Local 295, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 52 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 295, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Calderon Trucking Corp.
Case 29-CP- 115
August 13, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June It, 1969, Trial Examiner James F. Foley
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting Argument.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 295,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES F.FOLEY,Trial Examiner: This case, 29-CP-115,
was brought before the National Labor Relations Board
(herein called the Board ) under Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act), 61 Stat. 136, 76 Stat. 579, against Local 295,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(herein called Respondent ) by a complaint issued
December 19, 1968. The complaint is premised on a
charge filed by Calderon Trucking Corp. (herein called
Calderon) on October 4, 1968.
It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent, in
violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, after demanding
on or about September 17, 1968, that Calderon recognize
it as the bargaining representative of its drivers, and
Calderon's refusal, threatened to picket Calderon, and
picketed Calderon since on or about September 17, 1968,
with an object of forcing or requiring Calderon to
recognize and bargain with it as the collective-bargaining
representative of its employees, and with an object of
forcing or requiring the drivers of Calderon to accept
Respondent as bargaining representative, although it has
not been certified as the bargaining representative of
Calderon's drivers, and did not file a valid petition under
Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable time following
the commencement of the picketing. Respondent denies
the allegations of the complaint that it has engaged in
conduct violative of the Act.
A hearing on the complaint and answer was held before
me on March 5, 1969, in New York, New York. The
parties were afforded an opportunity to present evidence,
make oral argument, and file briefs. Briefs were filed by
General Counsel and Respondent after the close of the
hearing.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF CALDERON
Calderon, with its principal office and place of business
in New York, New York, is engaged in transporting
freight and other cargo from and to the ports of New
York, including the airports in New York, which are
exported by shippers located in the United States to
customers or consignees in countries outside the United
States, and which is imported by consignees located in the
United States from shippers or consignors located in
countries outside the United States. During the year 1968,
Calderon received gross revenue in excess of $250,000, for
hauling the above goods and materials, and received at
least $50,000 of this amount for transporting the goods
and materials from plants and terminals of shippers in the
United States to New York airports for shipment to
customers or consignees located outside the United States.
Calderon is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and assertion of
jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
It is undisputed that Respondent has not been certified
by the Board as the bargaining representative of
Calderon's drivers, but on September 17, 1968,
Respondent demanded Calderon, which had not previously
recognized a labor organization as the bargaining
representative of its employees, recognize it as the
bargaining representative of the majority of its drivers,
and Calderon refused; Respondent thereupon picketed
Calderon's terminal until December 18, 1968, but did not
file a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act within a
reasonable time after commencement of the picketing or
thereafter; on September 18, 1968, Respondent filed an
178 NLRB No. 10
LOCAL 295, TEAMSTERS
unfair labor practice charge against Calderon alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act, and the
8(a)(1) charge was disposed of by an informal settlement
agreement dated January 30, 1969, in which Calderon,
while not admitting engaging in any conduct banned by
8(a)(1), agreed to refrain in the future from conduct
banned by that section, and the 8(a)(5) charge was
dismissed by the refusal of the Regional Director on
October 28, 1968, to issue a complaint, and the denial of
an appeal from the Regional Director's action by the
General Counsel on December 6, 1968.
It is undisputed that the legend on the picket signs used
in the picketing from September 17, 1968, until the receipt
by Respondent on December 7 or 8, 1968, of the notice of
the denial of the appeal from the Regional Director's
action on the 8(a)(5) charge was, "The employees of
Calderon Trucking Corp., are on strike. Local 295
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters," and that the picket sign legend on and after
December 7, or 8, until December 18, 1968, was
"Calderon Trucking unfair to Local 295." It is also
undisputed that the picketing was discontinued on
December 18, 1968, when a temporary injunction order
under Section 10(l) of the Act was issued by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York enjoining the picketing pending the disposition of
the matter on its merits by the Board . The injunction
order followed a stipulation by General Counsel and
Respondent in the court proceeding.
Irving Calderon, secretary-treasurer of Calderon,
arrived at the terminal of Calderon at approximately 8:30
a.m., on September 17, 1968. Joseph Patruzzi, Calderon's
truckdriver and dispatcher, had telephoned him at
approximately 8 a.m.,and had informed him that some of
the drivers did not report for work. Irving Calderon saw
Fred Capace and four other drivers wearing picket signs
described supra, Patruzzi, and James Costa, and Thomas
Sweeney, president and business representative,
respectively, of Respondent. Irving Calderon asked
generally what was going on, what had brought about the
strike situation.'
Respondent's President Costa and Irving Calderon went
to the latter's office and had a conversation.'
'Fred Capace , one of Respondent 's drivers, testified as a witness for
Respondent , that after he had a conversation with Sweeney , apparently in
the week ending September 14, 1968, he and the other four drivers who
were wearing the picket signs, went to Respondent 's office on Saturday,
September 14, 1968, and met with Sweeney . They received cards which
were , jointly, authorizations to Respondent to act as bargaining
representative and applications for membership . On Tuesday morning,
September 17, at approximately 7:50 a.m., they handed the cards to
Sweeney . They were signed . The date of signature on four of them is
September 14, 1968, and on one is August 16 , 1968. 1 find that the latter
date was intended to be September 16, 1968.
'Carl Shellman , a driver who began his employment with Calderon on
July 28 , 1968, testified for Respondent that Irving Calderon on seeing the
employees outside as he approached the terminal , asked them what they
were doing , and said that they should think of what they were doing as he
could lose his business by joining the Respondent Union . Business
Representative said to Irving Calderon that he was not allowed to talk to a
striker, and then Calderon said he would get them $ 160 a week instead of
$145.they were then getting if they would come back to work. However, in
an affidavit he gave to an investigator from the Regional Office , Shellman
stated that Irving Calderon did not make the employees any promises, or
threaten them or interrogate them , and that he did not speak to them
about the Respondent Union . Shellman was one of the four employees who
decided not to strike , and left Capace as the sole striker . Shellman
acknowledged the affidavit , but testified that he had been instructed by
Irving Calderon to make the statement in it before the investigator from
the Regional Office interviewed the employees.
53
Costa said to Irving Calderon that he had all the men
signed up, that the Respondent Union had him, and he
was going to join it. Irving Calderon asked him if he had
evidence that all the men signed up, and he said he did
not have to produce evidence that they all signed up.
Calderon and Costa discussed briefly the Respondent's
contract proposal. They then started to walk outside, and
just then the drivers came in the terminal. Sweeney asked
them to stay outside and talk to him, and Irving Calderon
told them to do what they felt was proper. After talking
to Sweeney briefly about going back outside, four of the
five drivers decided to stay inside. Fred Capace, one of the
five, decided to go outside with Sweeney. The drivers had
listened to remarks by Patruzzi that they would receive
more benefits by staying with Calderon than going with
the Respondent.
Irving Calderon told the drivers that if they wanted to
join Respondent Union, that was fine, and if not that was
also fine, and if a majority joined Respondent Union, he
would recognize it. The four drivers agreed that this was a
satisfactory arrangement, and went to work. Twenty
minutes later Costa and Capace were picketing. They
wore the picket signs described supra. As stated supra, the
picketing continued until December 18, although the
picket sign legend was changed on December 7 or 8. Later
in the morning of September 17, Irving Calderon went
outside the plant. Costa was there, and said to Irving
Calderon that Respondent would continue to picket until
Calderon signed a contract or went out of business. Irving
Calderon had a conversation with Costa on September 20,
1968. Costa said to him that if he agreed to sign a
contract, he would not have to do it officially for 6
months thereafter, and when that occurred, benefits under
the contract would be waived for 1 year. Calderon said
that the men did not want the Respondent Union, but if
they did he would recognize it as he would not want to
deprive them of benefits under a contract. Costa then said
the drivers did not have to join until 30 days after the
contract was signed, but if they did not join at that time,
Calderon could fire them. Irving Calderon did not answer.
He testified he did not believe that he could fire the
drivers. Costa made this same statement to Irving
Calderon on October 14, 1968. Irving Calderon testified
that from time to time Costa said to him that if he signed
a contract, the picketing would cease. I credit this
testimony as it is unrebutted.
As stated supra, the Regional Director, on October 28,
1968, refused to issue a complaint on the portion of
Respondent Union's unfair labor practice charge, in Case
29-CA-1463, alleging Calderon violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act by refusing to bargain with it as the bargaining
representative of its employees. The Regional Director
stated in his letter notice of October 28 that the evidence
tended to show that Respondent Union did not represent a
Capace , a witness for the Respondent Union, and the only employee
who picketed for Respondent Union, made no mention in his testimony of
Irving Calderon saying anything to the five employees wearing the picket
signs other than to say they were being foolish and asked what brought
about the strike situation. He testified that Patruzzi talked to the other
four employees , while he was absent with Sweeney , about benefits they
could obtain by not striking and staying with the Company. I do not credit
Shellman 's testimony about the conversation Irving Calderon allegedly had
with the employees . Irving Calderon denies he said anything to the
employees other than what he said generally in surprise at the presence of
the pickets . I find that when he first saw them wearing the picket signs he
asked in surprise what they were doing , and what brought about the strike
situation , and that was all . He had no further conversation outside the
terminal.
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority of employees in the unit of drivers for which it
requested recognition. As stated supra, Respondent
Union's appeal from the Regional Director's ruling was
denied by the General Counsel on December 6, 1968. It
was stated in the letter notice of denial that Respondent
Union did not sustain the burden of establishing that the
Union represented a majority of Calderon's drivers on the
date it demanded recognition, for in addition to the
admitted eight drivers on Calderon's payroll of September
17, 1968, there were Catropa, a regular part-time driver,
and Giampa who had worked steadily as a driver since
August 23, 1968. There was also the finding that the
evidence was insufficient to support Respondent Union's
claim that Patruzzi exercised supervisory function as it
showed he spent from 65 to 75 percent of his time as a
driver, with the remainder of his time devoted principally
to preparing and coordinating pickup orders for which he
received extra pay, and failed to show that he gave to
drivers any orders other than those connected with the
routine work of picking up orders, or that he hired or
fired any employees. It was concluded in the letter notice
of denial that since the unit consisted of at least 10
employees, and I1 employees if Patruzzi was included, the
Respondent Union's five authorization cards were not
evidence that it represented a majority of Calderon's
employees, and that Calderon refused to recognize it in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
In an attempt to discover evidence to show Giampa and
Catropa were not employees of Calderon on September
17, 1968, Respondent Union, on February 5, 1969,
subpenaed the records of Calderon for the hearing on the
8(b)(7)(C) complaint. Calderon, on February 28, 1969, in
accordance with Section 102. 31(b) of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, petitioned that the subpena be revoked
on the ground that the matter subpenaed was not related
to the issues of the complaint in the 8(b)(7)(C) proceeding.
The petition to revoke came before me as a preliminary
matter, and I granted it insofar as the subpena dealt with
matters relating to the issue involving the number of
employees in the unit on the ground that the evidence
subpenaed related to issues disposed of in Case
29-CA-1463 by the Regional Director's refusal on October
28, 1968, to issue a complaint, and the General Counsel's
denial on December 6, 1968, of the appeal from the
Regional Director's refusal '
Over objection of counsel for the Charging Party,
Respondent Union was permitted to offer testimony
intended to show that Catropa and Giampa were not
employees of Respondent on September 17, 1968, and
that driver Thomas Morrow did not resume employment
with Calderon until September 23, 1968, after a long
absence from Calderon's employment prior to that time.
Upon reconsideration of the ruling on the objection to the
introduction of the evidence, I hereby reverse it, or
considering the objection as a motion to strike, I grant it,
as I find that I lack legal authority to consider such
evidence in this proceeding in view of Section 3(d) of the
Act. My consideration of this evidence in this 8(b)(7)(C)
proceeding would, in effect, be tantamount to permitting
the litigation of the 8(a)(5) charge after the General
Counsel ruled, under the authority vested in him by
Section 3(d) of the Act, that it could not be litigated.°
'Times Square Stores Corp., 79 NLRB 361.
'Times Square Stores Corp., 79 NLRB 361, Wellington Mills Division v
N.L.R.B. 330 F.2d 579 (C.A. 4), enfg. in part 141 NLRB 819.
Analysis, Findings, and Conclusions
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act makes illegal recognition
or organization picketing by a noncertified labor
organization which does not file a petition for an
expedited election within a reasonable time after the
commencement of the picketing not to exceed thirty days.'
This section of the Act does not require the filing of a
petition in the case of purely informational picketing,
picketing that is not for objects of recognition or
organization, picketing that is in support of a meritorious
charge of a refusal to bargain violative of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act, or for recognition or organization picketing
where the processes of the Board are not available to the
union involved.'
Respondent Union began picketing Calderon on the
morning of September 17, 1968, with picket signs bearing
the legend of a notice by Respondent Union that
Calderon's employees were on strike. The picketing
continued uninterruptedly until December 18, 1968, when
enjoined by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The legend on the picket
sign was changed on December 7 or 8, 1968, to a notice
by Respondent Union that Calderon was unfair to
Respondent. The language of the picket sign legend, either
in its original version or its changed version, does not
disclose the nature of the dispute between Calderon and
Respondent.
That the object of the picketing was to force or require
Calderon to recognize Respondent as bargaining
representative is clearly disclosed by the conversation
regarding organization Fred Capace, one of Calderon's
drivers, had with Business Representative Sweeney of
Respondent Union, in the week ending September 14,
1968, and the visit of Capace and four other drivers to
Respondent's office on September 14, 1968, and receiving
cards; the activity of the five drivers and Respondent's
President Costa and Sweeney early Tuesday morning
September 17, 1968, at Calderon's terminal, including the
handing of five signed cards by the five drivers to
Respondent's representatives, and their bearing picket
signs, with the legend in its original version, brought to
the terminal by Sweeney and Costa, and Costa's
conversation with Irving Calderon on the latters arrival at
the terminal, in which Costa demanded recognition of
Respondent as the bargaining representative of Calderon's
drivers; the picketing by Sweeney and Capace, which was
to continue until December 18, when four of the drivers
ceased picketing and came in to the terminal and began
work, following Patruzzi's talk to them, and after Irving
Calderon, in the terminal, had said to them that if a
majority of the drivers wanted the Respondent to
represent them he would sign a contract; and Costa's
statement to Irving Calderon later in the morning of
September 17 that the picketing would continue until
Calderon signed a contract or went out of business, his
offer to Irving Calderon on September 20, and October
14, 1968, that if Calderon agreed to sign a contract it
would not have to be signed until 6 months later, and on
the signing of the contract benefits under it would be
waived for one year, and the statement Costa made to
Irving Calderon many times during the picketing that if
'Intl Hod Carriers. etc., Local 840, AFL-CIO, and Blinne Construction
Company. 135 NLRB 1153.
`Chefs, Cooks, Pastry Cooks & Assistants. Local 89, etc ., and the Stork
Restaurant , 135 NLRB 1173, Hod Carriers, Local 840, supra, The
Vila-Barr Company , 157 NLRB 588.
LOCAL 295, TEAMSTERS
Calderon signed a contract the picketing would cease.
It is undisputed that Calderon had not had collective
bargaining relations with a labor organization prior to the
demand made on it by Respondent, and that Respondent
was not certified as the bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees.
Respondent's unfair labor practice charge that it filed
against Calderon on September 18, 1968, in which it
alleged that Calderon refused to bargain with it on
September 17, 1968, and on that date engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, was dismissed with
respect to the 8(a)(5) allegation when the Regional
Director on October 28, 1968, refused to issue a complaint
on the 8(a)(5) part of the charge, and his refusal was
upheld by the General Counsel' s denial on December 6,
1968, of the appeal from the Regional Director's refusal.
Respondent, therefore, was not picketing in support of a
meritorious 8(a)(5) charge.
Respondent changed the legend of the picket sign on
December 7 or 8, 1968, on receipt of notice of the General
Counsel's denial of the appeal from the Regional
Director's refusal to issue a complaint on the 8(a)(5)
allegation, to read that Calderon was unfair to
Respondent, instead of the notice that the employees of
Calderon were on strike. The change in language does not
disclose any change in object. The picketing continued
uninterruptedly.' Calderon could be unfair by refusing to
bargain as well as for many other reasons. Events are
presumed to continue absent some intervening
circumstances to show a change.' Respondent did nothing
apart from the change in the language of the legend to
disclose any change in object behind its picketing.'
The original picket sign legend was on the picket sign
early on Tuesday, September 17, when the initial stages of
the demand for recognition began. It was not changed
when the 8(a)(1) conduct allegedly occurred outside the
terminal in the course of the demand for recognition. As
stated, the change on December 7 or 8 did not disclose
any change in object. Respondent placed in the record in
this proceeding its evidence of the alleged 8(a)(1)
violation. It is the testimony of Shellman. I have not
credited Shellman's testimony. There is no evidence
therefore to support the 8(a)(1) allegation , or the position
of Respondent that the picketing was partly against the
alleged 8(a)(l) violation. While the 8(a)(1) charge was
disposed of by settlement agreement on January 30, 1969,
Respondent was not estopped from presenting evidence
regarding it in this proceeding, as it was in the case of the
8(a)(4) charge in view of General Counsel's refusal to
issue a complaint, and it took the risk, therefore, that this
evidence would be found not substantial or lacking in
probative value.
The picketing in issue in this proceeding was on its face
clearly not informational. Moreover, Respondent does not
contend or argue that it was.10
The evidence shows, therefore, that Respondent
engaged in the type of picketing proscribed by Section
8(a)(7)(C), and that it did not engage in picketing in
support of a meritorious charge of an 8(a)(5) violation, or
in informational picketing, or in picketing in support of a
charge against conduct proscribed by 8(a)(1). Assuming
'See New Pioneer Club , 166 NLRB No. 82.
'N.L.R.B. v. Piqua Munising Wood Products Co ., 109 F.2d 552, 554
(C.A. 6); N. L.R.B. v . National Seal Corp., 127 F.2d 776, 778 (C.A. 2).
'See Chefs, Cooks . etc, Local 89, supra.
"Local 239 , Intl. Brotherhood Teamsters , etc., and Stan-Jay Auto Parts
and Accessories Corporation . 127 NLRB 958, enfd . 289 F.2d 41 (C.A. 2),
cert . denied 368 U.S. 833; Chefs, Cooks , etc., Local 89. supra.
55
arguendo the picketing was in part against the 8(a)(1)
violation, it would be bad in any event because an object
of it was clearly to force or require Calderon to recognize
Respondent as bargaining representative, or to force or
require Calderon's drivers to accept or select it as their
bargaining representative, although it was not certified as
bargaining representative, and it did not file the petition
for an election within a reasonable time from the
commencement of the picketing."
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Calderon as
set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
an unfair labor practice 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.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
Conclusions of Law
1. Calderon Trucking Corp. is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Local 295, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing Calderon Trucking Corp. from
September 17 to December 18, 1968, until enjoined by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, with an object of forcing and requiring
Calderon to recognize and bargain with Respondent as the
collective bargaining representative of Calderon's
employees, and forcing and requiring employees of
Calderon to accept and select Respondent as their
bargaining representative without filing a petition under
Section 9(c) of the Act within a reasonable time after it
commenced picketing on September 17, 1968, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions of fact and
law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Local 295, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
"Intl. Hod Carriers . etc., Local 840, AFL-CIO, and Blinne Construction
Company, 135 NLRB 1153.
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing or causing to be picketed, or threatening
to picket or cause to be picketed, Calderon Trucking
Corp. under conditions prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(C) of
the Act, where an object thereof is to force or require
Calderon to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as
the representative of its employees, or to force or require
the employees of Calderon to accept or select the
Respondent as their collective bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's
business offices, meeting halls, and all places where
notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, shall, after being duly signed by official
representatives of the Respondent, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that the copies of said notice are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 29 signed
copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by
Calderon Trucking Corp., the Company willing , in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies
of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 29, shall, after being signed by the Respondent, as
indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director
for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that , unless 20 days from the
date of receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision and
Recommended Order, the Respondent notifies the said
Regional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the
foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations
Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the
aforesaid action.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is 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" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is 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
Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 295, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA AND TO
ALL EMPLOYEES OF CALDERON TRUCKING 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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT, under conditions prohibited by Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, picket or cause to be picketed, or
threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, Calderon
Trucking Corp., where an object thereof is to force or
require it 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.
Dated By
LOCAL 295,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD,OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
(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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 16 Court Street,
Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone
596-3535.