Burroughs further testified that he instructed Merritt,
McGraw's then chief of supply at Omal, to enforce the asserted
McGraw policy. Burroughs also stated that McGraw's suppliers were
advised of this company policy. According to Burroughs, this policy
was not based upon any agreement with the Teamsters and could have
been unilaterally discontinued by McGraw. Teamsters' representative
Gosnell testified that, in March 1956, McGraw's manager of labor rela-
tions at Omal, Ralston, outlined to him the asserted McGraw policy
requiring deliveries by Teamsters' members.
On October 2, 1957, Burroughs sent counsel for the Teamsters a
letter advising that the practice of stopping nonunion trucks at the
Omal project was based upon its unilateral policy and not upon any
agreement with a union. On a purchase order to McJunkin dated
& Burroughs indicated that union was considered synonymous with Teamsters.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS 1837
October 22, 1957, McGraw instructed that deliveries to Omal were to
be made by Teamsters' members. On November 5, 1957, McGraw's
chief expediter, Stahl, advised Wetz that McGraw's officers had given
orders that trucks arriving at Omal which were not driven by Team-
sters' members were not to be unloaded.
These facts constitute, in general, the record evidence in support
of the Respondent's claim that McGraw, rather than the Respondent,
was responsible for the work interruptions at Omal. However, this
evidence loses much of its significance as most of it occurred after
the initial charge was filed in this proceeding. Indeed, only Bur-
roughs' general testimony on the existence of the McGraw policy and
Gosnell's report of his conversation with Ralston about the asserted
McGraw policy antedated the filing of the initial charge. Opposed
to the Respondent's contention is the statement by McGraw's assistant
labor relations manager, Cupps, that he did not even hear of the
asserted McGraw policy until shortly before the hearing in this
proceeding.
Moreover, there is other evidence which casts doubt on Burroughs'
testimony that McGraw had a policy of requiring suppliers to make
deliveries in trucks manned by union drivers. Burroughs testified
that the policy was unilaterally established and was not the result
of an agreement. However, in the summer of 1956 Ralston told Mad-
dux, McGraw's warehouse superintendent, that McGraw had agreed
that only members of the Teamsters would be permitted to deliver
materials to Omal. Indeed, certain evidence in the record indicates
that the stopping of incoming trucks was attributable exclusively to
the Respondent. Drivers coming to Omal had to satisfy Teamsters'
chief steward, Ingram; it was not until Ingram gave his approval
that McDaniel, McGraw's assistant chief storekeeper, would start
unloading a vehicle. McGraw warehouseman Bernhart, reported
that on 5 to 10 different occasions Teamsters stewards, Ingram and
Sullivan, gave him direct instructions on whether to unload trucks.
On July 24 and October 15, 1957, when trucks were not unloaded
because the drivers were not Teamsters members, steward Sullivan
received his instructions to stop delivery from Chief Steward Ingram,
not from a McGraw official. McGraw's superintendent of light and
heavy equipment, Foote, Ingram's work supervisor, never gave Ingram
instructions about checking truckdrivers, and Maddux did not even
know from whom Ingram and the other Teamsters stewards obtained
-that authority.
Also supporting the likelihood that the Respondent, alone, was
responsible for the work stoppages at Omal is this evidence. After a
McJunkin delivery was refused at Omal on July 5, McJunkin's branch
1838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manager, Partridge, contacted a McGraw official who referred Par-
tridge to the Teamsters. The Teamsters financial secretary, Bauman,
advised Partridge that McJuukin drivers would not be permitted to
make deliveries unless they carried Teamsters membership cards.
When Ingram prevented a WVetz driver, Hershey, from delivering
material at Omal on July -99, Hershey asked for Ingram's authority
and Ingram answered, "if you Avant to know about this job, you can
contact International Teamsters' headquarters in Washington, D. C."
In September a truck delivering material to Olin Revere Metals Cor-
poration, an Omal project owner, was stopped by the Respondent
and was not unloaded even though McGraw had no control over the
delivery.
Only the Respondent's stewards checked drivers making deliveries
to Omal from the time the project started until November 1, 1957,
when the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia issued an order temporarily enjoining the Respondent
from inducing employees to refuse to unload trucks not driven by
Teamsters members. However, since November 1, McGraw's super-
visors have been checking the credentials of drivers making deliveries
to Omal, not the Teamsters stewards, although the stewards have
apparently continued to work as McGraw employees. Such evidence
again indicates that the Teamsters stewards were acting as the
Respondent 's representatives, and not as employees of McGraw, when
they stopped the incoming trucks at Omal.
Finally, the happenings at Cresap have a bearing on the responsibil-
ity for the conduct at Omal. At both locations , which are geograph-
ically near each other , the Respondent 's stewards gave the direct
orders against accepting deliveries . The reason assigned-nonmem-
bership in the Teamsters-was the same at both job sites. In the case
of the events at Cresap there is no contention that the stewards were
carrying out orders from employers. It seems reasonable to infer
that the Teamsters agents at Omal, who are responsible for enforcing
union policy, were also carrying out Teamsters and not McGraw
directives.
On the basis of all the evidence, we find that there is reasonable
cause to believe that the Respondent induced or encouraged employees
working at the Cresap and Omal projects to engage in strikes or con-
certed refusals to perform services with an object of forcing Wetz
and McJunkin to assign driving work to members of the Respondent
rather than to Wetz and McJunkin employees, thereby violating Sec-
tion 8 ( b) (4) (D) of the Act. We find , accordingly , that the dispute
involved in this proceeding is properly before the Board for determi-
nation under Section 10 ( k) of the Act.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS 1839
Merits of the Dispute
When the Respondent required that its members be assigned the
work of driving trucks that make deliveries to the Cresap and Omal
projects, employees of Wetz and McJunkin were performing the work.
The dispute, therefore, was one over assignment of work by employers
to their own employees rather than to the members of the Teamsters.
Employers are free to make such assignments free of strike pressure
by a labor organization unless such employers are failing to conform
to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining
representative for employees performing such work.' There is no
evidence that the assignment of work by Wetz and McJunkin was in
contravention of any Board order or certification.
The Board finds, accordingly, that the Respondent was not and is
not lawfully entitled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to
force or require Wetz or McJunkin to assign the work of driving
trucks and delivering materials to the Cresap, West Virginia, and
Omal, Ohio, projects to the Respondent's members rather than to the
employees assigned by Wetz and McJunkin to perform such work.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act.
1. General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
Local Union No. 697, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and its agents are not
and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require R. 0. Wetz,
d/b/a R. 0. Wetz Transportation, or McJunkin Corporation to assign
the work in dispute to members of said labor organization, rather
than to those companies' own employees.
2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute, the Respondent shall notify the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board,
in writing, whether or not it accepts this determination of the dispute
and whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring either
R. 0. Wetz, d/b/a R. 0. Wetz Transportation, or McJunkin Cox'po-
ration to assign the work in dispute to members of the Respondent
rather than to employees of those companies by means proscribed by
Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act.
slnternational Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. Local No 16, CIO (Juneau
Spruce Corporation), 82 NLRB 650