International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1007 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,] ETC. 1007
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,'Warehouse-
men and Helpers' of America ; International . Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local Union No. 71; International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
Union No. 55; General Drivers, Warehousemen and ' Helpers,
Local Union #509, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local Union
No. 728 and Overnite Transportation Company. Case No.
11-CC-16. March 1; 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 8, 1959, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondents named above, except Respondent International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, had engaged in and were engaging in cer-
tain unfair 'labor practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in-
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Ex-
aminer 'further found that Respondent International Brotherhood of
Teamsters had not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed with. respect to said Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent
Local 728 and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Interme-
diate Report and supporting briefs., Overnite, the Charging Party,
filed a motion to withdraw its charge against Respondent Interna-
. ,tional.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds 'no prejudicial 'error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.2 The Board has considered. the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and briefs, the motion to withdraw
the charge,3 and the entire. record in the case, and hereby adopts the
1 The exceptions of the General Counsel are limited to matters affecting the recommended
remedy and order.
9 we find without merit the exceptions of Local 728 , to the Trial Examiner's denial of
its motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the General Counsel had split his
cause of action by issuing a complaint in Case No . 10-CC-426 , involving the same
parties. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters , et at. ( Overn4te Transportation
Company ), 130 NLRB 1020. Because Member Fanning believes that the General Counsel
proceeded improperly by failing to consolidate this case with Case No. 10-CC-426, he
would, for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in 130 NLRB 1020, dismiss the
complaint in that proceeding.
S No meritorious appearing therefor, the motion to withdraw the charge against Re=
spondent International is denied.
130 NLRB No. 108.
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
'Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations 4 with
the modifications in The Remedy and Order indicated below.
THE REMEDY
Having found, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents
have violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, we shall
order each of them to cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The General Counsel excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner
to include in his recommended order a provision that the Respondents
sign additional copies of the notice, for posting at the premises of
the secondary employers involved, if these employers consent to such
posting. In accord with our usual practice, we shall include such a
provision in our Order.
The General Counsel also contends that, because of the nature and
extent of the violations involved, the Order herein should require
the Respondents to notify their members and all employees repre-
sented by them that the Respondents revoke any prior instruction, re-
quest, or appeal to stop, or refrain from, handling or transporting the
freight of Overnite, and that Respondents disclaim-any intent to im-
pose reprisals, discipline, or penalties on any member or employee for
handling such freight. The General Counsel contends that such noti-
fication should be given, not only in the notice to be posted, but by
notice to members and employees in addition to the posting.
The picketing herein found unlawful was conducted at 18 separate
locations in 2 cities, and, of course, involved directly the employees
of 18 different employers who are members of or represented by the
Respondents. It is apparent that the secondary boycott campaign
against Overnight was well and deliberately planned by all four
locals, and extensively carried out. Each of the Respondent Locals
has a large membership, and each covers a large geographical juris-
diction throughout 4 States in which the primary employer, Overnite,
maintains 26 terminals. In these circumstances, we agree with the
General Counsel that merely posting the usual notices at the Re-
spondent's offices, at Overnite's places of business, and at the places of
business of the secondary employers involved,. is not sufficient to
negate the effects of the Respondent's boycott campaign.5 We shall
therefore order Respondents to give to their members and to all em-
ployees represented by them, the additional notice requested by the
General Counsel.
With respect to all Respondents, the Order which we issue herein
is phrased in the existing language of the 'Act rather than in the
4 We adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner' s finding that the Respondent International
did not violate the Act, because no exceptions were filed to this .' finding . by any of the
parties.
5 International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc., Local No. 554, AFL-CIO (Clark Bros.
Transfer Company ), 123 NLRB 1564.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, -ETC. 1009
language "existing at the-time the Trial Examiner issued. his- recom
mended order.6
With respect to Respondents Locals No. 55, 71, and 509, we shall
order them to cease and desist from all like or related conduct, i.e.,
we shall order them to cease and desist from secondary activity against
any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce in order to force any such person to stop doing business with
Overnite, or to force Overnite to recognize Respondents, or any of
them, as representatives of Overnite's employees in the absence of
Board certification.
The Order against Respondent Local 728 will contain similar cease-
and-desist provisions against like or related conduct, but, in addition,
our Order against Local 728 will cover any future unlawful secondary
boycott activity respecting any other primary person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce. A broad cease-and-desist
order of this type against Local 728 appears necessary in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act, because of the extent to which Local
728 had demonstrated a proclivity to violate the Act by secondary boy-
cott activity against persons with whom it develops disputes. In addi-
tion to the instant case, involving as it does 18 secondary' employers,
there have been in recent times four other contested secondary boy-
cott cases in which it has been necessary for the Board to issue orders
against Local 728, and in which 'Local 728 has been found to have
engaged in deliberate and extensive unlawful secondary activity in
aid -of its disputes.' Further there were three additional cases which
were'-,settled .by settlement stipulations before final adjudication, but
in which it was necessary for the General Counsel to secure Federal
district court injunctions against Local 728, on the ground there was
reasonable cause to believe that Local 728 was engaging in unlawful
secondary activity.8 This record of persistent and repeated violations
by Local 728 indicates the necessity of a broad order against it to pre-
vent it from continuing, with impunity, to violate the secondary boy-
8 Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Warehousemen and Handlers, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , at at . ( Republic Wire Corporation ), 129 NLRB 376.
4 Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc. v. N.L.R.B. (Genuine Parts Co.),
265 F. 2d 439 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 361 U.S. 917 , enfg. 119 NLRB 399; Truck Drivers
and Helpers Local Union 728, etc. v. N.L.R.B. (Campbell Coal Co. ), 249 F. 2d 512
(C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 355 U.S. 958 , enfg. 116 NLRB 1020 ; N.L.R.B. v. Truck Drivers &
Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc .. ( National Trucking Co.) (Ford Motor Co.), 228 F. 2d
791 (C.A. 5), enfg. 111 NLRB 483; Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc.
(Empire State Empress, Inc.), 116 NLRB 615..
s aetreu, Regional Director .v. Truck Drivers and .Helpers Local Union No. 728, at at.
(Harper-Motor Lines ), 38 LRRM • 2545 (D.C. N. Ga.), 'Case No. 10-CC-253, Board Order,
and 'consent decree -November 20, 1956., ( C.A. 5) ; Phillips, Regional Director v. Truck
Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc. (Georgia Highway Empress ), 42 LRRM
21'04 (D.C. M. Ga.), Case No. 10-CC-375. and 376, Board Order and consent decree.
September 9, 195'8 (C.A. 5) ; Phillips, Regional Director v. Truck Drivers and Helpers,
Local Union No. 728, etc. ( Whitley Construction Co.), injunctive relief granted Septem-
ber 16, 1957 (D.C. Ga.), 'Case No. 10-CC-342, Board Order and consent decree , April 2,
1958 (C.A. 5).
597254-61-vol. 130--65
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cott sections of the Act, free from restraint of prior- orders more
narrow in scope.°
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) -
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that :
A. Respondents, Local Unions Nos. 55, 71, and - 509, , International,
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen. and Helpers
of America, their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and as-
.signs, shall :
1. Cease and desist. from engaging in, or inducing or .encouraging
any individual employed by any 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 use, manufacture, process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, or commodities,,
or to perform any services where an object thereof is (1) to force
or require any such person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce to cease doing business with Overnite Transporta-
tion Company; or (2) to force or require Overnite Transportation
Company to recognize or bargain with Locals Nos. 55, 71, or 509,
individually or collectively, unless said labor organizations shall have
been certified as the representative of the employees of Overnite Trans-.
portation Company, under the provisions of Section 9 .of -the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondents' business offices,,
meeting halls, and all places where notices .to their members are cus-
tomarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap-
pendix A.",10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina),
shall, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of the.
Respondents, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days. thereafter. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that such notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered; by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies, of said. notice to the Regional
Director -for the Eleventh Region for posting,; the employers willing,
0 Republic Wire Corp ., supra ; N.L.R.B . v: Brewery and Beer Distributor Drivers , etc.,
Local 830 (Delaware Valley Beer Distributor Assn.), 281 F . 2d 319 ( C.A. 3), enfg, as
mod. 125 NLRB 12; N.L.R:B. v. International Hod Carriers , etc., Local No. 1140 (Gilmore
Construction Co.), 285 F. 2d 397 ( C.A. 8),'enfg. as mod. 127 NLRB 541.. .
10In 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."
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1011
at Overnite Transportation Company and at the premises of any other
employer or person doing business with Overnite Transportation Com-
pany who was involved in the activities of the Respondents herein.
(c) Forthwith notify all their members and all employees repre-
sented by them who are employed by persons engaged in commerce
and in an industry affecting commerce , other than Overnite Trans-
portation Company, that they are revoking any prior instruction, re-
quest, or appeal to stop transporting or handling, in the course of their
.employment, freight shipped to or by, or destined for shipment to or
by, Overnite Transportation Company, and all such freight may be
handled by their members and such other employees without reprisal
or penalty. Such notification shall be by mail and shall be in addition
to that conveyed by the postings of the notices specified in paragraphs
(a) and (b) above.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what'steps they
have taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent, Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in.an
industry affecting commerce doing business with Overnite Transporta-
tion Company or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an in-
dustry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the
course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is (1) to
force or require any such person engaged in commerce or in an, in-
dustry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Overnite
Transportation Company or with any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce; or (2) to force or require
"Overnite Transportation Company or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce- to recognize or bar-
gain with Respondent as the representative of their employees unless
-Respondent shall have been:certified as the representative of such em-
ployees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. -
2. Take the following affirmative action which the' Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices,
meeting halls, and all places where notices to its members are cus-
tomarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appen-
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dig B.11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), shall,
after being duly signed by authorized representatives of the Respond-
ent, be posted. by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for the Eleventh Region for posting, the employers willing,
at Overnite Transportation Company and at the premises of any other
employer or person doing business with Overnite Transportation
Company who was involved in the activities of the Respondent herein.
(c) Forthwith notify all its members who are employed by persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce other than
Overnite Transportation Company, and all employees of said persons
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce repre-
sented by it, that it is revoking any prior instruction, request, or ap-
peal to stop transporting or handling, in the course of their employ-
ment, freight shipped to or by, or destined for shipment to or by,
Overnite Transportation Company, and , all such freight may be
handled without reprisal or penalty. Such notification shall be by
mail and shall be in addition to that conveyed by the postings of the
notices specified in paragraphs (a) and (b), above.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in
writing, within 40 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
"See footnote 10, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNIONS No. 55, 71, AND 509, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA; TO ALL INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY
OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; TO ALL INDIVIDUALS EM-
PLOYED BY ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN AN INDUSTRY
AFFECTING COMMERCE DOING BUSINESS WITH OVERNITE TRANSPOR-
TATION COMPANY; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF, OTHER EMPLOYERS
WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY US AS THEIR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE :
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, we hereby notify you that :
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1013.
WE WILL NOT engage,in, or induce or encourage any individual
employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce doing business with Overnite Transportation
Company to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his
employment to use; :manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, or commodities, or to per-
form any service where an object thereof is (1) to force or re-
quire any such person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce to cease doing business with Overnite Trans-
portation Company; or (2) to force or require Overnite Trans-
portation Company to recognize or bargain with us, individually
or collectively, unless we shall have been certified as the repre-
sentative of the employees of Overnite Transportation Company,
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
WE HEREBY REVOKE any prior instruction, request or appeal to
stop transporting or handling, in the course of your employment
by any employer or person other-than Overnite Transportation
Company, freight shipped to or by, or destined for shipment to
or by Overnite Transportation Company, and all such freight
may be handled by you without.reprisal or penalty by us.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP-
ERS of AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 55,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By--------------------------------=----
(Representative ) ( Title)
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 71,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- .By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION #509, AFFILI-
ATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA,
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.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL UNION No. 728; To ALL INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY OvERNrrn
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; TO ALL INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY ANY
PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN AN INDUSTRY AFFECTING
COMMERCE DOING BUSINESS WITH OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COM-
PANY; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES or OTHER EMPLOYERS WHO ARE REP-
RESENTED BY US As THEIR COLLECTIVE- BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE :
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, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual
employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce doing business with Overnite Transportation
Company 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 use, manufacture, process, trans-
port; or otherwise handle or work on any goods; articles, mate-
rials, or commodities, or to perform any services where an object
thereof i`s (1) to force or,require any such person engaged in com-
merce or ,in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing busi-
ness with Overnite Transportation Company or with any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce; or (2) to force or. require Overnite Transportation Com-
pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce to recognize or bargain with us as the repre-
sentative of their employees unless -we shall have been certified as
the representative of such employees under the provisions of See-
tion 9 of the Act.
WE HEREBY REVOKE any prior instruction, request, or-appeal to
stop transporting or handling, in the course of your employment
by'any employer or person other than Overnite Transportation
Company, freight shipped to'or by, or destined for shipment to
or by Overnite Transportation Company, and all such freight
may be handled by you without reprisal or penalty by us.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 728,
Labor Orgtznization.
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.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1015
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 3; 1959, Overnite Transportation Company, Richmond, Virignia, filed
a charge with the Board's Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, charging violation of Section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the National
'Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136) by the labor organizations named above, and
'herein referred to collectively as the Respondents. - On July 14, 1959, the General
,Counsel, by the Regional Director, issued a complaint, and on July 22, 1959, an
amended complaint alleging violation by the Respondents of the aforesaid provisions
-of the Act. In due course the Respondents filed their answers denying the com-
mission of unfair labor practices.
Upon due notice, a hearing was held at, Asheville, North Carolina, on August. 5,
1959. The General Counsel and the Respondents were represented by counsel and
,participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded opportunity to present and
-to meet material evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue the
:issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings. On September
9, 1958, Local 728 filed 'a brief, which has been considered.
In its answer Local 728, and at the hearing all the Respondents, moved to dismiss
the complaint on the ground of multiplicity of suits or splitting of causes of action.
The basis for the motion was that upon an identical charge (save for the date) filed
=by 'Overnite with the Board's Atlanta Regional Office, the General Counsel, by the
.Atlanta Regional Director, issued another complaint against the Respondents alleging
,the commission.of'violations of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) in the Atlanta Region,
.arising out of the same basic dispute. These motions were denied on.the ground
that they were premature until there was an actual hearing on the Atlanta complaint.
Such a hearing was later held before this Trial Examiner, and the motions were there
renewed. They will be disposed of in the Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order in that case (Overnite Transportation Company, Case No. 10-CC-426, 130
NLRB 1020).
Upon the basis of the entire record in the present case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF OVERNITE
Overnite Transportation Company is a Virginia: corporation maintaining its prin-
-cipal office in Richmond, Virginia. It has 26 terminals and places of business in the
States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and is engaged in
the business of the transportation of freight by motor vehicle. During the past year,
Overnite had gross revenue in excess of $4,000,000, derived mainly from direct inter-
state transportation of freight under certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce
Commission:
It is admitted that Overnite is engaged in commerce within the --meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED "
It is admitted -that the Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of
the Act, . I . . .. -
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
(1) Whether. picketing at the premises of secondary employers in Asheville and
,Charlotte, North Carolina, and the Hanna incident at the Dance terminal, described
'hereinafter, constitute-violations of Section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Act.
(2) Whether the evidence establishes that Local 728 participated in the action
engaged in by other Respondents at Asheville and at Charlotte.
(3) Whether the International Union is chargeable with responsibility for unlawful
conduct of the locals.
B. The controversy and the picketing '
Overnite operates over a large area in the southeastern United States-from Vir-
ginia to Georgia. In the early part of 1959 various local unions of the Teamsters
were engaged in a campaign to organize Overnite's employees. In early March repre-
sentatives of some of these locals met in Atlanta to discuss the campaign. Later
-two other meetings were held in Charlotte, North Carolina, at the office of Teamsters
-Joint Council No. 9, on April 21 and May 4, respectively. At these meetings repre-
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentatives of the Joint Council and of various local unions exchanged information
as to the progress of the campaign, and discussed courses of action. R. L. Young,
secretary-treasurer of Local 61 of Hickory, North Carolina, and president of Joint
Council No. 9 and R. C. Cook, president of Local 728, Atlanta, Georgia, were the
leaders in the activity.
At the April 21 meeting the following organizations were represented: Local 55
of Asheville, North Carolina, and Greenville, South Carolina; Local 61, Hickory,
North Carolina; Local 71, Charlotte, North Carolina; Local 391, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina; Local 509, Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina; Local 592,
Richmond, Virginia; Local 728, Atlanta, Georgia; Local 822, Norfolk, Virginia; and
Joint Council 9..
The same organizations were represented at the May 4, 1959, meeting with the
exception of Locals 509 and 822. Also two additional locals were represented at
this meeting-No. 171 from Roanoke, Virginia, and No. 697 of Charleston, South
Carolina.'
On or about May 16, 1959, each of the four Respondent Local Unions, namely
55, 71, 509, and 728, sent telegrams to Overnite Transportation Company, reglxest-
ing recognition 'as collective-bargaining representative of certain of Overnite's em-
ployees in the particular local's jurisdictional area. On the following day, May 17,
picketing commenced at the terminals of Overnite in Charlotte, Hickory, and Ashe-
ville, North Carolina, and in Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina. At those
'locations Overnite regularly employs warehouse and city pickup employees, and its
over-the-road drivers report there daily. About the same time picketing commenced
'at the premises and terminals in Asheville and Charlotte of various customers and
carriers doing business with Overnite (referred to herein as secondaryemployers)
when the trucks of Overnite made or attempted to make deliveries.to such locations.
The picket signs carried in connection with the aforesaid picketing bore the fol-
lowing legend:
Overnite
Transportation Co.
ON STRIKE
Unfair to Teamsters
members of
Local 728 Atlanta, Ga.
Local 71 Charlotte, N.C.
Local 55
Asheville, N.C.-Greenville, S.C.
Local 509
Columbia and Charleston, S.C.
Apart from the picketing, there is evidence of one specific incident of inducement
of an employee by a.respondent in connection with the dispute. This occurrence
involved Hugh Rutledge, secretary-treasurer of Local 55, and Lewis D. Hanna; a
road driver for Dance Freight Lines, a truck carrier. About June 12, 1959, Rutledge
approached Hanna at Dance's terminal in Asheville and sought to ascertain whether
Hanna had any Overnite freight on his truck. In connection with these inquiries
Rutledge suggested to Hanna that the driver not handle any Overnite' cargo.
The object of the action engaged in by the local unions was to force and require
Overnite to recognize and bargain with the appropriate Respondent Local within.
its jurisdictional area. However; none of the Respondents has been certified under
Section 9 of the Act as the collective-bargaining representative of any of Overnite's
employees.
The uncontradicted testimony is that the strike has not been sanctioned by the
International Union. The costs' of the strike and strike benefits-if any-are being
defrayed by the local unions, without expectation of reimbursement by the
International.
1 A joint council is an organization composed of representatives of local unions within
a particular geographical area. The area encompassed by Joint Council 9 appears to
consist of a substantial portion of North Carolina and some of South Carolina. Its
offices are in Charlotte. Locals 55 and 61 are members of the Joint Council ; Local 728
is not. Whether any of the other local unions represented at the Charlotte meetings were
council members is not disclosed. The activities of the Joint Council are financed by
local unions in its area.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1017
C. Conclusions as to inducement
We turn first to the question as to whether the action taken by the unions was of
such nature as to constitute violations of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. The respon-
sibility of Local 728 and of the International Union is discussed later.
The conduct of Secretary-Treasurer Rutledge of Local 55 in suggesting to driver
'Hanna of Dance Freight Lines that Hanna should not handle freight of Overnite
constituted inducement of Hanna to refuse to handle Overnite's goods in the course
of his employment, and in pursuance of the local union's objectives. As such, Rut-
ledge's action was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Act.
The picketing at the premises of secondary employers is also unlawful under the
authority of Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 107 NLRB 299, 303, enfd.
220 F. 2d 380 (C.A.D.C.); Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc., 115 NLRB 981, 983-
984; W. H. Arthur Company, 115, NLRB 1137-1138; Associated 'General Contrac-
tors Employers Association of Omaha, Nebraska, Inc., 116 NLRB 461; Ready Mixed
Concrete Company, 117 NLRB 1266, and Dallas County Construction Employers'
Association, Inc., 124 NLRB 696.
The holding of those decisions is that where the primary employer's business
premises provide adequate opportunity to publicize, by picketing, the facts of a
labor dispute between that employer and a labor organization, it is to be inferred, in
the absence of countervailing evidence, that picketing by the union at the premises of
other employers has for its purpose the inducing of employees of neutral employers
to curtail work and thus to require termination of business relations between the
primary and neutral employers. Such conduct is unlawful under Section 8(b)(4).
It was so ruled by the Trial Examiner at the instant hearing, and upon motion by
the General Counsel-the picketing action being conceded-judgment was granted
on the pleadings as to the picketing at the premises of the secondary employers. In
the -light of the foregoing authority, it is not a defense that this picketing was di-
rected only at trucks of Overnite. The premises of Overnite provided adequate
opportunity under the Board's principles to publicize the facts of the controversy.
Under such circumstances the cases of Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547;
Otis Massey Company, 225 F. 2d 205 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 350 U.S. 914; and
Campbell Coal Co., 229 F. 2d 514 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 351 U.S. 972, must be
held to be inapplicable. See Dallas County Association, Inc., supra, and cases
there cited.
It is consequently found that by picketing the premises and terminals at Asheville
and Charlotte, North Carolina, of employers other than Overnite, and by Rutledge's
suggestion to Hanna, heretofore related, with an object of requiring Overnite to
recognize the locals as collective-bargaining representatives of Overnite employees,
Respondent Local Unions 55, 71, and 509 violated Section 8(b) (4) (A)• and (B) of
the Act.
D. The responsibility of Local 728
We turn now to the question of whether Local • 728 is also responsible for the
unlawful picketing.
The evidence is that each local sought recognition only in its -jurisdictional area.
Local- 728's jurisdiction is in the Atlanta area, where it is headquartered. On this
evidence it is found that Local 728 did not desire recognition as collective-bargaining
representative in Charlotte and Asheville, North Carolina, where the secondary
picketing took place.
Local 728's contention is that it did not engage in any conduct violative of the
Act within the Winston-Salem Region of the Board. It has been noted, however,
that the Respondent Locals were engaging in synchronized action designed to secure
recognition from Overnite as bargaining representatives. They carried on simul-
taneous organizing campaigns, and they held joint meetings to discuss the progress
of the campaigns and to plan courses of action. They agreed to conduct and join
in a strike against Overnite, and upon the time to begin it. The picket signs carried
bore the names of each of the involved locals, including that of Local 728. Fairly
viewed, the picket signs must be interpreted as indicating that the picketing was being
sponsored and carried on by all the locals jointly. Presumably Local 728 was aware
of the content of the signs, and approved and authorized them. If it did not, it could
have produced testimony at the hearing denying that it had authorized or ratified the
placing of its name on the signs. Since it did not produce such testimony, the con-
clusion must be drawn that Local 728 authorized the picketing and the signs.
Upon these, considerations it is found that the strike and the picketing constituted
a joint and concerted action by all the Respondent Locals and a joint venture.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Crystal Palace Market, 116 NLRB 856, footnote 14. It is further found that Local
728 is responsible for the picketing. Local 728 therefore also violated Section
8(b) (4) (A) and (B ) of the Act by picketing at the premises of secondary employers
in Asheville and Charlotte.
E. The responsibility of the International'
The General Counsel also asserts that the International Union is responsible for
the unfair labor practices, as a joint venturer with the locals. This contention is
founded upon the following premises: (1) the concerted action of the locals required
centralized direction and control, which by inference flowed from the International;
(2) under the International constitution, article XII, approval of the International
Union is required in connection with certain conduct of the locals, -including strikes;
and (3) Local 55s affairs are under the direction of a trustee appointed by the
president of the International Union.
With respect to the first point, it has been found that the action of the locals was
joint and concerted. This explains the "centralized direction and control" of which
the General Counsel speaks. However, proof of concert of action by the locals is
not proof of participation by the International Union, and does not tend to
establish it.
With respect to the General Counsel's second point, namely, the asserted require-
ment for International approval of strike or boycott action' by a local, article XII; sec-
tion 1 (c), of the International constitution states as follows:
Prior to a Local Union becoming involved in a strike , boycott , lawsuit or any
serious difficulty , such Local Union shall immediately notify the Joint Council
of which it is a member of any contemplated action setting forth the action con-
templated and nature of the difficulty . The Joint Council shall then take steps
to approve or disapprove such contemplated action . The Joint Council shall
notify the General President of the steps it has taken in respect to such con-
templated action . The General President is authorized to approve , disapprove
or modify the action of the Joint Council . Approval , disapproval or modifica-
tion of the action of the Joint Council or the Local Union by the General Presi-
dent shall not operate to impose any liability on the International Union or its
officers or to make them parties to any such action . The International Union
does not assume any liability of any nature to any person or persons simply by
reason of such approval , disapproval or modification.
Literally read , this provision seems to require approval by the general president
of strike or boycott action by a local union . On the other hand the testimony
of Ed Hargett, president of Local 71 , called as an adverse witness by the General
Counsel , is that article XII, section 1(c), applies only where an agreement or bargain-
ing relationship is in effect , and is inapplicable to strikes for recognition . However,
whether that interpretation is correct need not be determined here, for the reason
that there is no evidence that either-the general president or the International Union
ever took any action with regard to the Overnite strike. The uncontradicted testi-
mony is that the strike has not been sanctioned by the International. In these cir-
cumstances the mere existence of the provisions of article XII, section 1(c), is not
sufficient to establish International participation in the Overnite strike. Violation of
the constitution-if it occurred-is not the equivalent of evidence of action by the
International . In the face of the positive testimony to the effect that the Inter-
national has not sanctioned the strike , a contrary inference is not warranted by
the evidence . In these circumstances it is unnecessary to determine whether ap-
proval by the general president of strike action by the locals would be sufficient
to impute to the International Union responsibility for unlawful action of the locals
in the conduct of the strike.
Finally, we come to the matter of the trusteeship . On July 29, 1958 , Richard
C. Bell was appointed by the general president of the International Union as trustee
of the affairs of Local 55. Bell is an assistant to Thomas E. Flynn, vice president
of the International Union , normally stationed in Washington , D.C. The record-
though not clear on the point-appears to indicate that Bell administers the trustee-
ship from Washington and comes to Charlotte only infrequently . This evidence is
to the effect that in large measure Local 55 continues to run its own affairs as.
it did prior to the trusteeship . The members elect officers to carry on the business
of the local, and these.are then designated by Bell.
The appointment by the general president of trustees to take charge of the-
affairs of local unions is authorized , under certain circumstances , by the Inter-
national constitution , article VI, section 5. In sum , the trustee has authority there--
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1019
under to remove and appoint officers of the . local, to take possession of the local's
funds, books, and property, "and to take such other action as in his judgment is
necessary for the preservation of the local union or other subordinate body and
their interests." The constitution further provides that the trustee's acts shall be
"subject to the supervision of the General President." However, the International
Union is not responsible, under the constitution, for any action of a local under
trusteeship unless the action is directed or authorized by the trustee. Thus, it is
stated in article VI, section 5(a) of the-constitution:
The International Union shall not be responsible for any actions or activities
of a local union or other subordinate body under Trusteeship unless such
actions or activities have been directed or authorized by the Trustee.
In the instant case there is no evidence that Local 55's actions in picketing second-
ary employers in Asheville and Charlotte in connection with the Overnite dispute
were directed or authorized by Bell or by the International Union. Under such
circumstances the International is not responsible for the actions of the Local.
Franklin Electric Construction Company, et al., 121 NLRB 143. What the Board
said in that case seems applicable here: "Whatever the ultimate supervisory constitu-
tional powers of the International President with respect to the local there is no evi-
dence -that they have been exercised." And see Axel Newman Co. v. Sheet Metal
Workers (D.C. Minn., 37 LRRM 2038, October 21, 1955). It may be assumed that
the International is responsible for the acts of Bell as trustee within the scope of the
authority conferred upon him by the International. But it must be shown that Bell
has performed acts within the scope of that authority. This has not been done.
There is no evidence of any action whatever by Bell. There is no indication that
the action of the locals is in furtherance of a policy of the International Union.
Local 55 continues to operate under trusteeship in much the same autonomous man-
ner as it did before the trusteeship. Under these circumstances the local is not a
mere administrative arm of the International Union. It is found that the unlawful
action of the local unions, found above, is not to be imputed to the international
Union.
- IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent Locals 55, 71, 509, and, 728, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Overnite described in section
I, above, have a close, intimate, and' substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce 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 Locals 55, 71, 509, and 728 have engaged in violations of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Upon the. basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Overnite Transportation Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondents , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, and Local Unions 55, 71, 509, and 728, affil-
iated therewith, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. None of the Respondents has been certified, at any material time, as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of employees of Overnite pursuant to Section 9 of
the Act.
4. Since May 17, 1959, Respondent Local Unions 55, 71, 509, and 728 have in-
duced and encouraged employees of employers doing business with Overnite Trans-
portation Company in Asheville and Charlotte, North Carolina, to engage in strikes
or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to perform services for their
employers, with an object of (a) forcing or requiring the said employers to cease
doing business with Overnite; and (b) forcing -or requiring Overnite to recognize
or bargain with Respondent Locals as the collective-bargaining representative of
employees of Overnite.
1020 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.t
6. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen . and. Help-
ers of America has not by any conduct herein engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A ) or (B) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America ; Truck Drivers & Helpers Local
Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local Union No. 71 ; International Brother-
: hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America , Local Union No. 55; and General Drivers, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 509 and Overnite Trans-
portation Company. Case No. 10-CC-426. March 1, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
,On November 6, 1959, Trial Examiner Charles E. Schneider issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, recommend-
ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
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 reviewed the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions, and the brief, and finds merit in the Gen-
eral Counsel's exceptions.
The complaint in this proceeding is one of two outstanding com-
plaints processed concurrently, against the Respondents, in separate
Regional Offices, involving alleged secondary boycott activities in both
Regions in connection with a dispute between the Respondents and
the Employer.
On June 1, 1959, the Employer and Charging Party, Overnite
Transportation Company, filed with the Regional Director of the
Eleventh Region of the Board at Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
unfair labor practice charges in Case No. 11-CC-16 (130 NLRB
1007), alleging that the Respondents had engaged in violations of
Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act within the Eleventh Region,
at locations in the State of North Carolina.
On June 3, 1959, Overnite filed with the Regional Director of the
Tenth Region of the Board at Atlanta, Georgia, an unfair labor prac-
tice charge in Case No. 10-CC--426, the instant case, alleging that the
Respondents had engaged in violations of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and
130 NLRB No. 106.