International Brotherhood of Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1268 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganda for what it is, the voters are helpless to exercise good sense in
appraising it.12 That is the situation herein even though the forgery
and fraud was accomplished by unknown persons. The conduct of
,distributing to employees shortly before the polls opened fraudulent
leaflets which appeared to be authentic and which could not be effec-
tively neutralized lowered the standards of campaigning to a level so
:as to impair the free-and informed atmosphere requisite to an untram-
seleed expression of choice by the employees and thereby to preclude
a fair and free election. Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Direc-
tor's conclusion and recommendation, and shall set aside the election
in this case and order that a new election be held.
[The Board set aside the election held on March 21, 1957.1
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
22 United Aircraft Corporation, supra, at p 105, footnote 9
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse.
men and Helpers of America ; Merchandise Drivers Local 641,
IBT; Local 506, IBT, Its Acting President Walter Adams, Its
Business Agent James Snyder , and Its International Trustee
Rocco F. DePerno 1 and Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America ; Its International Vice-
President Thomas L. Hickey; and General Warehousemen's
Local852, IBT and Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc.
Local 707, Highway and Local Motor Freight Drivers, Dockmen
and Helpers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and
Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers ; Local 506, IBT, Its Acting President Walter
Adams, Its Business Agent James Snyder, and Its Interna-
tional Trustee Rocco F. DePerno and Ruffalo's Trucking Serv-
ice, Inc. Cases Nos. 22-CC-2, f2-CC-3, 22-CB-3, and 22-CB-6
(formerly 2-CC-379, 2-CC-384, 2-CB--1720, and 2-CB-1763)
(post 3-CB-367). January 10, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 8, 1957, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report In the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certi i-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of the Respondent
Unions is hereby amended.
119 NLRB No. 144.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1269
all the Respondents except Hickey had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they be required to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondents other than
Local 707 had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices,
and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to
such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charging
Party, herein called Ruffalo, and the Respondents noted below' filed
exceptions and supporting briefs. Ruffalo's request for oral argu-
ment is hereby denied, since the record, including the exceptions
and briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the
parties.
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 Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. 'The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified herein.'
The General Counsel and Ruffalo except to the Trial Examiner's
finding that the Teamsters, Local 506, Adams, and DePerno did
not violate Section 8 (b) (1) (A) by authorizing picketing at
Ruffalo's place of business, after Local 506 had lost a decertification
election, with an object of compelling Ruffalo to recognize Local 506
as the statutory representative of Ruffalo's employees. They also
except to his rejection of the contention that the conduct violative
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, for which all the
Respondents except Local 707 and Hickey are answerable, also vio-
lated. Section 8 (b) (1) (A) under the circumstances of this case.
We find merit in these exceptions.
As set forth in greater detail in the Intermediate Report, on
January 19, 1956, the Board conducted a decertification election
among Ruffalo's employees which Local 506 lost by an overwhelming
margin. Thereafter Respondent DePerno, whom Respondent Team-
sters had appointed trustee of Local 506, and Respondent Adams,
whom DePerno had appointed acting president of Local 506, author-
2 The International Brotherhood of Teamsters , herein called the Teamsters ; Local 506 ;
Adams ; Snyder ; and DePerno,
s The Trial Examiner found that Local 707 violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) by threaten-
ing reprisals against 2 employees because they were Ruffalo employees and 1 was not a
union member , and that Local 641 and Local 852 violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) and (B)
by inducing and encouraging employees of secondary employers not to unload freight
from Ruffalo 's trucks. No exceptions having been filed to these conclusions, we adopt
them pro forma.
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ized picketing in front of Buffalo's place of business, by an unidenti-
fied man who was not a Buffalo employee, with signs which on
their face urged Buffalo's employees to join Local 506' However,
.Adams informed Ruffalo's president and several of its drivers that
the picketing would continue until Ruffalo signed a contract with
Local 506. Because of this dispute between Local 506 and Ruffalo,
,agents of all the Respondent Unions except Local 707, including
Respondents Adams and Snyder, induced and encouraged employees
of neutral employers not to unload Buffalo's trucks. Before the
election Local 506 filed a statement with the Board that it did not
represent a majority of Ruffalo's employees, and there is no claim that
it has ever represented a majority of such employees since that time.
Under these circumstances we find, for the reasons stated in
Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Local 639, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO (Curtis Brothers, Inc.), 119 NLRB 232,. that by
,authorizing picketing for recognition of Local 506 as the exclusive
.bargaining representative when it did not represent a majority of
Buffalo's employees, Local 506, the Teamsters, Adams, and DePerno
.violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act 5 Similarly,. because the
secondary-boycott' activity violative of Section. 8 (b) (4) (A) and
(B), for which all the Respondents except Local 707 and Hickey are
answerable, had as an object the exertion of economic pressure on
:Buffalo to compel it to recognize Local 506 notwithstanding its rejec-
tion by Ruffalo's employees, we find that such secondary activity vio-
1ate.d Section 8 (b) (1) (A) as well.6
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
,,of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America ; Merchandise Drivers Local 641,
IBT; Local 506, IBT; Walter Adams; Rocco F. DePerno;' James
.Snyder; and their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and
assigns; shall:
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Restraining or coercing employees of Ruffalo's Trucking
Service, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
4 So far as the record shows, however , the picketing did not persuade any of Ruffalo's
employees to join Local 506.
s Member Jenkins concurs in the result for the reasons set forth in his concurring
opinion in Curtis Brothers , Inc., 119 NLRB 232.
Curtis Brothers , Inc., supra ; International Association of Machinists , Lodge 94$,
AFL-CIO (Alloy Manufacturing Company), 119 NLRB 307.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1271
(2) Engaging in, or inducing and encouraging employees of
Safeway Stores, Inc., or any employer (other than Ruffalo's Trucking
Service, Inc.) to engage in, a strike or concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities
or to perform any services, where an object thereof is (A) *to force or
require any employer or other person to cease doing business with
Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., or (B) to force or require Ruffalo's
Trucking Service, Inc., to recognize or bargain with Local 506,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, unless Local 506 shall be certified by the
Board as such representative.
b. Take. the .following affirmative action which the Board finds
.Will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Post in conspicuous places in their business offices, meeting
halls, and all places where notices to members of Respondent labor
.organizations are, customarily posted, copies of the notice attached
.hereto marked "Appendix A"; except that the Respondent Interna-
tional shall.not be required to post such notices outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Respondent Locals 7 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region,
shall, after being.duly signed by official representatives of the Re-
spondent labor organizations named in paragraph numbered 1, above,
and by the individual Respondents named in paragraph numbered 1,
above, be posted by said Respondents immediately upon receipt
A hereof and be maintained by them for sixty (60)- consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said Respondents to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. .
(2) Mail signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix.A" to the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
.for posting, Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., willing, at all locations
where notices to Ruffalo's employees are customarily posted; and for
posting, Safeway Stores, Inc., willing, at all locations where notices to
Safeway's warehouse employees within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Respondent Locals named in paragraph numbered 1, above,, are
.customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, shall, after being
duly signed by authorized representatives of the Respondent labor
organizations named in paragraph numbered 1, above, and by the
.individual Respondents named in paragraph numbered 1, above, be
forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting..
7 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
in writing, within ten (10) days .from the date of this Order, as to
the steps said Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
2. General Warehousemen's Local 852, IBT, and its officers, rep-
resentatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
a. Cease and desist from :
(1) Restraining or coercing employees of Ruffalo's Trucking Serv-
ice, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
(2) Engaging in, or inducing and encouraging employees of John
Sexton & Co. or any employer (other than Ruffalo's Trucking Service, .
Inc.) to engage in, a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or
to perform any services, where an object thereof is (A) to force or
require any employer or other person to cease doing business with
Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., or (B) to force or require Ruffalo's
Trucking Service, Inc., to recognize or bargain with Local 506, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, unless Local 506 shall be certified by the Board
as such representative.
b. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act : _
(1) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls,
and all places where notices to its members are customarily posted,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." 8 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-second Region, shall, after being duly signed by official
representatives of Local 852, be posted by the said Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(2) Mail signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix B" to the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
for posting, Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., willing, at all locations
where notices to Ruffalo's employees are customarily posted ; and for
posting, John Sexton & Co., willing, at all locations where notices to
such company's employees within the territorial jurisdiction of Local
852 are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by authorized representatives of Local 852, be
forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting.
8 See footnote 7, supra.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1273
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to
the steps the said Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3. Local 707, Highway and Local Motor Freight Drivers, Dockmen
and Helpers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, shall:
a. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing employees of
Buffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in.Section 7 of the Act.
b. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls,
and all places where notices to members of Local 707 are customarily
posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix C." 9
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-second Region, shall, after being duly signed by official repre-
sentatives of said Respondent, be posted by said Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by them for sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by said
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(2) Mail signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix C" to the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
for posting, Buffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., willing, at all locations
where notices to Buffalo's employees are customarily posted. Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-second Region, shall, after being duly signed by authorized
representatives of Local 707, be forthwith returned to the Regional
Director for such posting.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to the
steps the said Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 22-CC-3 be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent
Thomas L. Hickey has violated the Act.
See footnote 7, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL OUR OFFICERS, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND MEMBERS,
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF BUFFALO'S TRUCKING SERVICE, INC., AND
SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Buffalo's
Trucking Service, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Section 7 of the Act, including the right to refrain from
engaging in any or all of the activities guaranteed thereunder.
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encoilrage'the employees
of Safeway Stores, Inc., or alit' employer (other than Ruffalo's
Trucking Service, Inc.) to engage in, a strike or'concerted refusal"
in the course of their employment to manufacture; process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof
is (A) forcing or requiring any employer or other person to,
cease doing business with Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., or
(13) forcing or requiring Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., to
recognize or bargain with Local 506, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, unless Local 506 shall be.certified by the Board as such
representative.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated--------- ------ By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
MERCHANDISE DRIVERS LOCAL 641, IBT,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By---------------------------- .------=---
(Representative ) ( Title)
LOCAL 506, IBT.
Dated---------------- . By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
WALTER ADAMS, Acting President, Local 506.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------.
(WALTER ADAMS)
Rocco F. DEPERNO, Trustee, Local 506.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Rocco F. DEPERNO)
JAMES SNYDER, Business Agent, Local 506.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(JAMES SNYDER)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1275
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL OUR OFFICERS, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS
AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF RUFFALO'S TRUCKING SERVICE, INC., AND
1; 1
JOHN SEXTON & CO.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act., as amended, you are notified that :
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Buffalo's
Trucking Service, Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, including the right to refrain from engaging
in any or all of the activities guaranteed thereunder.
WE. WILL NOT engage. in, or induce or encourage the employees
of John Sexton & Co. or any employer (other than Buffalo's
Trucking Service, Inc.) to engage in, a strike or concerted refusal
in" the course of 'their employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport; or: otherwise handle or .work on any .goods, articles,.
materials , or commodities or to perform any services where an'
object thereof is (a) to force or require any employer or other
person to. cease doing business with Ruffalo's Trucking Service
:Inc., or (b) to force or require Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc.,
to recognize" or bargain with Local' 506, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, unless Local 506 shall be certified by the Board as such.
representative.
GENERAL WAREHOUSEMEN 'S LOCAL 852, IBT,
Labor Organization..
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.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO ALL OUR OFFICERS, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS
AND To ALL EMPLOYEES OF RuFFALO's TRUCKING SERVICE, INC.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies . of the National Labor'
Relations Act, as amended, you are notified that :
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Ruffalo's Trucking Service,
Inc., with bodily harm or other reprisal or in any other manner
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
restrain or coerce employees of Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc.,
in the exercise of their rights to engage in, or to refrain from
engaging in, any or all of the concerted activities guaranteed in
section 7 of the Act.
LOCAL 707, HIGHWAY AND LOCAL MOTOR
FREIGHT DRIVERS, DOORMEN AND HELP-
ERs, I. B. T.,
Labor Organization.
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed , complaints alleging unfair labor practices in violation of
the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act, were issued
and served by the General -Counsel along with an order consolidating the cases and
notice of hearing thereon . Answers were filed by the Respondents which are:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of,. America, AFL-CIO, ;-herein called the..Teamsters ;- its affiliates, .- Local 506; Mer-
chhandise Drivers Local 641, General Warehousemen 's Local 852 , and Local 707,
Highway and Local Motor Freight Drivers , Dockmen and Helpers , herein respec-
tively called Local 506, Local 641 , Local 852 , and Local 707 ; and individuals named
Walter Adams , James Snyder, Rocco F. DePerno, and Thomas L. Hickey. A hear-
ing was held upon due notice at New York , New York, on various dates between
October 9 and 24 , 1956, inclusive , before the duly designated Trial Examiner.' The
allegations of the complaints , denied by the answers , in substance are that : ( 1) Dur-
ing February 1956 and thereafter , the Teamsters , Local 506 , Adams, Snyder, and
DePerno caused pickets to patrol at the premises of. Ruffalo 's Trucking Service, Inc.,
herein called Ruffalo , in Newark , New York, for the purpose of forcing Ruffalo
to recognize Local 506 as the exclusive representative of certain of Ruffalo's
employees and to enter into a collective labor agreement with Local 506 notwith-
standing the fact that Local 506 was not the representative of such employees at
times material , and that by the economic coercion of the picketing said Respondents
restrained and coerced employees of Ruffalo in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act ; ( 2) during February 1956, all of the Respondents except Local 707
induced or encouraged the employees of certain employers to engage in concerted
refusals in the course of their employment to handle goods or commodities with
the objects of forcing or requiring ( 1) the employers to cease doing business with
Ruffalo and (2 ) Ruffalo to recognize or bargain with Local 506 as the representa-
tive of certain of Ruffalo 's employees although Local 506 had not been certified
as such representative under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, and that said
Respondents thereby violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A ), (4) (A), and ( 4) (B) of the
Act; and (3) during February 1956, Pasquale "Buck" Perrotta , an agent of Local
707, accompanied by unnamed agents, threatened to inflict bodily harm and injury
upon Clarence LaMore, an employee of Ruffalo , and to take away the union book
of an unnamed Teamsters member who was assisting LaMore in the performance
of work for Ruffalo , in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) of the Act. At the
hearing Local 707, which had filed an answer, did not enter an appearance. All
other parties were represented by counsel . All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence
pertinent to the issues , to argue orally upon the record , and to file briefs and pro-
posed findings . and conclusions . Briefs were received from Ruffalo and all Respond-
ents except Locals 641 and 707. The motion by certain Respondents to strike the
plaints against certain Respondents are disposed of in accordance with the deter
testimony of Stanley Seeman is hereby granted . The motions to dismiss the
complaints against certain Respondents are disposed of in accordance with the
determinations below.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1277
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF BUFFALO
Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., a New York corporation having its principal
office and place of business at Newark , New York, is engaged in the business of
motor freight transportation in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. During
the year 1955, Ruffalo's revenue exceeded $250,000, of which more than $150,000
represented services performed in interstate commerce . I find that Ruffalo is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENTS
Locals 506 and 641, with offices in Auburn, New York, and Jersey City, New
Jersey, respectively, and Locals 707 and 852, with offices in New York City, are
affiliates of the Teamsters, and said Locals and their parent organization are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. Local 506 functions
under a trusteeship with DePerno as trustee under the jurisdiction of the president
of the Teamsters. Adams and Snyder are acting president and business agent of
Local 506, respectively. Hickey is a vice president of the Teamsters.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The dispute between Ruffalo and Local 506
In a Decision and Direction of Election dated December 29, 1955, in Ruffalo's
Trucking Service, Inc., 114 NLRB 1549, a decertification proceeding, there appear
a number of facts relating to Ruffalo and Local 506. It is recited, inter alia, that
on July 14, 1955, sometime after the filing of charges by Local 506, a settlement
agreement was executed in which Ruffalo agreed to bargain collectively with Local
506, that subsequent negotiations were unfruitful, that on August 17 a decertifica-
tion petition was filed, and that on September 23 the Regional Director for the
Third Region closed the complaint case after he concluded that Ruffalo had com-
plied with its obligations under the settlement agreement and that Local 506 had
"evidenced a lack of good faith in consummating a contract." One of Local 506's
principal contentions in the decertification proceeding was that the settlement agree-
ment constituted a bar to the petition because Local 506 was "in the same position
as a certified union, and a reasonable time, i. e., one year should be permitted the
parties within which to agree on a contract." The Board resolved that issue adversely
to Local 506, holding that the settlement agreement was not "equivalent to a certifi-
cation" and that, under the circumstances of the case, a reasonable period for bar-
gaining had elapsed. The Board directed an election, the outcome of which is set
forth below. In the instant proceeding Local 506 took issue with the Board's deter-
minations in the decertification case. Those determinations are binding upon me.'
During 1955, Ruffalo's operations in New York City were interrupted for a
period of months.
B. Events during 1956
At times material, Ruffalo had a contract with Local 707 pursuant to which that
Respondent supplied a "city man" or helper to assist the driver of each of Ruffalo's
trucks when making deliveries in New York City and adjacent. territory. Ruffalo
did not have such a contract with Local 641 covering its operations in the Jersey
City area, but it was Ruffalo's practice to hire members of the Teamsters when
Ruffalo made deliveries in the northern New Jersey and New York City areas. As
will be seen, Locals 641 and 707 took steps to prohibit their members' accepting.
employment with Ruffalo. We do not have an issue in this proceeding concerning,
the validity of those steps per se.
On January 6, 1956, Local 506 filed a motion to vacate the Direction of Election,
conceding that it did not then represent a majority of Ruffalo's employees in the
appropriate unit. On January 9, Nicholas A. Santino, Ruffalo's president, tele-
graphed Hickey; a Respondent, and Vincent Doyle, president of Local 707, stating
his intention of resuming operations in New York City and asking if Local 707
' At the hearing Local 506 also asserted that its majority status was dissipated by
continuing unfair labor practices . I sustained objections to questions designed to develop
matters which had occurred prior to the Decision and Direction of Election.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would service Ruffalo's trucks. There was no response. On January 11 Santino
tried to reach Doyle and Hickey by telephone and, being unsuccessful, he tele-
phoned "Buck" Perrotta who acted as the head of the shapeup 2 of Local 707
members at a particular location in New York City. Perrotta said that he would
try to contact Hickey and Doyle and that he would communicate with Santino. He
,did not contact Santino, however. On January 12 Santino, unable to reach
.Perrotta, called Charles Benanti, a member of Local 707 with whom Santino had
dealt during 1955 concerning the assignment of Local 707 members as helpers on
'Ruffalo's trucks. Benanti said that he would talk with Perrotta and thereafter call
Santino, but Santino did not hear from him. On or about January 13, Santino
reached Doyle by telephone. Doyle said that he was unable to assign members
of Local 707 to work on Ruffalo's trucks because of instructions from Hickey.3
On January 19, the election was held. There were 3 votes in favor of repre-
sentation by Local 506, 17 votes against, and 1 challenged ballot. Picketing of
Ruffalo's place of business, which had been sporadic became more regular. It was
ineffective and was engaged in by a lone man, unidentified, who had on the front
and rear of his parked automobile signs which read:
THIS IS AN ORGANIZATIONAL PICKET LINE.
Join our Union and enjoy Union conditions,
Ruffalo Trucking.
According to Local 506, the picketing was for organizational purposes only.
According to the General Counsel, Local 506's objective in picketing and in its
other activities described herein was to obtain a contract with Ruffalo regardless
of its lack of majority status.
On February 3 Clarence LaMore, a driver for Ruffalo who was not a member
of the Teamsters, was in New Jersey preparatory to making deliveries for Ruffalo.
In line with the practice of employing a helper, he hired John Hild, a member of
Local 641. At a warehouse of Safeway Stores, Inc., herein called Safeway, in South
Kearney, New Jersey, LaMore and Hild were faced with a delay because of the
number of trucks in line ahead of them, and they decided to make another delivery
elsewhere. As they prepared to leave, Adams and Snyder of Local 506 approached
Hild. Adams asked if Hild was a member of Local 707, and Hild answered that
he was a member of Local 641. Adams identified himself and asked to see Hild's
union book. As Adams made notations of data therein, Hild asked the reason, and
Adams said that Ruffalo was "on strike." Hild turned to LaMore and asked if
that were true, and LaMore answered that the strike had been settled. As Adams
went to one of Safeway's telephones, Hild told LaMore that they should remain
at Safeway until the matter was settled. Hild and LaMore followed Adams.
Presently Adams, while engaged in a telephone conversation, turned to Hild and
said that Hickey wished to speak with him. Hild, who was not acquainted with
Hickey, was asked by a man at the other end of the telephone line to identify
himself. Hild gave his name and local union number. He was asked if he was
working on the Ruffalo truck, and he answered in the affirmative. He was told
that Ruffalo was "on strike," and he answered that he was waiting to hear from
a representative of Local 641. Hild then gave the telephone back to Adams. For
the reasons set out in footnote 4, I find that Hild talked with Hickey. Some-
what later Harold Swigon, a Safeway employee who was a shop steward for Local
641, told Hild that George Lonergan, a business agent of that Respondent, was
coming to the warehouse. Before Lonergan's arrival, both LaMore and Hild
talked by telephone with Santino who was at Ruffalo's place of business, and Hild
gave Santino the name of Swigon as a person whom Santino might call. Santino
placed a person-to-person call to Swigon, who identified himself as a shop steward
and said that Adams and Snyder had stopped Ruffalo's "trucks from unloading"
and that an "official" was en route to the warehouse to "straighten the matter out.'
After Lonergan's arrival, he talked privately with Adams and Snyder, but Hild
heard him say to Adams that Local 641 did not know that Local 506 was on
:strike against Ruffalo and that "You people should have let us know." Charles
Halpern, a truckdriver for Safeway who was Local 641's chief steward at the
2 This term is applicable to the practice whereby unemployed persons gather at a central
location to make themselves available for any job opportunities which develop.
2 These findings are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of Santino, a witness for
the General Counsel. The Respondents did not call any witnesses in their behalf and the
only Respondent to testify is Adams, who was called by the General Counsel as an adverse
witness.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1279
warehouse , spoke to Safeway 's employees on the unloading platform, saying , "Don't
take anything off Ruffalo's truck." Lonergan told LaMore to "take that truck and
get out of there." Lonergan told Hild that he did not think Ruffalo would "be able
to get unloaded " at Safeway , saying also something to the effect that Hild should
not accept further employment from Ruffalo and that Hild should inform fellow
members of Local 641 at their shapeup not to accept such employment until the
dispute was settled. The truck was not unloaded and LaMore drove it away. Adams
left for his headquarters in Auburn , New York.4
On February 6 LaMore returned to Safeway . He was accompanied by a helper
whose name he could not recall . At the unloading platform another man, whom
LaMore identified only as a steward , asked the helper to produce his union book in
order to establish that he was a member of the Teamsters , but the helper said that
he had left his book at home. While the person identified by LaMore as a steward
left to make a telephone call for the purpose of ascertaining if the helper was a mem-
ber of the Teamsters , Chief Steward Halpern walked over to LaMore and said that
LaMore would "have to pull [the truck] out" because "This man hasn 't got a book."
As LaMore was driving the truck from the premises , he saw Santino who told him
to wait. Santino was accompanied by a man whose name Santino could not recall
at the hearing but whom he identified as "Riff" and as an acquaintance "for quite a
few years" whose name appears in Ruffalo's office records.5 Santino went to the
warehouse and a guard arranged for him to talk with Halpern , who said to Santino
that he had talked with Adams and Snyder on February 3 and that he could not
unload the truck because of Ruffalo's dispute with Local 506. Santino spoke of the
representation case before the Board , and Halpern countered with the remark that
the helper did not have a union book. Santino said that Biff could be the helper if
Halpern was concerned about union qualifications , but Halpern rejected the sug-
gestion, saying that the truck would not be unloaded until the dispute was settled.
Halpern proposed that Santino see Ken O 'Connor, secretary of Local 641 . Santino
and Biff went to the offices of that union where they talked with O'Connor who said
4 The findings concerning events at Safeway are based upon the testimony of Hild,
LaMore, and Santino , witnesses for the General Counsel . As recited in footnote 3, the
Respondents did not offer testimony . Snyder, Lonergan , Hickey, Swigon, and Halpern
were not witnesses . Adams, called by the General Counsel as an adverse witness, gave
unconvincing testimony . He testified that : He had been in New York City for 2 days on
business and decided to go with Snyder for an automobile ride in New Jersey ; by chance
he saw the Safeway warehouse and decided to solicit Safeway's aid in trying to organize
Ruffalo 's employees ; he and Snyder talked with a man whose name and business title he
could not recall, but who identified himself as being in charge of the warehouse ; he asked
the man to cease doing business with Ruffalo , and the man said that lie would look into
the matter and let Adams know but did not do so ; he and Snyder returned to his auto-
mobile where he busied himself with some " book work" ; presently he noticed that there
was a Buffalo truck on the premises ; the truck was leaving, and LaMore, the driver,
stopped the truck and initiated a conversation with him ; he identified himself to Hild
and asked if Hild was a member of Local 707, to which Hild responded that he was a
member of Local 641, whereupon he took Hild 's name and book number ; he went to a
telephone and called the office of Local 707 in New York City, and tallied with someone
whose identity he did not learn , informing the unidentified person that "there was a
driver over there [ at Safeway ] with a 641 driving the truck " ; the person asked to speak
with Hild , and he put Hild on the phone. Adams testified further that : He did not
leave Safeway 's premises promptly after the telephone conversation as there was "some-
thing wrong" with the automobile which required "monkeying" or "tinkering"; while he
was in the automobile a steward came and asked , "What is the trouble here?", to which he
replied that he would not discuss the matter with anyone other than a representative of
management ; Lonergan arrived soon and came to the automobile , asking why Adams was
there, and he replied that he had asked the manager not to use Buffalo's services ;
Lonergan did not reply to that remark , but he and Lonergan discussed the fact that he
"was up there trying to organize them ." Adams' unsupported testimony , contradicted in
part by that of Hild and LaMore , is incredible . With respect to Hild 's portion of the
telephone conversation , in view of Adams' statement to Hild that the other party to the
conversation was Hickey, coupled with Hickey 's failure to testify, I find that it was
Hickey who talked with Hild.
5 Biff was not a witness. According to the General Counsel , Biff was a rank-and-file
member of the Teamsters named Buffano . According to the testimony of Santino and
LaMore, Biff obtains frequent employment from truckdrivers , acting as their helper in
unloading at American Stores, Inc., an employer mentioned . below.
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that he would not "recognize " Ruffalo in the territory of Local 641 because he was
obligated to DePerno . O'Connor said to Biff : "From now on , until you get further
instructions , you don't unload any of Ruffalo's trucks , and pass the word on to the
other shapers ." Later that day, Santino returned to Safeway where he talked with
representatives of management and it was agreed that an effort to deliver would be
made the next day.
On February 7 LaMore drove to Safeway 's warehouse with Hild, who had agreed
to work as a helper upon condition that the dispute was settled . Swigon , the shop
steward, told Hild that he was unaware of any settlement . Hild telephoned the office
of Local 641 and talked with Lonergan , asking if the dispute had been settled. Lon-
ergan replied , "No, not yet . Don't you people be working them trucks until we get it
settled." Hild turned to LaMore and said that he could not work on the truck.
LaMore talked with Santino , Attorney Martino, one of Ruffalo's counsel, and
Maurice O 'Connor, warehouse superintendent , who were present , following which
LaMore backed the truck to the platform . Chief Steward Halpern told Maurice
O'Connor not to accept the goods until Halpern approved . Halpern also directed
employees of Safeway not to unload the truck . It was not unloaded.
Early on February 8, Adrian Bouwens, a truckdriver for Ruffalo , drove to a
warehouse of American Stores , Inc., which is located a few blocks from Safeway's
warehouse . Bouwens , alone and tired , parked his truck and went to sleep. He was
awakened by Biff who, apparently seeking employment , asked if Bouwens had
arranged for a helper to unload the truck. Bouwens answered that he had antici-
pated hiring someone at American Stores . Biff then asked if the truck was owned
by Ruffalo and, unon Bouwens ' affirmative reply Biff said that he was pretty sure
that freight from Ruffalo was not being received at American Stores . Biff said too
that the shop steward was waiting to see Bouwens , and he directed Bouwens to a
man on the loading dock . Biff did not give Bouwens the man's name . nor did the
man himself tell Bouwens his name or that he was the shop steward . The man told
Bouwens that freight from Ruffalo would not be accepted while the labor dispute
existed. Bouwens expressed the opinion that the dispute had been settled and,
according to Bouwens , the man said that he would have to communicate with "the
union hall or somebody," following which the man made a telephone call and then
drove away in an automobile . Upon the man 's return , Bouwens asked if he had
learned anything and he answered in the negative . Later another man 6 told Bouwens
to move truck if i t was not to be unloaded . Still later the first unidentified man told
Bouwens that the truck could not be unloaded . Bouwens departed.?
On the same day, February 8, Santino and Attorney Martino called upon Doyle.
Local 707's president . In their discussion , Santino asserted that Local 707's refusal
to assign helpers to Ruffalo's trucks in New York City was a breach of the contract
between that union and Ruffalo , and Doyle said that assignments would be made
if Ruffalo were not being picketed. Later that day Santino talked with Doyle by
telephone , and Doyle said that Perrotta would not take any steps to have Ruffalo's
trucks unloaded because Hickey had not given approval . That evening Martino
talked by telephone with Attorney Walsh , counsel for Local 506 , which had been
suggested by Doyle . Martino told Walsh that Doyle had proposed that representa-
tives of Ruffalo and Local 506 meet to discuss a contract , but Martino and Walsh
agreed that it would be inappropriate to do so in view of the outcome of the election.
Walsh said that he would try to reach DePerno , following which he would telephone
Martino , but Martino did not receive a call from him.
On February 17 the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Results of Election , overruling objections to the election which had been filed by
Local 506 and certifying that Local 506 was not the exclusive representative of
a Bouwens gave this man's name as "Eisenroh" and testified that be thought that the
man was "receiving clerk or some official from American Stores." The General Counsel's
attempt to refresh Bouwens' recollection by using the name "Aisenberry" for "Eisenroh"
was unsuccessful.
The findings concerning the events at American Stores are based upon the testimony
of Bouwens. Biff and the other unidentified persons were not witnesses. Bouwens testified
that he had known Biff over a period of years in which he had made deliveries to American
Stores, but that he did not know Biff's name. Bouwens testified also, with respect to. the
man whom Biff called a shop steward, that upon earlier visits to American Stores he had
seen the man "walking around there" but "didn't know who he was," that on February 8
he did not see the man engaged in work, and that upon a subsequent visit or visits he did
not see the man. As appears above, the General Counsel believed Biff's name to be
Buffano and the records of Ruffalo will identify him. Nevertheless, Biff was not called
as a witness to identify the man whom Bouwens regarded as a steward.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1281
Ruffalo's employees. On February 21 Martino telephoned Doyle, asking if Doyle
would permit members of Local 707 to be helpers on Ruffalo's trucks in New York
City in view of the Supplemental Decision. Doyle replied that he could not do so
until the matter was settled with Hickey. Martino then called Hickey, who said
that Ruffalo could not operate in the metropolitan area of New York City until it
had signed a contract with Local 506. Martino related his conversation with Attor-
ney Walsh, but Hickey said that he could not understand Walsh's agreement with
Martino that it would be inappropriate to discuss a contract. Hickey said also that
he would talk with DePerno and Walsh and that Martino should call him again in
3 days. On February 24 Martino telephoned Hickey who said that he had been
unable to reach DePerno and Walsh and that Ruffalo would be unable to operate
in New York City until DePerno informed him that Ruffalo was "no longer on
[Local] 506's list." Hickey said also that he would telephone Martino later, but he
did not do so.8
On February 29, LaMore was scheduled to make deliveries for Ruffalo. Near the
New Jersey entrance to the Holland Tunnel where helpers congregated in search
for employment, LaMore hired an unidentified man who had a union book in a local
other than Local 707. LaMore proceeded to the place of business of Regal Foods
in New York City. There he saw Perrotta of Local 707 and two unidentified per-
sons. Perrotta said to LaMore: "There are too many of you fellows coming into
the city down here. We will put a few of you in the hospital and you won't be
coming in here delivering any more." 'LaMore did not answer. Perrotta also spoke
to the helper, saying that he would have the helper's union book taken away. Inso-
far as LaMore was aware, employees of Regal Foods were willing to accept delivery,
but he departed in order to avoid trouble. LaMore telephoned Santino who told him
to return to New Jersey and to telephone Santino again from there. En route,
LaMore discharged the helper at Holland Tunnel-9
Following several telephone conversations, LaMore was met by Attorney Rowan,
another of Ruffalo's counsel. They decided to make a delivery at the warehouse
of John Sexton & Co., herein called Sexton, in Long Island City before going to
Regal Foods. LaMore drove the truck with Rowan following in his automobile.ro
En route to Sexton, LaMore obtained a helper named LoTito who was a member
of Local 707. Prior to their arrival at Sexton, however, certain developments
occurred there in connection with the forthcoming delivery. Sexton's warehouse
employees are represented by Local 852 and the contract between Sexton and that
local provides in part that employees shall not "be disciplined for refusal to receive
and handle unfair goods after the employer shall have been given 48 hours' notice
by the union" that particular goods are "unfair." That morning Edward Dempsey,
the shop steward and an employee, talked with an unidentified man, following which
he spoke to Edward McNeil, the receiving clerk and also a member of Local 852.
McNeil's duties included the assignment of platform space to trucks. Dempsey
told McNeil n,-t to accept deliveries from Ruffalo "nnfil furthe° orders." 11 Demncev
also talked with his superior, Joseph Stone, Sexton's superintendent, saying that
upon the direction of Dennis Crotty, president of Local 852, he would refuse to
accept delivery from Ruffalo's truck which was scheduled to arrive that morning.
Stone replied that he would "check on" it. He went to Anthony Marino, the
traffic manager, saying that there was merchandise enroute from Ruffalo which the
"warehouse union" had been instructed not to handle and that Marino should
arrange to have the merchandise delivered by another carrier. Stone next went to
Sexton's branch manager, one Manley, and said that Dempsey had informed him
that the "warehouse union" would not unload merchandise to be brought that day
by Ruffalo. Manley told Stone to get verification. Stone telephoned Crotty and
asked what the situation was that involved Ruffalo's truck. Crotty said that a
strike against Ruffalo had been either authorized or recognized by Hickey and that
he, Crotty, had instructed Dempsey not to accept deliveries from Ruffalo. Upon
completion of the telephone conversation, Stone reported to Manley. Marino was
called into the conversation. They decided, in the words of Stone, that they were
8 The findings concerning Martino's and Santino 's conversations with the union officials
and Attorney Walsh are based upon their uncontradicted testimony.
BThe findings concerning events at Regal Foods are based upon the uncontradicted
testimony of LaMore . Perrotta was not a witness.
10 Rowan arranged for a police escort to join LaMore in New York . It does not appear
that the escort was needed.
"McNeil testified that he was so instructed by Dempsey "a couple of hours" before
Ruffalo's truck arrived.
476321--58-vol. 119-82
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not accepting the merchandise under his LCrotty's] ruling," but Stone did not
instruct any employees to refuse to unload Ruffalo's truck and there is no evidence
that Manley or Marino so instructed them. Marino made arrangements to obtain
the merchandise by another carrier. When Ruffalo's truck arrived, LoTito took
the bills of lading to the platform. He returned to the truck and told LaMore that
it would not be unloaded. Rowan joined them and, in company with LoTito, went
to the platform. Rowan asked Dempsey, in the presence of McNeil, why he had
refused to accept the delivery, and Dempsey answered that he was acting upon the
instructions of Crotty. Rowan, LaMore, and LoTito departed.12 They went to
Regal Foods and when they arrived Perrotta was absent. The shipment was
unloaded. Rowan then telephoned Santino and related the events. Santino told
him to communicate with Marino in order to arrange for the delivery of Sexton's
merchandise 13 Rowan did so. The goods for Sexton were delivered by another
carrier.
On March 3 or 4, several of Ruffalo's drivers and Santino talked with Adams
and Snyder of Local 506 at a hotel in Palmyra, New York. The drivers asked
Adams why Ruffalo was being picketed and whether the dispute could be settled.
Adams responded that the picketing would continue until Ruffalo signed a contract,
that Local 707 would "recognize" Ruffalo in New York City when the dispute was
settled, and that until that time Hickey would continue to direct Local 707 not to
assign helpers to Ruffalo's trucks. Adams said also that he would talk with
DePerno, but the record does not disclose. whether he did 'so. During April the
activities in New Jersey by certain of the Respondents were enjoined. During May
a stipulation was executed pursuant to which certain activities in New York City
ceased. At an undisclosed time, Local 506 discontinued the primary picketing of
Ruffalo at Newark, New York.
C. Conclusions
We turn to the conclusions to be reached upon the above factual recital.
Preliminarily, however, it should be borne in mind that the various refusals by
Locals 707 and 641 to permit their members to accept employment with Ruffalo
are not alleged as unfair labor practices. It should be borne in mind, too, that
the factual recital sets forth instances in which persons who were not witnesses, in
the course of conversations with persons who were witnesses, attributed certain
remarks and positions to union representatives. Such instances involve hearsay.
Consequently, the conclusions below are based upon the findings reiterated there-
with.
1. The boycott activities
This portion of the cases involves all Respondents except Local 707. With
respect to the events at Safeway on February 3, 6, and 7, it is clear that Locals 506
and 641 induced employees of Safeway to refuse to accept shipments from Ruffalo.
On February 3 Lonergan, business agent of Local 641, was called to the scene to
resolve the question whether Ruffalo's truck was to be unloaded, and Adams and
Snyder, acting president and business agent of Local 506, respectively, talked with
him. They acquainted Lonergan with Local 506's dispute with Ruffalo. Thereafter
Halpern, Local 641's chief steward at Safeway, told Safeway employees not to
unload the truck, and it is reasonable to attribute Halpern's conduct to Lonergan's
decision. On February 6 Halpern again refused to permit Ruffalo's truck to be
unloaded. While at first glance it may appear that the failure of LaMore's helper
to have a union book was a substantial factor in that refusal, it is clear from
Halpern's conversation with Santino that he, Halpern, prevented the unloading
because of Local 506's dispute with Ruffalo. On February 7 Halpern continued
his activity by again telling Safeway employees not to unload Ruffalo's truck.
Local 641 is responsible for the conduct of Halpern and Lonergan who were its
12 The findings concerning events at Sexton are based upon the testimony of Stone,
McNeil, LaMore, and Rowan. Dempsey, Crotty, and LoTito were not witnesses. As re-
lated, before Dempsey spoke to McNeil, Dempsey talked with an unidentified man. The
General Counsel contended by questions of Adams that Adams was present at Sexton's on
February 29, but the record will not support a finding that Adams or any other repre-
sentative of Local 506 was there on that day.
"'Contrary to the assertion in Local 852's brief, it appears that it was in this con-
versation, rather than in an earlier conversation that day, that Rowan and Santino dis-
cussed the inability to unload the truck at Sexton's warehouse.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1283
agents. Local 506 is similarly responsible for the conduct of Adams and Snyder
and, I find, their solicitation of Lonergan to induce Safeway's employees not to
unload Ruffalo's truck constituted participation in such inducement.
Turning to the events of February 8 at American Stores, the proof does not
sustain the alleged violations of the Act. While is is true that 2 days earlier
Ken O'Connor, Local 641's secretary, told Santino that Ruffalo would not be
"recognized" in the territory of that Respondent, I cannot conclude that O'Connor
or any other representative of Local 641 induced employees of American Stores
to refuse to unload Ruffalo's truck. There is no evidence that a union repre-
sentative talked with employees of American Stores. The evidence instead is
that Bouwens, Ruffalo's truckdriver, talked primarily with 2 persons, 1 of whom
is "Riff" who was at most a rank-and-file member of Local 641, who was not
an employee of American Stores, and who did not refuse to accept the goods
from Ruffalo. The other person is the unidentified man whom Bouwens regarded
as a shop steward and who refused to accept the goods, but the record will not
support a finding that the man was in fact Local 641's shop steward at American
Stores. (See footnote 7.)
With respect to the events at Sexton on February 29, we have seen that Crotty,
president of Local 852, acknowledged to Stone, Sexton's superintendent, that he
had instructed Dempsey, Local 852's shop steward, not to accept deliveries from
Ruffalo. Dempsey, in turn, directed McNeil, the receiving clerk, not to accept
such deliveries "until further orders." In its brief Local 852 contends that it
lawfully induced Sexton, rather than Sexton's employees, not to accept delivery
from Ruffalo. According to Local 852. Crotty de'e' ated Dempsey to notify
Sexton "of future refusal to unload the Ruffalo truck"; Sexton agreed and, in
effect, waived the 48-hour notice provided for in the collective. labor agreement;
Crotty, in talking with Dempsey, intended no more than that Dempsey notify
Sexton of Local 852's position; Dempsey, in telling McNeil not to accept deliveries
from Ruffalo "until further orders," was referring to "further orders from Sexton";
and Ruffalo's truck was not taken to the warehouse in a bona fide attempt to
make a delivery because Rowan and LaMore knew that Sexton already had
agreed not to receive the merchandise from the truck. The factual situation
does not support these assertions. In particular, there is no testimony by Crotty
or Dempsey concerning their actions and I cannot infer that Crotty intended that
Dempsey act only as a messenger to transmit to Sexton notice of L-c 1 852's
position. Moreovpr, it was Dempsey, not Stone or any other representative of
Sexton, who directed McNeil not to accept the goods from Ruffalo, and the record
dictates the conclusion that Sexton's decision that it was "not accepting the mer-
chandise under his [Crotty's] ruling" was not an agreement to waive the notice
provided for in the contract but, instead, acquiescence in Local 852's instructions
to Sexton's warehouse employees not to receive goods from Ruffalo. These
determinations make it unnecessary to discuss Local 852's contention that Ruffalo's
truck was not taken to the warehouse in a bona fide effort to make a delivery,
but it may be observed that the finding in footnote 13 disputes the contention.
Since Crotty and Dempsey were acting as agents of Local 852, that Respondent
is responsible for their conduct, and it is now the law that the contract between
Local 852 and Sexton affords no immunity for the former's inducement of
the latter's employees not to unload Ruffalo's truck. Sand Door and Plywood Co.,
113 NLRB 1210; American Iron and Machine Works Company, 115 NLRB 800.
The next question is whether certain Respondents who, insofar as the record
discloses, did not induce employees not to unload Ruffalo's trucks, are to be
held accountable for the conduct of Locals 506, 641, and 852. Those Respondents
are the Teamsters, Hickey, a vice president of the Teamsters, and DePerno, trustee
of Local 506. As recited in section II, above, Local 506 functions under a
trusteeship with DePerno as trustee under the jurisdiction of the president of the
Teamsters. Pursuant to the Teamsters' constitution, article VI, section 6, the
trustee has full charge of the affairs and subordinate officials of Local 506 subject
to the supervision of the Teamsters' president. I find that DePerno, by virtue
of this direct control over the policies and operations of Local 506, and the
Teamsters, by virtue of its trusteeship of Local 506, share responsibility for the
unlawful conduct of that Respondent. Otis Massey Company, Ltd., 109 NLRB 275,
279; Thurston Motor Lines. Inc.. P 0 NLRB 7a8, 7d9. i find too that the Team-
sters; is not responsible for the conduct of Locals 641 and 852. Cf. W. T. Smith
Lumber Company, 116 NLRB 507. 1 find' also that the allegations of the com-
plaint that the Teamsters and Hickey independently engaged in inducement of
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees not to unload Ruffalo's trucks have not been sustained. This is so
because the case against the Teamsters must rest upon the activity of Hickey
who is the only officer of that Respondent allegedly involved and as to whom
there is little evidence of probative value. The hearsay evidence must be dis-
regarded. The telephone conversation with Hild on February 3 constituted at
most inducement of Hild not to work for Ruffalo, the primary employer. The
telephone conversation on February 21 between Hickey and Attorney Martino
was initiated by the latter in an effort to overcome Local 707's refusal to assign
its members as helpers on Ruffalo's trucks, which refusal is not alleged as an
unfair labor practice, and Hickey's remarks to Martino cannot reasonably be con-
strued as an admission that Hickey had participated in inducement of employees.
not to receive shipments from Ruffalo. In any event, Hickey, as an officer of
the Teamsters, will be bound by any order in this case against that Respondent
which, for reasons given above, shares responsibility for the conduct of Local 506.
Since the objects of the above-described inducement of employees by the
Teamsters, Locals 506, 641, and 852, and Adams, Snyder, and DePerno were to
force (1) employers to cease doing business with Ruffalo and (2) Ruffalo to
recognize or bargain with Local 506, which had not been certified by the Board
as the representative of Ruffalo's employees, I find that said Respondents violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B). It is also alleged that the above-described
inducement of employees constituted restraint or coercion of Ruffalo's employees
in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) because the inducement obstructed Ruffalo's
employees in the performance of their work and caused impairment of their
earnings. Insofar as I am aware, this contention has not been passed upon by
the Board. A like issue was posed in McAllister Transfer, Inc., 110 NLRB 1769,
where it was my conclusion as Trial Examiner that such inducement of employees
was not violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), but the Board did not pass upon the
issue because it deemed "the remedy sufficient." See footnote 28 of the Board's
Decision and Order at page 1783. 1 adhere to the views which I expressed at
page 1806.
2. Perrotta's threats at Regal Foods
As related, on February 29, while LaMore and his helper were at Regal Foods to
make a delivery for Ruffalo, he was addressed by Perrotta, the head of Local 707's
shapeup. Perrotta said to LaMore that there were "too many of you fellows" com-
ing into New York City to make deliveries and he threatened to "put a few of you
in the hospital." Perrotta also threatened to have the helper's union book taken
away. In view of Local 707's support of Local 506 in the latter's dispute with Ruffalo
by refusing to assign members of Local 707 as helpers on Ruffalo's trucks, and in
view of Perrotta's failure to testify in explanation of his conduct, it is a reasonable
inference, and I find, that Perrotta was motivated by LaMore's lack of membership in
the Teamsters and employment by Ruffalo. I find, therefore, that Local 707, by
Perrotta's threats to LaMore and the helper, restrained and coerced employees of
Ruffalo in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. The primary picketing of Ruffalo
This portion of the cases involves the allegation that the Teamsters, Local 506,
Adams, Snyder, and DePerno, by picketing Ruffalo's place of business after Local
506's loss of the decertification election, with the object of forcing Ruffalo to recog-
nize Local 506 as the exclusive representative of the employees and to execute a con-
tract with it, restrained and coerced Ruffalo's employees in violation of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) because of "the economic coercion of such picketing." Insofar as I can
discern the reasoning of the General Counsel, inherent in it are the contentions that
it is a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) by an employer, and of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
by a labor organization, when an employer and a minority union execute an ex-
clusive recognition contract and, ipso facto, it is a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
for a minority union to picket an employer for that objective, even if the picketing is
peaceful, because of an economic threat to the employees which flows from the
picketing. The problem is now pending before the Board in Curtis Brothers, Inc.,
119 NLRB 232; Shepherd Machinery Company, 119 NLRB 320; and Alloy Manu-
facturing Company, et al., 119 NLRB 307.
As we have seen, the picketing was by Local 506, was peaceful, and was not ac-
companied by oral threats. Insofar as appears, it also was not accompanied by a
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1285
strike on the part of any of the three employees who had voted in favor of representa-
tion by Local 506. It was engaged in by a lone, unidentified individual whose parked
automobile bore signs reading:
THIS IS AN ORGANIZATIONAL PICKET LINE.
Join our Union and enjoy Union conditions,
Ruffalo Trucking.
According to the General Counsel, the picketing is to be characterized as "recogni-
tion picketing" because its object was to force Ruffalo to recognize Local 506 not-
withstanding that local's lack of majority status. On the other hand, Local 506 as-
serts-that thg:.picketing,was ` organizational.picketing," having, the object of organizing
the. employees again as members-of-that local. In view of the remarks by Adams
to several of Ruffalo's truckdrivers on March 3 or 4, as well as other events described
herein, I find that one object of the picketing was to force Ruffalo to recognize Local
506 without regard to the matter of majority status, although another object was to
induce the employees to designate that local again as their representative.
Our issue is not simply whether Local 506's objective of obtaining an exclusive
recognition contract, regardless of the lack of majority status, was an unlawful ob-
jective. Nor is the issue whether one may logically characterize the peaceful picket-
ing as restraint or coercion of employees because of the potentially adverse economic
effects to flow from the picketing. The issue, instead, is whether peaceful picketing
of an employer by a minority union for the objective, among others, of an exclusive
recognition contract is a restraint or coercion of employees in the statutory sense.
The authorities are opposed to the General Counsel's position.
The Board's determinations in various cases will be set forth. In National Mari-
time Union (The Texas Company), 78 NLRB 971, the Board considered the legisla-
tive history of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) at length, held that a limited construction of
the term "restraint or coerce" in that section,was envisaged by the legislative scheme,
and said at;page'986:
We are mindful of the fact that the Respondents' strike had as its purpose
the accomplishment of an illegal objective; but we are not prepared to say .. .
that a strike for an illegal objective necessarily "restrains" and "coerces" em-
ployees, as those terms were intended to be applied in Section 8 (b) (1)
(A)....
In Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225, the Board held that a strike to force
an employer to recognize a. minority union 14 as exclusive representative of em-
ployees in place of the noncertified incumbent represenative 15 was not violative of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A).18 At page 239, the Board said:
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) was not intended to have the broad and almost
limitless reach which the General Counsel urges upon the Board. The legis-
lative history of the Act shows that, by this particular section, Congress pri-
marily intended to proscribe the coercive conduct which sometimes accompanies
a strike, but not the strike itself. [Citing National Maritime Union.] By
Section 8 (b) (1) (A), Congress sought to fix the rules of the game, to insure
that-strikes and, other organizational activities of employees were conducted
peaceably by^ persuasion and propaganda,and- not by physical force, or threats
of force, or of economic reprisal. [Ibid.] In that Section, Congress was
aiming at means, not at ends.
The Board's decision led to comments by an appropriate congressional committee
which were given substantial weight by the Board in Ekco Products Company, 117
14 While the Board did not say precisely that The Perry-Norvell Shoe Workers Com-
mittee was a minority union, the Board's discussion has significance only on that basis.
In any event, the Board later resolved any doubt. See footnote 16.
15 As the Board said at pages 239-240 , the incumbent union "was never certified, so
Section 8 (b) (4) (C) cannot be here invoked; the General Counsel, barred from invoking
it by this fact, has turned to Section 8 (b) (1) (A) instead."
19 In its Fourteenth Annual Report, the Board said at page 83, citing Perry-Norvell, "The
Board also found no merit in the contention that . . . non-violent attempts by a minority
to unseat an incumbent union constituted violations of section 8 (b) (1) (A)."
1255 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NLRB 137, and which are pertinent here.17 In Tungsten Mining Corporation, 106
NLRB 903, the Board held that a strike by a minority union to displace a union
which enjoys a certified status is not violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A). In Ira A.
Watson Company, 80 NLRB 533, a union's organizational efforts were so unsuccess-
ful that none of the employees joined it, following which it made a demand upon
the employer that he execute a closed-shop contract and, upon the employer's
refusal, it engaged in peaceful picketing. The Board held that the picketing was
not in violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A).18 In Miami Copper Company, 92 NLRB
322, a minority union threatened an employer with strike action, and engaged in
such action, to successfully force the employer to adjust grievances of individual
employees outside the presence of the majority representative; but, said the Board
at page 324:
.. the fact that the Union's conduct caused the Employer to violate a statutory
right of the employees is not sufficient, in our opinion, to bring that conduct
within the limitations which the legislative history requires we place on Section
8 (b) (1) (A).
In The Higbee Company, 97 NLRB 654, a union whose majority status was in doubt-
picketed for the purpose of inducing employees to withdraw a decertification peti-
tion. The Board, without deciding whether the union possessed majority status,
held that the conduct was not violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A).
In some of the above cases- there was strike action accompanied by picketing.
In Watson Company and Higbee Company, as in the instant case , there was picketing
only, but that difference was not advanced. by the, Board as significant although,
it may be observed, minority strike action can have a greater impact. upon non-
strikers than picketing as, for instance, when there is a strike by a few key em-
ployees upon whose work the flow of, production depends. In any event, if a union
has the right to strike and to picket in such circumstances, it has the right to picket
without calling its members out on strike. These cases, of which Perry Norvell-
is particularly apposite, furnish a consistent: line ., of authority • which is dispositive
of the issue here. They hold, in effect, that a 'minority union which engages in a
peaceful strike or picketing for. the objective set forth. does not' restrain or coerce
employees in the statutory sense. The early decisions among those cases, by lengthy
references to the legislative history, show why this is so. Nevertheless, it may be
helpful to examine cases wherein a majority union sought an invalid union-security
contract, which may be analogous to our case where a minority union sought- an'
exclusive-recognition contract. In Kanawha Coal Operators' Association, 94 NLRB
17 In Report of the Joint Committee on Labor-Management Relations, No. 986, part: 3,
80th Cong., 2d sess., at page 85, there is comment upon the- Board's determination, and
at page 71 it is said : -
. . . The right to strike for recognition is only. foreclosed when another labor organi-
zation has been certified as the bargaining representative.
A labor organization may lose an election in which it was the only union on the
ballot and the next day call a legal strike to force the employer to recognize it as the
bargaining agent for those employees who have just rejected it. . . . [Emphasis
added.]
a s s a s a s
Present law in no way limits the primary strike for recognition except in the face
of another union's certification.., .
The views of certain members of the Joint - Committee are expressed in S.. Rept. 374,.
81st Cong., 1st sess., at page 50, as follows :
In a section of its final report, captioned "Strikes for Recognition" (pp. 70-72),
the Ball Committee determines against recommending the prohibition of such strikes-
beyond the present prohibition of strikes against the recognition of unions which have
been certified. We agree that no such further prohibition is warranted, not only for
the reasons stated in the Ball report, that section 9 (c) (3) of the Taft-Hartley Act
limits elections to one per year and that long delay is entailed in NLRB election
proceedings, but also for the additional reason that such a restriction would con-
stitute further unwise Government intervention in the relations between employers
and unions.
is Although the Trial Examiner's conclusion in that case, which the Board affirmed,
appears to have been based upon the free speech provisions of Section 8 (c), the Board
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 1287
1731, the Board held that pressure upon employees, in order to be violative of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A), must be direct. In Kogap Lumber Industries, 96 NLRB
165, the Board held that peaceful picketing in an unsuccessful effort to compel an
employer to adopt and apply a proposed contract containing an invalid union-
security provision was not violative of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) because the union's
conduct was directed toward the employer rather than toward the employees.19
Where, however, a union and an employer execute a contract containing such a
provision the union does violate Section 8 (b) (1) (A), and this is so even when
the contracting parties do not intend to enforce the provision and thus do not
create discriminatory conditions of employment. The reason is that the contract
itself carries an "apparent threat of economic action" by the contracting union against
employees who are not its members. Monolith Portland Cement Company, 94
NLRB 1358; Permanente Steamship Corporation, 107 NLRB 1111.. One may con-
clude, therefore, that peaceful picketing of an employer by a union to secure an
invalid union-security contract does not restrain or coerce employees in the statu-
tory sense, whereas the bare existence of such a contract does restrain or coerce
them in that sense, because in one instance the restraint or coercion is indirect and
in the other it is direct. If this be so, and assuming, arguendo, as the General
Counsel contends, that the execution of an exclusive-recognition contract by a minor-
ity union covering the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees is violative
of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), it follows that the primary picketing of Ruffalo was not
violative of that section although, if the picketing had continued and Ruffalo had
yielded before Local 506 again achieved a majority status, a violation would have
occurred then.
For the reasons stated, I find that the Respondents who picketed Ruffalo did not
thereby violate the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, to the extent
found to have been unlawful, occurring in connection with the operations of Ruf-
falo described in section I; above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to.
trade, traffic, and commerce among the. several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that all of the Respondents except Hickey have engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that
they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the.
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
. 2. Each of the Respondent Unions is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Safeway or Sexton, as the case
may be, to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to.
perform services for their respective employers, objects thereof being to force or
require (1) their respective employers to cease doing business with Ruffalo and
(2) Ruffalo to recognize or bargain with Local 506 which had not been certified
by the Board, the Teamsters, Locals 506, 641, and 852, and Adams, Snyder, and
DePerno have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, Local 707 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
cited as additional authority its Decision In National Maritime Union, supra. In the-
instant case. Local 506 does not advance the defense that its conduct is immunized by
Section 8 (c).
'*Although not a'violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), the picketing was violative of
Section 8 (b) (2).
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondents other than Local 707 have not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The Respondent Hickey has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Cupples-Hesse Corporation and Independent Union of Paper
Workers, Petitioner and Warehouse & Distribution Workers
Union , Local 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica.' Case No. 14-RC-3229. January 10, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election 2 an elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted on September 16, 1957, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Four-
teenth Region of the National Labor Relations, Board among the
employees in the unit therein found appropriate. Following the
election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 364 eligible voters, 169 cast ballots for the
Petitioner, 163 cast ballots for the Intervenor, 2 cast ballots for
neither, and 1 ballot was challenged.
On September 20, 1957, the Intervenor filed timely objections to
the election, and requested that the September 16 election be set aside
and a new election directed. In accordance with the Rules and Regu-
lations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion of the objections and, on November 6, 1957, issued his report on
objections to election in which he found the objections to be without
merit and recommended that they be overruled. On November 18,
1957, the Intervenor filed timely exceptions in which it does not make
-exception to the facts set forth in the report but only to the Regional
Director's conclusions and recommendations.
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 Jenkins]..
In its first objection, the Intervenor contends that the Regional
Director's refusal to. hold the election off company premises was
prejudicial to the Intervenor and prevented the employees casting
1 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
.amended.
2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
119 NLRB No. 152.