Local 525, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1377 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

LOCAL ' 525, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1377
from in any manner interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in their
rights, guaranteed by the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make thefollowing:i
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Carpenters Local 2674; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO, is a labor ` organization within the , meaning of the Act and
admits to membership employees of Respondent.'
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Kenneth
Hall 'and its striking employees , thereby discouraging membership in the above
Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices ' within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4., All production and maintenance ' employees of Respondent at its Harvard,
Illinois, plant, exclusive of office and clerical employees , watchmen , guards, pro-
fessional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
5. On and since December -20, 1957, the above-named Union was and presently
is, the exclusive representative of the employees in the above unit for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. By conditioning its-offer of a wage increase upon the withdrawal of an unfair
practice charge, by interfering with the Union 's right to designate its representatives
at the bargaining table, by threatening to close its plant until bargaining negotiations
were completed , by rescinding agreements 'previously agreed upon , by unilaterally'
increasing the wages of employees , and by refusing to furnish pertinent wage infor-
mation requested by the Union, Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act:
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Local -525, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , -Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and E. A. ' Weinel.
Case No. 14-CD-98. June- 20, 1960
DECISION AND. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act. On February
10, 1960, E. A.; Weinel, herein called the Company, filed - a charge
alleging that Local 525, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
the Respondent; was engaging in•unfair labor practices within the
meaning of, Section- 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. On February 19, 1960,
the, Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region issued a notice of
hearing on the dispute over, the Company's assignment of certain
work, out of which the alleged unfair labor practices arose. On March
10, 1960, the hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, before John W.
Noble, Jr., hearing, officer; Local 397, International •Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union, AFL-CIO, and Local 520,
International Union of Operating Engineers,,-AFL-CIO, intervened-;
127 NLRB No. 158.,
560940-61-vol. 127-88
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and all, parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on- the
issues. The rulings of the hearing -officer made at the, hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby-affirmed. The parties were
also afforded full opportunity to file briefs, but did-not do so. -
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board' makes the following:,
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The business of the Company
The Company is engaged in the installation of water, sewer, and gas
lines in Illinois and Missouri. During 1959 it received material in
interstate commerce valued in- excess of $200,000. The Board's
jurisdiction was not disputed by any party, and we find that the
Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved
Local 525, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
\?Tarehousemen,and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. -
3, The facts
In November 1959 the Company, with headquarters outside the
geographical jurisdiction of the Respondent, was performing certain
work at the Pontoon Beach Water District construction job, within
the Respondent's geographical jurisdiction. One of the Company's
operations was the unloading of pipe from a delivery truck. To do
this work the Company was using laborers-who were members'of the
Laborers Union, Local 397, and not of the Respondent. ' On or about
November 10, Marshall McDuffy, the Respondent's-,president and
assistant business agent, appeared at the job and, in the presence of
the laborers, told their foreman not to unload any ' -more 'pipe.
McDufFy also told the Company's regular foreman that the unloading
was Teamsters' work. Nlren the foreman answered that the Company
had always'done such work withl a-borers, McDuffy replied that in the
area of the Respondent's jurisdiction the Respondent- required or
claimed the work. In addition, McDuffy spoke to the truckdriver,
apparently a member of'the Respondent, and the work wits thereupon
tied up until the Company replaced the hiborers with employees who
were membersof the Respondent.
On February`9,1960, company employee Alvin A. Grab was-hauling
certain material on a high lift or'back hoe on the same job. Grab was
a• member of Operating 'Engineers', Local 520, and not •a member' of
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members ' Rodgers, Bean,
and Fanning] I '
'LOCAL 525, INT--'L BROTHERHOOD -OF TEAMSTERS ,. ETC. 1379
the Respondent : According to his testimony , he was told by McDuffy
that he ought not haul -the material ; that the material should- be hauled
on. trucks operated by members of the Respondent ; and that he
(McDuffy) was going to'shut•the job down. According to the testi-
mony of employee George Berleman , a member of the Respondent
who was operating a company truck on this job, McDuffy then told
him to . stop operating the truck. On the following day, February 10,
the Respondent accordingly picketed the j ob, and on February 15
extended the picketing to the Company' s headquarters.
.The. record indicates , and we find , .that the- foregoing actions of
the Respondent were triggered by its underlying claim to .the unload-
ing-and the hauling work..
4. -Applicability of the Act
Section 10 (k) directs the Board to hear and determine disputes over
the assignment of particular work by an employer to one group of
employees rather than to another, if a charge is filed alleging violation
of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) with respect to the work assignment and if the
Board finds reasonable cause to ' believe the charge true. The Re-
spondent apparently argues that here there is no .reasonable cause for
such a belief . However, the Respondent admits that it. claimed the
unloading of pipe from delivery trucks-and the hauling of materials,
both- of which tasks the.Conipany had' assigned to nonmembers of the
Respondent . • The Respondent also argues , with respect to the picket-
ing in February 1960, that-its - sole object was to obtain a contract with
the Company .. However, the record is clear that the' Respondent
sought the contract with an object, at least in part , of getting assigned
to it all the'work that. it claimed , and of invoking the grievance and
arbitration provisions of the' contract if the Company did not assign
such- work to it . As we stated in International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen;s ; Union, Local . 8, et al. ( General Ore , Inc.), 124
NLRB 626:
-Where, as , in the instant case the underlying basic dispute
between the parties is over the assignment of work to employees
in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade craft or
class rather .than to the employer's own employees , the fact that
the demand for, the assignment of such work is made under the
guise of a contractual demandconfers no immunity for •a viola-
tion of Section 8(b,) (4) (D) [ citing cases ].' To hold otherwise
would permit a labor organization , to subvert the clear intent of
the , statute proscribing jurisdictional strikes and picketing by the
simple= expedient , of recasting a demand for - assignment . of-work •
into o-a demand • for a, contract .... =
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ;
The Respondent also contends that in any event the Board is with-
out power to hear and determine any dispute in this case because the
Company's contract 2 contains an agreed-upon method for a voluntary
adjustment of the dispute. However, article XV of the contract
provides only that jurisdictional disputes "may be" submitted to arbi-
tration, and further provides. that if such disputes are not submitted
to arbitration "either party shall be permitted all economic recourse."
We find that the-contract does not establish such a method of adjust-
ment of the dispute as bars the present proceeding.
In -the circumstances, we find reasonable cause to believe that the
Respondent has violated Section 8(b) (4) (D). We further find that
the disputes are properly before us for hearing and determination
under Section 10(k).
5. Merits of the disputes
Although the immediate dispute which provoked the Respondent's
picketing was the Company's assignment of certain hauling work to
an employee who was a member of the Operating Engineers rather
than the Teamsters, the November 1959 incident shows that there
also was a dispute over the Company's assignment of certain truck-
unloading work to employees who were members of the Common
Laborers rather than the Teamsters. As the Respondent conceded,
the Company, in assigning both kinds of work to non-Teamster em-
ployees, is not failing to conform to any Board order- or certification
or to any binding assignment of the work to the Teamsters. The
Company is therefore legally free to assign such work to any employ-
ees it chooses, free of economic pressure by the Respondent.
We find, accordingly,-that the Respondent is not- lawfully entitled,
by means proscribed by Section, 8 (b) (4) (D), to force or require the
Company to assign the disputed work to employees who are members
of the . Teamsters rather than to employees who are. members -,of the
Common Laborers or the Operating Engineers, or to. any other
employees. - -
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis' of the foregoing findings and the entire record in
this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act : ' -
1. Local 525, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of, America, is not and 'has not been
lawfully entitled. to force or require E. A. Weinel to assign the, work
of hauling material, or unloading material from delivery trucks, to
2 The contract is not with the Respondent , but with another subsidiary of the Respond-
ent's International . We here assume , arguendo , that the contract is binding on the
Respondent. -
KIEKHAEFER CORPORATION 1381
members of said Local 525 rather than to employees who are not
members of said labor organization.
2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination
of Dispute, said Local 525 shall notify the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Region, in writing, whether or not it accepts the Board's
determination of these disputes and whether or not it will refrain from
forcing or requiring E. A. Weinel, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to its own
members rather than to other employees.
Kiekhaefer Corporation and International Association of Ma-
chinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-3011. June 21, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 22,1959, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members
Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and recom-
i The Respondent excepted to the Trial Examiner 's refusal ( 1) to strike portions of the
complaint not specifically mentioned in the charges , (2) to require production of certain
pretrial statements , ( 3) to permit interrogatories or a continuance sufficient to prepare a
defense as to violations alleged in the complaint but not specifically set forth in the
charges, and ( 4) to permit the Respondent to present evidence to sustain its defense. We
find no merit in these exceptions. As to ( 1), Section 10(b) does not require the striking
of complaint allegations which, although not specifically mentioned in the charges, are, as
here , sufficiently related thereto . As to ( 2) the Trial Examiner need not require the pro-
duction of a pretrial statement where , as here, timely request therefor was not made or
where the statement was sought in order to cross -examine a witness other than the author
of .the pretrial statement . As to ( 3) and ( 4), we find that the Trial Examiner did not
abuse his discretion in denying interrogatories , in limiting the Respondent 's defense to
relevant matters, and in denying the Respondent a continuance of longer duration.
2 We hereby correct minor inaccuracies in the Trial Examiner 's findings as follows :
(1) Section III , B, 1 of the Intermediate Report should show that the number of
signatures to the petition there mentioned exceeded half the number of employees in the
unit rather than that there were an "undetermined number of signatures " ; ( 2) section
III, B, 1 of the Intermediate Report should read "within a few weeks of this announce-
127 NLRB No. 162.