General Teamsters Local 959

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 743 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959 743
General Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Frontier Transporta-
tion Company. Case 19-CB-3427
March 27, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On December 27, 1979, Administrative Law
Judge Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, General Team-
sters Local 959, State of Alaska, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
The Board finds no basis in the record for the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that a pickup truck involved in one of the incidents be-
longed to Union Business Agent Cavett. However, our ultimate disposi-
tion of this case is not affected by this finding.
248 NLRB No. 108
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Fairbanks, Alaska, on August 7, 1979.
The charge was filed on March 5, 1979, by Frontier
Transportation Company, herein called the Company.
The complaint and amended complaint, which issued
respectively on April 18 and July 20, 1979, allege that
General Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called the Union, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening to physically
injure and to blackball from further employment employ-
ees of the Company who worked during a strike called
by the Union.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and the Union.
Upon the entire record' of the case, and from my ob-
servation of the witnessess and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, an Alaska corporation with offices and
places of business in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska, is
engaged in the business of trucking and freight transpor-
tation. It transports commodities in interstate commerce
and during the year immediately preceding issuance of
complaint it derived in excess of $50,000 from such oper-
ations or performed services valued in excess of $50,000
in the course and conduct thereof. The amended com-
plaint alleges, the amended answer admits, and I find
that the Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Incident at Prudhoe Bay
1. Factual findings
The Union is engaged in an economic dispute with the
Company. A collective-bargaining contract between the
I The unopposed motion of the General Counsel to correct the tran-
script of the record is hereby granted.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company with the Union expired in June 1978. The par-
ties continued to follow the terms of that contract until
December 1978. The Union struck and began picketing
the Company's premises in Fairbanks, Alaska, on or
about February 8, 1979.2
Some of the Company's employees, including Gerald
L. Martin, refused to honor the picket line and continued
to work. In mid-February 1979, Martin, who was a line
driver for the Company at that time, was part of a three-
truck convoy making a delivery for the Company at
Halliberton Service Company in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska.
Martin was a member of the Union. While the trucks
were being unloaded, two union pickets circled the
trucks with their picket signs. One of the pickets was
Union Business Representative Timothy A. Sanderson. 3
The other was Donald Gross.
While Martin was going to the back of his truck to
check the unloading procedure, Business Representative
Sanderson spoke to him. Sanderson said: "You god damn
scab, you'll never work in the state of Alaska as a team-
ster again." Martin replied: "I suppose I'll have an invita-
tion to come before the E Board."4 Sanderson said:
"You bet you will." A short time later Martin went into
the truck of one of the other drivers, Jimmy Welsh.
While he was sitting there Sanderson walked by the
truck and told Martin: "There'll be a lot of people
watching you, boy." 5
2. Conclusions
With exceptions not applicable here, Section 7 of the
Act gives employees the right to engage in concerted ac-
tivities such as striking and picketing and the right to re-
frain from such activities. Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7.
Martin was engaged in an activity protected by the
Act when he refused to join the strike and refused to
honor the Union's picket line. Sanderson, an admitted
union agent, called Martin a scab and told him that he
(Martin) would never work in the State of Alaska as a
teamster again. Sanderson also told Martin that there
would be a lot of people watching him. Sanderson's re-
marks amounted to a threat to blackball Martin from em-
2 The Union admits in its amended answer that the picketing was spon-
sored, sanctioned, and supported by it.
I The answer admits and I find that Sanderson is an agent of the
Union.
4 The "E" or executive board is the executive board of the Union. On
June 5, 1979, the Union's advisory board expelled Martin from the Union
and fined him $5,000. Martin appealed to the Union's executive board
and appeared before that board on August 3, 1979. As of te date of the
trial he had not been notified of the results of that appeal.
These findings are based on the testimony of Martin. Sanderson testi-
fied that he told Martin that he couldn't believe Martin was doing it; that
he would personally see to it that Martin was invited to see the "E"
board; and that he hoped they would kick Martin out of the Union. San-
derson denied that he made the remarks attributed to him by Martin
Gross testified that he heard Sanderson say that Sandersor, couldn't be-
lieve Martin was doing this and he heard Martin talk abcut getting an
invitation to go to the "E" board. Gross further averred that he only
overheard part of the conversation before he walked away. Martin was a
convincing witness and I believe him. Where the testimony of Sanderson
and Gross conflicts with that of Martin, I credit Martin and do not credit
Sanderson and Gross.
ployment as a teamster in Alaska. That went far beyond
any right the Union may have had to enforce union dis-
cipline on its members. Sanderson's threat restrained and
coerced Martin in the exercise of Martin's rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act and therefore violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Em-
ployees & Bartenders' International Union, Local No. 483
(Highlands Inn, Inc.), 227 NLRB 666 (1976).
B. The Daughenbaugh Truck Yard Incident
1. Factual findings
Roger Robertson is another line driver for the Compa-
ny who worked during the strike. On February 25, 1979,
Robertson drove his truck to Ivan Daughenbaugh's
Truck Stop in Fairbanks, Alaska. His 5-year-old son was
in the cab with him and his wife was in a pickup truck
behind him. As he drove into the truckstop he was fol-
lowed by a pickup truck with union member Harvey Pe-
terson and Union Business Representative Mel Cavett in
it. Robertson got out of his truck and went to Cavett's
truck. Peterson rolled down the window and Robertson
asked if he could help them. Peterson and Cavett were
both sitting in the cab of the truck and both could hear
what Robertson was saying. Peterson asked Robertson
what he was doing driving a company truck and Robert-
son replied that he was making a living. Peterson said
that there were a lot of teamsters out of work because of
Robertson. Robertson smelled liquor on Peterson's
breath. Peterson said: "With a few broken bones, you
wouldn't be able to drive that truck." Peterson also
spoke about how expensive a shot through the radiator
of the truck would be. At that point Robertson told Pe-
terson that he could take his goddamn union and shove it
up his ass. Peterson, who looked angry, got out of the
pickup and approached Robertson. Shortly thereafter
Cavett also got out of the truck and approached Robert-
son. Robertson began to back up away from them. Peter-
son turned to Cavett and said: "ain't this the son-of-bitch
that lives in Rainbow Valley Trailer court in the pink
and white trailer. Got a boy going to Barnett School."
Cavett nodded his head. About that time Rich Daughen-
baugh, the son of the owner of the truckstop, came out
of the garage and approached the three men. Peterson
said to Daughenbaugh: "What are you doing letting this
scab in this shop?" Daughenbaugh replied that he was
just trying to make a buck. Peterson turned to Robertson
and told him that he better park that goddamn truck.
Robertson walked into the shop with Daughenbaugh and
Cavett and Peterson left. 7
6 The answer admits and I find that Cavett is an agent of the Union.
7 These findings are based on the testimony of Robertson. Daughen-
baugh corroborated much of Robertson's testimony. Daughenbaugh testi-
fied that he overheard Peterson telling Robertson that they would see to
it that Robertson was replacing radiators in his truck. Daughenbaugh also
testified that he overheard part of a conversation in which it was men-
tioned that Robertson's home could be seen from the highway. He
averred that when he first saw Cavett, Cavett was coming around the
end of the pickup and that Cavett had already left the truck. Cavett testi-
fied in substance that he was in Peterson's truck at the Daughenbaugh
truck yard when the incident happened but that he did not get out of the
truck, that Peterson did not talk to anyone while they were both sitting
Continued
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959 745
2. Conclusions
Because Robertson was working during the strike, Pe-
terson threatened to break his bones so that he couldn't
drive a truck and threatened to shoot at his truck. In the
context of those threats Peterson impliedly threatened to
harm Robertson's family by saying that he knew where
Robertson lived and where his son went to school.
Cavett was with Peterson throughout the incident. He
overheard everything that Peterson said and he nodded
his head when Peterson spoke about knowing where
Robertson lived and knowing that he had a son at a par-
ticular school. Cavett's conduct constituted tacit approv-
al of Peterson's threats. As the Board held in Local 918,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Tale-Lord Manufactur-
ing Company, Inc.), 206 NLRB 382, 386 (1973):
It is well settled that where picket line misconduct
takes place in the presence of a union agent, and the
agent does nothing to disavow such misconduct or
discipline the offenders, the union assumes responsi-
bility for such misconduct.' 4
1 Davis Wholesale Co., Inc., 1165 NLRB 264, fn. 11; Teamsters
Local #115. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent (F. J Lavino &
Company), 157 NLRB 1637.
I find that the Union was responsible for the threats to
Robertson described above and that those threats violat-
ed Section 8(bX)(l)(A) of the Act.
C. The Sunset Strip Incident
1. Factual findings
Fred McMillan was the Union's job steward at the
Company's Fairbanks yard at the time that the strike
began. The Union never revoked his status as steward or
designated another steward. He honored the picket line
when the strike began.
As shop steward he was responsible for seeing to it
that the terms of the contract were honored and he
spoke on behalf of the Union when employees had prob-
lems with management. The expired collective-bargain-
ing agreement provided that the Union was to have a
shop steward at the Fairbanks facility.
One evening shortly after the strike began on Febru-
ary 8, 1979, McMillan was sitting at a bar in the Sunset
Strip Restaurant in Fairbanks, Alaska, when he was
joined by Company Yard Foreman Kenneth Payne,
Company Line Driver Joe Harris, and Shop Foreman
Leroy Dennis. 8 Harris, Dennis, and Payne had crossed
in the truck. and that all he knew was that Peterson got out of the truck
and spoke to someone I credit Robertson and I do not credit Cavett
' As a line driver, Harris was an employee within the meaning of the
Act. Payne testified that as a yard foreman he coordinates the loads
coming in and out of the yard but that he does not hire, fire, or discipline
employees or recommend such action. He spends a substantial amount of
his time as a yardman. I find that he is an employee within the meaning
of the Act. There was no testimony concerning the duties of Shop Fore-
man Leroy Dennis. However, in the circumstances of this case the status
as an employee or supervisor of McMillan and Dennis is not significant.
A threat to a supervisor in the presence of an employee can be a viola-
the picket line in order to work while McMillan had
honored the picket line. In the conversation that fol-
lowed, McMillan told Payne and Harris that they better
be careful because they had crossed the picket line at an-
other employer's premises (KAPS) the previous summer
and they were then crossing the Company's picket line.
McMillan told them that the Union had their number,
and they were going to get hurt by teamsters from the
outside. He said that the people who had gone out on
strike were not going to hurt them but that outsiders
would and that he was telling them as a friend. He also
told Payne that Payne would not be employed with the
Company much longer.9
2. Conclusions
McMillan was a union shop steward at the time of this
incident. He had been appointed shop steward by the
Union and that appointment had not been revoked.
McMillan warned Payne and Harris that because they
crossed picket lines the Union had their number and they
were going to get hurt by outside teamsters. Whether or
not he thought he was giving them friendly advice,
McMillan's statement was a warning that coerced em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to continue work-
ing.
As found above, Union Business Representatives San-
derson and Cavett were responsible for various threats to
employees. Both were admitted agents of the Union.
Shop steward McMillian's warning to Payne and Harris
was wholly consistent with the conduct of those two
business agents. McMillan was in substance continuing a
pattern of conduct established by those union business
representatives. He was acting within the scope of his
general authority as shop steward and was therefore the
Union's agent.'0 In addition, when the Union appointed
McMillan as shop steward, it held him out to be the em-
ployees' proper link of communication between it and
the employees. The Union's action led the employees to
reasonably believe that the shop steward had authority
lion of Sec. 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Teamsters Local 918 (Tale-Lord Manu-
facturing Company), supra. Here McMillan's remarks were in the presence
of employee Harris
9 These findings are based on the testimony of Payne. McMillan testi-
fied that he told Dennis, Harris, and Payne that if they crossed the picket
line they would be on the bad list with the Union and that they would
end up before the executive board. He averred that he told them that
they would not have a problem with the pickets on his shift, but if they
crossed the picket line he would have to turn them in and they would be
brought before the executive board. He denied that he told them they
would be hurt by outside teamsters or that they would no longer work at
the Company. I credit Payne and do not credit McMillan.
0 As the Board held in International Longshoremans and Warehouse-
men-s Union, CIO (Sunset Line and Twine Company). 79 NLRB 1487
A principal may be responsible for the act of his agent within the
scope of the agent's general authority or the "scope of his employ-
ment" if the agent is a servant, even though the principal has not
specifically authorized or indeed may have specifically forbidden the
act in question It is enough if the principal actually empowered the
agent to represent him in the general area within which the agent
acted
See also International Brotherhood of Teamsters, General Drivers. Chauf-
feurs and Helpers Local Union No. 886 (Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.), 229
NLRB 832 (1977); Local 761. International Union of Electrical. Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (General Electric Company), 126 NLRB 123,
125. enfd 287 F.2d 565 (6th Cir 1961)
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to speak for the Union. As the Union cloaked McMillan
with the apparent authority to act on its behalf, the
Union is responsible for McMillan's warning to the em-
ployees. I find that the Union, through McMillan, vio-
lated Section 8(b)(l)(A) by warning employees Payne
and Harris that the Union had their number and that
they would be hurt by outside teamsters because they
crossed picket lines.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the business oper-
ations of the Company described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening, and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(b)(l)(A) of
the Act, I recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Union restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the A.ct by:
(a) Threatening to blackball Gerald Martin. from em-
ployment in Alaska because Martin refused to strike or
honor the Union's picket line.
(b) Threatening Roger Robertson and his family with
physical injury and threatening to shoot at his truck be-
cause Robertson refused to strike or honor the Union's
picket line.
(c) Warning Kenneth Payne and Joe Harris that the
Union had their number and that they would be hurt by
outside teamsters because they crossed a picket line.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER l 2
The Respondent, General Teamsters Local 959, State
of Alaska, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
' Teamsters Local 866 (Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.). supra, at 833;
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No.
2067, AFL-CIO, et al. (Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.),
166 NLRB 532, 539-540 (1967).
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, its officers, agents, and respresentatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to blackball any emloyee of Frontier
Transportation Company from employment in Alaska be-
cause that employee refuses to strike or honor that
Union's picket line.
(b) Threatening any employee of Frontier Transporta-
tion Company or the family of such an employee with
physical injury because that employee refuses to strike or
honor said Union's picket line.
(c) Threatening to shoot at the truck of any employee
of Frontier Transportation Company because that em-
ployee refuses to strike or honor said Union's picket line.
(d) Warning any employee of Frontier Transportation
Company that said Union had his number or that he will
be hurt by outside teamsters because he crossed a picket
line.
(e) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at it business office and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 3 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 19, after being duly signed by it authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt 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 by it to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Furnish said Regional Director with signed copies
of the aforesaid notice for posting by Frontier Transpor-
tation Company, if that company is willing to post them.
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
is In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten to blackball any employ-
ee of Frontier Transportation Company from em-
ployment in Alaska because that employee refuses
to strike or honor our picket line.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employee of Frontier
Transportation Company or the family of such an
--- -- -
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959 747
employee with physical injury because that employ-
ee refuses to strike or honor our picket line.
WE WILL NOT threaten to shoot at the truck of
any employees of Frontier Transportation Company
because that employee refuses to strike or honor
our picket line.
WE WILL NOT warn any employee of Frontier
Transportation Company that we have his number
or that he will be hurt by outside teamsters because
he crossed a picket line.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, STATE
OF ALASKA, AFFILIATED WITH THE IN-
TERNATIONAL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA.