Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38, Et Al, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 341 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

JOINT COUNCIL OF TEAMSTERS NO. 38, ET AL., ETC. 341
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request , with Insurance Workers Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
employees at the Brandywine and Kirkwood district offices in the Metropolitan
Wilmington , Delaware , area, in the bargaining unit described below concerning
wages , rates of pay , hours of employment , and other conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached , embody it in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All debit insurance agents, including all canvassing regular and office
account agents selling industrial life insurance and other forms of insurance
sold by the Company , but excluding independent agents, retired agents,
Metropolitan Insurance consultants , managers , assistant managers , cashiers,
clerical employees , secretaries , professional employees , guards, watchmen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively as aforesaid , nor will we, in any
like or related manner, interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to bargain collectively through said Union.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets , Philadelphia 7, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. Pennypacker 5-2612, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38, et al., Arden Farms Co., et al.
and California Association of Employers . Case No. 20-CE-10.
Mardi 11, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 15, 1962, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent Unions and the Re-
spondent Employers' filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and supporting briefs.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
1 The Respondent Unions and Respondent Employers are listed In the attached Schedules
"A" and "B, " respectively
2 The Respondent Unions ' request for oral argument is denied as the record , exceptions,
and b; iefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
141 NLRB No. 14.
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified below.
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 the Respondent Unions and Re-
spondent Employers, their officers, agents, representatives, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Maintaining, giving effect to, or enforcing article 5, sections
1, 2, 3, and 4; article 16, section 1; and article 34, sections 1 and 2,
of their October 1961 contract, to the extent found unlawful herein.
(b) Entering into, actively maintaining, giving effect to, or en-
forcing any other contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby
any of the Respondent Employers cease or refrain or agree to cease
or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting, or otherwise
dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or from doing
business with any other person.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Respondent Employers shall:
(1) Post at their places of business, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after having
been duly signed by the authorized representative of the Respondent
Employers, be posted by said Respondents immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent Employers to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Respondent Unions shall:
(1) Post in conspicuous places at Respondent Unions' business
offices, places of business, and meeting places, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after having
been duly signed by the authorized representative of the Respondent
Unions, be posted by said Respondents immediately upon receipt
a 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."
* See footnote 3, supra.
JOINT COUNCIL OF TEAMSTERS NO. 3 8, ET AL., ETC. 343
thereof and be maintained by them in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to its members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent Unions to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Respondent Employers and Respondent Unions shall notify
the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps they have taken to
comply herewith.
MEMBER RODGERS, concurring :
I agree with my colleagues that the contract clauses in issue here
are clearly violative of Section 8 (e) of the Act. I do not, however,
adopt, as my colleagues have done, the rationale of the Trial Exam-
iner insofar as that rationale rests on the majority decision in Jack
M. Lohman, d/b/a Lohman Sales Company, 132 NLRB 901. The
language used by Congress in Section 8 (e) is clear and unambiguous,
and is not helped by any resort to the Lohman case or its rationale.
MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 give notice that :
WE WILL NOT enter into, actively maintain, give effect to, or
enforce any contract or agreement, express or implied, with Joint
Council of Teamsters No. 38 or Teamsters Union, Locals Nos. 87,
517, 386, 439, 150, 137, 684, and 381, or any other labor organiza-
tion, whereby we cease or refrain or agree to cease or refrain from
handling, using, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in any
of the products of any other employer or to cease doing business
with any other person.
WE WILL NOT maintain, give effect to, or enforce the contract
entered into with Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38 and Team-
sters Union, Locals Nos. 87, 517, 386, 439, 150, 137, 684, and 381
on or about October 6, 1961 insofar as article 5, sections 1, 2, 3,
and 4; article 16, section 1; and article 34, sections 1 and 2 violate
section 8 (e) of the Act.
Arden Farms Co., Beatrice Food Co.; The Borden
Company; Carnation Company; Challenge
Cream & Butter Association ; Cloverleaf Farms ;
Crystal Cream &, Butter Company; Inderkum's
Dairy ; Knudsen Creamery Co.; McColl's Dairy
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Products Co.; Milk Producers Association of
Central California; Nielsens Creamery; Pro-
ducers Dairy Delivery Inc.; Quality Dairy;
Sunshine Farms; Foremost Dairies; Foster
Farms Jersey Dairy; Bite's Dairy Farm; Ideal
Dairy; Velvet Ice Cream Company; Vitafreeze
Corporation; Waynes Dairy ; Woodbury Dairy ;
Zephyr Farms; Milk and Ice Cream Employers
Association,
Respondent Employers.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting , and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 830 Market Street , San Francisco , California , Telephone No.
Yukon 6-3500, Extension 3191, if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS
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 give notice that :
WE WILL NOT enter into , actively maintain , give effect to, or
enforce any contract or agreement , express or implied, with
Arden Farms Co., Beatrice Foods Co., The Borden Company,
Carnation Company, Challenge Cream & Butter Association,
Cloverleaf Farms, Crystal Cream & Butter Company, Inderkum's
Dairy, Knudsen Creamery Co., McColl's Dairy Products, Milk
Producers Association of Central California, Nielsens Creamery,
Producers Dairy Delivery Inc., Quality Dairy, Sunshine Farms,
Foremost Dairies, Foster Farms Jersey Dairy, Hite's Dairy Farm,
Ideal Dairy, Velvet Ice Cream Company, Vitafreeze Corporation,
Wayne's Dairy, Woodbury Dairy, Zephyr Farms, Milk and Ice
Cream Employers Association, or any other member of Milk and
Ice Cream Producers Association , or any other employer, where-
by such Employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain
from handling , using, selling , transporting , or otherwise dealing
in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing
business with any other person.
WE WILL NOT maintain, give effect to, or enforce the contract
entered into by the above -named Employers and undersigned
JOINT COUNCIL OF TEAMSTERS NO. 38, ET AL., ETC. 345
Onions on or about October 6, 1961, insofar as article 5, sections
1, 2, 3, 4; article 16, section 1; and article 34, sections 1 and 2,
violate Section 8(e) of the Act.
Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38 ; Teamsters Union,
Local No. 87; Teamsters Union, Local No. 517;
Teamsters Union, Local No. 386; Teamsters
Union, Local No. 439; Teamsters Union, Local
No. 150; Teamsters Union, Local No. 137;
Teamsters Union, Local No. 684; Teamsters
UNION, LOCAL No. 381,
Labor Organisations.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 830 Market Street, San Francisco, California, Telephone No.
Yukon 6-3500, Extension 3191, if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
SCHEDULE A
Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38
831 H Street
Sacramento , California
Teamsters Union, Local No. 87
3724 Pierce Road
Bakersfield , Califronia
Teamsters Union, Local No. 517
2135 Fresno Street
Fresno, California
Teamsters Union, Local No. 386
911-13th Street
Modesto, California
Teamsters Union, Local No. 439
2626 North California Street
Stockton , California
Teamsters Union , Local N o. 150
2525 Stockton Blvd.
Sacramento , California
Teamsters Union, Local No. 137
1010 Eye Street
Marysville , California
Teamsters Union, Local No. 684
2806 Broadway
Eureka, California
Teamsters Union, Local No. 381
115 West Bunny Street
Santa Maria, California
SCHEDULE B
Arden Farms Co.:
1900 West Slauson Avenue, Los Angeles 47, Calif.
3101 State Road, Bakersfield, Calif.
60 "L" Street, Fresno, Calif.
3351 Fruitridge Road, Sacramento , Calif.
825 South Center, Stockton, Calif.
Beatrice Foods Co.:
Meadow Gold :
1950 Broadway, Fresno, Calif.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Peacock Dairies :
130 East 18th Street, Bakersfield, Calif.
1123 High Street, Delano, Calif.
The Borden Company :
Western Division :
1820 Tuolumme, Fresno, Calif.
121 East 21st Street, Bakersfield, Calif.
821 Cherry Street, Chico, Calif.
1732 Second Street, Eureka, Calif.
12th and Yuba, Marysville, Calif.
859 16th Street, Merced, Calif.
415 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, Calif.
702 Atlantic, Roseville, Calif.
1301 "S" Street, Sacramento, Calif.
847 South Pilgrim, Stockton, Calif.
801 East Main Street, Visalia, Calif.
Carnation Company :
Northern California Division :
14th and Poplar Street, Oakland, Calif.
644 Olive Street, Fresno, Calif.
621 14th Street, Marysville, Calif.
227 Maze Blvd., Modesto, Calif.
2968 Del Paso Blvd., Sacramento, Calif.
540 North Aurora, Stockton, Calif.
Southern California Division :
Carnation Co., Carnation Building, Los Angeles, Calif.
201 Mission Avenue, Bakersfield, Calif.
1413 West Keener Street, Visalia, Calif.
Challenge Cream & Butter Association :
929 East Second Street, Los Angeles, Calif.
223 East 21st Street, Bakersfield, Calif.
2818 Hamilton Avenue, Fresno, Calif.
4647 East Fremont Street, Stockton, Calif.
2712 Marconi Avenue, Sacramento, Calif.
Fernbridge, Calif.
Cloverleaf Farms:
404 West Fremont Street, Stockton, Calif.
Crystal Cream & Butter Company:
1013 "D" Street, Sacramento, Calif.
401 Summer Street, Yuba City, Calif.
Route #3, Box 309, Chico, Calif.
Inderkum's Dairv :
Route 3, Box 1218, Sacramento, Calif.
Knudsen Creamery Co.:
5201 Norris Road, Bakersfield, Calif.
McColl's Dairy Products Co.:
2500 Angelo Avenue, Redding, Calif.
Fifth Avenue and Marvsville Truck Route, Oroville, Calif.
highway 99 E. North, Chico, Calif.
JOINT COUNCIL OF TEAMSTER S NO. 38, ET AL., ETC. 347
Milk Producers Association of Central California:
17th and "E" Street, Modesto, Calif.
540 South Pilgrim Street, Stockton, Calif.
Nielsens Creamery :
147 South "Al" Street, Tulare, Calif.
Producers Dairy Delivery Inc.
144 Belmont Avenue, Fresno, Calif.
Quality Dairy :
738 West Fifth Street, Chico, Calif.
Sunshine Farms :
753 16th Street, Merced, Calif.
Foremost Dairies:
Golden State Company, Ltd.:
425 Battery Street, San Francisco, Calif.
1600 "0" Street, Bakersfield, Calif.
175 Redwood Highway, Fortuna, Calif.
450 Belmont Avenue, Fresno, Calif.
18th and "1V" Streets, Merced, Calif.
435 Maze Blvd., Modesto, Calif.
1156 Continental Avenue, Redding, Calif.
21419th Street, Sacramento, Calif.
640 North Union Street, Stockton, Calif.
310 Bridge Street, Yuba, City, Calif.
Foster Farms Jersey Dairy :
1707 McHenry Avenue, Modesto, Calif.
Hite 's Dairy Farm :
3400 Fruitridge road, Sacramento, Calif.
Ideal Dairy:
555 South Elm Street, Fresno, Calif.
Velvet Ice Cream Company :
708 "L" Street, Modesto, Calif.
Vita freeze Corporation:
1210 66th Street, Sacramento, Calif.
Wayne's Dairy :
4050 Chester Street, Box 871, Bakersfield, Calif.
Woodbury Dairy :
2928 East Tulare Street, Fresno, Calif.
Zephyr Farms:
2888 Church Street, Fresno, Calif.
Milk and Ice Crean. Employers Association:
425 Battery Street, San Francisco, Calif.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came on for hearing before Trial Examiner Wallace E Royster in
San Francisco, California , on June 20 , 1962 The complaint i of the General Counsel
1Issued May 11, 1962 , upon charges filed January 3 and March 14, 1962
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the National Labor Relations Board alleges that the Respondent Unions, named in
Schedule A, and the Respondent Employers , named in Schedule B, have by entering
into a collective -bargaining agreement violated Section 8(e) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act.
Briefs from all counsel have been received and considered . Upon the basis of the
entire record in the case , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
Milk and Ice Cream Employers Association , herein called Respondent Association,
bargains collectively on behalf of Respondent Employers with the Respondent
Unions. During the past year the Respondent Employers received supplies and
materials from sources outside the State of California valued at more than $50,000
and have sold and shipped products to points outside the State of California to a value
in excess of $50 ,000. The Respondent Employers are engaged in manufacturing,
processing, or distribution of dairy products throughout the State of California.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Respondent Unions are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In September 1961, less than 6 months before the filing of a charge in this
proceeding , the Respondent Employers and the Respondent Unions entered into a
cllective-bargaining agreement which has ever since been effective, providing , in part,
as follows:
ARTICLE 5-DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS
SECTION 1. The Employer agrees to refrain from doing business with any
person engaged in the distribution of fluid milk or ice cream products who
has not executed this agreement.
SEC 2. [In order to preserve the work and job opportunities of Route Drivers
and Relief Route Drivers covered by this agreement, the Employer agrees that
he will not transfer a single route to a single truck, independent contractor dis-
tributor or a single truck owner operator employee without the prior consent
of the Union.] The Employer further agrees that no route or portion thereof
will be transferred without the prior consent of the Union unless after such
transfer, the work or services transferred will be performed by an employee
of an employer who is, or prior to such transfer agrees to become , a signatory
to this agreement.
SEC. 3. New or additional distribution of fluid milk or ice cream products
shall not be performed by an independent contractor or owner operator em-
ployee without the prior consent of the Union , unless said distribution is
performed:
(a) by an employee of an employer who is signatory to this agreement: or
(b) by an independent contractor distributor who purchases at least two
hundred (200) units for distribution per delivery day per route from a source
which is not signatory to this agreement; or
(c) by an independent contractor distributor or owner operator employee
who purchases products for distribution from another employer who is signatory
to this agreement.
SEC. 4. Hauling from processing plant to depot, federal government installa-
tion, or another processing plant, when not performed by employees under this
agreement, shall be performed only by individuals or firms operating under a
collective bargaining agreement with a Local Union affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.
ARTICLE 16-UNIFORMS
SECTION 1. [If an Employer desires his employees to wear a uniform, the
Employer shall launder said uniform.] All such uniforms shall be laundered
by an establishment employing AFL-CIO help [and shall be furnished under
either of the following alternatives: ]
ARTICLE 34-PROTECTION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1 . It shall not be a violation of this agreement and it shall not be
cause for discharge or disciplinary action for any employee to refuse to handle
.JOINT COUNCIL OF TEAMSTERS NO. 38, ET AL., ETC. 349
She products of or serve any individual, firm or corporation while such in-
dividual, firm or corporation is under lockout or is under a strike recognized by
a Labor Council of Teamsters No. 38, by Local Union No. 381 or by Joint
Council of Teamsters No. 38.
SEC. 2. The Employer shall not order any employee to serve such individuals,
firms or corporations or handle their products.
The bracketed material in the articles set forth above is not alleged to violate the
Act.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that "all of the clauses here involved .. .
are illegal and disclose a well improvised plan to effect a boycott of non-union and
unfair materials , plants and employers."
The Respondent Unions urge that in respect to article 5, at least, the contract
purports to do no more than protect the job opportunities, wages, and working
conditions of employees in the bargaining unit; that in any event sections 1, 2, and
3 are clearly prospective in application, not requiring any of the Employers to cease
doing business with anyone. All Respondents point to the Board's recent decision 2
requiring an employer to bargain with the representative of his employees before
subcontracting work affecting employees in the bargaining unit. This bargaining
requirement, it is contended , assumes possibility of reaching agreement. Following
this obviously logical deduction, any agreement will affect the ability of employers
to subcontract. Presumably it is not unlawful for the parties to agree that subcon-
tracting will be prohibited. If this be so, then what is the objection to a contract
permitting subcontracting upon conditions mutually agreeable? I suppose that the
answer to this contention is that the conditions spelled out in any such contract must
be of a character not forbidden by the Act. A ready example is provided by the
circumstance that an employer and a union may freely contract that all employees
be hired through a hiring hall operated by the union . But a condition of employ-
ment may not be union membership. So here, it appears to me, the Employers and
the Unions may lawfully contract that all operations of the Employers be performed
by those employees in the bargaining unit, or that no more than a specified percent-
age of the Employers' distribution be done by independent contractors or distributors,
but Board decisions 3 teach that Section 8(e) forbids an agreement to subcontract
work, even of a character performed by employees in the bargaining unit, only to
those employers who employ members of the Unions or who otherwise meet the
Unions' approval.
It is to be noted that sections 1, 2, and 3 of article 4 are cast expressly or impliedly
in terms so as to obligate the signatory Employers to refrain from doing business
with certain other employers or persons. Section 8(e) proscribes agreements con-
templating a cessation of or an abstention from "handling, using, selling, transport-
ing or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer" and flatly
interdicts an agreement "to cease doing business with any other person." All of
the Employer Respondents manufacture, distribute, or process dairy products and
the only tangible "product" to which the contract has application is that of the
Employer Respondents and not those "of any other employer." From this circum-
stance, it is argued that the Employer Respondents have not agreed in the contract
in question "to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or other-
wise dealing in any of the products of any other employer." It is further contended
that if Congress had intended to forbid agreements to refrain from doing business
with any other person it knew how to phrase such a prohibition and designedly
did not do so. I think that the two-pronged defense lacks merit and will first
consider the usefulness of "refrain" in Section 8(e). It has not been suggested that
the word should be given any different meaning than that attaching to it in everyday
usage and I am not aware in any event that it has any esoteric overtones. Simply
enough, the Respondents have agreed that the Employers will not do business with
persons who have not signed the agreement which they have reached or with
those who do not agree to sign it or with others not approved by the Unions. True
enough the agreement is prospective but chiefly in the sense that no sanctions are
suggested for whatever conduct the parties have engaged in prior to its signing.
Thus the Employers have agreed that they will not in the future enter into arrange-
2 t Countrut Manufacturing Company, Inc, et al, 136 NLRB 1022
8 District No 9, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (Greater St Louis
Automotive Trimmers etc.), 134 NLRB 1354; Automotive, Petroleum and Allied Industries
Employees Union , Local 618 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America ( Greater St. Louis Automotive Trimmers etc ), 134
NLRB 1363.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ments with other persons for the distribution of milk that the contract forbids. But
if "refrain" is to have its ordinary meaning, they must also cease whatever business
they are now doing with such other persons. There is evidence that some of the
Employer Respondents have arrangements with persons not signatories to the
agreement for the distribution of milk. It appears to be true that no effort has been
made by the Respondent Unions to force the Employers to refrain from doing
business with such persons. Whatever the reasons for the Unions' forbearance in
respect to such practices, it cannot be explained by lack of contract right. The
Employers have agreed to refrain from doing business in such a fashion and in
order to honor that commitment they would of necessity have to cease doing so.
The argument that the contract does not require the Employers to refrain handling,
using, etc , "any of the products of any other employer" certainly is not frivolous but
I consider that unless the Board is persuaded that it decided Lohman Sales 4 incor-
rectly, it must fail. Although in the case last mentioned the Board was dealing with
another section of the Act, 8(b)(4)(B), it had occasion to consider the meaning of
a comparable phrase, "products of any other producer." The Board concluded
that "product" should not be so narrowly limited in meaning as to describe only
that which might be "seen, touched, or smelled" but rather should be interpreted
to encompass "thought, labor, or business enterprise " Following the rationale of
this decision, it becomes clear that the labor of soliciting customers, delivering milk,
and collecting accounts constitutes a product. Article 5 of the contract between the
Respondents forbids the Employers to arrange for the use of such "products" pro-
vided by employers or persons not signatory to the contract or otherwise unacceptable
to the Unions.
Article 16, in relation to laundering uniforms, is obviously a restraint upon the
Respondent Employers requiring them to patronize only such laundries as employ
AFL-CIO help Sections 1 and 2 of article 34 are implementations of the design
to restrict distribution of milk in the geographic areas where the contract is effective
unless the distribution is accomplished under conditions permitted by the contract 5
I find that the allegations of the complaint are fully sustained that the cited articles
of the contract between the Respondent Employers and the Respondent Unions
constitute an agreement on the part of the Respondent Employers to do business
only with those persons who are signatories to that agreement or who agree to
become bound by it or who otherwise are approved by the Respondent Unions. I
find that the contract in these respects is within the proscription of Section 8(e) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations 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 the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that
they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies 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. The Respondent Unions named in the Schedule A are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
2 The Respondent Association and the Respondent Employers named in Sched-
ule B are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
3. By entering into a contract between Respondent Unions and Respondent Em-
ployers whereby Employers are obliged to cease or refrain from using or otherwise
dealing in products of other employers and to refrain from doing business with
4International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local 537 (Jack Al. Lohman, d/b/a Lohman
Sales Company), 132 NLRB 901.
5 Dan McKinney Co., 137 NLRB 049.
FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY COMPANY. ETC. 351
other persons, Respondent Unions, Respondent Association, and Respondent Em-
ployers and each of them have engaged in. and are engaging in, unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Florida Agricultural Supply Company, a division of Plymouth
Cordage Company and United Transport Servic e Employees,
AFL-CIO, Local 3000 . Case No. 12-CA-462. March 11, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding is brought under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act. Upon a charge filed by Local 3000, United
Transport Service Employees, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the
Regional Director for the Twelfth Region issued a complaint dated
October 19, 1962, against Florida Agricultural Supply Company, a
division of Plymouth Cordage Company, herein called Respondent,
alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within - the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and
notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges,
in substance, that on August 17, 1962, the Regional Director for the
Twelfth Region issued a certification in Case No. 12-RC-1455 1 desig-
nating the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of a unit of employees at the Respondent's insecticides plant in Jack-
sonville, Florida; that on August 23, 1962, and at various times there
after, the Union has requested Respondent to bargain collectively with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the certified unit; and that on
September 21, 1962, and all times thereafter, Respondent unlawfully
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit.
Thereafter, Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations
of the complaint, and also denying that it unlawfully refused to
bargain.
On October 26, 1962, all parties to this proceeding entered into a
stipulation and jointly requested the transfer of this proceeding
directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and is-
i Sot published in NLRB volumes.
141 NLRB No. 22.