Local 182, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1459 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

LOCAL 182, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1459
Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Harold K. Ulrich,
its agent and Sitrue Incorporated . Case No. 3-CP-6. Janu-
ary 31, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 8, 1960, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman 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 there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support
thereof, relating only to the wording of the notice.
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
As the notice which the Trial Examiner attached to his recommended
order did not cover those acts of the Respondents found to be violative
of Section 8(b) (7) (A), we find merit in the General Counsel's ex-
ceptions, and we have accordingly substituted for the Trial Ex-
aminer's notice one which is in conformity with our Order.
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 Respondents, Local 182, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, and Harold K. Ulrich, their officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing Sitrue Incorporated
to be picketed, or threatening to picket or cause Sitrue Incorporated
to be picketed, where an object thereof is to force or require Sitrue
Incorporated to recognize or bargain with Respondent Local 182, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America and Harold K. Ulrich, its agent, as the repre-
sentative of employees of Sitrue Incorporated, or to force or require
employees of Sitrue Incorporated to accept or select Respondent Local
182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
i As the Respondents have not filed any exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's findings,
conclusions , and recommendations , we adopt them pro forma, as modified herein.
129 NLRB No. 175.
586439-61-vol. 129--94
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men' and Helpers of America and Harold K. Ulrich, its agent, as their
collective-bargaining representative, while Sitrue Incorporated is law-
fully recognizing in accordance with the Act any other labor organi-
zation and a question concerning representation of employees of Sitrue
Incorporated may not appropriately be raised under Section 9 (c) 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 the Respondent's business offices,
meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily
posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representatives
of the Respondents, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Return forthwith to the Regional Director for the Third
Region signed copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by
Sitrue Incorporated, the Company willing, in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
2 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 182, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF SITRUE INCORPORATED
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, under conditions prohibited by Section 8 (b) (7)
of the Act, picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket
or cause to be picketed, Sitrue Incorporated, Utica, New York,
where an object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid Com-
pany to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of
its employees or to force or require its employees to' accept or
select us as their collective-bargaining representative while Sitrue
Incorporated is lawfully recognizing in accordance with the-Act
LOCAL 182 , INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1461
any other labor organization and a question concerning repre-
sentation of the said employees may not appropriately be raised
under Section 9 (c) of the Act.
LOCAL 182 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated---------------- -------------------------------------
(HAROLD K. ULRICH , Agent)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended ( 61 Stat. 131 , Sec. 151, et seq.; Public Law 86-257, 1959 ), heard be-
fore the duly designated Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board , in Utica, New York, on June 28, 1960 , on the complaint
of the General Counsel of the Board and answer of Local 182, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and Harold K Ulrich, its agent, herein called the Teamsters or Respondents.
The issue litigated was whether the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(7)(A) of
the Act , by commencing the picketing of the Capron plant of Sitrue Incorporated
on or about May 20, 1960 , with the object of forcing Sitrue to recognize Teamsters
as the collective-bargaining representative of its receiving and shipping employees
and the employees to accept Teamsters as their collective -bargaining representative
at a time when Sitrue had lawfully recognized United Papermakers & Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO , and its Local Unions 363 and 363A as the representative of such em-
ployees and a question concerning representation of such employees could not
appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act.
Although Respondents Teamsters and Ulrich filed an answer to the complaint
through their attorney on June 16 , 1960, and although the Trial Examiner delayed
the opening of the hearing at the Federal Building, Utica, New York, from 10 a.m.
eastern daylight saving time until 10:30 a.m. eastern daylight saving time on
June 28, 1960 , no representative of the Respondents appeared at or participated in
the hearing . This was so notwithstanding unsuccessful efforts on several occasions
by counsel for the General Counsel to reach Respondents ' attorney by telephone
in Utica where his offices are maintained.
The parties represented at the hearing waived oral argument but agreed to submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on or before August 1, 1960.
Upon default of appearance by or on behalf of the Respondents , Teamsters Local
182 and Harold K. Ulrich , and after the hearing of witnesses , the Trial Examiner
suggested that he would consider proposed findings of fact and conclusions , if sub-
mitted, and if reasonable . Counsel has submitted such proposed findings and con-
clusions on behalf of United Papermakers and Paperworks , AFL-CIO, and its
Local Unions Nos . 363 and 363A , which are adopted and agreed to by counsel
for Sitrue Incorporated . Upon the entire record of the case and after observation
of witnesses , I adopt the proposed findings and conclusions as my own, except as
modified below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Sitrue Incorporated , herein called Sitrue, is , and has been at all times material
herein. a corporation duly organized under the -laws-of _ the State of New York.
Its principal office and place of business is located at Capron Road, Utica,
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New York, It is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper
products and during the 12 months preceding the hearing sold and shipped from
its Utica plant finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside the
State of New York. It employs from 330 to 400 people and its sales average
about $50,000 a month.
Superfine Paper Mills, Inc., herein called Superfine, is, and has been at all times
material herein, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of
New York, with its principal office and place of business at Main Street, Clayville,
New York, where it also engages in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper
products. During the 12 months preceding the hearing the value of its finished
products shipped to points outside New York exceeded $50,000. Doeskin Products,
Inc., herein called Doeskin, is, and has been at all times material herein, a corpora-
tion duly organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal
office and place of business at 41 East 42d Street, New York, New York. It en-
gages in the sale and distribution of toilet tissue, facial tissues, and related products
and within the 12-month period preceding the hearing sold and shipped from
New York points finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000 to points outside
the State of New York.
The three companies, Sitrue, Superfine, and Doeskin, are, and have been at all
times material herein, affiliated businesses with common officers, ownership, direc-
tors, and operators, and constitute a single integrated business enterprise, with a
common labor policy affecting the employees of all three companies.' Each com-
pany individually and the three companies collectively are an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The facts set forth hereinabove with reference to the business of the employer
are alleged in the complaint and either admitted in the answer of the Respondents
or were affirmed by the testimony of Mr. Nowinski, the comptroller for Sitrue.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Unions are, each of them, labor organizations within the meaning of the
Act. Respondent Ulrich is and at all times material herein has been secretary-
treasurer of Respondent Teamsters and an agent for Teamsters acting in its behalf,
as admitted in the answer filed by Respondents on June 16, 1960.
mI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This case stems from an effort by Respondents beginning in late April 1960 to
force Sitrue to recognize Teamsters as the bargaining representative for Sitrue's
receiving and shipping employees, by threatening to picket the employer and actu-
ally commencing picketing on May 20, 1960, notwithstanding the fact that another
union was lawfully recognized and a petition for an election could not be timely
filed. There is no dispute on the determinative facts of the case.
Papermakers and its Local Unions 363 and 363A have acted as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representatives for all production and maintenance employees
at Sitrue and Superfine, with the usual statutory exclusions, since approximately
1938. Contracts varying in duration from 1 to 2 years and usually expiring on
May 31 of the termination year have been traditional. The agreement in effect at
the time the alleged unfair labor practices occurred was due to expire on May 31,
1960.
Negotiations between Sitrue and Superfine, on the one hand, and Papermakers
and Local Unions 363 and 363A, on the other hand, began at Utica on April 28,
1960, and meetings between the parties were held thereafter from time to time on
April 29, May 3, 11, 12, and 13. Following ratification by each local union, a
new collective-bargaining contract was signed on May 20, 1960, effective until
May 31, 1962.
On April 29, 1960, Teamsters wrote a letter to the plant manager for Sitrue and
Superfine, Howard W. Rowan, Jr., demanding the right to bargain for the shipping
and receiving employees at the Sitrue plant alone. Mr. Rowan received this letter
on May 2, and immediately called company counsel for legal advice. The same
day Rowan called Ulrich, the Teamsters' secretary-treasurer, and told him that
counsel had advised that the Company could not legally recognize Teamsters as
I Sitrue and Superfine are actually subsidiaries of Doeskin. The officers and directors of
the three companies are the same except that a Mr. Miller is executive vice president of
Sitrue and a Mr. Schneider is executive vice president of Doeskin. Mr. Schneider is also
a director of Doeskin but not of Sitrue.
LOCAL 182, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC . 1463
the bargaining agency for the shipping and receiving employees . Ulrich com-
plained that the Company 's lawyer had "misinformed" Rowan and that Ulrich
would call back after talking to his own lawyer . Ulrich did call back in the after-
noon and told him that the advice was "lousy." He continued that they ought to
sit down and get something done, and Rowan said he was sorry that he couldn't.
Rowan's testimony continued that Sitrue had over-the -road and local contracts with
the Teamsters which covered only the truckdrivers . He stated that the receiving
and shipping employees whom the Teamsters sought to represent were not author-
ized to drive trucks. He again reiterated that he had told Ulrich it would be illegal
to discuss with him anything pertaining to the shipping and receiving people.
On May 10 or 11 , Rowan met Teamsters agents Ulrich and Belden at the ship-
ping docks at Sitrue . He warned them not to come into the plant without permis-
sion . They responded in a rather surly tone by accusing him of "picking on" the
Teamsters and claimed that the "people belong to" the Teamsters . Rowan told
them he couldn 't talk about the problem and "walked them out of the plant."
On Friday , May 13, negotiations between the Employer and the Papermakers had
resulted in an agreement , subject only to ratification by the Local Unions . The fol-
lowing Monday morning , May 16, Ulrich called the plant and left a message with
Mike Damsky, personnel director , for Rowan to the effect that if Rowan did not
meet with the Teamsters by 2:30 p.m. that day , there would be a picket line in front
of the plant. Rowan and Damsky met with Ulrich and Belden at 2:30 p.m. in
Rowan's office. Rowan stuck to his position that he could not lawfully recognize
the Teamsters ; Ulrich became quite abusive , accused the Company of "conniving"
with the Papermakers , and repeated his threats to put up a picket line if the Com-
pany signed a contract with the Papermakers . Rowan told him he expected to sign
the agreement on Friday, May 20, after both Local Unions had ratified it. Ulrich
indicated he would not put up the picket line until the contract was signed but ex-
tracted a promise from Rowan that Rowan would call him before he actually signed.
At 11:45 a m. on May 20 , Rowan called Ulrich and said he had decided to sign
the contract that day. Ulrich called him a "two-timer," a "double -dealer" and said
the picket line would be up Monday. However, by the afternoon of May 20, when
Rowan returned from lunch the picket line was already up.
Picketing continued from May 20 to June 1, when it was terminated as a result
of a temporary restraining order obtained by the General Counsel for the Board.
Pickets were placed at front and rear entrances of the Sitrue plant . About 30 em-
ployees from shipping and receiving (out of a total of around 60) left their jobs
and some of them joined in the picketing . A few production employees also went
out and some participated in the picketing . The pickets carried signs stating that
Sitrue was "unfair" to the Teamsters . (Exhibits 7, 8.) Picketing resumed for about
24 hours on June 2 or 3 , but stopped again and has not been resumed since that time.
On June 20, 1960, United States District Judge Brennan issued an Order Extend-
ing Temporary Restraining Order effective "until the Board determines that a ques-
tion concerning representation of the shipping and receiving employees of Sitrue,
Incorporated may appropriately be raised under Section 9 of the Act." (Exhibit 9.)
Plant Manager Rowan testified that at all times relevant to the issue in this case
100 percent of the employees within the bargaining unit represented by Papermakers
had signed checkoff authorization cards on file with Sitrue authorizing deduction
of dues and their payment to Papermakers . No checkoff revocations were filed with
Sitrue authorizing deduction of dues and their payment to Papermakers. No check-
off revocations were filed with the Company prior to May 31, 1960.
Concluding Findings
The legislative history of Section 8(b) (7) (A ) conclusively establishes a congres-
sional intention to broaden the Taft Act ban against recognition picketing as con-
tained in Section 8(b)(4)(C ). This provision of the Taft Act barred recognition
picketing where the object was to force bargaining with one union when another
union had been certified as the bargaining representative . The new provision
makes is quite clear that Congress sought to ban any recognition picketing where
an incumbent union is lawfully recognized, regardless of whether it has been certified
as the bargaining representative by the Board.
In determining whether Section 8(b) (7) (A) has been violated , three essential
findings are necessary:
1. That the object of the threats to picket and the picketing was to force the em-
ployer to recognize the Teamsters and the employees to accept the Teamsters as their
bargaining representative.
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. That the incumbent union was "lawfully recognized" by the Employer.
3. That a question concerning representation could not appropriately be raised
under Section 9(c) of the Act.
There can be no doubt as to the object of the picketing. It was explicitly stated
in Teamsters' letter of April 29. It was repeated in Ulrich's telephone and other
conversations with Rowan on May 2, 10 or 11, 16, and 20. It was made obvious in
the actual picketing between May 20 and June 1 and by the picket signs which
were carried. The Teamsters was seeking to force itself upon both the Employer
and the employees, and this is precisely what Congress sought to prohibit by the
enactment of Section 8(a)(7)(A).
Neither is there any doubt about the legality of the recognition of Papermakers
by the Employer. The original recognition occurred in 1938 for the same unit as
now exists. At the time of the hearing and for some months before, 100 percent
of the employees in the unit were on checkoff. Production and maintenance units
of the type involved here have repeatedly been found appropriate by the Board in
cases too numerous to mention. Indeed, it may be questioned if a unit confined to
shipping and receiving employees alone could be found appropriate under any cir-
cumstances, and this may account for the Teamsters' reluctance to file a petition
before the 60-day "insulation period" began on April 1, 1960.
Obviously no question concerning representation could be raised under 9(c) of
the Act at the time the Teamsters began its unlawful activities. The parties began
negotiations in good faith less than 60 days before the expiration date of their
contract without any notice of the Teamsters' claims. They reached agreement
and signed the new agreement 10 days before the contract-bar date-a petition filed
at any time within this period would have been dismissed as untimely. Deluxe
Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995.
Accordingly it must be found that Respondents by threats to picket and by actu-
ally picketing for recognition between April 29 and June 1, 1960, and until restrained
by court order, acted without legal justification and in violation of Section 8(b)(7)
(A) 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 of the Employer 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b) (7) (A) of the Act by threatening to picket and by actually
picketing Sitrue on and after April 29, through June 1, 1960, for the purpose of
forcing recognition of Respondents as the bargaining representative of Sitrue's ship-
ping and receiving employees, nothwithstanding the fact that United Papermakers
and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO and its Local Unions 363 and 363A are lawfully
recognized by Sitrue as such bargaining representative and a question concerning
representation may not now appropriately be raised, it is recommended that the
Respondents cease and desist from engaging in such unlawful activities.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sitrue"Incorporated is an Employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act and a Party to the Contract.
2. The Unions are, each of them, labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, and its Local Unions 363
and 363A on April 29, 1960, and at all times material herein, were and now are
lawfully recognized as the exclusive representative of all production and mainte-
nance employees in accordance with the Act, including shipping and receiving
employees.
4. The obiect of the threats to picket and the actual picketing which occurred
between April 29 and June 1, 1960, was to force recognition of Respondents as
the bargaining representative of shipping and receiving employees, even though the
incumbent unions were lawfully recognized and a question concerning representa-
tion could not appropriately be raised under Section 9(c) of the Act.
GRANWOOD FURNITURE COMPANY 1465
5. By the acts described herein, Respondent Teamsters and Respondent Ulrich
and each of them did engage in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(A) of the Act.
6. The acts of Respondent Teamsters and Respondent Ulrich described herein
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 flow of commerce.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Granwood Furniture Company and Furniture and Bedding
Workers Union , Local 18-B, UFWA, AFL-CIO. Case No.
13-CA-3307. January 31, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 14, 1960, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that
the complaint be dismissed with respect to them. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report 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 considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
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, Granwood Fur-
niture Company, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from coercively questioning employees as to their
union sympathies, membership, and activities, threatening employees
with reprisals because of such activities, and in any like or related
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
1 Member Rodgers would not rely on the Trial Examiner 's inference that because of the
small size of its plant the Respondent had knowledge of the union activities of Bahan and
Jackson, although he concurs in the Trial Examiner 's finding , based on other evidence,
that Respondent did, in fact , know that they were union adherents.
129 NLRB No. 182.