Local 691, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 1039 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

LOCAL 691, INT'L 'ROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS ; ETC 1039
2 By entering into a collective-bargaining contract with District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, on February 18, 1957,,thereby contributing illegal assistance
and support to the said labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and iS
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act
3 By such conduct the Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
4 The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce , and constitute
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act
5 The General Counsel has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the
evidence that the Respondent initiated , sponsored, dominated , or interfered with the
administration of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or that the Re-
spondent violated the Act by executing a recognition agreement with the said labor
organization on January 16, 1957
[Recommendations omitted from publication 7
Local 691, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Alfred W. Cors
and William H. Jones, Its Agents and Morgan Drive-Away,
Inc. Case No 35-CC-45 September 25, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 14, 1958, Trial Examiner James A Shaw issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom-
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto Thereafter, the Respondents
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief
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]
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 Inter-
1 We have carefully reviewed the record and find no merit in the Respondents ' conten
tion that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced
The Respondents contend that the Trial Examiner erred in granting the motion of the
General Counsel at the close of the hearing to amend the complaint by adding as an
additional object of the picketing the forcing or requiring of self employed peisons to
join the Respondent Union We find no merit in this contention
The record shows that this issue was thoroughly litigated at the hearing , that the
Trial Examiner apprised the Respondents ' counsel that evidence relating to this question
was being introduced into the record , and that the General Counsel implied that he
would amend the complaint to conform to the evidence being introduced In any event,
after he granted the motion to amend, the Trial Examiner asked the Respondents ' counsel
if he wished a continuance of the hearing in order to meet this new allegation and the
latter declined See Troy C Friend d/b/a` Frsenf Lumber Company, 121 NLRB 62
121 NLRB No 132
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications :
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner and as set forth
more fully in the Intermediate Report, that the Respondents violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by picketing the premises of the
secondary employer, Richmond Homes, Inc., at the entrance normally
used by employees of neutral employers, who were suppliers of Rich-
mond. By such picketing, the Respondents induced and encouraged
employees of suppliers of Richmond to engage in a concerted refusal
to transport goods and material to Richmond, with the objects of (a)
forcing or requiring the suppliers of Richmond to cease doing busi-
ness with the latter and, in turn, forcing or requiring Richmond to
cease doing business with Morgan Drive-Away, Inc., the primary
employer herein, and (b) forcing or requiring self-employed persons
to join the Respondent Union. The pattern of inducement of em-
ployees of neutral employers in furtherance of the Respondents'
unlawful objectives is shown by their inducement of Henson and Hile-
man, each an employee of a supplier of Richmond, not to cross the
picket line to deliver materials for Richmond.'
In view of our decision herein, we do not find it necessary to de-
termine, and do not pass upon, the Trial Examiner's finding that
Dedmond, an employee of a third supplier, was induced or encouraged
by the Respondents to refuse to deliver goods to Richmond.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Local 691, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, representatives,
successors, assigns, and agents, including the Respondents Alfred W.
Cors and William H. Jones, shall :
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
the employees of Aetna Plywood & Veneer Company, I. R. C. & D.
Motor Freight, Inc., or any other employer, to engage in a strike or
concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac-
ture, 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 employer or other person to
cease doing business with Richmond Homes, Inc. ; or to force or re-
s Adolph Coors Company, 121 NLRB 271; Cisco Construction Company, 114 NLRB
27, 29 ; Coca-Cola Bottling Company of ,9t. Louis, 115 NLRB 1506, 1512.
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1041
quire Richmond Homes, Inc., to cease doing business with Morgan
Drive-Away, Inc. ; or to force or require any self-employed persons to
join Respondent Local 691.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at the offices and meeting halls in Richmond, Indiana, of
Local 691, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3
Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents
be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by, the Respond-
ents to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix",for posting
at the premises of Morgan Drive-Away, Inc., Richmond Homes, Inc.,
Aetna Plywood and Veneer Company, and I. R. C. & D. Motor
Freight, Inc., in places where notices to their employees are
customarily posted, if they are willing to do so.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to what steps the
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
3 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 "Pursuant to a Decision and order" the
'words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
• APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 691, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF AETNA PLYWOOD & VENEER
COMPANY AND I. R. C. & D. MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., AND TO ALL
DRIVERS UNDER CONTRACT TO MORGAN DRIVE-AWAY, INC.
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, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Aetna Plywood
& Veneer Company, I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc., or any other
employer, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
487926-59-vol . 121-64
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commodities, or to perform any services for their employer, where
an object thereof is to force or require any employer to cease doing
business with Richmond Homes, Inc., or to force or require Rich-
mond Homes, Inc. to cease doing business with Morgan Drive-
Away, Inc., or to force or require any self-employed persons to join
Local 691, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
LOCAL 691, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Alfred W. Cors)
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(William H. Jones)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Morgan Drive -Away, Inc., herein called Morgan, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein referred to as the
General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
(Cincinnati , Ohio ), issued his complaint against Local 691, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO,'
and Alfred W. Cors and William H . Jones, its agents , herein referred to as the Re-
spondents and/or the Union , and the individuals named as its agents , alleging that
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), and Section 2
(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein
called the Act . Copies of the charge , complaint , and notice of hearing were duly
served upon the Respondents and Morgan.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint as amended at the hear-
ing herein , alleged in substance that: (1) commencing on or about June 10, 1957,
and continuing through June 12, 1957, the Respondents , by and through the Re-
spondent Agents, Cors and Jones, and other agents and representatives whose names
were unknown to the Regional Director , induced and encouraged employees of
Richmond Homes , Inc., Foster Freight Lines , Inc., Aetna Plywood Corporation,
I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight , Inc., and of other employers whose names were un-
known to the Regional Director , to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the
course of their employment to use, process, transport , or otherwise handle or work
on any goods , articles, materials , or commodities , and to perform services for the
object of: (a) forcing Foster Freight Lines, Inc., I . R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc.,
Aetna Plywood Corporation , and other employers and persons whose names were
unknown to the Regional Director to cease doing business with Richmond Homes,
Inc.; (b ) forcing Richmond Homes, Inc., and other employers and persons whose
names were unknown to the Regional Director to cease doing business with Morgan
Drive-Away , Inc.; and (c) forcing or requiring an employer or self-employed person
i Since the complaint issued the Teamsters Uniori, has been expelled from the AFL-CIO,
for this reason reference to the Teamsters affiliation to the AFL-CIO has been dropped
from the caption of the case in accordance with Board policy in previous cases involving
the Teamsters Union which have been before it since the expulsion by the parent body.
LOCAL 691 , INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1043
or persons to join Local 691. By the acts and conduct alleged above and by each
of said acts, the Respondent and the Respondent Agents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices as defined in Section 8 (b) (4) (A ) of the Act,
"affecting commerce" as defined in Section 2 ( 6) and , ( 7) of the Act.
On or about October 14 , 1957, the Respondents filed their answer in which they
admitted certain jurisdictional allegations but denied the commission of any of the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on October 23, 24 , and 25 , 1957 , at Rich-
mond , Indiana, before the Trial Examiner duly appointed by the Chief Trial
Examiner . The General Counsel, the Respondents , and the Charging Party were
represented by counsel . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties.
At the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof in minor matters such as names, dates, and the like, and to
amend the complaint to add an additional object of the picketing from June 10
to June 12, 1957, to force or require an employer or self -employed person or persons
to join Local 691. At the suggestion of the Trial Examiner , the General Counsel's
motion was separated into two parts, the first was to conform the pleadings to the
proof in minor matters, such as names, dates, and the like, which was granted by,
the Trial Examiner without serious objection from counsel for the Respondents.
The second part of the original motion to amend the complaint regarding a further
object of the picketing by the Respondents was vigorously contested by counsel for
the Respondents . After hearing arguments from counsel for the parties , the Trial
Examiner granted the General Counsel 's motion to amend the complaint , primarily
because the issue had been fully litigated by both the General Counsel and counsel
for the Respondents during the course of the hearing . From the first day of the
hearing a host of testimony was adduced regarding this very issue without objection
of either party. Moreover , both the General Counsel and counsel for the Respond-
ents introduced in evidence identical documents which went right to the heart of
the issue , all of which were offered and received in evidence by the Trial Examiner.2
Moreover , the Trial Examiner on several occasions during the course of the hearing
advised counsel for all parties that evidence regarding this particular issue, though
not originally alleged in the complaint , was being spread on the record without objec-
tion . The Trial Examiner took the position that in the circumstances Rule 15 of the
Federal Rules of Procedure prevailed and that a finding as to this issue could and
should be made , regardless-of whether the complaint was amended or not , but that
it would be better procedure to proceed by way of amendment to the complaint,
with which the General Counsel agreed and as noted above amended his complaint
accordingly . Counsel for the Respondents was advised by the Trial Examiner that
he was entitled to a continuance to meet the issue raised by the amendment to the
complaint , but he chose to waive his rights .3 Though given an opportunity to do
so, all parties waived oral argument . The parties were also advised of their right to
file briefs with the Trial Examiner . All parties took advantage of this right and briefs
were received from their counsel on or about November 29, 1957 . They have been
given due consideration by the Trial Examiner.4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RICHMOND HOMES, INC., AND MORGAN DRIVE-AWAY, INC.
1. The Respondents' in their answer , neither admitted nor denied the allegations
in the complaint regarding the business operations of Richmond Homes and Morgan
Drive-Away . In the circumstances the General Counsel was put to the proof, so
to speak , to establish his contention that the business operations of either company
or both was of such a nature that the Board should assert jurisdiction in the matter.
The record shows that Richmond Homes, is an Indiana corporation with its
principal offices and place of business in Richmond , Indiana, where it is engaged
in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of prefabricated buildings and homes.
During the calendar year of 1956 it sold and shipped to points outside of the
State of Indiana manufactured products valued in excess of $100 ,000. Since the
Trial Examiner will find below that Richmond Homes was one of and the principal
secondary employer affected by the Respondents ' conduct as set forth in the com-
9 See General Counsel's Exhibits Nos 6 and 10 and the Respondents ' Exhibit No. 6
S The Trial Examiner 's position is set forth in the transcript of the record , pages 498
to 509.
4 The delay in the issuance of this Report has been partially due to the illness of the
Trial Examiner.
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plaint the Trial Examiner finds that the operations of Richmond Homes, standing
alone , meet the direct outflow test set by the Board in the Jonesboro Grain Drying
Co-operative case, 110 NLRB 481. Consequently the Trial Examiner finds that
Richmond Homes is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act, and that the Board should assert jurisdiction herein under
the rule laid down in the Euclid Foods case.5 Further discussion of the business
operations of Richmond Homes follows below.
The record also shows, that Morgan Drive-Away, the Charging Party herein whom
the Trial Examiner finds below to be the primary employer herein, is an Indiana
corporation, with its principal office and place of business in Elkhart, Indiana,
where it is primarily engaged in the transportation of trailer houses and prefabri-
cated homes as a common carrier. The record clearly shows that Morgan Drive-
Away received revenue from interstate hauling in excess of $125,000. In the
circumstances the Trial Examiner finds that Morgan Drive-Away is not only
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
but meets the Board's jurisdictional standards as set forth in the Rollo Transit
Corporation case, 110 NLRB 1623. Since the Trial Examiner will set forth in
greater detail below the operations of Morgan Drive-Away he sees no necessity
of further discussions at this time. Suffice it to say that since he considers its
organizational setup of extreme importance in his ultimate disposal of the issues
herein, he feels that further discussion at this time would unnecessarily burden this
Report.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 691, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In order to understand the issues herein the Trial Examiner feels that further
comment should be made herein about the business operations of the primary
employer, Morgan Drive-Away, and the principal secondary employer, Richmond
Homes.
As indicated above Morgan Drive-Away is an Indiana corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Elkhart, Indiana. Its business operations
are twofold; (1) the house trailer division, which confines itself to the hauling
of trailer houses from location to location, mainly in interstate commerce; and
(2) the "prefab" division which is concerned with the transportation of prefabri-
cated buildings and houses. It is the latter with which we are concerned herein.
The "prefab" division is under the supervision of Sam Wilson. His immediate
supervisors are Jack Hobson, vice president in charge of operations, Ralph Miller,
executive vice president, and Ralph Morgan, whose official title is not clearly
established in the record. As the Trial Examiner sees it Morgan confines its business
strictly to trailers. The trailers it uses are specially designed to haul the products
of manufacturers with whom it has contracts. For example the trailers it used
in hauling prefabricated buildings or houses for Richmond Homes were specially
designed for that purpose and was one of the compelling factors that led to their
contractual relationship.
The particular feature on Morgan Trailers that appealed to the management of
Richmond Homes was the installation of "possums" on the trailers which, as the
Trial Examiner interprets the record, made them more practical for the hauling of
its prefabricated houses.6
As indicated above Richmond Homes is an Indiana corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Richmond, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of prefabricated buildings and houses. Insofar as the issues herein are con-
cerned its principal officers were Charles Travers, president, and Sam Kircher, plant
superintendent. At times material herein Richmond Homes had around 120
employees. For years they had been represented by the following labor organiza-
tions. the Carpenters Union, the Hod Carriers and Common Laborers Union, and
the Painters Union, all of whom are affiliates of AFL-CIO. None of its em-
ployees were represented by the Respondent Local 691.
5 See Commission House Drivers, etc., Local No. 400 etc. (Euclid Foods, Incorporated
d/b/a Bondi's Mother Hubbard Market ), 118 NLRB 130.
a According to Travers "possums" are "underneath special carriages or carriages under-
neath the main part of the truck."
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1045
Sometime in April 1957, Richmond Homes and Morgan Drive-Away entered
into a contract whereby the latter was to haul all of the prefabricated houses manu-
factured by Richmond Homes at its Richmond, Indiana, plant.
Prior to entering into contractual relations with Morgan Drive-Away, Richmond
Homes used the services of I. R. C. & D. and Whitehouse Trucking Company,
Inc., of Toledo, Ohio, herein called Whitehouse, to haul its prefabricated houses to
customers both in intrastate and interstate commerce. I. R. C. & D.'s headquarters
were in Richmond, Indiana.
I. R. C. & D.'s truckdrivers were members of Local 691, and covered by Teamster's
Central States Over-The-Road Freight Agreement. Whitehouse's drivers were mem-
bers of a Teamster Local in Toledo, Ohio, but were subject to the terms of the same
contract as the I. R. C. & D. truckdrivers.
The record clearly shows by a preponderance of uncontradicted, undenied, and
credible testimony as well as documentary evidence adduced at the hearing herein
that Morgan Drive-Away employed no truckdrivers, but used the services of inde-
pendent contractors or "self-employed persons," who owned their own tractors to
haul its trailers under a lease agreement, between it and its drivers.?
Morgan Drive-Away commenced hauling for Richmond Homes on or about May
6, 1957, when its drivers moved into the Richmond, Indiana , area , they brought
trailers with them. Some were parked near the loading dock at Richmond Homes,
and others at parking lots in the Richmond area. On May 9, 1957, it opened a
temporary terminal in Richmond, Indiana, behind Reiserts Auction House on North-
west L Street. On May 15, 1957, it opened its permanent terminal at a house'
located at 410 Main Street, Centerville, Indiana , which is about 5 miles west of
Richmond on the old National Pike, or Route 40. At times material herein Mrs.
Phyllis Hobbick was in charge of the Terminal and acted as dispatcher.
As indicated above Morgan Drive-Away started to haul for Richmond Homes
on May 6, '1957. Shortly thereafter on May 11, 1957, Albert Cors, president of
Local 691, had a conversation with Sam Wilson at the loading dock at Richmond
Homes. Present were the following owner-drivers, John Hobbick, Jerome Raut-
mann , and Albert Duley.
Wilson's account of what transpired at the time is in the considered opinion of
the Trial Examiner best told in his own words.
The WITNESS: He asked me who was handling the deal here, and I said that
I was, it was my responsibility.
A. [Continued.] He asked me then about getting the drivers in the union.
I told him that all the drivers were union members and he wanted to know
which union, and I told him the Local 200 at Milwaukee, and I said, "In fact,",
I said, "the man standing right there, Jerome Rautmann , is a union steward."
He wanted to know how come I had brought drivers from Wisconsin here
from a different union , and I in turn told him that they were down here just
temporarily until I could hire local men to handle the operation, and he asked
me if we had a union contract, and I said as far as I knew we had one with
the National Labor Board-union ; and he asked me how come I had never
come to see him.
I told him that I was under the impression that you didn't have to go to the
union when you went into a different locality to work as long as your men
were union members.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You are talking just a little bit too fast. Did you get that,
Mr. Reporter?
The REPORTER: Yes.
A. [Continued.] And he in turn handed me a little pamphlet that he told
me was his contract, his local contract for over-the-road drivers, and told me
that if we expected to haul our Richmond Homes we would have to have one
of those contracts signed with his local.
I told him I did not have authority to sign but I would forward it to Elkhart,
Indiana for their jurisdiction. And Mr. Cors then talked to Jerome Rautmann
and asked him how he was being paid, and Jerome Rautmann took his copy
of the lease out of his pocket and showed him how he was being paid, and
I in turn gave Mr. Cors a blank copy of the lease to show him how we were
paying the drivers.
Mr. Cors then talked to Jerome Rautmann a few minutes and we left.
Q. (By Mr. Rogers.) As you presently recall it, is that the extent of that
conversation?
A. As far as I recall it; yes, sir.
7 See Appendix A.
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cors examined the lease that Wilson had given him and said that it "wasn't
legal." Wilson replied that it was the lease that they were operating under and
that it had been approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Wilson immediately mailed the copy of the "over-the-road" contract that Cors
gave him to Ralph Miller, executive vice president of Morgan Drive-Away, at his
offices in Elkhart, Indiana .8
On May 12, 1957, Wilson called Miller and informed him that the contract which
Cors had given him was the one that the Respondent Union expected Morgan Drive-
Away to sign.
On or about May 14, 1957, Wilson had a second conversation with Cors on the
street on his way to Richmond Homes. According to Wilson's credible testimony
Cors asked him if he had mailed the copy of Local 691's over-the-road contract to
his superiors at Elkhart, Indiana. He told him that he had, mailed it. Cors then
told him in substance that he "had not had any word on it, or a single answer,"
that "he had to have the contract book signed or we couldn't drive." 9
On May 15, 1957, Cors sent the following wire to Local 200 of the Teamsters
Union, Milwaukee , Wisconsin.
A W CORS PRESIDENT TEAMSTERS LOCAL 691 RECEIVED
1238 RIDGE ST CITY MAY 15 1957
RICHMOND IND. TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 691.
MR. FRANK H RANNEY-SEC. LOCAL 200
816 WEST NATIONAL AVE
MILW
DEAR SIR AND BROTHER, PLEASE TRANSFER AT ONCE THE FOL-.
LOWING MEMBERS J. W. RAUTMANN, LESTER DOANE, CLARENCE-
E. SCHMIDT, ELBERT DULEY. THESE MEMBERS ARE NOW WORK-
ING IN OUR JURISDICTION IN RICHMOND INDIANA FOR MORGAN
DRIVE AWAY INC. CO. FRATERNALLY YOURS.
A W CORS 'PRESIDENT TEAMSTERS LOCAL 691 1238 RIDGE ST
RICHMOND IND.
As indicated above, among those present at the time Cors met with Sam Wilson,
manager of the "prefab" department of Morgan Drive-Away at the loading dock at
Richmond Homes on May 15, 1957, was Jerome Rautmann, one of Morgan Drive-
Away's "owner-operators." Since credibility of the witnesses who testified at the
hearing herein is one of the most troublesome issues before the Trial Examiner, he
feels that Rautmann's version of what transpired at that time should be set forth
below. Consequently an excerpt from his testimony follows:
Q. (By Mr. Rogers.) Will you state for the record who was present at
that time?
A. There was Mr. Cors, Mr. Wilson, Albert Duley, John Hobbick, and
myself.
Q. Will you state for the record' what conversation, if any, there was at
that time?
A. Well, we drove in there and Mr. Cors came over and introduced him-
self and asked who was in charge, and Mr. Wilson said he was. And he
inquired as to whether the drivers belonged to a union. Mr. Wilson said yes,
and he said that the steward from Milwaukee was there, and then he called
me out of the car and Mr. Cors introduced himself to me, and he asked to
see my union card, see that I was paid up, and I showed him.
Then he asked under what contract we were working, and I told him that
we weren't working under a contract, we were working-we got paid according
to our leases.
At that time I showed him a copy of my lease, and then Mr. Wilson gave
him a copy, a blank copy of one of our leases, and then he went to his car and
he got out this over-the-road motor-freight contract, and he handed that to
Mr. Wilson, and he said that he wanted that signed.
Mr. Wilson said that he didn't have any authority to sign that, that would
have to come through Elkhart. Mr. Cors said that if we didn't get that con-
tract signed with him that we wouldn't haul any houses out of Richmond
Homes. - [Emphasis supplied.]
TRIAL EXAMINER: And this was on or about May 15, 1957?
The WITNESS: Yes, somewhere around there.
See General Counsel's Exhibit. #4.
s Quotes from Wilson's credible testimony
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1047
Rautmann's testimony as set forth above corroborates that of Sam Wilson as to what
transpired at their meeting with Cors on May 11, 1957, at the loading dock at
Richmond Homes.
Cors admitted that he met with Wilson and several of Morgan Drive-Away's
owner-operators on May 11, 1957, but emphatically denied that he told Wilson
during the course of their conversation that Morgan Drive-Away would have to
sign Local 691's "over-the-road" contract ". . . or they would not be permitted to
haul from Richmond Homes, Inc." He also denied having a conversation with
Wilson a few days later on a street near Richmond Homes.
From the foregoing it is obvious that the Trial Examiner is confronted with an issue
of the credibility of the witnesses Wilson, Rautmann on the one hand and Cors on
the other. The resolution of credibility issues are always a difficult and thankless
task, but resolved they must be. The Trial Examiner saw these witnesses, heard
their testimony and observed their demeanor while they testified before him. In his
considered opinion Wilson and Rautmann gave a true account of what transpired
at their meeting with Cors on May 11, 1957, at Richmond Homes. Both impressed
the Trial Examiner as honest witnesses. Cors on the other hand though a "pol-
ished" witness, impressed him as a bit too suave and self-righteous in his testimony
regarding the above and other incidents at the hearing herein. Here, as in many a
case that has come before the Trial Examiner over the years, the answers to issues
regarding the credibility of witnesses are found in the record when considered as
a whole . So is it here.
Cors in his testimony on direct examination in the Respondent 's case-in-chief
testified that Local 691 was not interested in the membership of the drivers for
Morgan Drive-Away in Local 691. His testimony in this regard is most interesting.
The testimony refers to a meeting he had with Charles Travers, president of
Richmond Homes in the early part of May 1957. According to Cors he called at
Travers' office sometime in the morning on this particular day and talked to him
for about 2 minutes. Since Travers was very busy at the time he suggested that
he ". . . come to his office" and discuss the question of Morgan Drive-Away taking
the hauling of "prefab" houses away from I. R. C. & D. and the Whitehouse Trucking
Company, Inc. Travers agreed to do so, and called Cors at around 1 p. in. that
same afternoon. Cors' testimony follows:
Q. And subsequent to that short meeting in the office of Richmond Homes,
Inc. with Mr. Travers, did he contact you?,
A. Mr. Travers did. He called me on the phone around 1:00 o'clock and
told me that he had some free time, that he was then available to come over
if I had time to see him. I told him I did.
He then came over with a sales manager by the name of Mr. Ramsey, the
two of them came together to my office. We discussed the situation at hand
which, as I stated before, the primary reason was: Why did the company
immediately on short notice, discontinue doing business with a company who
had been hauling their homes and employing our members for a long period
of time?
Mr. Travers' answer was, he didn't know why, the thing just happened that
way, other than Morgan representatives had attended his office and in his
words, "Sold him a fast bill of goods," a new fleet of trailers, and he just made
the switch in the company's doing business and hauling his homes.
Q. Did Mr. Ramsey join in the conversation at any time?
A. I would say Mr. Travers did the talking.
Q. Was that the extent of that conversation?
A. He then asked me what else was I interested in the problem of the
changing, and I said-and he raised the question himself, he said, "Are you
interested in the membership of these drivers?"
I said, "Certainly I am not interested in the membership of these drivers as
such."
He said, "Are you interested in a contract with Morgan Drive Away, Inc."
I said, "That is not an issue in this case. I want to clear my mind so that
I can give an honest report to my members why you changed carriers in your
operation of hauling your Richmond, Indiana homes."
I would say that's the extent of the meeting. [Emphasis supplied.]
In the face of this testimony let us look again at General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12,
which is the telegram from Cors to Local 200 in Malwaukee, Wisconsin, dated May
15, 1957. In that telegram which is set forth in toto above Cors requested the sec-
retary of Local 200 to transfer ". . . at once the following members J. W. Rautmann,
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lester Duane, Clarence A. Schmidt, Elbert Duley." All of whom were then in
Richmond, Indiana, hauling for Morgan Drive-Away, and self-employed persons.
Moreover, on cross-examination Cors testified that at the time he sent the above
telegram he did not know that the drivers for Morgan Drive-Away Inc., engaged in
hauling the "prefab" houses for Richmond Homes were independent contractors or
self-employed persons, and admitted that none of the individuals named in the
telegram had requested a transfer to Local 691. This in the face of the fact that
he had had in his possession for at least 4 days copies of the lease agreement between
Morgan Drive-Away and the owner-operators who hauled its trailers for Richmond
Homes. In such a state of the record the Trial Examiner credits the testimony of
Wilson and Rautmann regarding what Cors told them in their conversation on
May 11, 1957, and discredits Cors' denial thereof.
According to the credible testimony of Charles Travers, president of Richmond
Homes, Inc., Cors told him in one of their conversations that: "if out of the State
or foreign union members came to work in the Richmond territory, they would
have to sign in with the local union, become a member of it."
When Cors' testimony to the effect that he was not interested in the membership
of the drivers of Morgan Drive-Away is considered in the light of the testimony of
Wilson, Rautmann, Travers (and others) and the plain language of his telegram to
Local 200 of the Teamsters' Union in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Trial Examiner is
convinced and finds that the Respondents at all times material herein were not
only "interested" in having Morgan Drive-Away's owner-operators become members
of Local 691, but was likewise one of the major objectives of its picketing of Rich-
mond Homes, on June 10, 11 and 12, 1957.
As indicated above Sam Wilson, had a telephone conversation with Ralph Miller,
executive vice president, and secretary-treasurer of Morgan Drive-Away, on or about
May 14, 1957. In his conversation with Miller, Wilson told him that Cors had
again contacted him and inquired as to what was being done about signing the Re-
spondent's over-the-road contract. Wilson also told Miller in substance that Cors
had told him that if a contract was not signed then "-Mr. Cors was going to put a
picket around Richmond Homes."
According to Ralph Miller, Cors called him on or about May 15, 1957, at his
office in Elkhart, Indiana, relative to the position of Morgan Drive-Away regarding
the signing of the over-the-road contract which Cors had given Sam Wilson a few
days before. Miller's testimony is, in the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner
of extreme importance. For that reason a pertinent excerpt therefrom follows:
A. Yes, sir. That was on or about May 15, 1957, Mr. Cors apparently had
called me by telephone in the morning and I was not there. In the afternoon
between 2:00 and 3:00 o'clock when I returned I found the note on my desk
that a Mr. Cors was calling me, and I should contact a certain operator in
Richmond, Indiana.
So I contacted this operator-
Mr. FILLENWARTH: Excuse me. Has the date been given?
Mr. ROGERS: I believe it has.
Mr. RYAN: On or about the 15th.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I understand it that way.
Mr. FILLENWARTH: Excuse me.
A. (Continued.) I contacted this long-distance operator and she told me it
was Mr. Cors calling and to hold the line, and a man came on the line and
said , "Is this Mr. Miller?" I said yes, and he said, "This is Mr. Cors," that he
was the head of the Teamsters Local 691, Richmond, Indiana.
He asked me-or he told me that he had given this contract, the over-the-road
contract to Mr. Wilson a few days prior, and wanted to know if I had received it,
and I said yes, I had.
He said, well, he would like to have me sign it immediately and immediately
returned to him, and if I didn't he was going to put a picket line around Richmond
Homes.
So then I proceeded to tell Mr. Cors the same thing that I told Mr. Wilson, that
we had had an agreement signed with Mr. Hoffa, Joint Council 43 of the Team-
sters in Detroit, Michigan in 1951, and I thought that that might preclude us
from having to sign any agreement with Mr. Cors, and I asked him if he wouldn't
contact Detroit, Michigan, and find out about that agreement.
Mr. Cors told me that he wasn't interested at all in any agreement in Detroit,
Michigan, or in Mr. Hoffa or in anybody else, that he was running the union in
Richmond, Indiana, and he further stated that if I didn't sign this contract
and return it to him immediately that he was immediately going to put a picket
line around Richmond Homes.
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1049
I asked him again if he would at least have the kindness to investigate about
the agreement.
And that was the end of the conversation.
As indicated above Morgan Drive-Away opened an office in Centerville, Indiana, on
or about May 15, 1957, Mrs. Phyllis Hobbick was in charge of the office. Accord-
ing to the credible testimony of Mrs. Hobbick she placed a sign on the front porch,
which stated in substance that the offices of Morgan Drive-Away were located there.
She estimated that the sign was a "little larger" than the picket sign that was carried
by the pickets for the Respondent Local 691, on June 10, 11, and 12, 1957, at the
truck entrance to Richmond Homes. Since the picket sign was roughly 22" x 28",
the Trial Examiner finds that the sign in front of Morgan Drive-Away's office in
Centerville, Indiana, was 2' x 21/2' in size.
James Meek, one of the owner-operators under contract with Morgan Drive-Away
testified that he visited Local 691's offices on Thursday, June 6, 1957. He accom-
panied by one John Ledbetton, went to the Union's office to see William Jones, the
business agent, about the appointment of a steward for the owner-operators who were
in Richmond hauling for Morgan Drive-Away. As indicated above many of them
were members of Local 200 of the Teamsters Union in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
While they were in the office Jones showed them the "picket sign" and told them in
substance "that he wanted Morgan to contact him, and he said that if they didn't that
the picket would go up with the sign not later than Monday of the following week." 10
Meek further testified that in one of his many conversations with Jones that he
referred to Morgan Drive-Away as an "illegitimate" carrier. In explanation, Jones
said that they were an illegitimate carrier because they did not have a union contract.
Jones in the course of his testimony at the hearing herein admitted that he had a
conversation with Meek in his office on or about June 5, 1957, and that there was a
discussion about the picket sign . He further testified that Meek, after he had seen
the picket sign , asked him if he could use his telephone to call someone in "higher
authority" than Sam Wilson, at Morgan Drive-Away's offices in Elkhart, Indiana, and
warn them that "there was going to be a dispute." Jones told them to go ahead and
call whoever they wanted to, "-because if all this thing gets settled before it ever
gets into the fire any deeper it may save me a lot of trouble." Meek called Morgan
Drive-Away at Elkhart, Indiana, but was unable to get the party he wanted to talk to.
As predicted by Jones the picket line was established at the truck entrance to Rich-
mond Homes early on the morning of June 10, 1957. The pickets carried a sign
which is described below:
F- 22" ..
28%s"
See Appendix "B"
for text
-+ 8?i" <-
MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, Inc.
AND
RICHMOND HOMES, Inc.
ARE UNFAIR TO
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
UNION No. 691
14"
Two page mimeographed
"message" to the
"public"
10 Quotes from Meek's credible testimony.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both Cors and Jones actively engaged in the picketing.
The record shows that Richmond Homes was dependent at all times upon the
delivery of equipment and supplies by truck from various suppliers located in
Indiana, and other States of the United States. The pickets were placed at the
entrance used by the trucks in making their deliveries to the unloading dock at
Richmond Homes.
As indicated above the picket sign had attached to it two mimeographed sheets
which contained a "message" for the "education" of the public regarding the pur-
pose and the objectives of the Respondent Union by its picketing activities. Both
the language on the sign and the "message " in the mimeographed appendix thereto
were drafted by Edward J. Fillenwarth, attorney for the Respondents. The "message"
is attached hereto and marked "Appendix B." The Trial Examiner sees no necessity
of indulging in a long and detailed discussion of the contents of the message . Suffice
it to say that it sets forth the past history of Richmond Homes and its relationship
with certain trucking companies, and the history of their contractual relations with
Morgan Drive-Away. It then goes on and sets forth the Respondent 's contention
regarding the objectives of the picketing, which briefly stated were of an altruistic
nature and solely for the purpose of safeguarding the wage standards established
by Local 691 in the Richmond, Indiana, area. The latter paragraphs of the messages
are phrased in legalistic language, similar to the text of applicable sections of
the Act.
According to Cors approximately 120 copies of the "message" (Appendix B)
were mimeographed, for the purpose of distribution to the truckdrivers when they
stopped -at the picket line. * The record shows, however, that the picket did not
bother to pass out the "message" to at least some of the drivers who stopped at the
picket line, and that only 25 or so of those mimeographed were actually disposed of.
It is difficult to understand how the average truckdriver or the general public was
expected to lead the "message" as attached to the much larger picket sign , absent of
course the delivery of one of the copies to the driver by the picket. Even then, the
Trial Examiner is convinced, that the average citizen would have to have had the
services of the proverbial "Philadelphia Lawyer" to understand the legalistic language
therein which is still at this late date of grave concern to both the Board and the
courts. Suffice it to say that in the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner the
"message" attached to the picket sign was meaningless to the average citizen, and
that the important message was the legend on the sign itself, that concerned the
average truckdriver and other citizens who had occasion to see and read it.
That the picketing was effective is well illustrated by the testimony of three of
the drivers who were stopped at or near the entrance to Richmond Homes by the
picket line. A resume of their testimony follows:
Among the truckdrivers who refused to enter the premises of Richmond Homes
during the picketing was Larkin Dedmond, an over-the-road driver for Foster
Freight Lines, Kirkwood, Missouri. According to Dedmond's credible testimony he
arrived at Richmond Homes with a truck load of supplies around 5 or 5:30 a. in.,
on one of the days the pickets were on the job at the truck entrance. After parking
his truck somewhere near the entrance he went to sleep. About an hour or so later
he was awakened by Kircher, Richmond Homes plant superintendent who advised
him that there was ". . a strike against Morgan Drive-Away . . . and he said
they were not involved and they didn't want to get involved." After receiving this
information from Kircher, Dedmond called the Central Dispatch office in Indianapo-
lis, Indiana, and suggested that he drive on over to Dayton, Ohio, a short distance
from Richmond, and park the trailer there until things got settled at Richmond
Homes. By so doing it would save loading and unloading the trailer twice. He'
suggestion was approved and later in the day he drove on over to Dayton and parked
the trailer. After he completed his call to Indianapolis, he returned to his truck.
Shortly thereafter William Jones, business agent for Local 691, one of the Respond-
ents herein , came to him and asked if he had seen the pickets . He told him that he
had not. Jones then asked him if he had his union book. He told him that he did
and at the same time asked Jones to produce his union credentials, which he did.
Jones then asked him if he had unloaded his truck. He told him that he had not
and of his intentions to drive on over to Dayton and drop the trailer. At no time did
Jones offer Dedmond a copy of the mimeographed appendix to the picket sign which
has been described and discussed above.
Billy Henson, a truckdriver for the Aetna Plywood & Veneer Company of
Indianapolis, Indiana, testified that sometime around June 10 or 12, 1957, he drove
up to the truck entrance to Richmond Homes and saw the picket with the sign
described above on his shoulder. He stopped his truck, which was loaded with ply-
wood for delivery to Richmond Homes, and talked to the picket . He could not
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD- OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1051
recall just what was said in his conversation with the picket but that reference was
made to "some truckdriver on strike ." After talking to the picket he called his
supervisor in Indianapolis , and told them about the picketing . His supervisor, one
Kenny Stackhouse , ordered him to bring the load back to Indianapolis , which he did.
Henson, further testified that at no time during his conversation with the picket
was he "offered anything" which the Trial Examiner interprets to mean that the
picket did not offer him a copy of the mimeographed appendix to the picket sign.
Donald Hileman, a truckdriver for I . R. C. & D. (which has been referred to
several times herein ) and a member of Local 691 , testified that he drove up to the
truck entrance to Richmond Homes, with a truck load of materials for delivery
during the second week of June 1957 . As he approached the entrance he saw the
picket with his sign . He stopped his truck and asked the picket what was wrong.
The picket told him to call the hall , which he did , but the line was busy . He then
called his "boss ," "Erv" Julien, and told him about - the picketing . Julien told him to
"hold on ," and as the Trial Examiner interprets the record called the union hall over
another line . After completing the call to the Union , Julien instructed Hileman to
bring his load back to the I . R. C. & D. terminal , which he did . The picket did not
offer him a copy of the mimeographed appendix attached to the picket sign.
Ervin Julien , dispatcher for I . R. C. & D., testified that sometime during the picket-
ing at Richmond Homes he asked Jones , business agent of Local 691, if I. R. C. & D.
trucks could go through the picket line and make deliveries to Richmond Homes, and
that Jones in effect denied his request and told him in substance that "... if he lets
one in he would have to leave them all in."
Jones denied Julien's testimony . The Trial Examiner does not credit his denial
for the following reasons: His testimony , like that of all witnesses where credibility
is an issue must be viewed in the light of the record considered as a whole. This
the Trial Examiner has done . He has considered the testimony of Meek , Phyllis
Hobbick, Julien , and Glazer," all of whom testified at the hearing regarding inci-
dents involving Jones, in the light of their demeanor while testifying , and the result-
ing impression they left with him as the trier of the facts. As a result , thereof the
Trial Examiner has concluded that Jones was a thoroughly unreliable witness and
that little or no credence can be given his denials regarding their testimony. In the
circumstances the Trial Examiner credits Juhen 's testimony of the above incidents
and discredits Jones' denial thereof.
On or about June 11, 1957, while Richmond Homes was being picketed by Local
691, Jones dropped into Brinker's Drive-In restaurant for a cup of coffee. He sat
down at the counter . At a table nearby were the following James Meek, John
Hobbick, Phyllis Hobbick and one Schmidt an "owner -operator" for Morgan Drive-
Away. They saw Jones come in and invited him over to their table . The conversa-
tion that ensued naturally concerned the picketing . What transpired is in the
considered opinion of the Trial Examiner best told in the testimony of James Meek
which is fully credited by the Trial Examiner:
Q. All right . Now, will you state what that conversation was?
A. Mr. Jones came in while we were sitting there at the table and we called
him over and he sat down , and we asked him if we were going back to work,
or what was taking place , and he said he didn 't know if we were going back
to work, he didn 't know what was taking place because Morgan officials hadn't
contacted him, and that we more likely would not go back to work until Morgan
officials had contacted him.
Q. Do you recall whether or not, the subject of contract came up at that time?
A. I can 't tell you the exact words that he said at that time, but he said in
so many words that we couldn't go back to work until a contract had been signed.
TRIAL. EXAMINER : In other words, that was the gist of the conversation?
The WITNESS: Right.
Meek 's testimony was fully corrobrated by the credible testimony of Phyllis Hob-
bick , who in the course of her testimony stated that Jones told those assembled
that "... before they should return to work they would have to have a contract
with Local 691."
Jones admitted that he sat at the table in Brinkers with the above group, but
denied that he said "anything about any contract" during the course of his conversa-
tion with those present . For reasons set forth above the Trial Examiner discredits
Jones' testimony and credits that of Mrs . Phyllis Hobbick and James Meek , and finds
that he made the statements attributed to him by them in their testimony at the
hearing herein.
u See infra.
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the picketing started Charles Travers, president of Richmond Homes, con-
tacted Cors in an effort to settle the difficulties between Local 691 and Morgan
Drive-Away. He met with Cors in the Union's offices on or about June 11, 1957.
He was accompanied by Mr. Ramsey, sales manager of Richmond Homes, and Sam
Wilson, who was in charge of Morgan Drive-Away's operations in the Richmond
area. What transpired at this meeting is in the opinion of the Trial Examiner like-
wise best told in Travers' testimony. Consequently, pertinent excerpts therefrom
follow:
Q. Will you state for the record whether or not you had any conversations
with Alfred W. Cors following the commencement of the picketing concerning
the relationships of Morgan Drive Away and Local Union Number 691?
Mr, FILLENWARTH: Excuse me. Is that after the picketing?
Mr. ROGERS: Yes, after the commencement of the picketing. I am sorry,
after the commencement of the picketing.
A. I believe that I-Let's see, we had a meeting at which I-The main
purpose was to get Mr. Cors and Morgan Drive Away together to try to settle
their difficulties.
Q. (By Mr. Rogers.) Will you state whether you had more than one such
meeting or conversation with Mr. Cors?
A. I believe we had two.
Q. Can you state for the record whether or not in either of these conversa-
tions with Mr. Cors the subject of payment of dues came up?
A. Yes. I asked Mr. Cors if he-what the purpose of the strike was,
whether they were using nonunion drivers, and I don't believe I got an answer.
And I-
Mr. FILLENWARTH: I didn't get your answer.
The WITNESS: I don't think Mr. Cors answered me directly on that.
A. [Continued.] And I said, "Well, do you want these drivers to enter the
local union?" and he said, "That's not a problem involved. If they work
in this territory they will sign in anyway."
TRIAL EXAMINER: I didn't get the answer. You will have to speak up.
The WITNESS: He said that was not a problem involved, if out-of-the-state
or foreign union members came to work in the Richmond territory they would
have to sign in with the local union, become a member of it.
Q. (By Mr. Rodgers.) Do you recall at the present time what date that
conversation took place, or approximately the date?
A. No. I don't know if it was before or after picketing. I couldn't be posi-
tive.
Q. Where did that conversation take place?
A. In Mr. Cors' office.
Q. Was anyone else present?
A. At the time of that conversation I don't remember who was present.
At one time I was there with Mr. Cors and Mr. Wilson, and my sales manager,
Mr. Ramsey, but at what time that conversation occurred I couldn't say.
TRIAL EXAMINER: But is was after the picketing started?
The WITNESS: I am not sure. There was a confused period there where we
were calling back and forth, and whether or not it was before the pickets went on
or afterwards I could not swear.
Sam Wilson's account of what transpired at the meeting with Cors and Jones on
June 11, 1957, was to the effect that Travers asked Cors what could be done about
removing the pickets, and that Cors told him that he "... had not had any tele-
phone calls or any orders to remove it."
Travers' testimony regarding Cors' statement concerning the membership of
Morgan Drive-Away's owner-operators in Local 691 is somewhat confusing. How-
ever, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that Cors did make the statements
attributed to him by Travers, but that they were actually made at their first meeting
in Cors' office in May 1957, which has been discussed above.
As indicated above, Morgan Drive-Away maintained an office in a residence located
at 401 Main Street, Centerville, Indiana, 5 miles west of Richmond, Indiana, on Route
40. Mrs. Phyllis Hobbick was in charge of the office, and she and her husband lived
there. She was the dispatcher. It was her job to assign the shipments from Rich-
mond Homes to the owner-operators, and to check their freight bills, etc., when they
returned from a trip. Consequently, each owner-operator was required to see her at
least twice on every trip from Richmond Homes, (1) to get his assignment, and (2) to
turn in his bills, etc., when he returned to Richmond.
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1053
The record shows that officials of Richmond Homes kept in touch with Mrs. Hob-
bick at all times material herein, either by telephone or during her trips to their
offices.
Cors admitted that he knew that Morgan Drive-Away maintained an office in
Centerville, Indiana, at the time Local 691 picketed the truck entrance to Richmond
Homes on June 10, 11 and 12, 1957; and that Local 691 did not at any time picket
Morgan Drive-Away's offices in Centerville, Indiana.
On or about June 12, 1957, the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Indiana, issued a
temporary restraining order against Local 691, at the request of Richmond Homes.
As a result Local 691 removed its pickets. The restraining order was lifted by the
Circuit Court on or about June 24, 1957.
In the interim, representatives of Richmond Homes, Morgan Drive-Away, and
the Respondents met at the law offices of Thompson, O'Neil & Smith, Indianapolis,
Indiana, on June 21, 1957. The record contains a host of testimony of what tran-
spired at the meeting. As the Trial Examiner sees it, the purpose of the meet-
ing was to get the parties together and settle their difficulties. In the circumstances
the Trial Examiner feels that what was said back and forth by representatives of
the parties was privileged, on the theory that the "Law loves a compromise," and
that this ageless maxim is applicable here. Moreover, the Trial Examiner is like-
wise convinced that coming as it did after the material incidents involved herein
had occurred that it would serve no useful purpose to burden this already too lengthy
a report with further comment, discussion, and findings thereon. Suffice it to say,
that insofar as he is concerned the material facts pertinent to the issues herein have
been set forth and disposed of above, except as to one or two pertinent matters
which will be disposed of below.
One of the witnesses called by the General Counsel in support of his case-in-chief
was Jonas Glazer. He testified regarding a conversation he had with William Jones,
business agent for Local 691, on or about July 23, 1957. The record shows that
Glazer, who is a scrap dealer in Richmond, Indiana, had entered into a consent-
election agreement, under Board supervision, with Local 691. Jones represented
the Union in the negotiations, and in fact had "organized" Glazer's employees.
Glazer's testimony regarding his conversation with Jones is most interesting and
the Trial Examiner feels that it should be inserted herein. Consequently, a pertinent
excerpt therefrom follows:
Q. Now, directing your attention to July 23, 1957, will you state whether or
not you, on that date, had occasion to hear William Jones make any reference
to the picketing at Richmond Homes, Inc.?
TRIAL EXAMINER: You say July 23d?
Mr. ROGERS: July 23d; yes, sir.
A. Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Rogers.) Where were you at the time you heard that reference
made?
A. I was in the Leland Hotel.
Q. Do you recall the time of day?
A. I believe it was-No, I am not sure of the time.
Q. Do you recall whether or not anyone else was, present?
A. Yes. There was Mr. Bruce Gillis, who was with the National Labor
Relations Board.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I can't hear you. You will have to speak up, please.
The WITNESS: Mr. Bruce Gillis, with the National Labor Relationship Board.
Q. (By Mr. Rogers.) Will you state for the record, if you will what
Mr. William Jones said with respect to that subject at that time?
A. Mr. Jones was explaining to me the advantages of belonging to the
union and the power of the union, and he brought out the fact about how
they were picketing in front of the Richmond Homes and how all the truck
drivers, as soon as they saw that the local was picketing them, that they
automatically would not enter or go in or out of the Richmond Homes area
without even bothering to read the rest of the sign or the small print, or
anything of that nature, and that when the out-of-town trucking concerns saw
that they couldn't deal here in town without negotiating with Mr. Jones, why
then Bill Jones said at that time it was too late because he always protects
the local membership, such as I. R. C. & D. or Commercial Freight.
He brought out the fact it wasn 't Richmond Homes they were picketing, it
was the out-of-town trucking concerns that he was concerned with.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Will you state whether or not that is the extent of your recollection of
that conversation?
A. I believe it is.
Q. Will you state whether or not you recall anything said at that time with
respect to I. R. C. & D. and Commercial Freight handling the business?
A. Well, it was just a statement made that he would like to see the local
businesses handle the business here and he would like to see them get it.
Jones admitted that he met with Glazer and Bruce Gillis, a field examiner for
the Board , and that the picketing at Richmond Homes was discussed , but denied
that he said anything about the "power of the Union " and the other pertinent
statements attributed to him by Glazer.
The Trial Examiner credits Glazer's account of his conversation with Jones, and
discredits Jones' denials . The Trial Examiner desires to point out that Glazer
appeared at the hearing herein under subpena from the General Counsel. More-
over, he obviously had no interest one way or the other in the outcome of the
issues herein . He was in business for himself and there is absolutely no evidence
in the record that he was in a position that required him to "curry favor" from any
of the parties involved in this proceeding . Again he impressed the Trial Examiner
as an honest and forthright witness. Jones, as pointed out above, did not. In the
circumstances the Trial Examiner credits Glazer 's account of what was said in his
conversation with Jones , and discredits Jones' denial there.
In the main the Respondents ' position is that the sole purpose of the picketing of
Richmond Homes was to "educate" and inform the public that Morgan Drive-Away
was paying its owner-operators less than the rate of pay set forth in its "over-the-
road" contract . It also took the position that: (1) it was not interested in having
Morgan Drive-Away's owner-operators join Local 691 ; (2) it was not interested in
having Morgan Drive-Away sign its "Over-the-road" contract or any other contract;
(3) it had never at any time demanded that Morgan Drive -Away sign its "over-the-
road" contract ; that ( 4) it had neither solicitated nor demanded either individually
or collectively that Morgan Drive-Away's owner-operators join Local 691; (5) and
that one of the principal purposes of its picketing the truck entrance to Richmond
Homes was to compel Morgan Drive-Away to pay its owner-operators the same as
the rate called for in its "over-the-road" contract , and thus not lower the wage
standards it had established in the Richmond , Indiana, area.
In support of its position the Respondent offered the testimony of Cors, Jones,
and its counsel , Edward J . Fillenwarth . A discussion of their testimony follows.
In the considered opinion of the Trial Examiner the Respondents' position is well
stated in an excerpt from Cors ' testimony , which follows:
Q. Now I believe you previously testified that you represented none of
Richmond Homes' employees , that you had no contract covering any of their
employees , and you sought none of Richmond Homes' employees.
Will you tell us what your dispute with Richmond Homes was , if any, at the
time you put the picket sign up?
A. Yes, very definitely, Mr. Rogers . The primary dispute was with
Richmond Homes, Inc. because they caused the changing of the method of
their delivery of their prefabricated homes, which in turn were hauled by
members belonging to Teamsters Local 691. Richmond Homes, Inc. very
definitely was a primary factor in this dispute.
Q. Well, your dispute then with Richmond Homes was that they changed
their method of operation from hauling with I. R. C. & D. equipment and
drivers, and started hauling with Morgan Drive Away equipment and drivers;
is that right?
A. Primarily, yes, sir.
Q. What was your dispute with Morgan Drive Away?
A. The dispute with Morgan Drive Away was the very fact that we could
not be enlightened as to the monetary benefits that they were paying in con-
junction with this same type of operation that had been in effect at Rich and
Homes, Inc.
Q. In other words, your dispute with Morgan Drive Away was that you ere
afraid they might be paying less money than I . R. C. & D. had been paying to
members of Local 691; is that correct?
A. I was afraid they might be?
Q. Yes.
A. I was very much-I will state it this way, Mr. Rogers: I was very much
concerned of how they was paying and how much , as to the standards we had
set in this area due to negotiations.
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1055
Q. Well, you wanted to be sure that they were paying to members of
Local 691?
A. I was attempting to ascertain the amount as to the standards set in
this area.
•Fillenwarth testified along the same vein. As indicated above he drafted the
appendix attached to the picket sign .'2 As the Trial Examiner interprets his testi-
mony it is for the most part a reiteration of the language used therein.
The record clearly shows that Richmond Homes severed its relations with Morgan
-Drive-Away sometime around the middle of July 1957. Pertinent correspondence
in this regard follows below.
On July 7, 1957, Richmond Homes, vice president of manufacturing, Louis
Dancho, wrote the following letter to Mrs. Phyllis Hobbick:
HOMES, Inc. Prefabricators of QUALITY Homes
RICHMOND, INDIANA
Phone 8-1636
JULY,17, 1957.
MRS. PHYLLIS HOBBICK: Would you please remove all Morgan trailers from
the rear of the Richmond Homes plant as they are tying up much needed space.
Very truly yours,
LD/lre
RICHMOND HOMES, INC.,
Louis DANCHO,
Vice President of Manufacturing.
Morgan Drive-Away by Jack H . Hobson , one of its vice presidents , answered the
above letter . It is likewise set forth below:
MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC.
500 Equity Building
ELKHART, INDIANA
Mr. Louis DANCHO,
Vice-President of Mfg.,
Richmond Homes, Inc.
Richmond, Indiana.
JULY 23, 1957.
DEAR MR. DANCHO: In compliance with the request contained in your letter
of July 17th, 1957 addressed to our Mrs. Phyllis Hobbick of our Richmond,
Indiana office in connection with the withdrawing of our trailers from the
premises of Richmond Homes, Inc., we know that you will understand that this
action on our part is in compliance with your request and without any waiver,
or prejudice to, our rights in the matter. -
We will continue, as we have in the past, to stand ready to serve the Richmond
Homes account.
Very truly yours,
JHH:pe
MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC.,
JACK H. HossoN, Vice-President.
On July 26, 1957, Morgan Drive-Away, by Ralph H. Miller, its executive vice
president, filed the charges herein which are predicate for the complaint herein,
Case No. 35-CC-45.
Conclusion
Though the complaint as amended has been discussed above in that section of
this Report styled "The Statement of the Case," the Trial Examiner feels that it
would be well to reiterate its "high spots," so to speak, in order that all concerned
may have before them in perusing this particular section of the Report.
The complaint as amended at the hearing herein alleges that Local 691, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and its agents, Alfred
W. Cors and William Jones, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, by inducing
and encouraging employees of Richmond Homes, Inc., Foster Freight Lines, Inc.,
Aetna Plywood Corporation, and I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight Lines, Inc., to engage
32 See Appendix B.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, process,
transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials or commodities,
and to perform services, for the objects of:
(a) Forcing Foster Freight Lines, Inc., Aetna Plywood Corporation and
I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc., to cease doing business with Richmond Homes.
(b) Forcing Richmond Homes, Inc., to cease doing business with Morgan Drive-
Away, Inc.
(c) Forcing or requiring self-employed persons to join Local 691.
The Trial Examiner has found above that Respondent Local 691, through and
by its agents, Respondents Cors and Jones, picketed the truck entrances to Rich-
mond Homes on June 10, 11 , and 12, 1957. From all of the foregoing the Trial
Examiner is convinced and finds that the picketing induced and encouraged the
employees of Richmond Homes' suppliers to refuse to cross the picket line and make
deliveries to Richmond Homes. The record shows that Richmond Homes ordinarily
purchased its supplies in carload lots, but at all times was dependent on deliveries
by truck transport of urgently needed supplies , particularly during its "busy season,"
which by the very nature of its finished products was during the time that the
Respondents chose to picket its premises , at the truck entrance . To be sure the
record shows that only 3 truckdrivers for 3 of Richmond Homes' suppliers actually
refused to cross the picket line. Even so, it makes no difference whether the num-
ber induced and encouraged by the Respondents ' conduct was 3 or 300 insofar as
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act is concerned, and the Trial Examiner so finds.
Nor does the fact that the picket sign had attached to it a mimeographed statement
regarding the objectives of the Respondents in picketing Richmond Homes' premises,
for the simple reason that it was an ineffective gesture on the part of the Respond-
ents, for reasons set forth above. How the Respondents expected the average per-
son to pay any attention to the typing on the mimeographed statement in letters 2116"
high in the light of the gaudily painted legend on the picket sign in letters approxi-
mately 2" high is beyond comprehension . In the circumstances the Trial Examiner
is convinced and finds that the Respondents well knew that it was the legend on
the picket sign itself that would impress the drivers for Richmond Homes' sup-
pliers and cause them to refuse to make deliveries to Richmond Homes as long
as the pickets were on duty at the truck entrance.
As the Trial Examiner sees it the purpose of the picketing by the Respondents
was to cause Richmond Homes' suppliers to cease doing business with Richmond
Homes and thus cause Richmond Homes to cease doing business with Morgan
Drive-Away, because Morgan Drive-Away had failed and, refused to sign Local
691's over-the-road contract, and he so finds.
The record clearly shows that the Respondents Cors and Jones were well aware
that Morgan Drive-Away had an office in Centerville, Indiana, only 5 miles west
of Richmond, and on a main highway, Route 40; and that they likewise were well
aware of the fact that at all times material herein that it was the custom and prac-
tice of Morgan Drive-Away's owner-operators to park their equipment including
the trailers at Brinker's Drive-In Restaurant and Kings Transfer Company in Rich-
mond. Yet in spite of this fact the Respondents chose to picket only the truck
entrance to Richmond Homes, and ignored Morgan Drive-Away's offices in Center-
ville and the two spots in Richmond mentioned above. Moreover the record clearly
shows that the Respondents had no labor dispute with Richmond Homes, and that
Morgan Drive-Away had no employees at or on its premises. All that Morgan
Drive-Away had any connection with that were located on Richmond Homes'
premises during the picketing were inanimate objects, namely 10 or 12 empty
trailers. Which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered as "employees"
of Morgan Drive-Away within the meaning of the Act. As the Trial Examiner sees
it the Respondents placed its pickets at the truck entrance to Richmond Homes be-
cause it was the only "spot" so to speak, where transport in and out of its plant
could and would be successfully interfered with.
From what the Trial Examiner gleans from the record, particularly from Cors'
testimony, the Respondents were incensed at the effrontery of Richmond Homes
to enter into contractual relations with Morgan Drive-Away without first discussing
its intentions to do so with Local 691. Cors in his testimony stated in substance
that Local 691 definitely had a "dispute" with Richmond Homes, primarily because
it had had contractual relations with I. R. C. & D. and Whitehouse Trucking Com-
pany both of whom had signed Local 691's "over-the-road" contract before it en-
tered into its contract with Morgan Drive-Away.
From all of the above the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that the Re-
spondents' conduct described above was clearly violative of the Act. In his con-
sidered opinion picketing of an employer's premises is permissive and a proper
s
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1057
exercise of free speech only when its objectives are to inform or "educate"' the
public, regarding the existence of a labor dispute between an employer and his
employees. But where as here the only objective the Respondents had was to
"educate" the employees of Richmond Homes' suppliers to cease delivering ma-
terials and supplies to Richmond Homes and thus force Richmond Homes to cease
doing business with Morgan Drive-Away, then such conduct becomes violative of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
The Respondents' labor dispute was with Morgan Drive-Away because it had
failed to sign its "over-the-road" contract. Hence it is clear that Morgan Drive-
Away was the primary employer, and Richmond Homes, and its suppliers the sec-
ondary employers, and the Trial Examiner so finds.
In the circumstances found and described above the Trial Examiner finds that
the Respondents by picketing the truck entrance to Richmond Homes, clearly vio-
lated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.i3
The complaint as amended at the hearing herein also alleges that a further objec-
tive of the Respondents was to force or require self-employed persons to join Local
691. The record clearly shows that Morgan Drive-Away utilized the services of the
owners of tractors to haul its trailers under the terms of a services of the owners of
tractors to haul its trailers under the terms of a lease agreement. The record also
shows that the Respondents were well aware of the arrangement at all times material
herein. The uncontradicted, undenied, and uncontested evidence both oral and
documentary adduced at the hearing herein by both the General Counsel and the
Respondents so clearly supports the General Counsel's contention that the Trial
Examiner sees no necessity of extensive rationale, herein, in support of his reason-
ing.14 Suffice it to say that the Respondents' own evidence standing alone is sufficient
to justify a finding in support of the allegation. The Trial Examiner has reference to
the following: (1) Cors' telegram of May 15, 1957, to Local 200 of the Teamsters'
Union in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, regarding the transfer of the membership of certain
of Morgan Drive-Away owner-operators to Local 691; and (2) the testimony of
Edward J. Fillenwarth, its counsel, at the hearing herein. Further discussion fol-
lows below.
While it is true that the record shows that several of the owner-operators were
members of other locals of the Teamsters' Union, particularly Local 200, in Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, it does not follow that by so doing they put themselves beyond
the pale of the Act insofar as Local 691 is concerned. Surely as private citizens they
at least had the right of choice in this regard. Since Local 691 is. a labor organiza-
tion they had the right under the Act even if they were "employees" to either join a
labor organization or to refrain from doing so, except as ". . . authorized" in Section
8 (a) (3)-thereof.
In the circumstances the Trial Examiner further finds that by the conduct found
and described above that as a further unlawful objective of the Respondents was to
force the owner-operators hauling Morgan Drive-Away Trailers with their personally
owned tractors to join Local 691 was likewise violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the employers 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 commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents engaged in activities violative of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
Is See Southern Service Company, Ltd, 118 NLRB 1435, and cases cited therein. See
also, Associated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc., 118 NLRB 1251, and also cases
cited therein.
14 See Appendix B, the General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 10, and/or the Respondents'
Exhibit No. 6. -
487926-59-vol. 121-68
a
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Those of the employers whose businesses are described in section I of the Report
and who are therein referred to as Morgan Drive-Away, Inc., and Richmond Homes,
Inc., are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Local 691, 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 inducing and encouraging employees of Richmond Homes, Inc., Foster
Freight Lines, Inc., Aetna Plywood Corporation, I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc.,
and other employers whose names are unknown, to engage in strikes or concerted
refusals in the course of their employment to use, process, transport, or otherwise
handle, work on goods, articles, or commodities, and to perform services, for the pur-
poses or object of: (a) forcing Foster Freight Lines, Inc., Aetna Plywood Corpora-
tion, I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc., and other employers and persons whose names
are unknown to cease doing business with Richmond Homes, Inc.; (b) forcing Rich-
mond Homes, Inc., to cease doing business with Morgan Drive-Away, Inc.; and (c)
forcing or requiring an employer or self-employed person or persons to join Local
691. In view of all of the foregoing, the Trial Examiner finds that the Respondent
Local 691, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
'Helpers of America, acting through Respondents Alfred W. Cors and William H.
Jones, its agents, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(b) (4) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
LEASE
This INDENTURE made, entered into, and executed this 16th day of November
1956 by and between Morgan Drive Away, Inc., a corporation, 'party of the first
part, hereinafter called the corporation and Jerome Rautmann second party herein-
after called lessor.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, said corporation is engaged in the business of transportation in Intra
and Interstate Commerce as a common carrier by motor vehicle of house trailers,
portable houses and other special commodities operating as such over the highways
of the United States and the District of Columbia under and by virtue of authority
granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, State of Indiana, and the State
of Michigan, And
WHEREAS, said lessor owns certain motor vehicles hereinafter described, which
he desires to lease to said corporation to be used in the common carrier service of
said corporation, and is willing to operate same or if permission is granted by an
officer of the corporation to provide drivers of personnel for such vehicle or vehicles,
as employees of lessor, it is
NOW THEREFORE, hereby mutually understood, agreed and promised by and
between the parties hereto, each in consideration of the convenants and agreements
to the other, as herein set forth, that the lessor does hereby lease to said corporation
for use by it in the transportation referred to above, the following described motor
vehicles:
Type of Year
Unit No. Vehicle Length Make Built
1001 Tract Chev. 1954
Year of
Motor No Serial No. License No. License
0212818F54N V54JO0197 YA292 1956-7
State of Registration-Wisconsin
Insured under Policy --------------- Insurance Company --------------------
The conditions, terms and obligations of the lease agreement, as it affects and
binds the respective parties hereto, are as follows:
LOCAL 691, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1059
THE CORPORATION AGREES:
1. To pay to the lessor as purchased transportation in accordance with Interstate
Commerce Commission Rules and Regulations of said vehicle or vehicles bound by
this agreement, as determined by Pay Schedules on reverse side . Such mileage to
be computed and determined in accordance with the method of determining mileage
as provided in the Household Goods Carriers' Mileage Guide No. 5, and any amend-
ments thereto. This mileage being the same as the transportation charges to the
shipper.
THE LESSOR AGREES:
1. To equip such vehicle or vehicles as may be required by the rules and regula-
tions of the Interstate Commerce Commission or State Regulatory Bodies and to
keep and maintain all vehicles under this lease in good condition at all times and at
his own expense; to furnish all supplies including fuel, oils and other grease and lubri-
cation, tires and other equipment; also to carry his own collision insurance on the
leased vehicle, and to assume any damages sustained to the leased vehicle.
2. To operate such vehicle upon complying with physical and other requirements
of the Interstate Commerce Commission and State Regulatory Bodies or if permission
is granted by an officer of the corporation to provide and furnish competent drivers
for same who meet physical and other requirements of the Interstate Commerce
Commission and State Regulatory Bodies as employees of the lessor. The wages
or compensation of said drivers to be provided and paid by the lessor.
3. To comply with all applicable State requirements with reference to employers
liability, workmen's compensation and workmen's insurance and when required by
the Corporation shall furnish proof of such compliance, and shall indemnify; pro-
tect and hold harmless the Corporation from and against any and all loss, liability,
damage , claims, demands, costs, and expenses of whatsoever nature and due to the
existence of such enactment or resulting from any claim or subrogation provided in
such enactment or otherwise.
4. To collect in full any manufacturer 's C. O. D ., due from the consignee , unless
instructed otherwise by the manufacturer or the corporation and to collect in full
the corporation's freight charges billed against the consignee unless otherwise in-
structed by the corporation. In the event that full collections are not made in either
case listed, no compensation shall be due the operator by the corporation until 'the
balance of the manufacturer's C. O. D. charges or the corporation freight charges
are collected.
5. (a) To be liable for the first $100.00 of any claims or losses arising from
cargo, public liability or property damages sustained or damage or loss to the cor-
poration's equipment, such as, semi, tarpaulins, etc. and to pay for such claims or
losses to the corporation.
6. That all deliveries assigned and started will be completed with an acceptance
in writing by the consignee before any compensation is due the lessor, unless non-
acceptance by the consignee is not the fault of the lessor in any way.
7. To furnish the corporation a $100.00 deposit in cash, to be retained by the
corporation as long as the lease remains valid. This money will be returned on sur-
render of all properties or monies owned or due the corporation provided 10,000
miles have been driven for the corporation. If less than 10,000 miles are driven
$25.00 will be retained for expenses incidental to the preparation of initial adminis-
trative expenses.
7A. A penalty of $50.00 will be assessed in the event of a late delivery, if such
tardiness can be avoided. The penalty will still apply (even if tardiness is unavoid-
able) if driver doesn't notify IMMEDIATELY either the contractor, manufacturer,
or his terminal in that order.
8. To be liable for the expense of the Utility Plate, card, tag or sticker in the state
in which he is domiciled. Also liable for any expense or difficulties incurred in a
state which has no reciprocity with the state in which he is licensed and domiciled.
8A. In the event he must take a leave of absence he must receive such leave from
the Elkhart Office Absence without leave for more than 15 days from date of last
delivery constitutes breach of contract and forfeiture of deposit.
9. To pay all fines and penalties, if any, which are assessed against the lessor,
or his driver, by Federal authorities or any State, city or municipal authorities for
a violation or infraction of any traffic regulation or any other offenses.
10. That the driver of said vehicle furnished by the lessor shall be and at all
times remain the employee of the lessor, and it is further expressly agreed that the
wages of such driver shall be a matter of concern between the operator and the
driver In no event shall either such driver or lessor be considered employees of
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the corporation. Lessor also agreed that his signature on this lease is the corpora-
tion's authority to both advance money and (or) make check for purchased trans-
portation in the name of the driver.
The Corporation acknowledges its responsibilities to the general public as required
by the rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission irrespective of
any agreement between the corporation and lessor contained herein.
It further is expressly agreed that the relationship which shall exist between the
corporation and lessor upon execution of this instrument, shall be that of purchaser
and seller of transportation.
This lease to continue in force and effect until November (1st) following initial
date of lease earlier terminated by mutual agreement of the parties or at any time
by either party giving the other party ten (10) days' written notice, said notice
shall be valid and binding if mailed by'the one party to the other to the last known
address.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto, each hereby, certifying that he has
read and that he understands this lease agreement and that he desires to be bound
thereby in each and all of its provisions, hereby voluntarily and of his own free will
and accord affixes his signature this 16th day of November 1956.
(Signed) JEROME RAUTMANN. MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC.,
(Lessor) (Signed) Sam Wilson, Corporation.
1025 Pershing Ave.
(Street Address)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
(City and State)
GLencourt 8-2660
(Phone)
County of Elkhart J ss:
State of Indiana
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of November, 1956. My
Commission expires Jan. 13, 1957.
(Helen Reynolds) (Signed) HELEN REYNOLDS,
Notary Public.
The lessor hereby acknowledges receipt of a duly executed copy of this lease.
Date ____________________ (Signed) JEROME RAUTMANN,
Lessor.
APPENDIX B
MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC.
and
RICHMOND HOMES, INC.
ARE UNFAIR TO
TEAMSTER LOCAL UNION NO. 691
Richmond Homes, Inc., for some time prior to May 6, 1957, caused its manufac-
tured materials for homes and unassembled homes to be hauled by freight companies,
some of whose employees were members of Teamster Local Union No. 691, and
which employees were paid for the hauling of such materials and unassembled
homes, pursuant to the monetary provisions and monetary benefits of a certain
collective bargaining agreement commonly referred to as the "Central States Area
Over-The-Road Motor Freight Agreement," which became effective February 1,
1955, and terminates on January 31, 1961.
Commencing with on or about May 6, 1957, Richmond Homes, Inc. changed its
past practice as to the delivery and transportation of its manufactured materials for
homes and unassembled homes, in that it stopped using the regular freight com-
panies to haul such, but instead made some arrangement with Morgan Drive Away,
Inc. to haul or cause to be hauled the manufactured materials for homes and
unassembled homes as produced by Richmond Homes, Inc., that the truck drivers
and/or persons, who drive the tractors that haul the trailers containing the manu-
factured materials for homes and unassembled homes as produced by Richmond
Homes, Inc., are not paid the same monetary benefits, or monetary benefits equal
to or similar to those monetary benefits being paid to the drivers of the freight
company trucks who previously hauled said manufactured materials for homes and
unassembled homes as produced by Richmond Homes, Inc., for the truck drivers
of said freight companies are being paid the monetary benefits as contained in the
above mentioned "Central States Area Over-The-Road Motor Freight Agreement."
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 1061
Teamster Local Union No. 691 is interested in attempting to maintain in
Richmond, Indiana, and in the Richmond area, and in the area adjacent thereto,
for its members, those monetary benefits negotiated for them and as specifically
contained in the above mentioned "Central States Area Over-The-Road Motor
Freight Agreement."
Teamster Local Union No. 691 and some of its members are picketing Richmond
Homes, Inc. and Morgan Drive Away, Inc. for the sole and only purpose of
acquainting the public with, and advertising to the public, the above facts, and this
picketing is not being conducted for any other purpose; in order that there will be
no misunderstanding, this picketing is not for the purpose of causing, inducing, per-
suading, or coercing any one to join Teamster Local Union No. 691 or any other
union; and, this picketing is not for the purpose of causing, inducing, persuading,
or coercing Richmond Homes, Inc., or Morgan Drive Away, Inc., or any other em-
ployer or any one else for that matter, to force, induce, or coerce their employees,
their agents, or even themselves into Teamster Local Union No. 691 or any other
union , and, this picketing is not for the purpose of causing, inducing, forcing, or
coercing Richmond Homes, Inc. or Morgan Drive Away, Inc., or any one else for
that matter to enter into any collective bargaining agreement, union security clause
or otherwise, with Teamster Local Union No. 691 or any other union, nor to bargain
with Local 691 or any other union.
This picketing is not for the purpose of, nor intended in any way, to cause, induce,
persuade , coerce, encourage , or influence any employee of Richmond Homes, Inc.
or Morgan Drive Away, Inc. or any one connected with them in any way, to leave
their employment with said companies, or to engage in any strike or concerted
refusal in the course of their employment, or to refuse to do anything which they
may be obligated to do or should do in their relationship as employees, as independ-
ent contractors, or otherwise.
As stated above, this picketing at this time is for the sole and express and only
purpose of acquainting the public with, and of advertising to the public, the facts
above mentioned.
TEAMSTER LOCAL UNION NO. 691
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 90,
AFL-CIO, and its agents Bernard Gilbride and Philip E. Reilly
and The Southern New England Telephone Company. Case
No. 1-CD-57. September 26, 1958
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act which pro-
vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of
Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter-
mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have
arisen...."
On May 23, 1958, The Southern New England Telephone Com-
pany, herein called the Company, filed a charge with the Regional
Director for the First Region alleging that International Brotherhood
,of Electrical Workers, Local 90, and its agents, Bernard Gilbride and
Philip Reilly, had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. It was charged
in substance that Local No. 90, Gilbride, and Reilly had induced and
encouraged employees of Foster Electric Company and of other em-
121 NLRB No. 133.