Local 175

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1666 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Chauffeurs,
Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 175, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Help-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargain-
ing unit is:
All truckdrivers and warehousemen of Bluefield Produce
& Provision Company, Bluefield, West Virginia, excluding
,office personnel, guards, night watchman, and supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the
efforts of Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No.
175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, to bargain col-
lectively with us as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the bargaining unit set forth above.
BLUEFIELD PRODUCE & PROVISION COMPANY,
Employer.
Darted---------------- 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.
Local 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO and R. O.
Wetz, d/b/a It. O. Wetz Transportation . Case No. 9-CC-84.
.May 20,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 17, 1957, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
117 NLRB No. 214.
LOCAL 175 1667
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
-rulings are hereby affirmed. The, Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case 1 and
hereby adopts, with the minor modifications set forth below,' the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) by picketing the two entrances
to the Henry J. Kaiser Construction Co. project on May 31, 1956.
We so find because the Respondent's picketing induced and encouraged
the employees of Kaiser and various contractors on the Kaiser project
to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform
any services, with the objects of (a) forcing or requiring.B & G Olsen
Company to cease doing business with Airolite Company 3 and/or
R. O. Wetz, d/b/a R. O. Wetz Transportation, and (b) forcing or
requiring Wetz to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the
representative of his employees although the Respondent had not been
certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions
of Section 9 of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
,Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 175, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging the employees
of B & G Olsen Company, Darin & Armstrong, Inc., Howard P. Foley
Co., Surface Combustion Corp., or of any employer other than R. O.
Wetz, d/b/a R. O. Wetz Transportation, to engage in a strike or con-
certed refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture,
,process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an
3 On September 11, 1956, the Trial Examiner adjourned the hearing sine die. There-
after, the General Counsel , the Respondent , and the Charging Party filed a joint motion
to close the record, and , on November 16, 1956, the Trial Examiner issued an order
closing the hearing The Board hereby makes the joint motion and the Trial Examiner's
order thereon part of the record in this case.
2 The Board does not adopt or pass upon the Trial Examiner 's statement that the
"ultimate objective of the Respondent 's conduct would in effect compel Wetz himself to
violate at least Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 2) and possibly ( 5) of the Act " We consider
the statement irrelevant to the issues posed in the case
-3 We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion of law that the Respondent induced
or encouraged the employees of Airolite Company to engage in a strike in violation of
Section 8 ( b) (4) (A) and ( B) There is no evidence of such inducement of Airolite
Company employees.
1668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
object thereof is (a) forcing or requiring B & G Olsen Company to
cease doing business with Airolite Company and/or R. O. Wetz, d/b/a
R. O. Wetz Transportation, or (b) forcing or requiring R. O. Wetz,
d/b/a R. O. Wetz Transportation, to recognize or bargain with the
Respondent Union as the representative of his employees unless the
Respondent Union has been certified as the representative of such
employees 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 at its offices and meeting places in Parkersburg and
.Charleston, West Virginia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an
official representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to its members are customarily posted. The Respondent
shall also sign copies of the notice which the Regional Director for
the Ninth Region shall make available for posting, the employers
willing, at the premises of B & G Olsen Company, Darin & Armstrong,
Inc., Howard P. Foley Co., and Surface Combustion Corp. within the
Henry J. Kaiser Construction Co. project, Ravenswood, West Vir-
ginia. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to the steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
'In the event 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 175, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF B & G OLSEN
COMPANY, DARIN & ARMSTRONG, INC., HOWARD P. FOLEY CO., AND
SURFACE COMBUSTION CORP.
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 induce or encourage employees of B & G Olsen
Company, Darin & Armstrong, Inc., Howard P. Foley Co., Sur-
face Combustion Corp., or of any employer other than R. O.
LOCAL 175 1669
Wetz, d/b/a R. O. Wetz Transportation, to engage in a strike or
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manu-
facture, process , transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any
services, where an object thereof is (a) to force or require B & G
Olsen to cease doing business with Airolite Company and/or
R. O. Wetz, d/b/a It. O. Wetz Transportation, or (b) to force
or require R. O. Wetz, d/b/a It. O. Wetz Transportation, to recog-
nize or bargain with Local 175, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO, as the representative of his employees unless said
Local 175 is certified as the representative of such employees under
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
LOCAL 175, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by R. O. Wetz , d/b/a R. O. Wetz Transportation , herein
called Wetz , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
referred to as the General Counsel and the Board , respectively , by the Regional
Director for the Ninth Region ( Cincinnati , Ohio ), issued his complaint againt Local
175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent , and sometimes where con-
venient referred to as Local 175, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) and (B ) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges,
complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and Wetz.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that:
(1) (a) Since on or about April 3, 1956, Respondent has demanded that Wetz recog-
nize it as the collective-bargaining representative of the truckdrivers employed by
Wetz and that Wetz enter into a collective -bargaining agreement with the Respondent
fixing the wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of said
employee; (b) at no time material herein has Respondent been certified under the
provisions of Section 9 of the Act as the collective -bargaining representative of any
of the employees employed by Wetz. ( 2) Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corpora-
tion (herein called Kaiser) is a corporation having its principal office and place of
business at Oakland , California , and is engaged in the operation of plants throughout
the United States. Kaiser is now and at all times material hereto has been engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act, and an employer
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act . ( 3) The complaint then alleges
that 35 employers are now engaged , and at all times material herein have been engaged,
under contracts and/or subcontracts in the construction of various portions of an
aluminum plant being erected by Kaiser near Ravenswood , West Virginia , herein
called the Kaiser project , the value of which when completed will be approximately
$210,000 ,000. The names of said employers are set forth in an appendix to the
1670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complaint.' Among the employers listed in the body of the complaint, and also in
the appendix thereto, is B & G Olsen and Company of Richmond, Virginia, who at
times material hereto was engaged in installing equipment at the Kaiser project under
a subcontract with the Southeastern Construction Company. The foregoing employers
and all others listed in the appendix are, at all times material herein, employers within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. (4) (a) One of Wetz' customers for whom
he operates as a common carrier of commodities for hire, Airolite Company, Marietta,
Ohio, herein called Airohte, a manufacturer of industrial ventilating equipment, is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act; (b) sometime in May 1956,
Airolite contracted with Wetz to transport to the Kaiser project materials consigned
to the purchaser of said materials, B & G Olsen Company; (c) on May 29, 1956,
Wetz in the course and conduct of his trucking business, and pursuant to his contract
with Airolite, transported a load of manufactured goods to the Kaiser project for
delivery to Olsen. (5) On May 31, 1956, while Olsen and the other employers named
in the appendix referred to above were engaged in performing work at the Kaiser
project under their contracts and subcontracts, and while a transport trailer of Wetz
loaded with goods delivered at said project on May 29, 1956, consigned to Olsen from
Airolite was present at said project, the Respondent, by its officers and agents, engaged
in, and by picketing at all entrances to the Kaiser project, erecting signs, orders, in-
structions, and related acts, induced and encouraged employees of other employers to,
engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, and
commodities, or to perform services, the object thereof being (1) to force or require
Kaiser, and all and each of the employers referred to in the appendix mentioned here-
inabove(excepting Olsen) individually and collectively to cease doing business with
Olsen in order to force Olsen to cease doing business with Wetz, and in order to force
Airolite to cease doing business with Wetz; and (2) to force or require Wetz to
recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the representative of his employees,
although Respondent had not been certified as the representative of such employees
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. (6) As a result of the conduct described'
above, most of the employees of the employers listed in the appendix referred to,
above who were engaged in working at the Kaiser project ceased work and employees
of various employers of other employers engaged to make deliveries to the Kaiser
project refused to enter the project and make such deliveries. (7) By the acts de-
scribed above, occurring in connection with the activities described hereinabove,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) and (b) (4) (B) of the Act.
On or about August 27, 1956, the Respondent filed its answer to the complaint,
in which it admitted that it was a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act, and that Charles B. Uhl and Oscar Gorrell, at all times material herein;
have been its agents within the meaning of Section 8 (b) of the Act. As to all other
matters alleged in the complaint, it neither admitted nor denied and further that it was
without information which would enable it to answer said allegations, and denied the
commission of any of the alleged unfair labor practices. By way of avoidance of said
allegations it alleged as follows: "Your Respondent denies that it demanded that Wetz
recognize it as a collective bargaining representative, but did so request collective
bargaining rights with said Wetz and the Respondent at all times acting within its
legal rights by so requesting." [Emphasis supplied.] Further on the answer alleges in
substance that it picketed the Kaiser project, but it was done in a legal and lawful
manner and it was not in any respect unlawful, and if employees of other employers
refused to work on the Kaiser project, it was not because of any illegal acts on the
part of the Respondent.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 11, 1956, at Marietta, Ohio,
before the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General
Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party were represented by counsel. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the onset of the hearing counsel for the Respondent moved that the complaint
herein be dismissed primarily on the ground that since the hearing was being held in
Marietta, Ohio, which is some 50 or 60 miles from Ravenswood, West Virginia, the
scene of the alleged unfair labor practices, it would be impossible for the Respondent
to make a defense. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion, and stated
to the record in substance that the issue would be met later on in the hearing. At the
close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Respondent offered the testimony of
one witness, Charles B. Uhl, business agent for Local 175. At the conclusion of his
3 Attached hereto as appendix A.
LOCAL 175 1671
testimony counsel for parties in an off-the-record discussion agreed that the case should'
be transferred to Ravenswood, West Virginia, so that counsel for the Respondent
could adequately present his defense. Thereafter the Trial Examiner adjourned the
hearing sine die, and requested counsel for the parties to arrange a place for the hear-
ing to be held and set a date therefor at a time that was agreeable to all concerned.
On or about October 4, 1956, the General Counsel advised the Trial Examiner that
the parties had arranged a place for the hearing and suggested that it be renewed on
November 19, 1956, in Ravenswood, West Virginia. Shortly thereafter the Trial
Examiner advised the parties that their suggestion met with his approval. On or about
November 14, 1956, counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent
filed a joint motion to close the hearing as of September 11, 1956. On November 16
the Trial Examiner issued an order closing the hearing as of September 11, 1956, and'
advised the parties that they had until December 7, 1956, to file briefs with the Trial,
Examiner. However, none of the parties chose to exercise their right in this regard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF R. O. WETZ, D/B/A R . O. WETZ TRANSPORTATION
The complaint alleges that R. O. Wetz is an individual operating as R. O. Wetz:
Transportation. He has his principal office and place of business at 212 Pike Street,.
Marietta, Ohio. The record shows that at the time of the hearing herein he had 17
employees.
The record also shows that during the year 1955, Wetz had a gross income of
$288,000 from his transportation business, 85 percent of which was derived from.
transportation of materials to points outside the State of Ohio.
Upon the foregoing and upon the record considered as a whole, the Trial Examiner
finds that Wetz is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemew
and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As indicated above, Wetz owns and operates a fleet of trucks from his terminal'
at 212 Pike Street, Marietta, Ohio. The record discloses neither how many trucks
he owns nor the number of truckdrivers he employs to operate them. All that it
shows in this regard is that at times material herein he had 17 employees.
As indicated above, the events with which we are concerned herein occurred at
the Kaiser project at Ravenswood, West Virginia. The record discloses that the con-
struction of the plant required the services of a great number of contractors and'
subcontractors, but is silent as regards the number of employees of each at times
material herein. Suffice it to say that there is substantial evidence in the record to
infer that there were several hundred of them. The project covers a large area anc;
was enclosed by a fence with two gates, one of which is referred to by various wit-
nesses as the main gate and the other as the east gate. At each gate a watchman'
was on duty at all times. It was the duty of the watchmen to check each vehicle
as it entered the gates and direct it to its proper destination.
The record further shows that the Respondent Local 175 had a number of members-
employed at the Kaiser project at times material herein. Its chief steward on the
project was one Oscar Gorrell.
The events with which we are concerned herein revolve around an incident which
occurred on May 29 and 31, 1956. It involved a shipment of merchandise from the,
Airolite Company of Marietta, Ohio, to the B & G Olsen Company, one of the
contracting employers engaged in the construction of the Kaiser Aluminum plant
at Ravenswood, West Virginia.
It was in the light of the foregoing that the issues with which we are concerned
herein arose.
According to the credible testimony of R. O. Wetz, he received a long-distance
telephone call from Charles Uhl, business agent for Local 175, sometime in the
early part of May 1956. In the conversation that ensued Uhl asked him to sign a
contract with Local 175. Some 3 or 4 days later Wetz drove to Parkersburg, West
Virginia, and called upon Uhl at his office. He asked Uhl for a copy of Respondent's
contracts or agreements with other concerns. Uhl complied with his request and
gave him two copies. After conversing for a time he left, taking the copies with him.
1672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Up to the time of the hearing herein he had not signed a contract or agreement with
the Respondent.
On May 29, 1956, Wetz dispatched one of his tractor-trailer units to the Kaiser
project at Ravenswood loaded with ventilating or air-conditioning equipment, manu-
factured by the Airolite Company of Marietta, Ohio. The trailer had been loaded by
Airolite. Wetz assigned Joseph D. Mills to drive the outfit to the Kaiser project
for delivery to the B & G Olsen Company. What transpired thereafter follows below.
According to the credible testimony of Mills, he arrived at the project sometime
early on the morning of May 29, 1956. He drove in the main gate and registered
-with the watchman on duty at that time. He parked his truck in the parking lot
and walked to the offices of the Southeastern Construction Company. Upon arrival
he contacted the engineer in charge who instructed him to go to Olsen's offices, which
he did. There he met one Ritchie who was the engineer in charge of Olsen's opera-
tions. Ritchie advised him that he was parked in the proper place for unloading
and that he would get two teamsters to unload the trailer. Ritchie returned in about
45 minutes with 2 men. They talked for awhile and Ritchie left. Mills waited for
another hour or so and then went to the offices of Howard P. Foley Co. and called
Wetz. He then went back to the truck. Shortly thereafter a large truck drove up
and the driver talked to him about unloading the trailer. In the course of their
conversation he told the driver what was in the truck. Shortly thereafter the unidenti-
fied driver drove away.
Mills waited until about I p. in. and went back to Olsen's office and told Ritchie he
was going out and get something to eat. He then went back to the truck and dropped
-the trailer and drove to a restaurant on the highway. While there he called Wetz
again. He returned to Olsen's office, and while he was there Wetz or his attorney,
Fogle, called Ritchie on the telephone. During the course of the above telephone
conversation Mills also talked to Wetz who instructed him to drop the trailer and
return to Marietta, providing that Olsen would assume the responsibility for its
contents . Ritchie and one Crannick , also an engineer for Olsen , agreed to do so.
He then went back to the outfit, dropped the trailer, and returned to Marietta.
On or about June 1, 1956, he returned to the Kaiser project.
As indicated the events described above occurred on May 29, the next day, May
30, was a holiday, on May 31, 1956, the following incidents occurred all of which
have an important bearing on the issues herein.
On the morning of May 31, 1956, Wetz called Ritchie at Olsen's offices and asked
`him if his trailer had been unloaded. Ritchie advised him to the contrary. Wetz,
accompanied by his attorney , Robert N. Piper , drove to the Kaiser project at Ravens-
wood, West Virginia , for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of the trouble
encountered by Mills in his effort to deliver the material from Airolite to the B & G
Olsen Company.
Wetz and Piper arrived at the Kaiser project at about 2:30 p. m. As they
approached the main gate they observed a number of trucks on the parking lot and
several men milling around the main gate . Inside the fence and near the main gate
there was another group of men standing around. Nearby an ambulance was
parked. Wetz drove down the road, then turned around and drove through the main
gate. As he drove through the gate he saw a car with a sign on it which carried
the following legend:
R. O. WETZ UNFAIR TO
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 175
Wetz parked his car and went to the car with the picket sign on it. Piper was
already there and was talking to Oscar Gorrell, chief steward for Local 175. After
an exchange of pleasantries Gorrell told Wetz and Piper that if they wanted to talk
to Uhl they would find him at the east gate. They then drove to the east gate
where they found Uhl seated in a car, which also had attached to it a picket sign
carrying the same legend that appeared on the sign at the main gate. Seated in
the car with Uhl was one Ozals, labor relations consultant for the Kaiser Aluminum
'Company. What transpired thereafter is best told in Wetz' testimony which is
fully credited by the Trial Examiner:
Q. Did Mr. Uhl say anything?
A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. What did he say?
A. As Mr. Piper and I approached the car, we walked up to the car and Mr.
Piper told him that we were down there to see what the difficulty was, and why
the strike signs were there, and what could be done to have the strike cease.
And Mr. Uhl replied that since Wetz had taken the stand that he had taken
LOCAL 175 1673
in the past, that he was going to have to sign up the Teamsters Union, and
that would be the only way that the strike would cease. If I signed up.
He also asked Mr. Piper about strangers picketing in Ohio, and at that time
he said that he hadn't picketed Wetz in Marietta as yet, but if he could find
any of Wetz' men that would carry a picket sign at my place of business he
would do so.
TRIAL. EXAMINER: Now, just so the record is clear on that, who made that
statement?
The WITNESS: Uhl.
Q. (By Mr. Hardy.) Do you recall anything else that Mr. Uhl said?
A. No, sir; at that time Mr. Ritchie came toward the car, and told me he
wanted to talk with me, and I went to his office.
Upon arrival, Ritchie told Wetz that Olsen, one of the owners of the B & G
Olsen Company "had requested that I move the truck from the property-or had
asked me to remove the truck from the property." 2
Wetz' testimony regarding his conversation with Uhl was fully corroborated by
that of witness Robert N. Piper whose testimony is likewise fully credited by the
Trial Examiner. In addition, Piper testified in regard to his conversation with
Chief Steward Gorrell which took place while Wetz was parking the car. Accord-
ing to Piper's uncontradicted and undenied testimony which is fully credited by the
Trial Examiner, Gorrell told him that "they"-that is, the Teamsters-were not
permitting any trucks to enter the plant, except in the case of an emergency.
Piper who was with Wetz when they contacted Uhl testified at greater length
and in considerable more detail than did Wetz in this regard. For this reason the
Trial Examiner feels that it would be well to set forth pertinent excerpts therefrom
so that all may have a clearer picture of what transpired at this time. Consequently
they follow below:
Q. What did Mr. Uhl say?
A. Well, he acknowledged who he was, and I spoke more than he did in the
beginning. I told him why I was there, which was we understood all the
Teamsters were not working, and that our truck would not be unloaded, and
that trucks weren't being allowed to enter the grounds.
I told him what we would like to do was find out the reason and, if possible,
come to some solution so our trucks could come in and out and be unloaded.
He in the course of our conversation, he told me that the only reason was
that Roy Wetz was not an A. F. of L. trucker, that his men didn't belong to the
A. F. of L., and they had no A. F. of L. Teamster contract, and that the only
solution he knew of was for Roy Wetz to sign an A. F. of L. contract.
I asked him-I told him that I had noticed in driving through the grounds
that there was nobody in sight. And it was our thought when we came up
there that only the Teamsters were out.
I asked him if everybody was out on strike, or off work due to this picketing,
and he said yes.
I asked him what we could do many times in different ways, and his answer
always was-well, he had two answers-I say always. His main answer was
for Mr. Wetz to sign an A. F. of L. contract. He did say at onetime in answer
to my question, which was something like this: "Do you mean to tell me that
all these crafts are out; that there isn't anybody working because of this
picketing?"
And he said, "That's right. You know these Unions. They won't do a bit
of work as long as we picket Wetz, and we will picket Wetz as long as that
truck sits there." He pointed to Roy's trailer which we could see about two or
three hundred yards away.
He said, "We will picket as long as that sits there," or Roy Wetz signs an
A. F. of L. contract.
Other people were present in the car. The only one I know at that time was
in the driver's seat. I learned later he was Mr. Ozals of the Kaiser Company.
As indicated above Piper's primary mission was to see what could be done about
unloading Wetz' trailer. For that reason a great portion of his testimony is devoted
to his conversation with Uhl in this regard. According to his credible testimony,
when he queried Uhl about this matter Uhl told him that the Respondent had a con-
tract with the general construction contractor which provided, inter alia, that Local
175 had the right to unload the "first drop" at the job site. Among other matters
2 Quoted portion in an excerpt from Wetz' credible testimony.
1674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Piper discussed with Uhl the possibility of letting members of Local 175 take over
Wetz' trucks when they arrived at the job site. Uhl rejected his suggestion in this
regard and told Piper ". . that due to the way Roy Wetz had acted by bringing
,charges before the N. L. R. B . he, Uhl , wasn 't interested in anything except having
Wetz sign an A. F . L. contract ." 3 In addition Uhl told Piper that the ". . . minute
Wetz took his truck out of there he would withdraw the pickets ," meaning from the
entrances to the Kaiser project . Uhl added , however, in substance, that this did not
necessarily mean that the Respondent was abandoning its dispute with Wetz, but
that it would "picket him wherever we can find him...." 4
After the above conversation Piper and Wetz went to Olsen 's office to see Ritchie
and to relate to him Uhl 's position regarding the truck. According to Piper's credible
testimony , Ritchie was very much perturbed , not only because of the work stoppage
on the Olsen job but also because he personally was pressured by his superiors to
get the job going . Piper's testimony in this regard is most illuminating since it
illustrates what ordinarily happens in situations similar to that which is before us in
the case at hand . For this reason the Trial Examiner likewise embodies herein an
excerpt from Piper 's credible testimony in this regard.
Q. Did he say he wanted the work resumed?
A. Oh, yes, he did . He even had me talk to his employer , or owner of the
company-a man by the name of Olsen-at his home in-I think perhaps it
was Charleston-long distance-somewhere , and tell his employer that he,
Ritchie, was doing everything he could to get work resumed.
And Ritchie put some pressure on us to remove the truck even though it was
not unloaded , because he had been told that the pickets would be withdrawn
if the truck was removed without unloading it.
Q. And then you went back and told Mr . Uhl what you had done? Is that
what you mean?
A. Just about. I went back and talked with Mr. Uhl . I think the main
subject of that conversation was-
Mr. BowLES . We object to what he thinks. It's what he knows.
TRIAL EXAMINER : Well, what you heard and what you saw.
A. (Continued.) Well, the conversation did concern the fact that I wasn't
going to take it upon myself to say that we should or should not remove that
truck unloaded , but if after coming back to Marietta and considering the case
further, and also talking to Mr. Fogle, we concluded that we should remove
the truck without having it unloaded, I talked to Mr. Uhl about how we could,
,or we could facilitate notifying all crafts and men so they could get back
to work the next day.
We had made arrangements with Mr. Ritchie whereby if the decision was
-made to remove the truck , Ritchie would have a man there all night long that
would let a Wetz man in the ground at night to take the truck out. And if
that was done, we understood the men would come to work the next morning,
if they knew about it.
We discussed that.
Q. What do you mean "we"?
A. With Mr . Uhl. Mr . Uhl and myself.
Shortly after the above conversation with Uhl , Wetz and Piper drove back to
Marietta, Ohio; Uhl left for Parkersburg about the same time.
On the next morning , Friday, June 1 , 1956 , Wetz again called Ritchie and asked
him if the trailer had been unloaded . Ritchie advised him that it had not, but that
the pickets had been withdrawn and that the men were back at work on the project.
In the course of their conversation Ritchie again urged Wetz to remove his trailer.
Wetz refused . In addition to the foregoing , Ritchie advised Wetz that if anything
developed regarding his trailer he would call him back. At 10 : 30 a. m . Ritchie
called Wetz and told him that Olsen had ordered him to get men to unload the
trailer . With that in mind Wetz then dispatched Joseph D . Mills, one of his truck-
. drivers, to the Kaiser project to pick up the trailer.
8 From Piper 's credible testimony . The charge referred to is General Counsel 's Exhibit
No. 1-D, which was admitted in evidence at the hearing herein without objection by
counsel for the Respondent . Since the allegations contained in this charge were not
litigated at the hearing herein, the Trial Examiner makes no further comment In this
,regard. •
4 From Piper 's credible testimony
LOCAL 175 1675
Charles Uhl testified that he first met Wetz about 1i years before the hearing
herein. At that time he called at Wetz' office in Marietta, Ohio, for the purpose
of ". . . him going along with the Teamsters Union for his drivers and helpers." 8
As indicated above, Wetz testified that Uhl called him sometime in the early part
of May 1956 about signing an agreement with the Respondent , and that as a result
of this call he went to Uhl's office in Parkersburg, West Virginia, to discuss the
matter and to secure copies of the Respondent's contracts or agreements with others
similarly situated. Uhl did not specifically deny that he called Wetz on this occasion,
but in an evasive manner testified that he could not recall having made such a call.
In all the circumstances the Trial Examiner credits Wetz' testimony in this regard
and finds that Uhl made the call attributed to him by Wetz. One of the compelling
factors in the Trial Examiner's determination in this regard is the fact that Wetz
did call on Uhl and request copies of the Respondent 's agreements . Otherwise what
would have motivated Wetz to have called upon Uhl 1V years after Uhl called upon
him at his offices in Marietta? Otherwise the Trial Examiner finds that Uhl was a
credible witness.
Uhl further testified that at times material herein the Respondent Local 175 had
5 or 6 members among Wetz ' employees , but he could recall only the name of 1,
Joseph D. Mills, who as indicated above testified at the hearing herein on behalf
of the General Counsel.
Uhl admitted setting up the picket line. He further testified that the sole purpose
of the picketing was for the following reasons:
Q. Was the picketing that you had there for the purpose , and only the purpose
of securing recognition of your Union by R. O. Wetz?
A. That's right . That was our intent.
He further testified that he at first tried to secure permission from Kaiser to place
pickets around Wetz' trailer but that they refused him permission to do so. It was
then that he decided to place pickets at the entrances to the Kaiser project , and that
the picketing was directed solely at Wetz and not toward any of the secondary em-
ployers engaged in constructing the Kaiser project.
In the main the foregoing sums up the Respondent 's position as to the intent and
purpose of its picketing at the Kaiser project on May 31, 1956.
Uhl admitted that he had not filed with the Board a petition in accordance with
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act at any time material herein.
Uhl also admitted in substance that at no time material herein did the Respondent
picket Wetz' offices and terminal at 212 North Pike Street, Marietta, Ohio, and that
the picketing was confined solely to the Kaiser project.
The Effect of the Respondent's Conduct on Secondary Employees
As indicated above, there were a number of contracting or subcontracting com-
panies engaged in the construction of the Kaiser project. The complaint alleges in
substance that the conduct of the Respondent described immediately above induced
and encouraged employees of said companies to engage in a strike or concerted
refusal in the course of their employment to use, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on goods, articles, materials, and commodities or to perform services;
and that as a result of the Respondent's conduct employees of certain of the employers
listed on appendix A attached hereto ceased work on the-Kaiser project. In support
of his contention in that regard the General Counsel offered the testimony of several
witnesses who had peculiar knowledge of the events that occurred on May 31, 1956.
as a direct result of the Respondent's above-described conduct.
Hiram Bays , general superintendent of Darin & Armstrong, Inc., of Detroit,
Michigan, testified without contradiction that his company had the general contract
for the construction of the main building for the Kaiser project; that at times
material herein he had 170 employees under his supervision; and that on May 31,
1956, all of said employees ceased work and went home at noon. Bays' testimony
is fully credited by the Trial Examiner.
According to the uncontradicted and undenied testimony of Edmond A. Forney,
he was at times material herein erection engineer in charge of the installation of six
annealing furnaces for the Surface Combustion Corp. of Toledo, Ohio, at the
Kaiser project, Ravenswood, West Virginia. On the morning of May 31, 1956, he
had 35 men working under his supervision. About 10 a. in. on that date the men
under his supervision started to leave the job. This continued until noon , when all
had left the job except one man. Forney's testimony is fully credited by the Trial
Examiner.
5 Quote from Uhl's credible testimony.
1676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frank Stephens, construction manager for the Howard P. Foley Co., Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, testified at the hearing herein, without contradiction, that: (1) Foley
had a piping contract on the Kaiser project; (2) at times material herein he had
approximately 100 men working at various crafts under his supervision; (3) when
he went to work on the morning of May 31, 1956, he found the winch truck idle
and upon inquiry he was informed that the driver was out on the Respondent's picket
line; and (4) since the winch truck was essential to the work being done by the men
working under his supervision he was forced to send all of them home at noon on
that date. Stephens' testimony in this regard is fully credited by the Trial Examiner.
From the foregoing and in the light of the record considered as a whole the Trial
Examiner infers and finds that the work stoppages set forth above were the direct
result of the Respondent's conduct on May 31, 1956.
Conclusion
Having found as above the Trial Examiner is convinced and he finds that the
General Counsel has maintained the burden of proof and that the Respondent Union
engaged in the conduct complained of in the complaint.
Respondent Union Local 175 acting under the direction of its business agent,
Charles Uhl, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act by engaging in,
and inducing employees of various contractors and subcontractors engaged in the
construction of the Kaiser project at Ravenswood, West Virginia, to engage in, a
concerted refusal to use, process , transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods,
articles, materials , and commodities , or to perform services , on any materials trans-
ported to said project by Wetz. The record clearly shows that the object of the
Respondent's conduct was twofold: (1) To force or require Kaiser and the several
employers listed on appendix A individually and collectively to cease doing business
with Olsen in order to force Olsen to cease doing business with Wetz , and in order
to force Airolite to cease doing business with Wetz. This phase of the case is amply
supported in the record by the testimony of Wetz, Piper, Bays, Forney, and Stephens,
all of which has been considered above by the Trial Examiner. Moreover, Uhl, not
only by his silence regarding certain pertinent matters at issue herein , but his own
testimony supports the testimony of the above witnesses , particularly that portion
of his testimony on redirect examination wherein he testified in substance that "all
of the employees" working on the project did not quit their jobs, thus indicating
that he was well aware of the fact that a number of them did so as a result of the
Respondent's conduct ; ( 2) to force or require Wetz to recognize and bargain with
the Respondent as the representative of its employees , regardless of the fact that
the Respondent had neither been certified by the Board as such representative under
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, nor even gone to the trouble of filing a
petition with the Board for that purpose as likewise provided for in Section 9 of
the Act.
In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner the record so clearly sustains the
General Counsel 's position that he deems it unnecessary to dwell at length in extensive
rationale or the citation of cases in point to bolster his opinion.
Here we are not dealing with a common situs situation , for the simple reason
that Wetz had no employees at the Kaiser project. The only thing that he had any
connection with was an inanimate object, a trailer loaded with materials from
Airolite assigned to Olsen. Moreover, the record clearly shows that the Respondent
did not even picket the premises of the primary employer, Wetz, but chose to do as
described above, that is, confine its activities to the Kaiser project some 50 or 60
miles from Wetz' terminal in Marietta, Ohio.
The facts herein are similar to those that have been before the Board before in
other cases. In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner the Respondent's con-
duct in the final analysis was for the purpose of exerting economic pressure on Wetz
to compel him to recognize the Respondent as the bargaining agent of his employees.
The ultimate objective of the Respondent's conduct would in effect compel Wetz
himself to violate at least Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) and possibly (5) of the Act,
by forcing his employees to accept a bargaining representative that was not of their
own choice as contemplated by Sections 7 and 9 of the Act.
In view of all of the foregoing the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the
conduct of the Respondent as found and described above was violative of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) and (B ) of the Act.
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of R. O. Wetz, d/b/a R. O. Wetz Transportation, de-
scribed in section 1, above , has a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade,
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 1677
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 Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B)
of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and 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 considered as a whole, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 175, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By inducing or encouraging employees of B & G Olsen Company, Darin &
Armstrong, Inc., The Airolite Company, Howard P. Foley Co., and Surface Combus-
tion Corp., to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to perform any services, where an object thereof was: (a) forcing or requir-
ing B & G Olsen Company, Darin & Armstrong, Inc., The Airolite Company, Howard
P. Foley Co., and Surface Combustion Corp. to cease using the services of Wetz
or to cease doing business with Wetz; (b) forcing or requiring Wetz to recognize
or bargain with Local 175 as the representative of its employees when Local 175
had not been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act; Respondent Local 175 thereby violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (B ) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Acme Construction Company
Allied Structural Steel
Automatic Sprinkler Company
Bour Electric Company
B & G Olsen Company
Brewer & Company
Chas. Floor Co.
C. H. Heist Co.
Conditioned Air, Inc.
Darin & Armstrong, Inc.
General Construction Co.
General Glass Co.
Graves Tank & Mfg. Co.
Gustav Hirsch Org. Inc.
Hampshire Corp.
U-iin erman Co.
H. C. Edwards Co.
Henry J. Kaiser Construction Co.
APPENDIX A
Hiehle Co.
Howard P. Foley Co.
Howard Steel
Howard Steel Erectors
Hunt. Hearing & Supply
Kawneer Co.
Limbach Co.
Patterson-Emerson-Comstock
Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Ross Concrete & Mortar, Inc.
Shoolfield-Harvey Elect. Co.
Southeastern Construction Company
Surface Combustion Corp.
Tri State Roofing Co.
United Sheet Metal Co.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
W. Q. Watters Co.
United States Gypsum Company , Petitioner and International
Brotherhood of Paper Makers and its Local Union 624, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 6-RM-138. May 20,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Thackery, hearing
,officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed:
117 NLRB No. 216.