Local 676, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 3, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 600 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto
Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No 221-2732
Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Armstrong
Cork Company Case No 4-CD-129 May 3, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 14, 1966, Trial Examiner John F Funke issued his
Decision in the above-entitled pro(eedmg, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, the General Counsel filed separate
briefs and the Employer a combined brief, both in support of the
Trial Examiner's Decision and in answer to Respondent's exceptions
and brief
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Membeis Fanning and
Jenkins]
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 briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner
1 The Trial Examiner 's Conclusion of Law 2 does not specify the work and the labor
organizations involved in the dispute Since we find it more appropriate in this case to
include such specific language rather than the general language in the Trial Examiner's
Decision we hereby modify that Conclusion of Law to read as follows
"2 Respondent has induced and encouraged employees of Armstrong to engage in a
strike or refusal to work and has threatened , restrained and coerced Armstrong with an
object of forcing or requiring Armstrong to assign within the packing department the
work of moving pallets loaded with ware from the ends of the lehrs to the warehouse
trailers , and of returning empty pallets and pallets loaded with carton materials from the
warehouse trailers to the ends of the lehrs to employees who are represented by Respond
ent rather than to employees represented by Local 257 Glass Bottle Blowers Association
AFL-CIO although Armstrong was not failing to conform to an order or certification of
the Board determining the bargaining representatives for employees performing such work
and by such conduct , Respondent has violated Section 8 ( b) (1) and (ii) (D) of the Act"
,Similarly , the cease and desist provisions in our order specify the work and the labor
organizations involved in this case
158 NLRB No 62
LOCAL 676, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC 601
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Waiehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall
1 Cease and desist fiom
(a) Inducing of encouraging any individual employed by Arm-
stiong Cork Company to engage in a strike or refusal to work
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Armstrong Cork Com-
pany, in either case where an object thereof is to force or require
Armstrong to t9sign, within the packing department, the work of
moving pallets loaded with ware from the ends of the lehrs to the
waiehouse trailers, and of returning empty pallets and pallets
loaded with cirton materials from the warehouse trailers to the ends
of the lehrs, to employees who are represented by Respondent rather
than to employees represented by Local 257, Glass Bottle Blowers
Association, AFL -CIO, where Armstrong is not failing to conform
to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining
representative for employees performing such work
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is found will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices,
meeting halls, and all places where notices to its members are custom-
arily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 2
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 4, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representa-
tive of the Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in the aforesaid places Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 4 sufficient signed
copies of said notice for posting by Armstrong Cork Company, if it is
willing, in all places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
of the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith
a in the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the woi ds "a Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order 11
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 676, INTERNATION AL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, AND TO ALL E1VIPLOYEES OF ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 induce or encourage any individual employed by
Armstrong Coik Company to engage in a strike or refusal to work
with an object of forcing or requiring Armstrong to assign, within
the packing department, the work of moving pallets loaded with
ware from the ends of the lehrs to the warehouse trailers, and of
returning empty pallets and pallets loaded with carton materials
from the warehouse trailers to the ends of the ]ehrs, to employ-
ees who are represented by Local 676, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
rather than to employees represented by Local 257, Glass Bottle
Blowers Association, AFL-CIO, where Armstrong is not failing
to conform to an order or certification of the Board determin-
ing the bargaining representative for employees performing such
work
WE WILL NOT threaten, coerce, or restrain Armstrong Cork
Company with an object of forcing or requiring Armstrong to
assign, within the packing department, the work of moving pallets
loaded with ware from the ends of the lehrs to the warehouse
trailers, and of returning empty pallets and pallets loaded with
carton materials from the warehouse trailers to the ends of the
lehrs, to employees who are members of Local 676, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, rather than to employees who are represented
by Local 257, Glass Bottle Blowers Association, AFL-CIO, where
Armstrong is not failing to conform to an order or certification
of the Board determing the bargaining representative for employ-
ees performing such work
LOCAL 676, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organwataon.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, of covered by any
other material
LOCAL 676, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 603
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's
Regional Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juni-
per Streets , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Telephone No. 597-7601.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed February 2, 1965, by Armstrong Cork Company , herein
called Armstrong , against Local 676, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein called Local 676 or the Re-
spondent, the General Counsel issued a complaint alleging that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii ) (D) of the Act. The complaint was amended
at the hearing to strike paragraph 8 thereof alleging that Respondent engaged in a
work stoppage because Armstrong refused to assign work to employees who were
members of the Respondent or represented by Respondent . The answer of Respond-
ent admitted , in substance , the allegations of the complaint but denied that its
conduct constituted a violation of the Act as a matter of law.
It was stipulated at the hearing that the record in Case No. 4-CD-129 be made
a part of the record herein.
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was before Trial Examiner John F.
Funke , in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , on December 6, 1965 , and briefs were
received from the General Counsel, the Respondent , and Armstrong on January 11,
1966.
Upon the entire record herein I make the following findings and conclusions:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Armstrong is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture of glass
containers at a plant at Millville, New Jersey. It sells and distributes finished prod-
ucts from its Millville plant valued in excess of $50 ,000 annually to customers located
outside the State of New Jersey. It is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 676 and Local 257 , Glass Bottle Blowers Association , AFL-CIO, herein
Local 257, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
The work in dispute involves the transportation by forklift trucks of pallets loaded
with cartons of glassware from cooling ovens to warehouse trailers and returning
them , unloaded , to the loading point near the oven . The history of the dispute is
set forth in the Board 's hearing and determination of dispute in Local 676, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America (Armstrong Cork Company ), 154 NLRB 1835 , and no further analysis
is needed here . The dispute focuses on and these proceedings were instituted as a
result of a letter dated January 29 , 1965 , from John P. Greeley, president of Local
676, to Armstrong . The letter reads:
Mr. Roger F. Scott
Plant Manager
Armstrong Cork Company
Millville , New Jersey
Dear Mr . Scott : This will acknowledge receipt of your advice that effective
Monday, February 15, 1965, you intend to transfer the work now being done
in the Packing Department by members of Teamsters Local Union No. 676 to
members of the Glass Bottle Blowers Association , Local 257, in accordance with
Paragraph 3 of a certain award of Arbitrator Richard O 'Neill, dated January 13,
1965.
As you know, this work was assigned to members of this Local Union :by
the company in view of the fact that we are the certified collective bargaining
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of all employees in the Carton Storage Warehouse and Shipping
Departments, and that persons employed within our collective bargaining
unit had the requisite skills to efficiently perform the duties assigned
Thereatter, an arbitration was held in which we neither participated nor
observed, and to which we were not a party We notified the company in
advance of this arbitration that we would not consider ourselves bound by any
award issued by the arbitrator
As you know, your company has a contract with this Lo-.al Union under
which the work was assigned to employees within its collective bargaining unit
The Employer would breach this Agreement by honoring the award of the
arbitrator Such a breach would relieve this Local Union of any further obliga
tions render the contract and we would therefore regard ourselves free to, and
would instruct our members upon any of them being deprived of work which
they presently do, to go on strike to compel the company to let them continue
to perform the work assigned them by the company
Very truly yours,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No 676,
(S) John P Greeley,
President
JPG/dab
It was a result of the receipt of this letter that the charge herein was filed, that a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Leo F Hannon and the decision supra
was issued The answer of the Respondent in this proceeding, paragraphs 9 and 10,
i uses the only issue in this proceeding These paragraphs read
9 It is admitted that Local 676 has endeavored to persuade the employer to
assign certain work in dispute which the employer had voluntarily assigned to
employees within its bargaining unit on the basis that they were entitled to
such work by contract and that they were best qualified to perform the wore,
efficiently and economically to continue such assignment despite an arbitration
award to the contrary resulting from an arbitration proceeding in which Local
676 did not participate and which award was not binding upon it
In all other respects the allegations of this Paragraph are denied
10 Local 676 has declined to conform to the certification of the Board
determining the bargaining representative for employees performing the work
in dispute in order to obtain judicial review of the said Board certification, it
being the opinion of Local 676 that the certification of the Board is contrary to
the facts and contrary to the law
The issues of this case have been largely limited by the pleadings to judicial
review of the Board's Decision and Determination to which reference has been made
The only issue presented to me is whether the letter from Local 676 to Armstrong
induced and encouraged employees to engage in a strike or refusal to work and
threatened, restrained, and coerced Armstrong with the meaning of Section 8(b)
(4) (i) and (u) (D) of the Act 1 I find that it did 2 I also find that an object of
such inducement and encouragement of employees of Armstrong and of the threaten
ing, restraining, and coercion of Armstrong had as an object the forcing or requiring
of Armstrong to assign particular work (the transportation of the pallets) to employ-
ees in a particular labor organization (Local 676) rather than to employees in another
labor organization (Local 257)
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and upon the entire record in this case,
I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and Arm-
strong is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
2 Respondent has induced and encouraged employees of Armstrong to engage in
a strike or refusal to work with the object of forcing or requiring Armstrong to
1 In view of the amendment to the complaint the work stoppage referred to in the Board s
Decision is not made on the ground for any finding herein
9 The answer admits that this letter was posted on Armstrong s bulletin board The
finding of inducement and encouragement of employees is based on this admission
BOSQUI-UNIFORM PRINTING AND SUPPLY COMPANY 605
assign particular work to employees in a particular labor organization rather than
to employees in another labor organization and has threatened, restrained, and
coerced Armstrong with the object of forcing or requiring Armstrong to assign
particular work to employees in a particular labor organization rather than to employ-
ees in another labor organization and has thereby violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii) (D) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Bosqui-Uniform Printing and Supply Company, Division of
Courier-Citizen Company and Marilyn Mary Street
San Francisco Typographical Union No . 21 and Marilyn Mary
Street. Cases Nos. 220-CA-3485 and 2O-CB-13f6. May 3, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 30, 196.1, Trial Examiner James F. Foley issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
Union 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 attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision.' Thereafter, Respondent Union filed exceptions to
the Decision and a supporting brief.
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 case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 affiraned. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and brief, and finds merit in Respondent Union's excep-
tions. Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, only to the extent consistent
herewith.
We have reviewed all the evidence introduced in support of the
alleged violation of Section 8(b) (2), and, upon our appraisal thereof,
conclude that no violation has been made out.
On December 1, 1964, Bosqui-Uniforin, the Respondent Company,
discharged its employee, Marilyn Mary Street. The Respondent
Union is charged with having unlawfully caused her discharge.
'During the course of the hearing, Respondent Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Regional Director for Region 20 whereby it agreed to be liable wholly
or severally with the Union for any backpay found to be due the Charging Party, Street.
158 NLRB No. 63.