Hall Freight Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 397 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HALL FREIGHT LINES, INC. and CHICAGO TRUCK
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS UNION OF CHICAGO AND
VICINITY, LOCAL 705 and FRANK J. BELSKY, JOSEPH INGO,'EDWARD
LAURISCH, GEORGE BERNDT, CHARLES J. CIOLINO, SAM CIOLINO,
CARIO COVELLI AND JOSEPH LYDON and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, LoCAL 705, A. F. L., PARTY TO THE CONTRACT
Case No. 13-C-2378.-Decided January 14, 1946
Mr. Gustaf B. Erickson, for the Board.
Messrs. Hyman Abrams and John Newberry, of Chicago, Ill., for
the respondent.
Messrs. Raymond F. Hayes and J. A. Quigley, of Chicago, Ill., for
the C. T. D.
Messrs. Daniel D. Carmell and Leo Segall, of Chicago, Ill., for the
I. B. T. and Local 710.
Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on May 18, 1944, by Chicago Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union of Chicago and Vicinity,
Local 705, herein called the C. T. D., the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois), issued its complaint, dated
June 14, 1944, against Hall Freight Lines, Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, with-
in the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the
Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing
thereon , were duly served upon the respondent, the C. T. D., Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local 705, A. F. L., herein called the I. B. T., and
65 N. L . R. B., No. 72.
397
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Meat Drivers and Helpers,
Highway Drivers, Dockmen and Helpers, Local 710, A. F. L., herein
called Local 710.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that on or about March 28, 1944, the respondent: (1)
entered into, and thereafter enforced, a collective bargaining contract
with the I. B. T., requiring membership in the 1. B. T. as a condition
of employment of the respondent's city drip ers, although the I. B. T.
was not then the representative of said drivers; (2) terminated the
employment of city drivers Frank J. Belsky, Joseph Ingo, Edward
Laurisch, George Berndt,' Charles J. Cioluio, Sam Ciolino, Carlo
Covelli, and Joseph Lydon, because of their membership in and
activities on behalf of the C. T. D., and because they had refused to
join the I. B. T.; and (3) refused to bargain collectively with the
C. T. D. as the representatives of the respondent's city drivers,
although the C. T. D. was the representative of said drivers in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit.
On July 10, 1944, the respondent filed its answer, admitting certain
allegations of the complaint, but denying that it had terminated the
employment of the employees named in the complaint and that it had
engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the
I. B. T. also denied the alleged unfair labor practices insofar as it was
involved therein.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon the parties, a hearing was held
in Chicago, Illinois, on July 13, 14, and 15, 1944, before Charles W.
Schneider, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The Board, the respondent, the C. T. D., the I. B. T., and
Local 710 were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
hearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
On the first day of the hearing, over objection by the respondent,
the I. B. T., and Local 710, a second amended charge, dated July 13,
1944, was filed. This charge, reciting the same allegations as the
previous charge, was signed by a representative of the C. T. D., and
also by the persons alleged in the complaint to have been discrimina-
torily discharged. At the same time, over similar objection, the com-
plaint was amended to include the latter individuals as parties to the
action.
During the course of the hearing, the respondent, the I. B. T., and
Local 710 moved to dismiss the proceeding for failure of proof and
also upon the ground that the Board was deprived of jurisdiction by
I Incorrectly referred to in the complaint as George Bennett.
HALL FREIGHT LINES, INC. 399
reason of the limitation on the use of the Board's funds contained in
the National Labor Relations Board Appropriation Act, 1945.2 The
Trial Examiner reserved his ruling upon these motions, which lie
thereafter denied in his Intermediate Report. During the hearing,
the Trial Examiner also denied a motion of the I. B. T. to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the C. T. D. was not a labor organi-
zation.3 At the close of the hearing, the pleadings were amended,
without objection, to conform to the proof with respect to names,
dates, and other formal matters. During the course of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and on objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner, and finds that no prejudicial error was commit-
ted. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were served upon the respondent, the C. T. D., the
I. B. T., and Local 710. In the Iitermediate Report, the Trial Ex-
aminer found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) of the Act, and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. He also found that the respondent had not engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
2 58 Stat. 567 , approved June 28, 1944 . The pertinent language of the statute is as
follows :
No part of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used in any way in connection
with a complaint case arising over an agreement , or a renewal thereof, between
management and labor which has been in existence for three months or longer without
complaint being filed by an employee or employees of such plant , Provided, That,
hereafter , notice of such agreement , or renewal thereof, shall have been posted in the
plant affected for said period of three months , said notice containing information as
to the location at an accessible place of such agreement where said agreement shall
be open for inspection by any interested person.
The respondent and the I. B . T. contend that under this provision and a similar provision
in the 1946 Appropriation Act, the Board is barred from proceeding with the case because
more than 3 months elapsed between the date of the execution of an agreement , discussed
below, between the respondent and the I. B . T and the date of the filing of a charge signed
by employees of the respondent . We find no merit in this contention . The provision
quoted above specifically requires the posting of a notice in order for the limitation on the
use of the Board 's funds to become operative. Admittedly, no notice of the contract or its
location was posted in this case . Furthermore, although the record indicates that copies
of the I. B. T.' s standard form of contract were mailed by the I. B T . to all the drivers on
March 28, 1944 , the date on which the contract was executed , it does not appear that these
copies bore any indication of the fact that such a contract had actually been executed by
the respondent and the I. B. T. Under these circumstances , even assuming that actual
notice of the contract would have constituted compliance with the posting requirement,
we are of the opinion that the mailing of the copies of the standard form did not constitute
such notice.
3 The I . B. T. contends that the C. T D is not a labor organization because it has
failed to comply with the Illinois law governing such organizations . We agree with the
Trial Examiner that because the record shows that the C. T. D., since 1908 , has existed
for the purpose of dealing with, and has dealt with, employers on behalf of employees
concerning terms and conditions of employment , it is a labor organization , within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
679100-46-vol. 65-27
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such allegations were concerned 4 Thereafter, the respondent and
the I. B. T. filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs.
Upon request of the respondent and the I. B. T., and pursuant to
notice, the Board held a hearing for the purpose of oral argument at
Washington, D. C., on November 20, 1945. The respondent and the
I. B. T. were represented by counsel and participated in the argu-
ment; the C. T. D. did not appear.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs filed by the
respondent and the I. B. T. and finds that the exceptions, insofar as
they are consistent with the f ndings, conclusions, and order set forth
below, have merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Hall Freight Lines, Inc., is an Illinois corporation engaged as a
common carrier, under certificate of the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission, in the business of carrying and transporting freight, consist-
ing of substantial quantities of machine tools and, other equipment
for manufacturing plants, to and from various terminal points in
Illinois, Indiana, and neighboring States. The main office and ter-
minal of the respondent is located in Danville, Illinois. The re-
spondent maintains and operates additional terminals at Chicago,
Bloomington, Champaign, Peoria, Kankakee, Paris, and Pontiac,
Illinois, and at Terre Haute, Indiana. The respondent admits that
it is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 705, and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Meat Drivers and Helpers, Highway Drivers,
Dockmen and Helpers, Local 710, are labor organizations affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
Chicago Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union of Chicago
and Vicinity, Local 705, is an unaffiliated labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the respondent.
' In the Intermediate Report , the Trial Examiner also denied motions to dismiss its
complaint, which had been filed after the hearing by the respondent and the I. B. T.
HALL FREIGHT LINES, INC.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
A. Chronology of events
1. Preliminary findings
401
The events here concerned occurred at, and involve only, the re-
spondent's Chicago terminal. All the events took place during the
period between Monday morning, March 27, and Friday morning,
March 31, 1944.
At the time of these events, the personnel employed at the Chicago
terminal consisted of a manager, Edward Al. Beazley, a dispatcher
named Charney, several clerical employees, 10 "city" drivers, 2 to 5.
"over-the-road" drivers, and 8 to 10 clock or platform men. The city
drivers operate trucks in and around Chicago; the over-the-road men
drive between Chicago and the respondent's various terminals; the
dockmen handle and transfer freight at the Chicago terminal.
On March 27, 1944, the respondent was operating under the terms
of a collective bargaining contract with the C. T. D., covering the
Chicago city drivers.' At that time, and for a number of years prior
thereto, the respondent recognized and dealt with the C. T. D. as the
bargaining representative of such drivers and checked off their dues
for the C. T. D. At the time of the events herein, all the city drivers
were members of the C. T. D. and their dues in that organization
were paid up through the month of March by reason of the check-off.
However, the respondent's over-the-road drivers and dockmen at the
terminal were, and apparently for a number of years had been, repre-
sented by Local 710 by virtue of a contract between the respondent
and Local 710.
Sam Ciolino, a city driver employed by the respondent, was the last
C. T. D. steward at the terminal.e Ciollno was friendly with Joseph
Desmyter, an official of the I. B. T. Before March 27, 1944, Desmyter,
on a number of occasions, sought, apparently unsuccessfully, to induce
Ciolino to persuade the respondent's city drivers to affiliate with
the I. B. T. -
2. Monday, March 27
The city drivers begin work at 8: 00 a. in. On Monday morning,
March 27, 1944, at about 7 : 30 a. in., Desmyter , accompanied by Joint
Russo, Willie O'Brien, Johnny Hartnett , and Frank Kratkey, officials
'The record fails to show that this contract had ever been formally executed. An
unsigned copy, introduced in evidence, recited that it was effective January 1, 1 943, to
December 31, 1944, and provided for automatic renewal unless written notice was given by
either party 60 days prior to January 1 of any year theie,ifter
6 Ciolino held this office until December 31, 1943, at which time the C. T. D abolished
the office of steward in "barns " employing less than 15 drivers
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ' RELATIONS BOARD
or representatives of the I. B. T., and by Thomas Keegan, O'Connor,
and Tony Serrone,7 officials of Local 710, went to the terminal and told
Manager Beazley that they wished to talk to the city drivers. With
Beazley's permission, the 9 city drivers who were at work that day 8
were summoned to the dispatcher's office, where the I. B. T. representa-
tives attempted to persuade them to affiliate with the I. B. T. Beazley
remained in his office. The drivers declined to change their afiiilia-
tion, left the room, and walked out to the dock or loading platform.
Keegan thereupon ordered the dockmen to cease their work, which
they did. The I. B. T. officials then approached the drivers individ-
ually and renewed their efforts to induce the men to change their
affiliation. After this had gone on for about an hour, several C. T. D.
officials, who had been called by Joe Lydon, one of the drivers, arrived
at the terminal. Someone summoned the police. By the time the
police arrived, about 9 or 10 o'clock, the crowd was milling around and
the situation was one of general confusion. There was no violence,
however, nor threats of any. After a time, the drivers went into the
drivers' room to discuss what to do. Later, Beazley went in and asked
them who was going to pay them for standing around. The drivers
replied that they wanted to work and that Beazley was the only one
who could send them out. Beazley asked what good it would do to
send the trucks out empty, and told them to settle it one way or
another so that they could get back to work. The drivers asked to be
let alone for a while. They then discussed the problem among them-
selves, but were unable to reach a decision. A vote was taken. This
time, about four of the drivers voted to affiliate with the I. B. T. After
further fruitless discussion, they reported to the union officials out-
side that they were unable to agree. Someone suggested that the
representatives of the I. B. T. and the C. T. D. talk to the men and poll
them. This was done. Representatives of both unions went into the
room; each side explained the advantages of its organization; and
Russo then polled the men individually. This time, a majority voted
for the I. B. T. The rest of the drivers, with the exception of Lydon,
then agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. The C. T. D.
representatives left. Desmyter distributed I. B. T. dues books in
which stamps were inserted showing the payment of dues for April .9
Russo told Lydon, who was not given a book, that lie would be given
30 to 60 days in which to join the I. B. T. Sam Ciolino was designated
steward. It was then about 11: 30 a. m.
Russo and Desmyter then took Ciolino into Beazley's office, and
told Beazley that the drivers, with the exception of Lydon, had voted
Sometimes spelled Cirone in the transcript.
Tony Scarano and the eight men alleged in the complaint to have been discriminatorily
discharged . The tenth city driver, Constantine Distasio , was absent that day.
O This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Russo, which we credit.
HALL FREIGHT LINES, INC. 403
to affiliate with the I. B. T. Beazley asked Ciolino if that was so.
Ciolino replied that it was. Russo then asked Beazley to give him
$45 for 1 month's dues for the nine men. Beazley objected to checking
off dues for Distasio, who was absent. Ciolino assured him that Dis-
tasio would agree. Beazley thereupon gave Russo the $45.10 During
the interview, Russo left with Beazley three copies of the I. B. T.'s
standard form of contract, signed by officials of the I. B. T.11 Work
was then resumed.
That evening, when Lydon drove his truck into the terminal after
the day's work, six or seven of the drivers were waiting for him .12
They told Lydon that they did not want the I. B. T. books and that
they had taken them only because acceptance was "the only way out."
They then delegated Lydon to have the C. T. D. officials come to the
terminal to get the I. B. T. books and also to take their C. T. D. books
for safekeeping.
3. Tuesday, March 28
On the next morning, Tuesday, the men asked Lydon where the
C. T. D. officials were. Lydon said that he had not been able to com-
municate with them the previous evening. On this morning, the
men learned that I. B. T. dues of $5 were to be deducted from their
pay checks. This aroused further dissatisfaction. That evening, the
men again waited for Lydon to come in and instructed him to com-
municate with the C. T. D. that night. Lydon did so.
On the same day, according to the testimony of Beazley and Russo,
Beazley gave Russo a signed copy of the contract.13 The I. B. T. sent
copies of the contract, together with hospitalization cards and other
I. B. T. material, to all the drivers 14
4. Wednesday, March 29
On Wednesday morning, Frank Pirkins, a vice president of the
C. T. D., went to the terminal. In the presence of the dockmen, all
"Although Ciolino denied having said anything during this interview, we credit the
testimony of Beazley and Russo with respect thereto, as did the Trial Examiner.
11 This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Beazley and Russo
12 As stated in the intermediate Report, the identity of the men present is not clear.
Lydon testified that all the drivers but Belsky were waiting for him and that all present
except Scarano went to a nearby tavern to discuss the natter Sam Ciohno testified that
all the drivers went to the tavern except Scarano and Laurisch. Belsky did not remember
whether lie had been at the tavern that night, but said that he might have been. Laurisch
was not questioned with respect to this incident. Scarano did not testify
is Beazley, when first called as a witness for the Board, testified that he did not sign the
contract until 2 days after the drivers had left the respondent's employ. Later, both when
recalled as a witness for the Board and when called as a witness for the respondent, lie
stated that he signed the contract and gave it to Russo on Tuesday. Russo testified to the
same effect.
14 This finding is based on the uncontradicted testimony of Russo None of the drivers
denied having received this material. As stated above, however, the record fails to show
that the copies of the contract ,Nhich were sent to them bore any indication of the fact
that the contract had actually been executed by the respondent
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the drivers gave Pirkins the I. B. T. books which had been given
them by Desmyter, and also gave him their C. T. D. books for safe-
keeping. Beazley later asked Sam Ciolino what was "up." Ciolino
replied that the men were dissatisfied and were going back to the
C. T. D., and that he did not know what was going to happen. Beazley
told Ciolino, in effect, that they could not be changing back and forth,
and that they should make up their minds.
Later that afternoon, when Lydon returned to the terminal, I. B. V
officials Serrone, O'Brien, and Mike Ronan were there. In the pres-
ence of Dispatcher Charney, one of the I. B. T. officials asked Lydon
why the men had surrendered their I. B. T. books. Lydon said that
they did not want to belong to the I. B. T. Serrone told Lydon that
"the mistake that John Russo made was leaving you hang around; if
I had been here I would have chased you off that dock in one second."
Just then drivers Scarano and Berndt also arrived at the terminal.
Serrone asked Berndt "what was the idea." Berndt referred him to
Lydon.` Serrone, turning to Lydon, told him that he would be back
the next morning, and further said, "When we take this barn you will
never work in an International barn . . . in [this] country or
Canada."
That night Sam Ciolino asked Desmyter whether the I. B. T. had
made a contract with the respondent for the drivers. Desmyter replied
"No, that is where I think we slipped up."
1 5. Thursday, March 30
On Thursday morning, when the drivers arrived at the terminal,
representatives of the I. B. T., Local 710, and the C. T. D. were there.
The dockmen, on instructions from Keegan, an, official of Local 710,
ceased work and refused to load the drivers' trucks. The drivers then
arranged with Beazley to take out the trucks, make their pick-ups, and
transfer their loads in the street. They worked all day Thursday
under this arrangement.
On Thursday evening, when some of the drivers returned to the
terminal, the I. B. T. and C. T. D. officials were waiting for them, and
the dockmen still were not working. Russo, of the I. B. T., told
Slahor, president of the C. T. D., that he would let the drivers decide
for themselves which organization they wanted. Russo, Lydon, and
Slahor then polled the men. Three of the drivers, Sam Ciolino, Ingo,
and Belsky, were not present at the meeting, but telephoned in while
it was in progress and gave their votes to Lydon. All but two of
those polled voted for the C. T. D. Russo then said that although the
HALL FREIGHT LINES, INC. 405
C. T. D. had won, nevertheless, "the dock would still be tied up." 15
Some of the drivers then told Beazley of the vote.
Later in the evening, Slahor and Ciolino discussed with Manager
Beazley how the drivers could work if the dockmen remained out.
Beazley'told them that they should continue to operate on Friday as
they had on Thursday.
6. Friday, March 31
When the drivers reported for work Friday morning, officials of
the'I. B. T. and the C. T. D. were at the terminal. Also present were
several police officers who had been summoned by Beazley. The
drivers' time cards had been removed by Beazley from the time clock
rack. Beazley called Russo, Pirkins, Police Lieutenant Barnes, and
Sam Ciolino to his office and told them that he had colisulted the re-
spondent's attorney and the home office. He then told them, in sub-
stance, that he did not care what union the drivers belonged to, and
that their jobs were there for them, but that they had voluntarily
selected the I. B. T., that the respondent had made a contract with the
I. B. T., and that the drivers would have to abide by the contract and
remain members of the I. B. T. Pirkins requested that he tell this to
the men. Beazley then repeated his statements to the drivers.16 After
Beazley had finished, Pirkins told the drivers that those who wished
to remain with the I. B. T. should stay, and that those who did not
should go with him to the C. T. D. hall. The eight drivers named in
the complaint left the terminal with Pirkins. Distasio and Scarano
remained.
B. Conclusions as to the alleged unfair labor practices
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the respondent, on or about,
March 28, 1944, entered into, and thereafter enforced, a collective
bargaining contract with the I. B. T., requiring membership in the
I. B. T. as a condition of employment of its city drivers, although the
15 The above findings are based on the mutually corroborative testimony of Lydon and
Covelli, supported, insofar as their votes were concerned, by the testimony of Sam Ciolino,
Ingo, and Belsky. Although Berndt, Laurisch, and Charles Ciolino were witnesses, they
did not testify regarding the poll ; but all three, according to the testimony of Lydon and
Covelli, were present and voted for the C T D Distasio and Scarano, the two drivers
who voted for the I B. T , were not called as witnesses Russo admitted that he was at
the dock on Thursday afternoon, but denied that he had a meeting with the drivers or
talked with Slahor. He further testified that, so far as lie knew, no vote was taken at any
time on Thursday. On the record as a whole, we do not credit his testimony as to this
incident.
IBAs stated in the Intermediate Report, the testimony as to what Beazley said on
Friday morning is conflicting. witnesses for the respondent and for the I B T. denied
that Beazley told the men that they would have to remain with the I B. T. On the
record as a whole, however, it seems clear, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
Beazley informed the men, in substance, that continued membership in the I. B. T. was a
condition of their further employment,
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. T. D. was then, and for approximately 20 years had been, the duly
designated collective bargaining representative of said drivers; that
on or about the same date the respondent terminated the employment
of eight named drivers because of their refusal to join the I. B. T.;
and that the respondent thereby violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of
the Act. The respondent admits the execution of the contract, but
denies that the C. T. D. was, at the time, the collective bargaining
representative of its drivers, on the ground that they had, on March
27, designated the I. B. T. as such representative. On the facts set
forth above, we agree with this contention. Thus, the record shows
that on Monday, March 27, Russo, the I. B. T. representative, con-
ducted a poll of the respondent's city drivers,17 with the acquiescence
of representatives of C. T. D.; that in the poll a majority of the drivers
voted for the I. B. T. and others agreed to abide by the majority's
decision; that the representatives of the C. T. D. then left; and that
the respondent was thereupon notified of the result of the poll. Al-
though six of the drivers testified that they voted for the I. B. T. be-
cause of the pressure to which they were subjected and in order to
return to work, the record establishes that there was no violence, threat
of violence, or fraud involved, and that the so-called "pressure" con-
sisted merely of the presence of, and solicitation by, several I. B. T.
organizers and the fact that the dockmen had stopped work, thus tying
up the dock. We do not regard this conduct as sufficient to vitiate the
consent of the employees involved."' We therefore find that the vote
for the I. B. T. on March 27 constituted a valid designation of that
organization as the collective bargaining representative of the drivers.
Further, we agree with the Trial Examiner, and we find, that in these
circumstances, the acquiescence of the C. T. D. officials to the polling
of the men and Beazley's acceptance of the I. B. T. as exclusive repre-
sentative constituted a rescission by mutual assent of the contract
between the respondent and the C. T. D.
The respondent further contends that it did not discharge any of
the drivers, but that they voluntarily left its employ. As found above,
however, Manager Beazley, on March 31, informed them that mem-
bership in the I. B. T. was a condition of their further employment.
The imposition of this condition would clearly be illegal under the
Act, and tantamount to a discriminatory discharge, unless the respond-
ent had, at the time, a valid contract with the I. B. T. under which it
was 0rivileged to require membership in that organization 19
11 As found below, these drivers constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
18 See N. L. R B v Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co , 112 F. (2d) 756 (C C A. 2) ; N. L. R. B.
v Karp Metal Products Co, 134 F (2d) 954 (C. C. A 2), cert den. 322 U. S 726
19 Section 8 (3) of the Act, which makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer by
discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization, specifically provides that "nothing in this Act . . .
shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not
established , maintained , or assisted by any action defined in this Act as an unfair labor
HALL FREIGHT LINES, INC. 407
The Trial Examiner's conclusion that the respondent was not priv-
ileged to impose the condition in question, and that its conduct was
therefore violative of the Act, is based on the following findings: (1)
that the contract between the respondent and the I. B. T. was signed
not on Tuesday, March 28, as claimed by the respondent and the I. B.
T., but sometime after the employees had conveyed to Beazley their
intention not to remain affiliated with the I. B. T., or that, if signed
on March 28, it was revoked by the subsequent conduct of the parties;
and (2) that in any event, although the contract provided for mem-
bership in the I. B. T. as a condition of hiring, it did not require main-
tenance of membership. For the reasons given below, we do not agree
with these findings.
Although the copy of the contract which was produced at the hear-
ing was undated, the complaint alleges, and the respondent in its an-
swer admits, that it was executed on or about March 28, 1944, and
both Beazley and Russo testified that it was signed by Beazley and
delivered by him to Russo on Tuesday, March 28. As set forth above,
however, Beazley had previously testified that he did not sign the con-
tract until 2 days after the drivers had left the respondent's employ.
The Trial Examiner's finding that it was not signed until after the
employees had conveyed to Beazley their intention not to remain affili-
ated with the I. B. T. is based on this statement by Beazley, on Cio-
lino's testimony that Desmyter, on Wednesday night, March 29, told
him that the I. B. T. had not secured a contract with the respondent,
on the fact that the drivers were not informed of any contract before
Friday, and on a finding that Beazley's actions on Wednesday and
Thursday were inconsistent with the hypothesis that the agreement
had then been signed. On the. record as a whole, we are not convinced
that Beazley's failure to inform the drivers of the contract or his other
conduct during the period in question was inconsistent with his having
signed the contract on Tuesday, nor do we consider the other factors
relied on by the Trial Examiner as sufficient, particularly in view of the
fact that the pleadings raised no issue as to the exact date of the exe-
cution of the contract, to sustain the burden of establishing that the
contract was not signed until after March 28.
The Trial Examiner further finds, however, that even assuming that
the contract was signed on March 28, it was thereafter revoked by the
conduct of the parties. Although this finding is supported to some
extent by the evidence that Russo, on Thursday, March 30, agreed to
let the drivers decide for themselves which organization they wanted,
we find in Beazley's conduct no evidence that the respondent intended
practice ) to require, as a condition of employment , membership therein, if such labor
organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9 (a), in the
appropriate collective bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made " See Matter
of Graham Ship Repair Co., 63 N. L. R. B. 542.
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or agreed to revoke the contract. On the contrary, as soon as Beazley
learned, late on Thursday, of the drivers' vote for the C. T. D., he
consulted with the respondent's home office and with its attorney, and
on the following morning clearly stated to the drivers and to the rep-
resentatives of the two unions the respondent's position that the con-
tract with the I. B. T. was in effect.
We also disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that, although
the contract provided for membership in the I. B. T. as a condition" of
hiring, it did not require maintenance of membership. The relevant
provision of the contract is as follows :
The employer agrees to hire only members of Local 705, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, A. F. L., carrying the regular working card
of the Union. Should necessity require it and extra chauffeurs
are needed, and the Union is unable to supply the demand, the
employer will have the authority to employ such help as he re-
quires .. .
While this language is susceptible of the strict construction given it
by the Trial Examiner, we note that the C. T. D. contract, which con-
tained an identical provision, was apparently regarded as a closed-shop-
contract. Furthernmore, the complaint alleges, and the respondent's
answer admits, that the contract provided for "membership in the
I. B. T. as a condition of employment," and the amended charge, upon
which the complaint was issued, alleges that the respondent signed "a
closed-shop contract with the I. B. T." On the record as a whole, we
are convinced, and we find, that the provision quoted above was in-
tended by the parties, and was understood by the employees, to require
membership in the I. B. T. as a condition both of hiring and of con-
tinued employment.
Since the I. B. T. was, on March 28, the duly designated representa-
tive of the respondent's city drivers, and since there is no evidence
that it was an organization established, maintained, or assisted by any
unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent, we find that the
contract of March 28, 1944, between the respondent and the I. B. T.,
providing for membership in the I. B. T. as a condition of employ-
ment of said drivers, was a valid contract. We therefore further find
that the respondent's conduct in executing and enforcing said contract
and in requiring membership in the I. B. T. as a condition of employ-
ment did not constitute discrimination, within the meaning of Section
8 (3) of the Act, or interference, restraint, and coercion, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1).
The complaint further alleges that on or about March 28, 1944, the
respondent refused to bargain collectively with the C. T. D. as the rep-
resentative of the respondent's city drivers, although the C. T. D. was
HALL FREIGHT LINES, INC. 409
the representative of said drivers in an appropriate collective bargain-
ing unit. The Trial Examiner has found, and we agree, that the
alleged unit, composed of all city drivers at its Chicago terminal, is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act, but that the evidence is insufficient to
establish that the C. T. D. was, at the time of the alleged refusal to
bargain, the representative of the employees in the unit. No excep-
tions have been filed to these findings. We therefore find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the respondent has not refused to bargain collec-
tively with the C. T. D. as the representative of its employees, within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
Since we have found that the respondent has not engaged in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, we shall dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS or LAw
1. The operations of the respondent, Hall Freight Lines, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2
(6) of the Act.
2. Chicago Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Union of Chicago
and Vicinity, Local 705, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 705, A. F.
L., are labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the Act, as alleged in the
complaint.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
orders that the complaint against the respondent, Hall Freight Lines,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois, be, and it hereby is dismissed.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.