Local 612, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 608 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union #612, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Ind. and AAA Motor Lines, Inc.
Case 10-CC-912
June 14, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs 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 #612,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, a/w Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.,
Birmingham, Alabama, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K. BLAcxBURN, Administrative Law Judge:
The charge in this case was filed on October 24, 1973.1 The
complaint was issued on November 9. The hearing was
held on November 28 in Birmingham , Alabama.
The principal issue litigated was whether ambulatory
picketing undertaken by Respondent in the course of a
strike against the Charging Party met the Board's Moore
Dry Dock 2 standards . For the reasons set forth below, I
i All dates are 1973.
s Sailors ' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
find that it did not, that the manner in which the Charging
Party did picket establishes its secondary objective, and
that, therefore , the Charging Party has violated Section
8(bX4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
Upon the entire record, and after due consideration of
oral argument and briefs filed by all parties, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Charging Party, an Alabama corporation , is engaged
at Birmingham , Alabama, in the intrastate transportation
of motor freight . During the year just prior to the issuance
of the complaint, it received gross revenues in excess of
$50,000 from operations which are essential links in the
transportation of commodities in interstate commerce.
Lee Way Motor Freight is engaged as a common carrier
of motor freight between and through various States
including Alabama . It maintains a terminal in Birming-
ham.
City Delivery and Cartage Company and Cooper
Transfer Company are engaged as common carriers of
motor freight within the State of Alabama . Each maintains
a terminal in Birmingham.
Western Carloading Company is engaged in the forward-
ing of interstate and intrastate freight. It maintains a
terminal in Birmingham.
B. F. Goodrich Company is engaged in the manufac-
ture and sale of tires and other rubber products. It
maintains a warehouse and distribution center in Birming-
ham.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Respondent struck the Charging Party on July 16. The
Charging Party retained Western Security Service to guard
its terminal.
In mid-September Respondent decided to resort to
ambulatory picketing of the Charging Party's trucks. It
formed three teams of two pickets each. It provided them
with signs which read "Teamster Local 612, On Strike,
AAA Motor Lines, Unfair Labor Practices." Samuel
Webb, Respondent's president and business manager,
instructed the pickets that they were to follow the Charging
Party's trucks and picket them wherever they stopped to
pick up or drop off freight. He told them to request
permission to enter the terminals at which the trucks called
and picket near the Charging Party's trucks. If they were
denied such permission, Webb told the pickets, they were
to picket at the entrance to the terminal.
From the beginning of ambulatory picketing through
October 15, the roving pickets frequently, although not
always, failed to follow Webb's instructions. Occasions
during this period on which the pickets failed to ask
permission to come on the property of a neutral employer
NLRB 547
211 NLRB No. 94
LOCAL 612 , TEAMSTERS 609
before beginning to picket at some distance from the
Charging Party's truck which was loading or unloading on
that property involved Western Carloading, City Delivery,
Cooper Transfer, Goodrich, and Lee Way.
Western Carloading' s terminal has a city street on one
side of it and a railroad track on the other. There is no
fence between the street and the building . Dimensions are
such that large rigs backed up to the dock extend beyond
Western Carloading's property and onto the street. On five
or six occasions prior to October 16, work stoppages of 10
or 15 minutes occurred when Respondent's pickets
appeared at the terminal. On each occasion, the pickets
walked in the street parallel to the loading dock for a
distance substantially beyond that part of the dock
occupied by the Charging Party's truck. On each occasion,
the pickets did not enter the terminal and attempt to talk to
any official of Western Carloading before beginning to
picket. On each occasion, as soon as William Robertson,
Western Carloading's terminal manager, became aware
that his employees and the employees of trucking compa-
nies other than the Charging Party had stopped working,
he went to the pickets and asked them to walk only in front
of the Charging Party's truck. On each occasion, the
pickets complied and the work stoppage came to an end.
The pickets told Robertson they had been waiting for
someone to come out and tell them to picket in front of the
truck.
The building at City Delivery's terminal runs perpendic-
ular to the street. The nearest door on the loading dock is
more than 50 feet from the street. There are two driveways
from the street onto the property. Visits to City Delivery's
terminal by Charging Party's trucks and their pickets were
a daily occurrence between mid-September and October
15. On each occasion, the pickets walked on the street in
front of whichever driveway the Charging Party's truck
happened to be closest to. On each occasion, John Weldon,
City Delivery's general manager, went to the pickets and
asked them to come in and picket at the truck or leave. On
two or three occasions , they came in. Other times they
simply left, usually as the Charging Party's truck was
leaving.
Cooper Transfer's terminal is located on a frontage road
which runs parallel to an interstate highway. On October
13, Respondent's roving pickets walked on the road at the
entrance to the terminal approximately 250 feet from the
spot where the Charging Party's truck was parked. The
pickets did not ask permission to enter Cooper Transfer's
terminal and picket near the truck. Cooper Transfer's
terminal manager only became aware of the situation when
Earl Dove, the Charging Party's president, called the
pickets to his attention and suggested the manager call the
Charging Party's attorney for advice about how to handle
the situation. The record does not indicate what, if
anything, the manager did.
Goodrich's distribution center is located on Goodrich
Boulevard. Trucks turning onto Goodrich's property from
the boulevard travel more than 100 feet before they get to
the building. Drivers must get a ticket indicating which of
the building's 27 doors they are to use before they park at
the loading dock. Between mid-September and October 15,
each time one of the Charging Party's trucks arrived at the
distribution center, Respondent's roving pickets drove onto
the property behind it. As the truckdriver stopped and
went into the building to get his door ticket, the pickets
drove past the building, honking their horn and waving
their picket sign. They went back to the driveway entrance,
parked, and picketed along Goodrich Boulevard across the
driveway. Employees of trucking companies other than the
Charging Party stopped work and joined them there.
Trucks arriving at the driveway entrance while the pickets
were there did not enter. Some parked until the pickets left.
Others entered through the exit driveway. On one occasion
during this period, Kenneth Howd, manager of the
distribution center, went to the pickets and invited them to
come onto the property and picket directly in front of the
Charging Party's truck. They did so.
The setup at Lee Way's terminal is similar to City
Delivery's. The technique used there by Respondent's
pickets was similar to that used at Goodrich. On several
occasions prior to October 16 the pickets drove into the
terminal behind the Charging Party's truck, circled the
building as they honked and waved their sign, drove off
Lee Way's property, parked, and picketed at the entrance.
Since the General Counsel_ .does not rely on them as
evidence of unfair labor practices committed by Respon-
dent, I make no findings with respect to incidents which
occurred on September 11 (apparently the first day of
ambulatory picketing) at the terminal of East Texas Motor
Freight Lines and the store of Roommakers Carpet
Company and on October 15 at the terminal of Gordons
Transports, Inc.
The Charging Party began using armed guards on its
trucks on October 16. It asked Western Security Service to
provide an armed guard for each of its trucks. Since the
Charging Party dispatches between 21 and 25 trucks each
day, Western could not meet its needs immediately.
Consequently, on October 16, 17, and 18 some five or six
trucks were manned by a driver and a guard armed with a
pistol. (One guard showed up with a shotgun. Rollie
Kilgore, the Charging Party 's terminal manager , told him
he was not riding shotgun for Wells Fargo in the Old West
and ordered him to get rid of it. The record does not
indicate whether Kilgore caught him before he went out on
one of the Charging Party's trucks or after.) The remainder
of the trucks were manned by two drivers, neither of them
armed. Because of protests which immediately began
coming in from the managers of other terminals about the
Charging Party's trucks coming onto their property with
armed guards on them, the Charging Party told Western
that it wanted an unarmed guard on each truck. Western
protested at sending its men out without weapons. It was
finally decided that each guard would carry a can of mace.
From October 19 until November 23, when the Charging
Party removed guards from its trucks, guards supplied by
Western carried a can of mace on their belts. Western
continued to augment its guard force to the point where,
approximately a week and a half after October 16, it was
able to supply a guard for each truck. In the interim, the
trucks which did not carry Western guards continued to be
manned by two drivers.
On and after October 16 Respondent's roving pickets
said they were afraid of violence because of guns on the
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charging Party's trucks when they declined invitations to
picket close to them . One such incident occurred at the
terminal of Mason Dixon Lines, another interstate com-
mon carrier , on October 18. (The only time prior to
October 16 that the Charging Party's roving pickets
showed up at Mason Dixon's terminal was in September.
They first asked permission of Gerald Lewis, terminal
manager, to picket in front of the truck and got it. They
picketed "between the headlights " and left when the truck
left.) One of Respondent 's business agents , A. E. Yarbor-
ough , told Lewis there was a gun on the Charging Party's
truck and his men were afraid of violence. Yarborough led
members of Respondent some distance down the dock
where they waited in the terminal yard while Lewis tried to
find out whether there was, in fact , a gun . Work resumed
when the truck left. A similar incident at Western
Carloading's terminal on October 19 caused a partial work
stoppage for more than an hour. Only the Charging Party's
employees and the employees of nonunion trucking
companies continued to work.
Sometime after October 16, the roving pickets declined
invitations to picket "between the headlights" at Good-
rich's distribution center, City Delivery's terminal, and Lee
Way's terminal on the ground they feared violence because
they thought there was a gun on the Charging Party's
truck. At the latter location, they accepted the invitation to
the extent of coming into the terminal but picketed
halfway between entrance and truck.
Respondent stopped its ambulatory picketing around
November 5, after a petition for a 10(1) injunction was
filed against it.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The Board has established its Moore Dry Dock standards
as a measure of whether , in a common situs situation, the
nature of the picketing is itself sufficient to establish the
picketing union's secondary objective. If the picketing
meets the following four tests , the picketing is presumptive-
ly primary although, of course, other evidence may still
prove a secondary objective:
1. The picketing is strictly limited to times when
the situs of dispute is located on the secondary
employer's premises.
2. At the time of the picketing the primary
employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs.
3. The picketing is limited to places reasonably
close to the location of the situs.
4. The picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is
with the primary employer.
Here , there is no dispute that Respondent's manner of
picketing the Charging Party at locations other than its
own terminal met tests 1, 2, and 4. The issue is whether it
met test 3.
The thrust of Respondent 's argument that it limited its
picketing to places reasonably close to the location of the
situs is "that in practically every incident where the pickets
were asked to come onto the premises they either complied
or left the area." As support for this proposition it relies
especially on Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 592,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Estes
Express Lines, Inc.), 181 NLRB 790, where, according to
Respondent's brief:
The Board found the respondent union not guilty of
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). In every
incident recited therein the picketing was conducted on
the outside of the neutral carrier's gates without
permission having been sought to come to the dock. In
that case the pickets arrived with the non-striking
employer's truck, picketed while the truck was on the
neutral employer's premises , and left when the neutral
[sic; I assume Respondent 's counsel intended to use the
word "primary" here] employer's truck left. The Board
held that this was not violative of the Act.
However , in Estes Express, as the Board's recital of the
relevant facts makes clear:
The record also shows that on February 17, a
Monday, Respondent sent letters, explaining that it
would engage in ambulatory picketing , to the approxi-
mately 125 secondary employers likely to be affected.
These employers were advised in the letter that the
picketing would conform to Moore Dry Dock stand-
ards , and that it would be directed exclusively at Estes
employees . Permission was sought to enter their premises
in order to picket the Estes drivers more closely. These
employers were informed that , if this permission were
denied , picketing outside their gates would occur. In
concluding , the letter requested the cooperation of the
secondary employer, and asked that he cease doing
business with Estes during the course of the strike. The
letter asked the addressee not to consider this a
"threat," but stated that his cooperation would "greatly
assist in forcing Estes Express Lines to enter into a
contract" for its employees.
Such was the factual background when, on February
18, Respondent , having waited a day to allow the
letters to reach secondary employers , began its ambula-
tory picketing. [Emphasis supplied.]
The issue in this case boils down to a question of whether
the initiative lies with picketing union to ask permission to
picket between the headlights or with picketed neutral
employer to issue such an invitation before picketing at the
entrance to the neutral 's premises is "limited to places
reasonably close to the location of the situs." Estes Express,
I think , stands for the proposition that it lies with the
picketing union. Since the Charging Party did not take the
initiative , its picketing failed to meet the third test set forth
in Moore Dry Dock and is, thus, evidence proving the
Charging Party's secondary objective. Additional evidence
is found in the conduct of the pickets at Goodrich and Lee
Way in driving onto the neutral's premises and signalling
employees working there , with horn and sign , to join them
at the entrance . I find , therefore, that Respondent violated
Section 8(bX4)(i) and (iiXB) of the Act by picketing the
Charging Party at the premises of Lee Way Motor Freight,
City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer
Company, Western Carloading Company, and B. F.
LOCAL 612, TEAMSTERS
Goodrich Company with an object of forcing or requiring
Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage
Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carload-
ing Company, and B. F. Goodrich Company to cease
doing business with the Charging Party.
Since I have found Respondent violated the Act by its
activities prior to the time the Charging Party began using
armed guards on its trucks, I do not reach the issue of
whether, after the Charging Party provided grounds for the
pickets reasonably to fear danger to their persons, the
pickets could refuse to picket between the headlights and
remain at the entrances without violating rule 3.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. AAA Motor Lines, Inc., Lee Way Motor Freight,
City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer
Company, Western Carloading Company, and B. F.
Goodrich Company are employers engaged in commerce
and persons engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
2. Local Union # 612, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By picketing the Charging Party at the premises of
Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage
Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carload-
ing Company, and B. F. Goodrich Company with an
object of forcing or requiring Lee Way Motor Freight, City
Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Compa-
ny, Western Carloading Company, and B. F. Goodrich
Company to cease doing business with the Charging Party,
Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDERS
Local Union #612, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind.,
its officers , agents , and representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing AAA Motor Lines , Inc., at the premises of
Lee Way Motor Freight , City Delivery and Cartage
611
Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carload-
ing Company, B. F. Goodrich Company, or any other
,person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce with an object of forcing or requiring Lee Way
Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company,
Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carloading Compa-
ny, B. F. Goodrich Company, or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease
doing business with AAA Motor Lines, Inc.
(b) In any like or related manner, engaging in, or
inducing the employees of any person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a
strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or
to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force
or require any person engaged in commerce or in any
industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with
AAA Motor Lines, Inc.
(c) In any like or related manner, threatening, coercing,
or restraining any person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require any person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with
AAA Motor Lines, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meetings halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix" to the Regional Director for posting at
facilities of AAA Motor Lines, Inc., Lee Way Motor
Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper
Transfer Company, Western Carloading Company, and B.
F. Goodrich Company, provided said companies choose to
post said notices.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, iii
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3 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 , and recommended 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.
4 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."
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
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 Federal law by the manner in which
we picketed AAA Motor Lines, Inc., at the premises of
other companies, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT picket AAA Motor Lines, Inc., at the
premises of Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and
Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, West-
ern Carloading Company, B. F. Goodrich Company, or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing
or requiring Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and
Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, West-
ern Carloading Company, B. F. Goodrich Company, or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce to cease doing business
with AAA Motor Lines, Inc.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, engage
in, or induce the employees of any person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to
engage in , a strike or refusal in the course of his
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities, or to perform any services,
where an object thereof is to force or require any
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor
Lines, Inc.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner,
threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where
an object thereof is to force or require any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor
Lines, Inc.
Dated By
LOCAL UNION #612,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A/W
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 concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 2102
City Federal Building, 2026 Second Avenue North,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203, Telephone 205-325-3877.