Industrial Workers Local No. 657

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 796 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Allied Industrial Workers of America
(AFL-CIO) and its Local No. 657 and Truck Trans-
port, Inc. Case 33-CC-482
September 28, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELI.O
On July 27, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and
the Charging Party filed briefs 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, findings, 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent. International Allied
Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO) and its
Local No. 657, their officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the recom-
mended Order.
I Respondent and the Charging Party have requested oral argument. This
request is hereby denied because the record, the exceptions, and the briefs
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me at Peoria, Illinois, on May 10, 1979'
pursuant to charges filed on April 16 and a complaint is-
sued on April 27. The complaint alleges that Respondent
(International Allied Industrial Workers of America (AFL
CIO) and its Local No. 657) has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B) of the Act by picketing Truck Transport, Inc.
Respondent denies the commission of unfair labor prac-
tices.
I All dates herein are 1979.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses who testified, and due consideration of the
able post-trial brief.s, I make the following:
FINIIN(S AND) CO N(I.SIONS
1. 1111 BISINLSS OF IRU(K IRANSPIORI, IN(. AN) II.I.INOIS
(IMINI ( O()MPANY
Truck Transport, Inc., herein called TTI, is, and has been
at all times material herein, a Delaware corporation with an
office and places of business located, inter alia, in LaSalle,
Illinois. It is a common carrier engaged in the transporta-
tion of dry bulk products by tank truck throughout several
States, including the Stae of Illinois. TTI, during the past
twelve months, a period which is representative of all times
material herein, transported goods valued in excess of
$50,000 from inside Illinois to places directly outside the
State of Illinois. TTI, during the same representative pe-
riod, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 from sale
of its services. TTI is, and has been at all times material
herein, and employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and a person
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
Illinois Cement Company, herein called Illinois Cement,
is, and has been at all times material herein, a partnership
with an office and place of business located at LaSalle, Illi-
nois. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement.
Illinois Cement, during the past 12 months, a period which
is representative of all times material herein, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped
from its LaSalle, Illinois plant, goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to States other than the State
of Illinois. Illinois Cement is, and has been at all times
material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and a person
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
II. IAB()R R(ANI/.ATIONS
International Allied Industrial Workers of America
(AFL-CIO) and its Local No. 657 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 722, is,
and has been at all times material herein, a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. ITHE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTI(CES
A. Stipulated Facts
General Counsel, the Charging Party. and Local No. 657
stipulated to the following facts. The International Union
joined in Local 657's answer to the complaint, which, in
essence, set forth the same facts and did not oppose the
stipulation.
All production, laboratory, maintenance and warehouse-
men employees of Illinois Cement are represented by Re-
spondent for purposes of collective bargaining.
At TTI's LaSalle, Illinois facility, TTI employs truck
2The International Union filed no brief
245 NLRB No. 104
796
INDUISTRIAL WORKERS LOCAL. NO. 657
drivers, mechanics, office clerical personnel, dispatchers,
and other supervisors. The office clerical and supervisory
personnel are not represented by any labor organization.
The truck drivers and mechanics employed by TTI at its
LaSalle facility are represented by Teamsters Local 722.
Those employees are employed pursuant to a collective bar-
gaining agreement known as the Master Cement and All
Dry Bulk Commodities Agreement, which is a multiem-
ployer, multiunion collective bargaining agreement cover-
ing at least 7 carriers and more than 20 local Teamster
unions.
TTI is a common carrier hauling various bulk products.
including cement, limestone, plastic pellets, trisodium phos-
phate, anti-freeze, and other products using trucks from its
LaSalle facility. Some of the customers for which TTI hauls
are Illinois Cement, B.F. Goodrich, American Herscht,
Calcium Carbonate Company, Mississippi Lime Company,
Borg-Warner, Northern Petrochemical, Dow Chemical
Company, and Amoco Oil Company.
TTI's terminal facility is located on Route 6, approxi-
mately one quarter mile east of the city limits of the City of
LaSalle, Illinois. The terminal facility comprises about five
acres of ground, on which there is an office facility and a
garage, as well as facilities for parking and fueling trucks
operated by TTI. TTI does not share this facility with any
other individual or company. The only persons who use the
TTI facility are employees of TTI, their suppliers, and de-
liverers.
TTI has served Illinois Cement as a common carrier in
the hauling of cement manufactured by Illinois Cement
since about 1974. The Illinois Cement facility is located
next door, but is not connected by means of common access
or otherwise, to the TTI property. The TTI property is visi-
bly geographically distinct from the property of Illinois Ce-
ment. TTI's entrance bears two signs. The first sign says
"Private Road. Do Not Enter." The other sign, which was
erected approximately two years ago, states, "This entrance
is for the exclusive use of Truck Transport, Inc., its employ-
ees, suppliers and deliveries. Any use by unauthorized per-
sons is prohibited. This policy is strictly enforced." At no
time relevant hereto has the TTI entrance been used by any
employees, suppliers, or agents of Illinois Cement. The en-
trance to the Illinois Cement also is located on Route 6,
about one quarter of a mile from the entrance to the TTI
facility.
On February 14, Respondent lawfully began a strike
against Illinois Cement and lawfully established a primary
picket line at the Illinois Cement entrance on Route 6.
Illinois Cement regularly and in the course of its normal
operations had and continues to have its cement picked up
by TTI trucks. Prior to the commencement of the strike by
Respondent at Illinois Cement, the method employed by
TTI in the transportation of cement manufactured by Illi-
nois Cement was to have the TTI drivers report to the TTI
terminal, pick up their trucks, drive those trucks into the
Illinois Cement facility where they were loaded by Illinois
Cement employees, and leave the Illinois Cement facility to
deliver the cement to destinations as prescribed to them by
TTI supervision.
After the commencement of the strike, TTI began using
and continues to use its supervisory employees to drive the
trucks from the TTI terminal into the Illinois Cement plant
where the trucks are loaded by Illinois Cement employees
who are either supervisors or non-striking employees. TTI
supervisors then drive the trucks back to the TTI terminal
where they are turned over to the TTI drivers for delivery
to destinations prescribed by TTI supervision.
This change in method of operation was made by TTI
management because the TTI drivers who are represented
by Teamsters Local 722 were, as permitted by their collec-
tive bargaining agreement with TT1, refusing to cross the
picket line established by Respondent at the entrance to the
Illinois Cement plant. The use of supervisors and nonteam-
sters employees was initiated solely by TTI in response to
demand by Illinois Cement that TTI continue to haul ce-
ment for it. Illinois Cement did not make any specific re-
quests or arrangements with TTI regarding the method of
accomplishing the hauling of cement.
Since Respondent could no longer induce TTI's nonsu-
pervisory drivers to refrain from crossing the picket line at
the Illinois Cement facility, it established a separate picket
line at the above-described entrance to the TTI facility
where the supervisory drivers turned the trucks over to their
drivers. On April 9, pickets appeared at the gate to the TTI
facility. These pickets were employees of Illinois Cement.
The pickets were carrying signs which state "Allied Indus-
trial Workers Local 657. On Strike Against Illinois Cement
Company. Legal Strike." Such picketing continues to date.
At no time relevant hereto have any employees or super-
visors of TTI performed work which, except for the strike,
would have been performed by striking employees of Illi-
nois Cement.
TTI and Illinois Cement are controlled and managed in-
dependently. TTI is a common carrier with terminals in
Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, and other States. The LaSalle
location is the only location at which TTI hauls for Illinois
Cement.
B. Additional Facts
The parties adduced some arguably relevant facts, via the
testimony of witnesses, to the effect that 60 percent of the
total annual hauling performed by TTI consists of the
transport of Illinois Cement products, and the only cus-
tomer with whom TTI has a direct telephone connection is
Illinois Cement. Furthermore certain pickets at the TTI en-
trance made it known to TTI drivers that their picketing
was directed only at Illinois Cement products, and some
TTI drivers have refused to cross that picket line at TTI,
although some have volunteered to drive trucks carrying
products other than those of Illinois Cement.
C. Discussion and Conclusions
It is plain from the stipulated facts that neither TTI nor
its employees are performing the struck work of Illinios Ce-
ment employees', and the facts of a direct telephone con-
The utilization by TTI of its supervisors to perform the dnving in and
out of Illinois Cement premises, which had been refused by its drivers,
amounts to a continuation of its services previously rendered and was not a
"substantial variation in their prior mode of business" by which TTI "made
the controversy [its] own and created a concern in it." Contrast Local 375.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America (Irish Welding Supply Corporation), 204 NLRB 486. 490
(1973), wherein Burdox became an ally of Irish when it look on, by agree-
ment with Irish. delivery and pickup previously performed by Irish.
797
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nection and the percentage' of TTl's total business attribut-
able to service furnished to Illinois Cement are not, in my
opinion, sufficient to establish an "ally" relationship. I men-
tion this in passing because the parties seemed to be raising
the "ally" doctrine at the hearing and referred to it in their
briefs, even though Respondent specifically disavows reli-
ance on that defense. In any event, such a defense is not
shown by the evidence to be present in this case.
Respondent contends that the picketing at TTI is lawful
primary picketing because the pickets have a right to in-
duce the TTI drivers to cease transporting Illinois Cement
products, and the only place they can now so attempt to
induce is at the point where the TTI supervisors turn over
the loaded trucks to TTI drivers. It is argued that his con-
tention is supported, and the instant case controlled, by the
Carrier' and General Electric6 decisions of the Supreme
Court.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party urge that
both Carrier and General Electric, as well as Anchorlank,7
which involves a Carrier situation and is also cited by Re-
spondent, are distinguishable and do not control the pro-
ceeding before me which, they argue, must result in a find-
ing of an unlawful secondary boycott in accord with the
decision in Sterling Drug.8
Respondent concedes that the placing of pickets at the
TTI premises was for the purpose of inducing TTI drivers,
who took over the trucks from TTI supervisors, to cease
transporting Illinois Cement products. The obvious object
of such inducement is to force or require TTI to cease trans-
porting or handling such products.
The respective premises of TTI and Illinois Cement, al-
though adjacent, are unconnected and visibly geographi-
cally distinct and have separate entries about one quarter
mile apart. There is no access to the premises of one
through the entry of the other, and Illinois Cement per-
forms no work on the property of TTI. The TTI premises
are not a "common situs" for the two companies, and the
entry to those premises for the use of TTI employees, sup-
pliers, and deliverers has not been used by Illinois Cement.
Patently, the facts give rise to no "reserved gate" issue, and
the gate at TTI is not established, controlled, or utilized by
Illinois Cement in its operations or otherwise.
Carrier, General Electric, and Anchortank are all con-
cerned with situations where picketing occurred at en-
trances to places occupied by the primary employer. That is
not the situation here. The TTI entrance is neither on, nor
does it afford access to, Illinois Cement premises or places
where Illinois Cement employees are working.
In support of its argument, Respondent quotes Carrier
thus: "all union attempts at picketing and allied means to
cut off deliveries, pickups, and employment at the primary
employer's plant (are) regarded as primary and outside the
4 Retail Store Employees Union Local 1001, Retail Clerks International As-
sociation, AFL-CIO, 226 NLRB 754, 756 (1976).
5 United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. Carrier Corp.] v.
N.LR.B., 376 U.S. 492 (1964).
* Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO [General Electric Co.] v. N.LR.B., 366 U.S. 667 (1961).
'Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union and its Local 4-449,
AFL-CIO (Anchortank, Inc.), 238 NLRB 290 (1978).
s Local 61, International Chemical Workers Union (Sterling Drug, Inc.), 189
NLRB 60 (1971).
purview (of secondary restrictions)." The complete sentence
in which this quote appears reads, referring to the proceed-
ings in the prior General Electric case:
In this Court, the Board conceded that when the struck
premises are occupied hy the primary employer alone, the
right of the union to engage in primary activity at or in
connection with the primar premises may be given un-
limited effect- "all union attempts, by picketing and
allied means, to cut off deliveries, pickups, and em-
ployment at the primary employer's plant will be re-
garded as primary and outside the purview of Section
8(b)(4)(A)." [376 U.S. at 497, emphasis supplied.]
Read in context, the portion of the quotation set forth by
the Respondent refers to the union right to primary activity
at the struck premises of the primary employer. The TTI
premises are by no means primary premises occupied by
Illinois Cement, nor is the picketing at TTI "at or in con-
nection with the primary premises."
It is true, as Respondent states, that the Court, in Carrier,
did say that the location of the picketing, though important,
was not decisive. Respondent neglects to note, however,
that this account was made by the Court in the course of a
discussion of the legality of separate gate picketing.' The
Court was not referring to gates neither located on, nor
giving access to, the premises of the primary employer, and
its statement on the location of picketing is not applicable
to the facts before me.
Similarly, Respondent quotes Carrier for the proposition
that the picketing at TTI was related to the day-to-day op-
erations of Illinois Cement and "was designed to accom-
plish no more than picketing outside one of (Illinois Ce-
ment) entrances might have accomplished." Again, the
complete quotation reads:
In this case, it is undisputed that the railroad's op-
erations for Carrier were in furtherance of Carrier's
normal business. It is equally clear from the record
that the picketing employees made no attempt to inter-
fere with any of the railroad's operations for plants
other than Carrier. The railroad employees were not
encouraged to, nor did they, refuse to serve the other
plants. The picketing was designed to accomplish no
more than picketing outside one of Carrier's own deliv-
ery entrances might have accomplished. Because the
fence surrounding the railroad's right of way was a
continuation of the fence surrounding the Carrier
plant, there was no other place where the union could
have brought home to the railroad workers servicing
Carrier its dispute with Carrier. 311 F.2d 135, 154. The
railroad gate adjoined company property and was in
fact the railroad entrance gate to the Carrier plant. For
the purposes of §8(b)(4) picketing at a situs so proxi-
mate and related to the employer's day-to-day opera-
tions is no more illegal than if it had occurred at a gate
owned by Carrier. [376 U.S. 492, 499-500]
The Court's statement is clearly inapplicable to the TTI-
Illinois Cement situation because the TTI gate does not
adjoin or serve as an entrance to the Illinois Cement facil-
ity. Furthermore, the picketing at the Illinois Cement en-
' 376 U.S. 492, at 497 (1964).
798
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 657
trance obviously "brought home" to TTI drivers servicing
Illinois Cement the Union's dispute with Illinois Cement.
In short, I am persuaded that Carrier, General Electric,
and Anchortank are clearly distinguishable on their facts, do
not speak to the issue before me, and do not provide a
tenable defense theory in this case. I agree with the General
Counsel that Sterling Drug, supra, is on point. Accordingly.
I find that TTI is a neutral employer, and that Respondent
has violated Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by pick-
eting the TTI premises and thereby inducing and encourag-
ing employees of TTI to engage in a strike or refusal to
transport or otherwise handle any goods, materials, or com-
modities of Illinois Cement, and coercing or restraining
TTI, with an object in both cases of forcing or requiring
TTI to cease handling or transporting the goods, materials,
or commodities or Illinois Cement.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By picketing TTI with the object of forcing or requiring
it to cease handling or transporting the goods, materials, or
commodities of Illinois Cement, Respondent has engaged in
an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
ORDER' °
The Respondent, International Allied Industrial Workers
of America (AFL-CIO) and its Local No. 657, its officers,
agents, and representatives shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by
Truck Transport, Inc., or any other person to engage in a
strike or refusal in the course of his employment to perform
any services, where an object is forcing or requiring Truck
Transport, Inc., or any other person to cease doing business
with Illinois Cement Company.
(b) Coercing or restraining Truck Transport, Inc., or any
other person for which the object is forcing or requiring
'0 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 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.
Truck Transport, Inc., to cease doing business with Illinois
Cement Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post, at its offices and meeting halls. copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of this notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 33.
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by 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 customarily are posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Furnish, to the Regional Director, copies of the no-
tice for posting by Truck Transport, Inc., and Illinois Ce-
ment Company, if willing, in places where they customarily
post notices to their employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
II In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Goverment
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual
employed by Truck Transport, Inc., or any other per-
son to engage in a strike or refusal in the course of his
employment to perform any services, nor will we co-
erce or restrain Truck Transport, Inc., or any other
person, for which the object thereof is forcing or re-
quiring Truck Transport, Inc. or any other person to
cease doing business with Illinois Cement Company.
INTERNATIONAL ALLIED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO
LOCAL NO. 657. INTERNATIONAL ALLIED INDUS-
TRIAL WORKERS OF AMERICA AFL-CIO
799