International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1987

282 N.L.R.B. 910 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 25, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America and Boston Deliveries, Inc.
Case 1-CC-2094
30 January 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 28 May 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Marvin Roth issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed a brief in opposition to
the Respondent's exceptions and the Charging
Party filed an answering brief to the Respondent's
exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board had dele-
gated its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the'exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions' and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Local Union
No. 25, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.
i The Respondent excepts, inter aha, to the judge's conclusion that the
filing of grievances by the Respondent under its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Charging Party to collect pay in lieu of lost work is
unlawful secondary activity The Respondent argues that there is- no
direct evidence that it had a secondary object in filing the grievances and
that merely attempting to enforce the agreement covering employees it
represents cannot constitute proscribed conduct
The Respondent does not except, however, to the judge's finding that,
if the Respondent were not aware when it filed initial grievances that the
Charging Party had no control over the assignment of the lost work, it
learned of this soon thereafter The Respondent nevertheless continued to
press the Charging Party for pay in lieu by seeking enforcement of an
arbitration panel's award on the original grievances, striking and picket-
ing the Charging Party, and filing additional grievances. Under these cir-
cumstances, we agree with the judge that the Respondent's entire course
of conduct violated Sec 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
In so doing, however, we find it unnecessary to pass on whether the
Respondent 's filing and processing of grievances alone constitute unlaw-
ful secondary activity Member Babson additionally does not pass on the
judge's discussion of Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight), 278 NLRB
1303 (1986)
Michael T Fitzsimmons, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gabriel O. Dumont Jr., Esq., of Boston, Massachusettes,
for the Respondent.
Robert N. House, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARVIN ROTH, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard at Boston, Massachusetts, on 31 March 1986.
The charge was filed on 4 September 19851 by Boston
Deliveries, Inc. (Boston Deliveries). The complaint,
which issued on 14 November, alleges that Local Union
No. 25, a/w, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (the
Union or Respondent) violated Section 8(b)(4)(i), (ii),
and the first part of (B) of the National Labor Relations
Act, which section proscribes secondary boycotts. The
gravamen of the complaint is that the Union, in further-
ance of a labor dispute with Sears, Roebuck & Co.
(Sears), registered grievances against Boston Deliveries
under their collective-bargaining contract, processed
such grievances through arbitration proceedings, sought
judicial confirmation of an arbitration award, and en-
gaged in a strike and picketing against Boston Deliveries.
The Union's answer denies the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to partici-
pate, to present relevant evidence, to argue orally, and to
file briefs. The General Counsel, Boston Deliveries, and
the Union each filed a brief. On the entire record in this
case, and having considered the briefs submitted by the
parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED
Sears, a corporation with offices and places of business
throughout the United States, is engaged in the operation
of retail stores and related enterprises. During 1984,
Sears in the course of its business operations derived
gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and
received at its Massachusetts stores goods valued in
excess of $10,000 directly from locations outside the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston Deliveries, a
corporation with an office and place of business at a
Sears warehouse on Cambridge Street in Allston, Massa-
chusetts (Allston facility), and a place of business at a
Sears facility on Guest Street in Brighton, Massachusetts
(Brighton Annex), has been engaged in the transportation
and distribution of freight as a motor freight carrier.
During 1984, Boston Deliveries performed freight trans-
portation services for Sears valued in excess of $50,000.
The Union admits, and I so find, that Sears and Boston
Deliveries are, and have been at all times material, each
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
H. THE RESPONDENT
The Union is admittedly a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
i All dates herein are in 1985 unless otherwise indicated.
282 NLRB No. 138
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 25 (BOSTON DELIVERIES) 911
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABO,1f PRACTICES
A. Facts
The material operative facts are undisputed and were
submitted in evidence by stipulation of the parties. How-
ever, the parties are not in total agreement on the impli-
cations of those facts. On 2 ,September 1969 Sears and
Boston Deliveries executed a "Retail Delivery Operation
Agreement" whereby Boston Deliveries (referred to in
the agreement as Contractor) contracted to perform cer-
tain services for Sears. The agreement provided in perti-
nent part as follows:
SEARS is the owner of certain motor truck
equipment which is used and is to be used for the
transportation of certain of SEARS' merchandise to
and from SEARS' facilities and the facilities of
others located in the Boston, Massachusetts area or
which may now or hereafter comprise the retail de-
livery operation of the Boston Retail Group (as that
term is known and used by SEARS from time to
time), together with deliveries to and from any or
all of the said facilities to SEARS' customers within
a delivery area as determined by SEARS and any
other facility or facilities which may now or may
hereafter comprise the inter-city or intra-city oper-
ation of the Boston Mail Order Plant (as that term
is used by SEARS) or any other points in the East-
ern Territory of SEARS. CONTRACTOR is to
furnish qualified drivers, helpers, platform men and
other personnel as desired by SEARS for the load-
ing, unloading, operation and maintenance of the
SEARS motor truck equipment. In order to effectu-
ate the purposes above described and in consider-
ation of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein entertained, SEARS and CONTRACTOR,
intending to be legally bound by all the provisions
hereof agree as follows:
1. Commencing on September 2, 1969, CON-
TRACTOR does hereby agree to furnish and pro-
vide to SEARS a sufficient number of competent
and' qualified personnel, as requested ' by SEARS
from time to time, to repair and maintain such
motor truck equipment and operate it for the trans-
portation of SEARS' merchandise to, from, be-
tween and among all of the various locations de-
scribed above. CONTRACTOR will also furnish
trained platform men and helpers, if requested by
SEARS.
2. All of the personnel described herein are and
shall continue to be solely employes [sic] of CON-
TRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall retain sole au-
thority and responsibility for all matters pertaining
to and connected ,with the employment and work of
the employes [sic] described herein, including, but
not limited to, their hiring, control, discipline and
discharge, the setting of wage rates and the pay-
ment of wages. In addition to its control under the
terms and conditions of employment of the em-
ployes [sic] described herein, CONTRACTOR shall
also be solely responsible for all negotiations and
contracts - with the bargaining agents of the em-
ployes [sic] herein named.
3. CONTRACTOR shall provide the services
herein described in accordance with the requests
and needs of SEARS.
Sears agreed to pay Boston Deliveries in accordance
with a formula under which Sears compensated Boston
Deliveries for its payroll and other labor costs, including
fringe benefits. The agreement was made effective for an
initial 1-year period and automatically renewable from
year to year unless either party terminated the agreement
on 30 days' written notice to the other party.
Pursuant to their agreement, Boston Deliveries provid-
ed employees to perform services for Sears at the All-
ston facility. In November 1984, Sears opened a new
warehouse at Brighton Annex, and Boston Deliveries
provided employees to perform services at that location.
So far as is indicated by the stipulated record, Boston
Deliveries furnished personnel who performed loading
and unloading work. (The stipulated documents indicate
that Boston Deliveries and the Union disagree as to the
scope of the work performed by such personnel, but the
stipulated evidence is inadequate to resolve this disagree-
ment.) The employees of Boston Deliveries who per-
formed these services for Sears were at all times material
covered by a collective-bargaining contract between
Boston Deliveries and the Union. The current contract
was executed on 18 July 1985 and made effective by its
terms from 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1988. The collec-
tive-bargaining contract, which refers to Boston Deliv-
eries as the Employer, and does not refer to Sears, in-
cludes the following provisions:
ARTICLE I
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
Section 1. The execution of this Agreement on
the part of the Employer shall cover all operations
of the Employer within, into and out of the area
and territory described below.
If the Employer closes facility (Allston) and
moves to another area, or transfers the work partial-
ly to another area, the employees and Local Union
will have the right to follow the work.
All operations and work covered herein shall be
performed exclusively by employees covered by
this Agreement.
Section 2. (a) Employees covered by this Agree-
ment shall be constructed to mean, but not limited
to, any driver, chauffeur, or driver helper operating
a truck, tractor, motorcycle, passenger or horse-
drawn vehicle, or any other vehicle operated on
highways, street or private road, for transportation
purposes when used to defeat the purpose of this
Agreement. The term employees also includes, but
is not limited to, all employees used in dock work,
switching, checking, drag lines, stacking, loading,
unloading, handling and assembling.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARTICLE XVI
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY COMMITTEE
SECTION 1. NEW ENGLAND JOINT AREA
COMMITTEE.
The Operators and the Unions shall together
create a permanent New England Joint Area Com-
mittee, composed of the following Local Unions:
25, 42, 49, 59, 170, 191, 251, 379, 404, 437, 443, 493,
526, 653, 671 and 677. The Joint Area Committee
shall consist of an equal number appointed by Em-
ployers and Unions but no less than three (3) from
each group. Each member may appoint an alternate
in his place. The Joint Area Committee shall at its
first meeting formulate rules of procedure to govern
the conduct of its proceedings. The Joint Area
Committee shall have jurisdiction over disputes and
grievances involving Local Unions or complaints by
Local Unions participating in such Committee. This
Joint Area Committee shall meet at established
times and at a mutually convenient location.
SECTION 2. EASTERN CONFERENCE
JOINT AREA COMMITTEE.
The Employers and the Unions shall together
create a permanent Eastern Conference Joint Area
Committee which shall consist of delegates from the
Eastern Conference Area. This Eastern Conference
Joint Area Committee shall meet at established
times and at a mutually convenient location.
ARTICLE XVII
GRIEVANCE MACHINER Y AND UNION
LIABILITY
SECTION 1.
The Union and the Employers agree that there
shall be no strike, lockout, tie-up, or legal proceed-
ings without first using all possible means of a set-
tlement, as provided for in this Agreement, of any
controversy which might arise . Disputes shall first
be taken up between the Employer and the Local
Union involved. Failing adjustment by these parties,
the following procedure shall then apply:
(a) Where the New England Joint Area Commit-
tee, by a majority vote, settles a dispute, no appeal
may be taken to the Eastern Conference Joint Area
Committee. Such a decision will be final and bind-
ing on both parties.
(b) Where the New England Joint Area Commit-
tee is unable to agree or come to a decision on a
case, it shall be submitted or appealed to the East-
ern Conference Joint Area Committee at the next
regular constituted session, at the request of the
Employer or Union involved, except as otherwise
provided in (d) below. Where the Eastern Confer-
ence Joint Area Committee, by a majority vote, set-
tles a dispute such decision shall be final and bind-
ing on both parties with no further appeal. Minutes
of the New England Joint Area Committee shall set
forth the position and facts relied on by each party,
but each party may supplement such minutes at the
hearing before the Eastern Conference Joint Area
Committee.
Deadlocked cases may be submitted to umpire
handling if a majority of the Eastern Conference
Joint Area Committee determines to submit such
matter to an umpire for decision. Otherwise, either
party shall be permitted all legal or economic re-
course.
In May and June 1985, six employees of Boston Deliv-
eries filed grievances against their Employer. The sub-
stance of these grievances was that the employees were
laid off for lack of work, while Sears employees were
performing loading work at the Brighton Annex, that the
employees of Boston Deliveries were entitled to such
work under their collective-bargaining contract and,
therefore, that they should be compensated for their loss
of work. The Union, by its secretary-treasurer Joseph
Conlon and steward John Mawn, presented and proc-
essed these and subsequent similar grievances. The Union
selected one of the original six grievances, known as the
Hughes grievance, for submission to arbitration by the
New England Joint Area Committee (NEJAC), with the
understanding of the parties that NEJAC's decision
would also apply to the other grievances. The Union al-
leged that Boston Deliveries violated article I, sections 1
and 2, of its contract, and requested that Hughes "be
paid for lost work opportunity" and that Boston Deliv-
eries "cease and desist as per contract." NEJAC con-
ducted a hearing on 17 July. At the hearing Boston De-
liveries took the position, in sum, that Sears decided to
staff the Brighton Annex with its own employees, that
Boston Deliveries' employees had no contractual right to
work at that facility, that Sears was not a party to any
contract with the Union and had the right to use its own
employees, that any adverse decision against Boston De-
liveries would not be binding on Sears, and that the
union contract did not control Boston Deliveries' cus-
tomers. NEJAC decided in favor of the Union, holding
that: "Based on the evidence and testimony presented the
claim for lost work opportunity in violation of the con-
tract is upheld." In the meantime, by letter dated 28
June, Sears notified ' Boston Deliveries that the "loading
and unloading trailer services provided by Boston Deliv-
eries, Inc. is no longer required" at the Allston facility
and the Brighton Annex, and that "[a]s a result, Sears is
effecting cancellation of these services pursuant to our
contract as of August 1, 1985." On 1 July, Boston Deliv-
eries notified its employees of the cancellation. The par-
ties to this proceeding stipulated that about 1 August the
Union engaged in a strike and picketing against Boston
Deliveries at the Allston facility and the Brighton
Annex. The only record evidence presented concerning
the purpose or object of this strike and picketing consist-
ed of hearsay, specifically, the self-serving assertions of
Boston Deliveries in correspondence and its unfair labor
practice charge. However , in its brief (Br. 2) the ' Union
admitted that it struck to compel Boston Deliveries to
comply with the NEJAC award. By letters dated 2 and 8
August, Boston Deliveries sent checks to the original six
grievants for their alleged lost wages, informing them
that it was making the payments 'under protest, and
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 25 (BOSTON DELIVERIES)
would seek judicial review of the NEJAC award: Boston`
Deliveries asserted that it was making these payments be-
cause the Union engaged in an "illegal strike" that was
stopped by a temporary restraining order of the United
States district court . According to Boston Deliveries, it
was informed by an unnamed union representative that
the strike was based on the fact that the Company had
not yet made these payments, "despite the fact that 10
days from the receipt of the written decision had not
even passed." At the present hearing , union counsel
stated that at the time there was a dispute between the
parties as to whether 10 days had passed . The stipulated
evidence does not indicate any pertinent contract provi-
sion governing strike action in the event of noncompli-
ance with an arbitration award.
Boston Deliveries instituted an action against the
Union in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts to vacate the NEJAC award . Boston
Deliveries alleged in sum that NEJAC exceeded its au-
thority by applying the collective-bargaining contract to
work outside the scope of the contract, and that Sears
had sole discretion concerning the assignment of work to
Boston Deliveries . On 23 August the Union filed an
answer and counterclaim , denying the allegations of the
complaint and requesting enforcement of the NEJAC
award . After 1 August the Union presented and proc-
essed additional grievances against Boston Deliveries, al-
leging further loss of work "because of the situation aris-
ing from Sears taking over the platform work." The
Union asserted that Boston Deliveries violated, in addi-
tion to article I , various other sections of their contract,
including those pertaining to seniority rights, and re-
quested that Boston Deliveries be ordered to "cease and
desist making unilateral changes without proper agree-
ment between the parties and also to replace all lost
work opportunities and benefits since August 1, 1985."
After a hearing NEJAC was deadlocked on the griev-
ances, and referred them to the. Eastern Conference Joint
Area Committee . In October and November, the Union
presented additional 'similar grievances, which were
pending at the time of the present hearing.
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The first question presented is whether and under
what circumstances a union violates Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
by filing and processing grievances against an employer,
pursuing them to arbitration , and seeking judicial confir-
mation of a favorable award .2 In Teamsters Local 705
(Emery Air Freight), 278 NLRB 1303 (1986), the Board
held in sum that a labor organization violates Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) by filing and processing grievances against
an employer where an object of such conduct is pro-
scribed by that section, i.e., where the Union seeks to
cause a cessation of business within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(4) first part (B). The Board distinguished Bill
Johnson 's Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983), in
2 The General Counsel does not contend that such conduct would
constitute inducement or encouragement of a work stoppage under Sec.
8(bX4)(i )(B) However, the General Counsel does contend that such con-
duct can constitute restraint and coercion of an employer under Sec
8(b)(4)(ii)(B). (Br. fn. 3.)
913
which- the ^Supreine Court held in sum that the Board
cannot enjoin a retaliatory lawsuit by an employer, i.e.,
one filed in retaliation for its employees' exercise of Sec-
tion 7 rights , unless the lawsuit lacks a reasonable basis
in fact and law . The Board relied on the Supreme
Court's observation (461 U.S. at 737 fn. 5) that its hold-
ing did not apply to a suit that "has an objective that is
illegal under Federal law ." Therefore, in the present
case, the Union 's action in filing and processing griev-
ances would be unlawful if done for an object proscribed
by Section 8(b)(4)(B). The Board 's rationale would also
be applicable to the Union's counterclaim for judicial
confirmation of the NEJAC award. As indicated, the
Union concedes that it struck and picketed Boston Deliv-
eries in order to compel Boston Deliveries to comply
with the award . Therefore, it follows that if the Union
acted unlawfully by filing and processing its grievances
through arbitration , then the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by striking and picketing Boston De-
liveries to compel compliance with an award that the
Union obtained by its own unlawful conduct.
As the Union engaged in conduct that would consti-
tute restraint and coercion of an employer , including a
strike and picketing that would also constitute strike
action under Section 8 (b)(4)(i)(B), the next question pre-
sented is whether the Union engaged in its overall course
of conduct for a secondary object proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(B). I find that it did. When the, Union filed and
processed its grievances to arbitration, it based its claim
for relief on various provisions of its contract with
Boston Deliveries . It is possible that a collective-bargain-
ing contract might provide for a minimum guaranteed
workday or workweek, under which the signatory em-
ployer might be obligated to compensate its employees'
for its, failure to' meet that guarantee , even though the
employer 's failure to provide sufficient work was caused
by factors beyond its control . However, the contract be-
tween the Union and Boston Deliveries does , not contain
such provisions . Rather , the entire thrust of the Union's
claims was that Boston Deliveries somehow violated its
contract because certain loading dock work was per-
formed by Sears' employees rather than by unit employ-
ees of Boston Deliveries. However , Sears, which is not a
party to the contract, made the decision or decisions to
use its own employees. Boston Deliveries had no control
or right to control those decisions . Rather, under their
contractual arrangement , Boston Deliveries was obligat-
ed to furnish services ' "in accordance with the requests
and needs of Sears," and their arrangement was subject
to cancellation by either party on 30 days' Written
notice . Sears exercised this right by canceling its ar-
rangement for any and all loading and unloading services
at the Allston facility and the Brighton Annex. If the
Union was unaware of Boston Deliveries ' lack of control
over assignment of the work in question when the initial
grievances were filed, then the Union plainly learned of
the true situation shortly thereafter , when Boston Deliv-
eries notified its employees of Sears' cancellation, and
when Boston Deliveries presented its position at the 17
July arbitration hearing . Therefore, under settled law the
Union's dispute was with Sears, and Boston Deliveries
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was a neutral or secondary employer to that dispute. See
NLRB v. Plumbers Local 638, 429 U.S. 507 (1977). Nev-
ertheless, the Union argues (Br. 4) that its conduct did
not have a- proscribed object because its ultimate goal
was to restore and reinforce the arrangement between
Sears and Boston Deliveries by applying pressure on
Boston Deliveries to use its influence on Sears in such a
manner as to cause Sears to resume using the services of
Boston Deliveries. This argument misconstrues the pro-
scription of Section 8(b)(4)(B) against so-called second-
ary boycotts.
In secondary boycott cases, the crucial question is
whether the Union is applying pressure on an employer
with whom it does not have a primary dispute, i.e., a
neutral or secondary employer. The Union's ultimate
object may not be to cause a cessation of business be-
tween, the secondary and'the primary employer. Rather,
the "cease doing business" object may be an interim,
conditional, tactical, or alternative means of achieving
the Union's ultimate goal. When, as here, a union applies
strike or other proscribed pressure in order to force the
secondary employer to "use its influence" on the primary
employer to restore or revise a business relationship be-
tween them and, thereby, obtain work for employees
represented by the Union, the Union's conduct is second-
ary and violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B). NLRB ' v Operat-
ing Engineers Local 825, 400 U.S. 297, 304-305 '(1971).
Therefore, in the present case the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sears and Boston Deliveries are each employers and
persons engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
2. The Union is a' labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By registering and filing grievances against Boston
Deliveries under their collective-bargaining contract,
processing such grievances through arbitration proceed-
ings, seeking judicial confirmation of an arbitration
award, and striking and picketing Boston Deliveries, all
in furtherance of the Union's dispute with Sears, the
Union has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning ' of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has committed violations
of Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that
it be required to cease and desist therefrom and from like
or related conduct, to post appropriate notices, and to
furnish and give appropriate notices to Sears and Boston
Deliveries. I shall further recommend that the Union be
ordered to withdraw its grievances against Boston Deliv-
eries' arising out of the assignment of loading and unload-
ing work to Sears' employees, and to withdraw its coun-
terclaim for, enforcement of the Hughes award. See
Teamsters Local 705 (Emery Air Freight), supra. As
Boston Deliveries made payments to employees in com-
pliance with the Hughes award because of unlawful
union pressure, including a strike and picketing, I shall
recommend that the Union be ordered to reimburse
Boston Deliveries for such payments, with interest. See
Printers Local 1066 (Siebenoller Co.), 205 NLRB 651, 653
(1973). Interest shall be computed in the manner and
amount prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651
(1977). I am rejecting the General Counsel's request for a
visitatorial clause because the General Counsel has failed
to demonstrate that there are circumstances in this case
that warrant such a remedy. See Rebel Coal Co., 279
NLRB 141 fn. 2 (1986).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed4
ORDER
The Respondent, Local Union No. 25, a/w Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehou-
semen and Helpers of America, Allston and Brighton,
Massachusetts, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Registering , filing, or processing grievances against
Boston Deliveries, Inc., demanding compliance by
Boston Deliveries, Inc. with awards obtained as a result
of such grievances, or striking or picketing Boston De-
liveries, Inc. where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business
with Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person.
(b) In any other manner or by any other means engag-
ing in, or inducing or encouraging any individual em-
ployed by Boston Deliveries, Inc. or by any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce to ` engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of
his employment to transport or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any services, or threatening, coercing, or
restraining Boston Deliveries, Inc. or any other person
engaged 'in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force
or,require Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business
with Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw all pending grievances against Boston
Deliveries, Inc. arising out of the assignment of work by
Sears, Roebuck & Co. to its own employees at the Sears
warehouse on Cambridge Street in Allston, Massachu-
setts, and the Sears facility on Guest Street in Brighton,
Massachusetts.
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
3 Boston Deliveries requests that I find that the Union also violated Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Sec 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. However, as the complaint does not allege Order shall , as provided in Sec. 102 .48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
that the Union violated this section, I have no authority to make such a Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
finding. poses.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 25 (BOSTON DELIVERIES)
(b) Withdraw its counterclaim against Boston Deliv-
eries, Inc. in Civil Action No. 85-3144-W in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
(c) Reimburse Boston Deliveries, Inc. for payments
made pursuant to the 17 July 1985 decision of the New
England Joint Area Committee, as set forth in the
remedy section of the decision.
(d) Post at its office in Charlestown, Massachusetts,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material,
(e) Furnish to the Regional Director, for Region I
signed copies of the notice for posting by Boston Deliv-
eries and Sears, if they are willing, in their respective fa-
cilities, in the places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Copies of the notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed
by the Respondent's representative, shall be forthwith re-
turned to the Regional Director for such posting.
(f) Notify Boston Deliveries and Sears in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order ,that it will
not, by any unlawful' manner or means, attempt to force
or require Boston Deliveries to cease and desist doing
business with Sears or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
915
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT register, file, or process grievances
against Boston Deliveries, Inc., demand compliance by
Boston Deliveries, Inc. with awards obtained as a result
of such grievances, or strike or picket Boston Deliveries,
Inc. where an object thereof is to force or require
Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business with
Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner or by any other
means engage in, or induce or encourage any individual
employed by Boston Deliveries,, Inc. or by any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course
of his employment to transport or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any services, or threaten, coerce, or re-
strain Boston Deliveries, Inc. or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, where in either case an object thereof is to force
or require Boston Deliveries, Inc. to cease doing business
with Sears, Roebuck & Co. or any other person.
WE WILL withdraw all pending grievances against
Boston Deliveries, Inc. arising out the assignment of
work by Sears, Roebuck & Co. to its own employees at
the Sears warehouse on Cambridge Street in Allston,
Massachusetts, and the Sears facility on Guest Street in
Brighton, Massachusetts.
WE WILL withdraw our counterclaim against Boston
Deliveries, Inc. in Civil Action No. 85-3144-W in the
United States District Court for the District of Massa-
chusetts.
WE WILL reimburse Boston Deliveries, Inc. for pay-
ments made pursuant to the 17 July 1985 decision of the
New England Joint Area Committee, with interest.
LOCAL UNION No. 25, A/W INTERNATION-
AL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA