Local 212, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 519 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 519
Local Union No. 212, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America (Ind.) and Stuart Wilson, Inc. Case
7-CB-2536
November 28, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 19, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Herzel H. E. Flame issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union No.
212, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Ind.),
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
I The title of "Thal Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner: The Respondent
(Union), representing the employee salesmen of the
Charging Party (Employer), an automobile sales dealer,
called a strike of the salesmen in November 1971, when
collective bargaining failed to produce an agreement.
The complaint charged the Union with violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act) for having used violence or threats of
violence against nonstriking employees and customers of
the Employer in attempting to compel the nonstriking
employees to cease work and Join the strike, and for having
caused the Employer to terminate the employment of
nonstriking employees by threatening the Employer that
physical harm would befall them if they continued to be
employed during the strike.'
The complaint was issued April 21, 1972 (reissuing an
earlier complaint of Mailch_ 24), on a charge by the
Employer filed January 10, 1972. The Union's answer
I In pertinent parts, Sec 8(b) provides
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-
(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7 [which includes the rights of employees to
engage, or refrain from engaging, in union activities]
(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against
denied any wrongdoing; but at trial, held in Detroit,
Michigan, on May 4, 1972, the Union withdrew part of its
answer and admitted the violence and threats of violence
against the nonstriking employees and customers (enumer-
ated in par. 13 of the complaint, comprising essentially the
whole of the 8(b)(1)(A) violations charged). Trial was held
on the balance of the complaint (essentially par 14,
composing the 8(b)(2) violation charged), concerning the
cessation or layoff in employment of the nonstriking
employees attributed to the alleged coercing of the
Employer by the Union. Briefs have been filed by General
Counsel and the Union.
Upon the entire record of the case, including my
observation of the witnesses and consideration of the
beefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Respondent (Union) is, as the parties agree, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Since May 17, 1971, by virtue of Board certification, the
Union has been the collective-bargaining representative of
the unit of employees comprising all new- and used-car
salesmen and truck salesmen of the Employer at its place
of business in Dearborn, Michigan, excluding office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The Charging Party (Employer) is a Michigan corpora-
tion that operates an automobile dealership for the retail
sale and service of new and used automobiles and trucks,
at two places of business in Dearborn, Michigan.
In calendar 1971, a representative period, the Employer
had gross revenue in excess of $500,000 from its sales, and
received at its Dearborn places of business goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from points outside Michigan.
The Employer is engaged, as the parties agree, in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
If. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The 8(b)(1)(A) Violations
The bargaining session between representatives of the
Employer and the Union on November 11, 1971, was held
at the Employer's offices above its showroom at the main
place of business in Dearborn. The session ended in an
impasse in the negotiations about 1 p.m. Shortly thereafter
Carl Van Zant, president of the Union (Local 212
Teamsters), called the salesmen out on strike.
A picket line formed almost immediately around various
entrances and driveways of Respondent's premises, with a
concentration in the main driveway near the showroom.
According to the Employer's president, John Blackwell,
an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3)
In pertinent part, subsection 8(a)(3) provides that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization
200 NLRB No. 83
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there were between 40 and 50 pickets, of whom only 8 or 9
were employees of the Employer.
Three salesmen refused to Join the strikers and remained
at their jobs on the premises. They were James F. O'Brien,
Sr., and James O'Brien, Jr., father and son, both new-car
salesmen, and Fred E. Yager, a used-car salesman. From
their testimony, they were not members of the Union, did
not want to become members or engage in the strike and
picketing, and desired to continue working. They so told
Union President Van Zant
It was admitted by the Union that President Van Zant
threatened the two O'Briens and Yager with physical harm
if they did not cease work and leave the Employer's
premises According to their testimony, Van Zant ap-
proached each of them individually as the strike began,
and directed each to leave or get hurt if he didn't. Salesman
Nozieka, who joined the picket line in the afternoon of
November 11, testified that Van Zant told him in the
presence of other pickets that he, Van Zant, had given the
O'Briens and Yager 5 minutes to get off the premises
otherwise they would have their heads bashed in. (The
events directly related to the further employment of
employees O'Brien Senior, O'Brien Junior, and Yager, and
the violations of law affecting their employment are
discussed under heading B, below.)
The strike and picketing which began on November 11,
1971, continued into 1972.
The Union admitted that on November 15, 1971, and
again in the first week of December 1971, its agent Hart
and pickets, respectively, engaged in physical assaults on
motor vehicles crossing the picket line and threatened
employees with physical harm, in order to compel
employees not to cross the line and cease working for the
Employer
The Union admitted that in December 1971, by and
through its pickets, it placed nails in the driveway of the
Employer's parking lot and informed the employees it had
done so
The Union admitted that on two occasions in December
1971, through its agents Spencer and Hart, respectively,
ingress of employees of the Employer was blocked and
impeded in order to compel the employees not to cross the
picket line.
The Union admitted that in January 1972, through
strikers and pickets, it informed relatives of nonstriking
employees that the employees would suffer physical harm
in the event they continued to work for the Employer and
did not join the strike and picketing of the Union
Additionally, Ralph Yager, brother of employee Fred
Yager, testified that striking salesmen Small and Stiles
made the threat to him that his brother Fred would be hurt
if Ralph did not get Fred out of Employer's premises.
The Union admitted that on January 3, 1972, its
President Van Zant and other pickets, in view of
employees, physically assaulted customers of the Employ-
er, as they attempted to cross the picket line, in order to
compel employees to cease crossing the picket line.
The foregoing admitted and proven actions on the part
of the Union constituted violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.2
B. The Violations of Section 8(b)(2)
The Union Coercion of the Employer
As indicated above under heading A, at the inception of
the strike on November 11, 1971, Union President Van
Zant ordered nonstriking employees O'Bnen Senior,
O'Brien Junior, and Fred Yager to leave the premises or
suffer physical hurt. When they refused, Van Zant made it
plain, as all three testified, that one way or another they
wouldn't be allowed to work. Employer's general manager,
James Blackwell, confirmed hearing Van Zant tell this to
O'Brien Senior. Van Zant also told O'Brien Senior and
Yager that he was going to talk to Employer's president,
John Blackwell, about getting them out, and he promptly
proceeded to talk with Blackwell. In O'Brien Junior's case,
Van Zant had already had a talk with Blackwell; and Van
Zant told O'Brien Junior that he had pointed out to
Blackwell the danger of O'Bnen's position in staying on
and that Blackwell would be talking to O'Brien about it.
Employer President Blackwell testified that, shortly after
the strike began, Union President Van Zant came into the
building and told him, "the O' Briens had better get out of
there before they got hurt." Blackwell made no reply, he
said, but later observed O'Brien Senior outside the
building, walking from the used-car lot, and being shouted
at by pickets. Blackwell went out and brought O'Brien
Senior into the building. Pickets, most of whom were not
his employees, massed outside the showroom, said Black-
well, banged on the windows, and shouted "scab," as the
O'Briens, father and son, or a customer came into the
showroom area.
Employee O'Brien Junior reported to President John
Blackwell, Van Zant's conversation and directions that he
(Junior) get out or risk injury if he didn't comply. He asked
Blackwell what he should do.
President Blackwell advised both O'Briens that it would
be best for them to leave and go home, but to keep in
touch. They complied and went home. Blackwell testified
that he sent them home because he felt they were in
danger.
President Blackwell walked out to the used-car office
and found employee Fred Yager, who appeared, said
Blackwell, to be shaken. Yager reported Van Zant's threat
that he (Yager) leave or get hurt, his refusal, and Van
Zant's added threat that he was going to see Blackwell
about getting him off the premises. Blackwell told
employee Yager, it looked violent, he didn't want Yager to
get hurt, and it would be best for him to leave and call in
the following day. As in the case of the O'Bnens, Blackwell
sent Yager home because of the danger in his staying.
From the several conversations among the four men, it was
apparent to the three employees that Union President Van
Zant had convinced Employer President Blackwell that
there would be violence if the three employees did not
leave.
Employee Yager testified that he called in practically
every working day after November 11 (until early
January), asking if it were safe to come in, and was advised
against it. He also learned it was not safe from a firsthand
2 See also fn 5. infra
LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 521
experience a few days after November 11, when he came to
the dealership to pick up some personal belongings. Three
pickets stopped him, and allowed him to go in only upon
his assurance that he had not come to work but to get his
personal things.
The Employer called employee Yager back to work
January 4, 1972, telling him that the situation was
improved enough for him to come back. The pickets were
now down to a few, and Yager reported to work without
being stopped and resumed selling, although on two
occasions thereafter pickets made threatening gestures at
him. He was the only rank-and-file salesman back on the
job in early January, said Yager, and he joined the
supervisory employees, who had covered sales from the
start of the strike, in selling cars.
Employee O'Brien Senior said he telephoned the Em-
ployer on the night of November 11 and was advised it was
not safe to come back. Thereafter, he regarded it as
pointless to keep calling, since he knew the union people
were picketing and wouldn't let him work, he testified. The
Employer called him back to work January 4, 1972, and he
reported in and worked a few hours. However, the pickets
called him scab and accused him of hurting them, and he
finally told General Manager James Blackwell that he
could not stand the harassment and left. He ultimately
took work elsewhere
Employee O'Brien Junior stayed in touch with the
Employer, but was discouraged by the management people
from coming in, he testified. He also learned firsthand that
it was not safe for him to come in. In early December, he
came to the dealership to pick up a corrected check and
found Union Agent Spencer blocking the driveway. He
backed away, and later arranged for the office to deliver
the corrected item to him He, too, was called to come back
to work January 4, 1972. Sales Manager Mitchell told him
he could come back under police protection, but O'Brien
replied he could not work under these conditions because
he had a wife and two children, and he declined to return
to thejob
The Union's Defense
The Union offered no contradictory testimony. It makes
the following two arguments.
1. First, says the Union, the complaint (par. 14) alleges
that the Union caused the Employer to "terminate" the
employment of the three nonstriking employees. Actually,
they were not terminated in the sense of discharge or total
separation from the payroll. Indeed, says the Union (and
the evidence so demonstrated), they were kept on the
payroll, and received the base or guaranteed monthly
minimum pay, though not the commissions and bonuses
that are realized from selling cars. They also received the
benefit of having existing health and life insurance carried
for them, and had the use of their demonstrators, for which
they paid as when they worked. They were paid by the
Employer for staying home, says the Union, and in fact
were not damaged at all because there was no showing of
what they would have earned in commissions or bonuses.
Nor could the General Counsel have shown sales perform-
ance justifying commissions or bonuses , says the Union,
since sales were down because of the strike.
2. Second, says the Union, there was no showing that
the three nonstriking employees were sent home because of
a request by the Union, or by reason of any pressure by the
Union on the Employer to discriminate against them.
Conclusions
1. As to the first defense , that there was no termination
of employment and no damage to the three nonstriking
employees , the Union properly concedes that the com-
plaint is not regarded as a common law pleading , and that
the Act does not require a showing of discharge or
complete separation from employment to establish dis-
crimination under Sections 8(b)(2) or 8(a)(3). "Terminate"
in the labor lexicon is not a term with a fixed meaning.
Depending on the user and the circumstances its connota-
tion may be temporary or permanent , voluntary or
involuntary , partial or whole , or several combinations of
these. In any event , even if termination were to be regarded
as having the ultimate connotation of discharge by the
Employer, the greater includes the lesser , and proof of a
discriminatory layoff with partial pay , as here , is within the
allegation of a discriminatory termination , N.L.R B. v.
Kiekhaefer Corp., 292 F.2d 130, 134-135 (C.A. 7, 1961).
The total evidence makes plain that President John
Blackwell sent the three nonstriking salesmen home, in a
temporary layoff status, because of the threats to their
safety made directly to him by the Union's president,
threats that had the appearance of reality from the conduct
of the unruly mob that surrounded the showroom.
Moreover , Blackwell kept the three salesmen home and
away from the dealership in the 7 or 8 weeks following the
layoff, because the initial threat of violence became actual
violence, and the danger to the laid off employees in that
period was clear and present.3
The Union misreads the evidence in contending there
was no damage to the laid off employees. President John
Blackwell was very clear that he sent them home because
of the danger to them, and consequently prevented them
from selling cars. General Manager James Blackwell was
equally clear that the base salary (employee O'Brien Junior
said it was $800 per month) was not adequate compensa-
tion for the salesmen, it was only a minimum , and that the
salesmen needed the commissions and bonuses from car
sales to make an adequate wage. Employee O'Brien Senior
testified that the base salary was considerably less than he
normally earned.
The matter of backpay is usually the subject of a
supplemental proceeding, if an unfair labor practice is
found to have been the cause of deprivation of the
employee's opportunity to earn his pay. Hence General
Counsel was not under any burden to prove the claimed
dollar loss in this proceeding It was enough that he
provided evidence of the discriminatory deprivation of the
opportunity to continue on the job, and some evidence of
the nature of the loss to the employees.
' The Union's reference to testimony that Blackwell did not "prevent"
them from returning was in the context of making clear that he did not
"terminate" or totally separate them from the opportunity to return when
the danger was past
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover it comes with poor grace from the Union to
contend that since sales were down, because of the strike,
the laid off salesmen lost nothing. The contention
conveniently overlooks the fact that the Union's picket line
violence and rowdyism aimed at employees and customers
of the Employer-the admitted 8(b)(1)(A) misconduct
throughout the period of the layoff, set out under heading
A above-undoubtedly contributed greatly to a drop in
sales, certainly more than would have been the effect if the
strike and picketing had been peaceful and orderly. The
Union is not entitled to claim any benefit or credit from its
wrongdoing.
2. Regarding the Union's contention that there was
absent any request by it to the Employer, or pressure from
it upon the Employer, to send the nonstriking employees
home, the evidence was unmistakeable of a demand by the
Union's president that the Employer get the nonstrikers
out of the showroom and off the premises or the Union
would use force on them. And that force was already
literally beating on the showroom windows. I find it
difficult to imagine any greater form of pressure or clearer
demand by the Union upon the Employer to do the
Union's bidding.4
The Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by causing
the Employer to lay off James O'Brien Sr., James O'Brien
Jr., and Fred Yager, nonstriking employees who were not
members of the Union, because they refused to cease work
and join with the Union in its strike and picketing of the
Employer, and by causing the Employer thereby to
discriminate against the three employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.5 Compare, General Truckdrivers
Local 5 v N L.R.B., 389 F.2d 757 (C.A. 5, 1968), finding
8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) violations where the employer
"assigned" the employee to his home for 4 months under
union threats of a strike and of physical violence to bar the
employee from his employment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I By engaging, during a strike against the Employer, in
acts of violence, threats of violence, and other destructive
acts on the picket line, including assaults on customers and
vehicles, in order to compel employees not to cross the
picket line and cease working for the Employer, the Union
has committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
2 By causing the Employer to send home and lay off
employees who were not members of the Union and who
refused to join in the strike and picketing, the Union
caused the Employer to discriminate against these employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and
committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. By this conduct the Union also
restrained the employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights and committed unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
3. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Union:
(1) Cease and desist from its unfair practices; (2) make
employees O'Brien Senior, O'Brien Junior, and Yager
whole for the loss of pay suffered by reason of their layoffs,
N.L.R B. v. Hod Carriers Union Local 300, 392 F.2d 581,
582 (C.A. 9, 1968), backpay equivalent to be computed on
a quarterly basis as set forth in F. W Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), approved in N.L R.B. v. Seven Up
Bottling Co, 344 U.S. 344 (1953), with interest at 6 percent
per annum as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962), approved in Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v.
N.L R B, 331 F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied 379
U.S. 888; and (3) post the notices provided for herein.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:6
ORDER
The Union, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Compelling or attempting to compel nonstriking
employees of the Employer to cease work for the
Employer, or to join in the Union's strike and picketing, or
to refrain from crossing the picket line, specifically by
(1) ordering or directing nonstriking employees to cease
work;
(2) threatening nonstriking employees with physical
harm, or assaulting them;
(3) assaulting vehicles that cross the picket line;
(4) placing nails in entranceways, driveways, or parking
lots of the Employer;
(5) blocking or impeding ingress and egress into and out
of the Employer's places of business;
(6) coercing or attempting to coerce relatives of nonstrik-
ing employees into persuading the employees to cease
work, by threat of physical harm to the nonstriking
employees;
(7) assaulting customers of the Employer who attempt to
cross the picket line.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Employer, by
request or by threat of physical harm to nonstriking
employees or other coercion, to lay off, discharge, or
otherwise discriminate in regard to hire or tenure or any
term or condition of employment of the nonstriking
employees, because they refuse or fail to cease work for the
Employer, or to join in the Union's strike and picketing, or
to refrain from crossing the picket line.
4 The case cited by the Union, Northwestern Montana District Council
Carpenters Union, 126 NLRB 889 , 897-898 (1960), sheds no different light
for it holds that "An express demand or request is not essential to a
violation of Sec 8 (b)(2) of the Act (citation omitted) It suffices if any
pressure or inducement is used by the union to influence the employer"
5 The Union's conduct was also a restraint upon the three employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them under Sec 7 of the Act, in violation
of Sec 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and Order herein shall , as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 523
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of rights protected by the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make employees James F. O'Brien Sr., James O'Brien
Jr., and Fred E. Yager whole, in the manner set forth in the
section of the decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss
of earnings incurred by each as a result of their layoffs that
commenced November 11, 1971.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of
this recommended Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places in the Union's business
offices and meeting halls, including places where notices to
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A," addressed to members of
the Union.7 Immediately upon receipt of copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan), the Union shall cause the
copies to be signed by one of its authorized representatives
and posted, the posted copies to be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Cause copies of the notice marked "Appendix B,"
addressed to employees of the Employer, on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director of Region 7 (Detroit,
Michigan), to be signed by one of its authorized represent-
atives, immediately upon receipt, and returned forthwith to
the Regional Director for delivery by him to the Employer
for posting and maintenance in the Employer's places of
business in manner similar to that provided in paragraph
(c) above.8
(e) Notify the Regional Director of Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Union has taken to comply herewith .9
7 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
8 See In 7, supra
9 In the event that the recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify
the Regional Director of Region 7 , in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Union has taken to comply herewith "
picketing of Stuart Wilson, or to refrain from crossing
the picket line; specifically,
WE WILL NOT order or direct nonstriking employees
to cease work,
WE WILL NOT threaten nonstriking employees with
physical harm, or assault them;
WE WILL NOT assault vehicles that cross the picket
line;
WE WILL NOT place nails in entranceways, drive-
ways, or parking lots of Stuart Wilson;
WE WILL NOT block or impede ingress and egress
into and out of Stuart Wilson 's places of business;
WE WILL NOT coerce or attempt to coerce relatives of
nonstriking employees into persuading the employees
to cease work, by threat of physical harm to the
nonstriking employees;
WE WILL NOT assault customers of Stuart Wilson
who attempt to cross the picket line.
WE WILL NOT cause Stuart Wilson, by request or by
threat of physical harm to nonstriking employees or
other coercion, to lay off, discharge, or otherwise
discriminate in the conditions or tenure of employment
of nonstriking employees , because they refuse or fail to
cease work for Stuart Wilson, or to join in the Union's
strike and picketing , or to refrain from crossing the
picket line.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights protected by the
National Labor Relations Act.
Because the National Labor Relations Board found
that we unlawfully caused the layoff by Stuart Wilson
of employees James F. O'Brien , Sr., James O'Brien, Jr.,
and Fred E . Yager, commencing on November 11,
1971, WE WILL give each of the three employees the
equivalent of backpay, with interest , for his loss of
earnings in the period of layoff.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found , after a
trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act:
WE WILL NOT compel or attempt to compel nonstrik-
ing employees of Stuart Wilson, Inc. (Stuart Wilson) to
cease work , or to join in the Union 's strike and
Dated By
LOCAL UNION No. 212,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA,
(IND.)
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249
Washington Boulevard , Detroit , Michigan 48226, Tele-
phone 313-226-3200.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Of Stuart Wilson, Inc.
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act:
WE WILL NOT compel or attempt to compel nonstrik-
ing employees of Stuart Wilson, Inc. (Stuart Wilson) to
cease work, or to join in the Union's strike and
picketing of Stuart Wilson, or to refrain from crossing
the picket line; specifically,
WE WILL NOT order or direct nonstriking employees
to cease work;
WE WILL NOT threaten nonstriking employees with
physical harm, or assault them,
WE WILL NOT assault vehicles that cross the picket
line;
WE WILL NOT place nails in entrance ways, drive-
ways, or parking lots of Stuart Wilson;
WE WILL NOT block or impede ingress and egress
into and out of Stuart Wilson's places of business;
WE WILL NOT coerce or attempt to coerce relatives of
nonstriking employees into persuading the employees
to cease work, by threat of physical harm to the
nonstriking employees;
WE WILL NOT assault customers of Stuart Wilson
who attempt to cross the picket line.
WE WILL NOT cause Stuart Wilson, by request or by
threat of physical harm to nonstriking employees or
other coercion, to lay off, discharge, or otherwise
discriminate in the conditions or tenure of employment
of nonstriking employees, because they refuse or fail to
cease work for Stuart Wilson, or tojoin in the Union's
strike and picketing, or to refrain from crossing the
picket line.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights protected by the
National Labor Relations Act.
Because the National Labor Relations Board found
that we unlawfully caused the layoff by Stuart Wilson
of employees James F. O'Brien, Sr., James O'Brien, Jr,
and Fred E. Yager, commencing on November 11,
1971, WE WILL give each of the three employees the
equivalent of backpay, with interest, for his loss of
earnings in the period of layoff.
Dated By
LOCAL UNION No. 212,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(IND.)
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249
Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Tele-
phone 313-226-3200.