Local 239, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 8 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

8 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. It follows that the Board would assert jurisdiction with respect
to the operations of-any single member of any one of the five chapters
mentioned in paragraph 1, above.
6. It also follows that the Board-would assert jurisdiction with ref-
erence to the business of any one of the five chapters mentioned in
paragraph 1, above.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that upon the
allegations submitted herein the Board would assert jurisdiction as
to the operations of any one of the five chapters mentioned in para-
graph 1, above, or any single member of any one of these chapters,
with respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of
the Act.
Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Abbey Auto Parts
Corp . Case No. 3-CP-218. May 19, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 24, 1961, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions, and the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions, to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion together with supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, the Gen-
eral Counsel's cross-exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' conclusions,
and recommendations.
1 Although the Trial Examiner apparently inadvertently found that Bethpage Auto
Parts, Inc., is located across the street from Abbey , whereas the record shows that it is,
in fact, located about 1% miles from Abbey, we find that the error had no effect on the
correctness of his ultimate findings or our concurrence therein . We also correct the Trial
Examiner 's inadvertent statement giving May 4, 1963, instead of April 26, 1963, as the
date of the preelection conference.
147 NLRB No. 4.
LOCAL. 239, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 9
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Triitl Examiner and orders that Respondent, Local 239,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America", its officers, agents, representatives, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge, duly filed , the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations
Board , for the Regional Director of the Second Region ( New York , New York),
issued a complaint on August 13, 1963, against Local 239, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , herein called the
Respondent , alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(7)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act. The Respondent's answer denies the allegation of unlawful conduct alleged
in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in New York , New York, on October 7
and 8 , 1963, before Trial Examiner John P . von Rohr . All parties were represented
by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General
Counsel and from the Respondent and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Abbey Auto Parts Corp ., a New York corporation with its office and place of
business in Bethpage, Long Island , New York , is engaged in the retail and wholesale
sale and distribution of automotive parts, accessories , and related products . During
the last calendar year , Abbey Auto Parts Corp . received from outside the State auto
parts and accessories valued in excess of $50,000.
The Company is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 239 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , herein called the Respondent or the Union , is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As a member of the Automotive Parts Distributors Association, Inc., a multi-
employer bargaining association ,. Abbey was bound by a contract between the Asso-
ciation and the Respondent Union which by its terms was effective from 1958 to
April 30, 1962 . On February 20, 1962 , the Association mailed to Abbey a blank
form for Abbey to sign and return which would again authorize it to bargain for
Abbey. Abbey refused and has never signed this form . On or about March 29,
1962 , the Respondent unsuccessfully attempted to get Abbey to sign an individual
contract . On April 2, the Respondent struck certain members of the Association
and other members of the Association locked out their employees. Abbey was not
struck and did not lock out its employees . On April 4, 1962 , Abbey notified the
Association and the Respondent that it did not desire the Association to represent it
in collective bargaining . On April 23, 1962 , Abbey filed an RM petition with the
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board (Case No. 2-RM-1215) on the ground that it had effectively withdrawn its
membership from the Association.'
In the latter part of April 1962, and while the foregoing petition was pending, the
Association and the Respondent Union executed a new collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Consistent with its position that it had withdrawn from the Association,
Abbey did not then or at any subsequent time become a party to the latter contract.
On April 15, 1963, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Election in
which it specifically found that Abbey had withdrawn from the multiemployer group
in timely fashion.2
A preelection conference was held at the Regional Office on May 4, 1963, for the
purpose of setting up the mechanics of the election. An attorney for the Respondent
participated in the conference and entered into a stipulation concerning the location
of the election. He also received a payroll list of Abbey's employees.
On May 10, 1963, the Board held an election among Abbey's employees 3 which
resulted in a 9-0 vote against the Respondent. On May 20, 1963, no objection to
the election having been filed, the Regional Director issued a certificate of results of
election certifying "that a majority of the valid votes has not been cast for any labor
organization appearing on the ballot, and that no such organization is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit .
On May 3, 1963 (which was a week prior to the election), the Respondent sent
the letter set out below to Abbey with a copy to the Board's New York Regional
Office. It was received by Abbey and the Regional Office on May 6 and stated as
follows:
We intend to issue handbills to the public at large, and to picket your premises,
the sole purpose of which is to bring to the attention of and inform the public
that your establishment is non-union. We have no choice but to publicize the
fact that your employees are working under non-union conditions and such situa-
tion jeopardizes the maintenance of our standards. This publicity will be in
such manner and by such means as is permitted by law. The maintenance of a
non-union shop is a serious threat to the maintenance of union wages and hours
and conditions and terms which we have established over the years in the in-
dustry. As a matter of simple economics it is clear that we cannot maintain
our present union standards, or improve them as long as there are non-union
conditions in the industry.
There is one matter that we would like to emphasize. We are not making
any demands upon your company or its management to agree to or to execute
any contract with our Union covering any of your employees. In the event
that any demands were heretofore made upon you for recognition of our Union
as the collective bargaining representative of your employees, please take notice
that any and all such demands are hereby withdrawn. The purpose of the
picket line is not an attempt to organize your employees or to get them to accept
or select our Union as their collective bargaining representative. Under the
Labor Relations Act, your company is permitted to recognize and bargain with
our Union only after a majority of your employees have authorized the Union
to represent them. Therefore, even if your company should now or hereafter
offer to recognize our Union or enter into collective bargaining with us, our
Union would refuse such offer and we would continue to refuse such offer until
and unless the majority of your employees voluntarily, without coercion of any
kind, designate our Union as their collective bargaining representative.
Therefore, we are going to place peaceful pickets at the entrances of your
store for the purpose of advertising your non-union status. These pickets are
being instructed to patrol peaceably in front of the consumer entrances of the
store, to stay away from the delivery entrances and not to interfere with the
work of your employes or with deliveries to or pick-ups from your store.
IAn earlier RM petition was filed by Abbey on April 5, 1962, in Case No. 2-R\1-1208.
That petition was dismissed by the Regional Director and no appeal followed.
e Case No. 2-RM-1215. On November 23, 1962, the Board reversed the Regional Dl
rector's dismissal of the petition filed in this matter. A hearing on the petition was con-
ducted on January 18 and 24 and February 15, 1963. I have taken official notice of the
Board's decision in the representation case and certain of the facts set forth above have
been taken therefrom.
3 The Union did not designate an observer for the election.
LOCAL 239, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 11
We do not intend that any of your employees cease work as a result of the
picketing. We ask that you advise your employees of our intentions in this re-
spect, perhaps by posting a copy of the enclosed "Instructions to Pickets" on
your store bulletin board.
If any of your employees should stop work as a result of our program, or if
you should have any difficulty as far as pick-ups and deliveries are concerned,
or if you observe any of the pickets disobeying the instructions which they have
been given, please notify the undersigned union representative at once, and we
will take steps to see that the situation is promptly corrected.
In conclusion, we desire to make it.perfectly clear that in writing to you, we
are not suggesting in any way that you coerce or interfere with your employees
in their right to join a union or not to join a union . That choice, either way is
theirs alone. Nor are we requesting that you negotiate with us or enter into a
collective bargaining agreement with us. We are merely advising you of the
situation and what we propose to do.
The Respondent placed a picket line at Abbey's place of business on the morning
of May 6 and such picketing continued without interruption until on or about
August 31, 1963, when it was enjoined. by court order .4 The pickets carried two
types of pickets signs. The legends, as separately inscribed on each, stated as
follows: 5
To the Public
Please Be Advised
Abbey Auto Parts
is
Non-Union
This Jeopardizes our Union Standards
Please Do Not Patronize
Local 239, IBT
[and]
Don't Buy at Abbey
Non-Union
Local 239, Teamsters
The pickets also distributed handbills to customers as they entered Abbey's adja-
cent parking lot, the substance of which was similar to the legends on the picket signs
but which also urged the recipients to patronize 1 of the 15 shops designated therein
as being "union shops in this area." Additionally, on June 3 and 4 representatives
of the Respondent visited over 70 customers of Abbey, principally retail gasoline
stations. It is undisputed that each of these customers was given a notice or hand-
bill which read in pertinent part as follows:
NOTICE TO THE PRESIDENT OR CHIEF EXECUTIVE
We are advised that you are presently engaged in selling and using auto-
motive parts received from Abbey Auto Parts. Abbey Auto Parts operates
under non-union conditions and threatens the living and working conditions
established by our Union for thousands of parts workers.
The protest against these non-union conditions at Abbey Auto Parts is still
continuing and we are asking the consuming public not to purchase auto parts
distributed by Abbey Auto.
Therefore, we are going to hand out handbills at the customers' entrances to
your establishment.
Those distributing such handbills are being instructed to stay away from the
delivery entrances of your establishment and not to interfere with the work of
your employees, or with deliveries to or pick-ups from your establishment.
A copy of the instructions which have been furnished to the handbillers and
the handbill they will distribute are attached herewith.
We do not intend that any of your employees cease work or refuse to handle
the product as a result of the handbilling. .We ask that you advise your em-
ployees of our intentions in this respect, perhaps by posting this notice on your
bulletin board.
The evidence reflects that Respondent, in accordance with its statement in the May 3
letter, made no attempt to induce Abbey's employees not to work nor did it make
any attempt to interfere with deliveries scheduled for Abbey's place of business.
* The court order was obtained through application of the General Counsel acting under
Section 10(1) of the Act.
5 Stipulation of the parties, General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Object of the Picketing
The issue here is one of fact. It is the contention of the General Counsel that the
evidence in this case affirmatively establishes that the picketing at Abbey had a
recognitional and organizational object and as such was in violation of Section
8(b) (7) (B) of the Act. The Respondent, on the other hand, points to the testimony
of Max Sherman, president of the Union, to the effect that the purpose of the picket-
ing was to advertise the nonunion status of Abbey and to divert business from the
nonunion Abbey shops to union shops. Contending that Sherman's testimony to
this effect should be believed and that these objectives are not proscribed by the Act,
Respondent argues further that in any event the General Counsel has failed to estab-
lish that an object of the picketing was organizational or recognitional.
I think my discussion will be more easily followed if I state at the outset that I
am persuaded and conclude, upon the entire record in this case, that an object of the
picketing was for a recognitional purpose. To begin with, it is most pertinent to
examine Respondent's acts and conduct in a most identical situation involving
Bethpage Auto Parts, Inc., a business located just across the street from Abbey.
The evidence here is most revealing.
As the name of the Bethpage Company indicates, it, like Abbey, is engaged in the
sale of auto parts. Also, like Abbey, it was a member of the Automotive Parts
Distributors Association and as such was. a party to the 1958 contract with the
Respondent which expired on April 30, 1962.6 Bethpage filed an RM petition on
April 5, 1962, and this case was consolidated with the Abbey case for the purposes
of hearing. On April 15, 1963, the same date of the Abbey decision, the Board
issued a separate Decision and Direction of Election in which it found that Bethpage,
as Abbey, had made a timely withdrawal from the employer association. Following
an election held on July 3, 1963, which the Respondent Union did not win, the
Regional Director on July 12, certified that no labor organization was the bargaining
representative of Bethpage's employees. Prior to the July 3 election the Respondent
sent Bethpage a letter of identical content as that of the May 3, 1963, letter which
it had sent to Abbey. It will be recalled that in this letter, which has been heretofore
quoted in its entirety, the Respondent specifically disclaimed that its intended picket-
ing of the premises was for either recognitional or organizational purposes. The
picketing of the Bethpage premises by Respondent commenced within a day or two
after the July 3 election and continued until about August 1. The legends on the
picket signs and the handbills distributed to Bethpage's customers were identical to
those utilized in the picketing of Abbey, as heretofore described.
Notwithstanding the Respondent's declaration in its letter to Bethpage that it did
not intend to organize the employees of this employer, there is undisputed testimony
in the record that Respondent, in fact, did engage in organizational activities among
the Bethpage employees just prior to and subsequent to the July 3 election, the latter
occurring during the course of the picketing. Whether or not the Respondent suc-
ceeded in organizing a majority of the Bethpage employees, a fact which is not dis-
closed in the record, the evidence reveals, and I find, that the picketing at, Bethpage
ceased on or about August 1 when Bethpage at that point finally entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent.? It is therefore crystal clear,
and I find, that an object of the picketing at Bethpage was to gain recognition.
° The facts concerning the events at Bethpage as relnted herein are undisputed unless
otherwise indicated. I have also taken official notice of certain findings in the Board's
Decision and Direction of Election in Bethpage Auto Parts. Inc., Case No. 2-R\f-1206.
Leonard Leff. treasurer of Bethpage, credibly testified that Lewis Sherman, a picket
and the brother of Respondent President Max Sherman, suggested to him "that we might
be able to settle the matter if we met with the union . . . which we also. suggested, I
guess." Leff further testified that thereafter the matter was settled and that although he
was not sure of the dates, "either we do [have a contract] or we have one pending."
While I believe the foregoing is sufficient to support my finding that Respondent entered
into a contract with Bethpage, I also note the following: (1) It is undisputed that the
picketing at Bethpage ceased on or about August 1 ; (2) Respondent offered no evidence
to challenge Leff's testimony to the effect that Bethpage entered into an agreement with
it at this time; (3) Robert Cacchio, president of Abbey, testified without contradiction
that when the picketing at Bethpage ceased a sign appeared on the Bethpage premises
stating: "This Is a Union shop" ; and (4) Lewis Sherman conceded that while picketing at
Abbey he told the customers that Abbey was nonunion and that they should patronize
Abbey's competitor across the street. There can be no doubt that Sherman made these
latter statements after the picketing at Bethpage had ceased.
LOCAL 239, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 13
Getting back to the situation at Abbey Auto Parts, we turn now to a.conversation
of significant import which occurred near the beginning of August 1963, between
Robert Cacchio, president of Abbey, and Lewis Sherman. As indicated in the pre-
ceding footnote, Lewis Sherman is a brother of Max Sherman, the latter president of
the Respondent Union. It is undisputed that Lewis Sherman participated in the
picketing of both Abbey and Bethpage. There is a sharp conflict in the testimony
as to what was said on this occasion in early August. Cacchio testified that the con-
versation took place while he remained in his car which he had stopped upon enter-
ing the company parking lot when Lewis Sherman called to him. Cacchio's testi-
mony of the conversation which ensued at this time is best set forth in his own
words, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
He introduced himself as Lewis Sherman, brother of Max Sherman. And
asked me when we were going to sit down and get together on making a con-
tract. And I told him that I wasn't interested in any contract because my em-
ployees voted they did not want the union to represent them, and I did not feel
that I should go ahead and force them to have the union represent them. He
told me I was being very foolish. He said he was the one responsible in getting
Bethpage Auto Parts and the union together. Bethpage Auto Parts got a good
deal.
He said, I could have the same. I could write my own contract. He also
said that I was being very foolish. The union would never leave me alone be-
cause I got away with being non-union, a lot of other people would. And he
tried telling me that I was the only non-union shop in the area. .I pointed out
to him that I was not the only non-union shop in the area. There was quite a
few others.
He said the union wasn't interested in them because they were only one or
two men shops. I pointed out that Bethpage Auto Parts was only a two-man
shop and they spent an awful lot of time and went to an awful lot of trouble
picketing him, to get him to sign with the union.
He also said that it was costing me a lot of business, a lot of aggravation and
was costing the union a lot of money, and there was no reason why we couldn't
work something out. I told him I didn't-I become accustomed to his
pickets, that at first they bothered me a little, but at the present time they had
no effect on me whatever. He could keep them there as long as he wanted.
Turning to Lewis Sherman's version of the conversation, Sherman testified that
when Cacchio entered the parking lot he was-motioned over to Cacchio's car. Con-
tinuing, Sherman said that Cacchio pointed out that he was wearing the wrong
picket sign, i.e., a sign that bore the name of Bethpage rather than Abbey.8 Sherman
testified that when he thereupon started to remove the picket sign, Cacchio told him
that the sign did not mean anything because the Bethpage dispute had been settled;
and that Cacchio also said that it did not make much difference what sign he wore
at Abbey because Abbey was not losing business as a result of the picketing. Sherman
denied that during this conversation he in any manner suggested that Cacchio enter
into a contract with the Respondent Union or that he had been responsible for
getting Bethpage together with the Union.
Cacchio impressed me as an honest, sincere, and forthright witness who was telling
the truth concerning the events to which he testified. On this basis alone I would
credit his testimony. But my crediting his version of the above conversation over
that of Sherman's, which I do, is further buttressed when consideration is given to
Respondent's actions, including those of Sherman's, in connection with the very same
situation which existed across the street from Abbey at Bethpage. As has been here-
tofore related, Respondent sent Abbey and Bethpage identical letters in which it dis-
claimed that its picketing was in any way related to recognitional or organizational
purposes. From the facts in this case it is obvious that such disclaimer was but a
camouflage, the utilization of which I believe to have been but an attempt by the
Respondent to avoid the proscriptions of Section 8(b)(7) of the Act. That this is
so is conclusively demonstrated by Respondent's removal of the pickets and entering
into an agreement with Bethpage , this notwithstanding its previous self-serving dis-
claimer . As also heretofore noted (footnote 7, supra ), the agreement between
8 Cacchio agreed that be mentioned this . fact to Sherman at some point during the
conversation.
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bethpage and Respondent came about, at least in part, as a result of the "suggestion"
which Lewis Sherman made to Leonard Leff, an official of that company.9
Accordingly, on the basis of Respondent's analogous conduct in the Abbey Auto
Parts and Bethpage situations, and particularly including Lewis Sherman's approach
to Cacchio that Abbey enter into a contract with the Respondent, the evidence
establishes, and I find, that an object of the picketing at Abbey was for recognition.lo
By engaging in such picketing where within the preceding 12 months a valid elec-
tion had been conducted which Respondent did not win, the Respondent violated
Section 8(b) (7) (B) of the Act.
In addition to the foregoing, I also consider material as bearing upon Respondent's
picketing objectives the language on one of the picket signs. While one of the two
picket signs carried by Respondent's representatives referred in part to "standards,"
the other picket sign did not mention standards. Rather this sign, when considered
in context with Respondent's other conduct as described above, revealed the true
purpose of the picketing when it stated:
Don't Buy at Abbey. Non-Union. Local 239, Teamsters.
Such language, it has been held, may constitute evidence of an organization or
recognition objective; and here it negates any contention by the Respondent that its
picketing was "standards" picketing."
The General Counsel also called as witnesses two service station operators who
were approached by Respondent's representatives. These witnesses, John Caporale
and Patrick Mercardante, testified that the union representatives indicated to them
that one of the reasons for the picketing of Abbey was to "unionize" Abbey or to
"get the employees at Abbey's back into the Union." 12 Without detailing all this
testimony, suffice it to say that the testimony of Caporale in this respect was con-
fused, contradictory, and reflected Caporale's conclusion as to what was said rather
than an objective account of his conversation with the Respondent's representatives.
As to Mercardante, the record reveals that he could not properly identify the union
spokesman who allegedly made the remarks in question. Accordingly, I cannot
and do not credit the testimony of these witnesses and I do not rely upon such testi-
mony in finding the violation heretofore found.
. IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
in violation of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The
6I have previously set forth and credited the testimony of Leff concerning his conversa-
tion with Lewis Sherman. While Sherman did not deny that he suggested a contract to
Leff. Sherman merely testified that on various occasions Leff would say to him that "it
would be nice if Bethpage and the union were able to get together so as to remove the
pickets from the picket line . . . . I would agree with him." To the extent that the
testimony differs, I credit the testimony of Leff over that of Sherman.
10 Although Lewis Sherman was a picket and not an official of the Respondent, the Board
has relied upon statements made by pickets on the picket line in finding the objective of
the picketing. Local No. 25, Bakery h Confectionery Workers International Union of
America, AFL-CIO, at at. (King's Bakery, Inc.), 116 NLRB 290, 294; Donna:, Hand
Embroiderers, Tuckers, Stitehers, Pleaters Union., Local 66, International Ladies Garment
Workers Union, AFL (Gemsco, Inc.), 111 NLRB 82, 87. Indeed, the Board's rule has
added force here when consideration is given not only to Sherman's like conduct across
the street, but also to the fact that Sherman was a brother of the Respondent's president,
a circumstance which it can be said put him in a peculiarly advantageous position to be-
come apprised of Respondent's aims and objectives. Of. Fiore Brothers Oil Co., Inc.; 137
NLRB 191 ; Continental motors, Inc., 145 NLRB 1075 ; International Stomping Co., Inc.,
97 NLRB 921.
11 Local 1199, Drug and Hospital Employees Union, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Employees Union, AFL-CIO (Janet Sales Corporation), 136 NLRB 1564; American
Federation of Grain Millers, Local Union No. 16, AFL-CIO (Bartlett and Company,
Grain), 141 NLRB 974; Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc., Colonial Carriers,
Inc.), 145 NLRB 263. I find Respondent's reliance upon Jerseyville Retail Merchants
Association, 144 NLRB 526, misplaced since the facts in that case are entirely inapposite
to those in the instant case.
12 The statements to the above effect were denied by the union representatives whose
names were implicated.
LOCAL 239, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 15
Board has decided that in remedying violations of Section 8(b)(7)(B) the remedial
order shall require a cessation of all recognitional and/or organizational postelection
picketing for a period of 12 months, to be computed from the date the labor organi-
zation ceases its unlawful picketing, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. 13 Since
the Respondent picketed unlawfully until enjoined on August 31, 1963, the cease-and-
desist order herein shall run for a period of 1 year from August 31, 1963. I shall
also recommend that the Respondent be required, thereafter, to refrain from engag-
ing in recognitional and/or organizational picketing of Abbey Auto Parts Corp.,
where within the preceding 12 months a valid election shall have been conducted.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. - Abbey Auto Parts Corp. is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By picketing Abbey Auto Parts Corp. from May 6, 1963, until August 31, 1963,
with an object of forcing Abbey to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as
the collective-bargaining representative of Abbey's employees, and/or forcing or re-
quiring Abbey's employees to accept and select the Respondent as their collective-
bargaining representative, although the Respondent was not currently certified as
such representative, and a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act had been
held within the preceding 12 months, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended that the Respondent, Local 239, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, repre-
sentatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket, Abbey Auto
Parts Corp., for a period of 1 year from August 31, 1963, where an object thereof is
to force or require Abbey Auto Parts Corp. to recognize or bargain collectively
with the Respondent or to force or require the employees of Abbey Auto Parts
Corp. to accept or select the Respondent as their collective-bargaining representative.
(b) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket, Abbey Auto
Parts Corp. for any of the above-mentioned objects, where within the preceding
12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act has been conducted which
the Respondent did not win.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post in the Respondent's business offices and meeting halls, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official
representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Second Region signed copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by Abbey Auto Parts Corp., if it is willing, in
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to
is Retail Store Employees ' Union Local 692, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO ( Irvins, Inc.), 134 NLRB 686.
14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" that be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be furnished by the aforesaid Regional Director, shall, after being signed by the
Respondent as indicated, be returned forthwith to the Regional Director for dis-
position by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.15 It is further recommended
that, unless within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision,
Respondent notify said Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the
foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order
requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
15 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 239, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES OF ABBEY AUTO PARTS CORP.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, you are notified that:
WE WILL NOT for a period of 1 year from August 31, 1963, picket, or cause
to be picketed, or threaten to picket Abbey Auto Parts Corp., where an object
thereof is to force or require Abbey Auto Parts Corp. to recognize or bargain
collectively with us, or to force or require the employees of the aforesaid Com-
pany to accept or select us as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket Abbey
Auto Parts Corp., where an object thereof is to force or require Abbey Auto
Parts Corp. to recognize or bargain collectively with us, or to force or require
the employees of the aforesaid Company to accept or select us as their collective-
bargaining representative, where a valid election which we did not win has been
conducted by the National Labor Relations Board among the employees of
Abbey Auto Parts Corp. within the preceding 12 months.
LOCAL 239, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- -By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Fifth
Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No.
751-5500, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
The Halsey W. Taylor Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cage No. 8-RC-5/.33. May 19,
1964
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted on February 19, 1964, under
the supervision and direction of the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region, among employees in an agreed unit. Upon the conclusion of
the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
147 NLRB No. 1.