Local 895, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 1, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 993
formed at any of the Employer's other locations. Thus, it appears
that the conditions laid down in both the Harris case and the more
recent Sears Roebuck case, supra, for the finding of an appropriate
warehouse unit are met herein. We find, therefore, that the employees
in the Employer's service building have a separate community of inter-
est and that there is nothing in the Act or in our past decisions to pre-
clude the establishment of the service building employees in a separate
bargaining unit.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec--
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All warehousemen, stockmen, checkers, markers, shipping and receiv-
ing clerks, furniture repairmen and finishers, order fillers, and forklift
operators employed at the Employer's service building located at 910
East 61st Street, Los Angeles, California, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Local 895, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and its Agent Dean
Fox; and Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America and its
Agents Nicholas Robilotto and Howard Bennett and Eastern
New York Construction Employers , Inc. Case No. 3-CC-268.
July 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 6, 1964, Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action. The Trial Examiner further found
that the Respondents had not engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be
dismissed with respect to those allegations, all as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Respondents, Local 294, Nicho-
las Robilotto, and Howard Bennett,' file joint exceptions to the
1 The answer to the complaint herein states in part
Now coaxes , Local 294 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and its Agents Nicholas Robilotto and Walter [sic]
Bennett and states . . . .
This is sufficient in our view to constitute an appearance of the named agents of Local
294 in this proceeding . We also note that at no time has this appearance been withdrawn.
153 NLRB No. 81.
79 (1-027-66-vol 153-64
'994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trial Examiner 's Decision insofar as they were found to have violated
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to find one of the unfair
labor practices which was alleged in the complaint and filed a brief in
support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Brown, Jenkins, and
"Zagori a] .
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations with the following modifications?
In the instant case, Local 895 had a dispute with Fitz-Inn Parking,
Inc., lessee of several parking lots at the Albany Medical Center Hospi-
tal. At all times material herein, construction work was in progress
on the hospital grounds but not on the parking lots.
The Trial Examiner, while concluding that the Respondents have
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act for other reasons,
•did not find that the picketing by Local 895 at the Albany Medical Cen-
ter Hospital constituted such a violation, inasmuch as this picketing
purportedly met the standards established by the Board in the Moore
Dry Dock case .3 The record nonetheless establishes that Respondent
Local 895 and its agent, Dean Fox, were responsible for acts committed
in conjunction with the picketing, which acts demonstrate that the pick-
eting was engaged in for a proscribed purpose.
A truckdriver employed by Fort Edwards Express, Inc., who was
attempting to deliver oil for use at the hospital, testified that two of
the pickets walked out into the middle of the road leading onto the
hospital grounds, stopped his truck, and told the driver that he was
not to make the delivery. The delivery was not made. An employee of
the hospital testified that he observed pickets stop trucks carrying food
and medicine to the hospital and that he heard the pickets attempt to
persuade the drivers, on a number of occasions successfully, not to cross
the picket line. The timekeeper for the general contractor at the con-
struction project on the hospital grounds testified that he was told by
the pickets that he was not allowed to enter the hospital grounds to
2 Neither Local 895 nor its agent, Dean Fox, has excepted to the findings , conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner relating to violations found to have been
.committed by these Respondents
3 Saalora' Union of the Pacifc, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547.
LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC . 995
come to work. Another hospital employee stated that he was riding
with the driver in a delivery truck destined for the hospital, that pick-
ets approached the truck at the entrance to the hospital grounds, and
that the driver was told that he was not to enter the grounds.
The dispatcher for Pine Hills Taxi Company, Inc., which company,
by agreement with the hospital, had the exclusive taxicab rights to
transport patients between buildings on the hospital grounds and to
use a particular cab stand at the hospital, testified that Respondent Fox
told him to keep his cabs away from the stand while the picketing was
in progress. The vice president of Pine Hills Taxi Company, Inc.,
testified that his employees are represented by Local 895, that his cabs
had been prevented by the pickets from entering the hospital grounds,
and that Respondent Fox told him that his cabs could not enter the
hospital grounds while the picketing was in progress, even in situa-
tions involving medical emergencies.
Further, Respondent Fox of Local 895 induced the steward of the
electricians working at the construction project to keep the electricians
from crossing the picket line. The steward then proceeded to pull the
"power switch" which resulted in the halting of all of the construction
work on the hospital grounds.
The Moore Dry Dock standards were designed to protect the right
of a union to picket a primary employer who shares a so-called common
situs with a neutral employer and yet to protect the neutral employer's
right not to be enmeshed in the dispute. However, nominal compliance
with Moore Dry Dock standards does not conclusively attest the legal-
ity of picketing at a Common- situs 4 For attendant circumstances may
establish that the union's conduct did in fact have an object proscribed
by the Act, namely, to embroil the operations of the neutral common-
situs employer. Upon consideration of the evidence recited above and
upon the entire record in this case, we are convinced and accordingly
find that the picketing engaged in by Local 895 and its agent, Dean
Fox, had as its object to force or require Albany Medical Center Hos-
pital to cease doing business with Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., and, there-
fore, was violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we shall dismiss the allega-
tions of the complaint which aver that Local 294 and its agents engaged
in and are engaging in a strike at the hospital. While these Respond-
ents participated in the unlawful activities found by the Trial Exam-
iner, they did not directly participate in the picketing itself.
' See N.L.R B v Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (K-C Refrigeration
Transport Co ), 284 F. 2d 887 (CA. 2) ; cf. Local 761, International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers v. N L.R B. (General Electric Co ), 366 U S 667; Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 861, et al. (Plauche Electric, Inc ),
135 NLRB 250, 255.
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, Local 895, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and its Agent Dean Fox; and Local 294, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and its Agents Nicholas Robilotto and Howard Bennett, their
officers, and/or agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified :
1. Paragraph 1(a) is amended by inserting at the beginning thereof
the words : "Engaging in or . . ." 5
2. Paragraph 2(b) is amended by inserting after the words: "E. G.
May Inc.," and before the words "and all other persons" the words
"Fort Edwards Express, Inc.,..."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,,
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein.
5 The notice Is similarly amended by inserting the words : "engage in or" after "(1)" in
the first Indented paragraph beginning with the words • "WE WILL NOT . . "
The telephone number for Region 3, appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached,
to the Trial Examiner ' s Decision , Is amended to read: Telephone No. 842-3112
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard before Trial Examiner Stanley N. Ohlbaum in Albany, New
York, on April 8 and 9, 1964, on complaint of General Counsel I and answers of
Respondents 2 denying violations of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) (B) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended ( herein called Act). Although Respondents Local
895 and Fox had interposed an answer and appeared through counsel at the hearing,
soon after inception of the hearing they withdrew from further participation or
attendance .3 Respondents Robiletto and Bennett ( Local 294 ) did not appear or-
testify. Subsequent to the hearing there was received from Local 294 a brief, which
has been duly considered . Upon the entire record 4 and my observation of the-
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR OFFICIALS;
THE EMPLOYERS AND OTHER PERSONS INVOLVED
Respondents Local 895 and Local 294 are labor organizations within the meaning-
of Section 2(5) of the Act . Respondent Fox (as well as Herbert Grossman, not
I Caption corrected from "Walter Bennett" to "Howard Bennett" for reasons set forth,
in footnote 14, infra
2 Issued through the Regional Director for Region 3, on February 27, 1964 , based upon
a charge and first amended charge filed by Eastern New York Construction Employers,
Inc., on January 7 and 15, 1964. Date references are 1964 throughout unless otherwise
specified.
8 The reason given was : " the local union [8951 cannot afford to participate , and feel[s]
that the basic dispute has been settled and that the purposes of the Act in no way are
effectuated by these proceedings . . . . I would like to say in all respects to the Board
and the Trial Examiner I have no problems with the Board or the Trial Examiner." The
formal appearance of Respondents Local 895 and Fox was not withdrawn , and It was
acknowledged on the record that they would be bound by the outcome.
A As corrected by order dated July 7, 1964.
LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 997
named as a Respondent) is business agent of Local 895. Respondents Robilotto and
Bennett are respectively president and business representative of Local 294. At all
material times, each of these individuals has been an agent, within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act, acting on behalf of his Local.
Lange-Finn Construction Co., Inc. (herein called Lange-Finn), Seno Rubin Con-
struction Co., Inc, E. G. May, Inc., E. W. Tompkins, Inc., and F. W. Newman & Son,
Inc., are each New York corporations, and Johnson Service Company is a Wisconsin
corporation with a branch office in New York. They are each building construction
contractors or subcontractors, and during the representative year immediately pre-
ceding issuance of the complaint they each purchased, transferred, and delivered to
their respective places of business or locations in New York, goods, wares, and mate-
rials valued in excess of $50,000 directly in interstate commerce from States other
than New York. During the same representative year, Wilmot Castle Co., a New
York corporation selling and installing surgical instruments, shipped goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from its plant in New York directly in inter-
state commerce to points outside that State; Pine Hills Taxi Company, Inc., a New
York corporation operating a fleet of taxicabs, derived therefrom a gross volume of
business in excess of $50,000; 5 Fort Edwards Express, Inc., a New York corporation
interstate carrier of petroleum products and chemicals, received in excess of $50,000
from its said operations; members of Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc.,
including various of the aforementioned building construction contracting or sub-
contracting corporations, received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
at their New York locations directly in interstate commerce from points outside that
state; Metalab Equipment Co., a New York corporation selling and installing labora-
tory equipment, performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located
in States other than New York; and Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., a New York corporation
in the parking lots operation business in Massachusetts and New York, derived a gross
volume of business therefrom in excess of $500,000 and received therein in New York
shipments of goods and merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 directly in interstate
commerce from points outside of New York.6 Albany Medical Center Hospital
(herein called Medical Center) is a New York membership corporation operating
a general, nonprofit, nondenominational hospital in Albany, New York, which, during
the aforementioned representative year, purchased, transferred, and delivered to its
said location goods, materials, drugs, and medicines valued in excess of $50,000
directly in interstate commerce from other States.
I find that each of the foregoing corporations other than Medical Center is an
employer and person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the
Act; that Medical Center is a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(I), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)
of the Act; 7 and that assertion of jurisdiction in this case is proper.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Medical Center is a patient treatment-medical training facility including patient
treatment and care buildings, a medical school, nurses' residences, and ancillary
service and maintenance buildings. Laid out as an unwalled, unfenced compound,
access and egress are primarily via three or four vehicular entrances (with accessory
pedestrian walks) and, at two points, stairways.8 The compound contains nine park-
ing lots, situated strategically. All parking is paid, either through periodic bumper
decals (for Center staff and employees) or daily fees (for anybody, including pa-
5 Denied by Respondents Local 895 and Fox, but established by testimony of General
Counsel's witness Feinman.
'The denial of these allegations of the complaint relating to Fitz -Inn, in the answer
of Local 895 and Fox, was withdrawn at the hearing. The posthearing brief of Local
294 states ( p. 1) that an affirmative defense In its answer disputing jurisdiction "may be
deemed abandoned."
7 Cf. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( Picker X-Ray Corpora-
tion), 128 NLRB 566, footnote 2.
8 Although the two stairways are, of course , only for pedestrian use, pedestrian access
to and egress from the compound may also be gained at any point simply by walking
across lawns or not over a paved road. See plot plan , General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2,
explained in Bigwood's testimony.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tients and visitors ) .9 Some of the parking lots are permanently manned , while others
are sporadically patrolled. Pursuant to contractual arrangement with the Center,
since the beginning of December 1963, all parking lots have been operated exclusively
by Fitz-Inn , which has an office on lot No. 1, where all of its 12 employees ( all but 1
of whom drive to work) punch in. Since about January, claiming to represent Fitz-
Inn parking attendants at the Center, although not certified as such under Section 9
of the Act,10 Respondent Local 895 has been demanding recognition and bargaining
by Fitz-Inn . At no material time has either Local 895 or Local 294 had any labor
dispute with Medical Center or with any of the contractors , subcontractors , or other
corporations ( other than Fitz-Inn ) enumerated above.
Since prior to January 1, Medical Center has been engaged in a building expansion
program involving construction of additions at its site by the general contractors and
subcontractors (electrical, plumbing and heating, etc .) enumerated above. During
the construction period , construction workers were assigned to park in lot No. 7
(sharing it with Medical Center supervisory and maintenance personnel ), unless they
had tools in their cars , in which event they parked closer to their jobs.
B. The construction work stoppage commencing January 6 at the jobsite
Commencing early Monday morning, January 6 , the vehicular entrance,11 as well
as pedestrian stairway , to the Medical Center was picketed by individuals wearing
signs stating:
Employees of Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc. on Strike-Local 895 Affiliated Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters.
When James W. Finn, a principal of Lange-Finn , a general contractor holding a
$2,600,000 contract on the Medical Center expansion project , arrived on the job at
approximately 7:30 that morning, he observed the pickets and numerous men stand-
ing around who would normally be starting work. Construction employees there at
the time were not only Lange-Finn's crew (consisting of hoisting engineers , masons,
carpenters , and laborers ), but also those of other of the jobsite contractors enumer-
ated above . At this time , Lange-Finn had only one Teamsters -affiliated employee, a
truckdriver , in its employ . 12 After seeing the picketing and the construction workers
standing around, Finn asked his men whether they were going to work, and they
replied that they were and that they had called their business agent, who told them
to cross the picket line . Finn then told the mortar mixers and others, who would
ordinarily be preparing to start work, to go to work, which they started to do. At
this point , an individual-subsequently identified as Respondent Fox, business agent of
Teamsters Local 895-entered the Lange-Finn shanty and asked where the electrician
shanty was. Fox soon returned with electricians' steward Vito (employed by prime
electrical contractor E G May, Inc.), who after a telephone discussion at the Lange-
Finn shanty with "Joe" (established by Smitas' testimony to be Joe Koreman, business
representative of the Electricians' Union), slammed the receiver down and went over
to and pulled the power switch off, thereby stopping further work on the Medical
Center construction project. Since no material could be conveyed off the ground
on the electrical hoist and construction could not go on without electrical power, Finn
told his men to "knock off." The men wanted to know "what was going on," and,
as Finn was talking to them, Respondent Bennett ( business representative of Team-
sters Local 294) came on the scene and was observed by Finn to be talking to Fox
and Smitas ( the latter a labor representative of the construction contractors). From
a distance of 20 or 25 feet, while Finn was talking to a group of the construction
O For the most part , the general public uses parking lot No. 1 (General Counsel's Ex-
hibit No . 2), but also lot No 9 Lot No. 1 is entered from its north side ( Point "2" on
General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 2), which is on the inside of the compound and does not
front on a public street or highway ; in other words , vehicles ( or pedestrians) enter
lot No . 1 from the inside of the compound , after having come through one of the entrances
to the compound and thence to the entrance to lot No 1-and not directly from the
street. Obviously , vehicular access to this and the other parking lots is possible via any
paved road entering the compound ; and, as already stated, pedestrian access is not con-
fined to these paved roads
10 Nor has Respondent Local 294 been so certified
" Entrances A, B, C, and E, and stairway D, on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2.
Stairway D was used by Lange -Finn's construction workers, as well as by laundry workers,
nurses, and presumably by any others who cared to use it.
12 Finn could not recall whether this truckdriver was on the job that day . According
to Smitas , although Lange-Finn 's employees include the basic crafts and teamsters , Lange-
Finn had no teamsters in its employ at the Medical Center project.
LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 999'
workers, Finn heard Bennett shout, "Get these SCABS off the job." At this time,.
to Finn's knowledge, there were no union men working on the job. All of the
foregoing occurred between about 7.30 and 8:30. Finn then went to report to
the planning director of the hospital. When he returned, around 9:30, the electrical
foreman, Soffia (also an employee of E. G. May, Inc.) told him the power was back
on and that he would stay for the balance of the day to maintain it. Finn then told
his men to go back to work. After saying they "would check with their business
agent before they went back to work," only the carpenters and hoisting engineers,
that is 3 employees out of a total of about 45 or 48, returned to work for the balance
of the day. On the next day, January 7, and ensuing days, no work was performed,
until Friday, January 10, when the construction workers resumed work. However,
on Saturday, January 11, and the entire following week, picketing was resumed and
again no construction workers went to work. Except for Tuesday, January 7, the
entire construction job was at a standstill for 2 weeks commencing January 6.13
James F. Kelly, Lange-Finn, timekeeper and purchasing agent, testified that when
he attempted to drive into the compound on the morning of January 6, one of the
pickets told him he "wasn't allowed in." Kelly said, "I am not a union man and I
have to go in to open the office." Although, according to Kelly, "They told me I
couldn't go in that way" (i.e., entrance "E"), he admitted that the pickets also told
him "to go down lower" (i.e., to another entrance) and his testimony does not
indicate that he was physically barred from entering at the indicated entrance, before
he proceeded to enter elsewhere. After he reported on the job, outside of the con-
struction shanty at about 8.30 with Finn and 10 or 15 Lange-Finn carpenters, masons,
and laborers standing around, he also witnessed the "Get these SCABS off the job"
remark. Kelly then had to go elsewhere, but when he returned, work for practical
purposes, had stopped.
Daniel J. Smitas, assistant director of Eastern New York Construction Employers,
Inc. (the Charging Party), representative and negotiator for the construction con-
tractors in labor matters, also observed the pickets at the compound on January 6.
When Respondent Fox (Local 895) came on the jobsite and inquired for the elec-
tricians' shanty, Smitas accompanied him to that shanty, where Fox asked for the
electricians' steward. The steward asked Fox, "What is this all about?" Fox replied,
"Call Mr. Koreman." The electricians' steward (established by Finn's testimony to
be Vito), accompanied by Fox and Smitas, walked to the Lange-Finn shanty-the
only one on the jobsite with a telephone. The steward dialed and spoke with "Joe"
(Koreman), "obviously arguing" with him, "This is a parking lot," and then, before
hanging up, "Allright . . . yes." The electricians' steward thereupon told Fox
(Local 895) that the electricians would "honor the picket line." Smitas asked the
electricians' steward whom he had called and the steward said, "Mr. Koreman .. .
at home." Smitas said he would call Koreman, and the steward told him Koreman
had said he was just leaving home to attend a meeting at the Labor Temple. Smitas
then asked Fox who he was and Fox identified himself as "Mr. Fox, the business
representative representing Local 895." With construction employees "all around
us . . obviously interested in what we were saying," Smitas asked Fox, "Are you
asking these employees of Lang[e]-Finn to honor the picket lines so that the hospital
will force the parking lot company to bargain or to sit down with Local 895," and
Fox replied, "That is right " Fox then left via the stairway at point "D" and Smitas
returned to the Lange-Finn job shanty. When Smitas came out of the shanty, he saw
Respondent Howard Bennett (business representative of Local 284) 14 at the head
of the point "D" stairs Smitas said to him, in the presence of a group of 15 or 20
construction workers, "Howard, what are you doing here9 Local 294 is not involved
in this dispute, are they? What are you doing here in this dispute with the parking
lot?" Bennett replied, "We are all teamsters. I am here to protect their rights."
Smitas then asked him, "what could we do to relieve the situation," and Bennett
shouted or said in a loud voice, "Get these SCABS off the job, and get that man
[on the electrical hoist at the top of the building] down here," and left. The work-
men were "upset over the fact that Mr. Bennett called them SCABS." Smitas fol-
lowed Bennett down the point "D" stairway, and there observed pickets and also Fox
18 Finn testified that he observed that the pickets would normally be gone by 10 a in ,
"once they had established themselves that we did not go to work"
14 Named in the caption of the complaint herein as Walter Bennett There is a variance
between the caption and paragraph XVI(c) of the complaint as to Bennett 's first name
Since it is apparent from the transcript ( see, e.g. , pp. 214 and 219) that the proper name
is Howard Bennett, the caption of the complaint is hereby ordered to be conformed and
corrected so that "Howard Bennett" shall appear in place of "Walter Bennett" as one of
the Respondents.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(Local 895), Bennett (Local 294) and Grossman (Business Agent of Local 895),
and spoke to them. Smitas asked Grossman, "What is this all about9" Grossman
replied that "he had organized the parking lot employees ... that he had authoriza-
tion[,] that all the employees carry sign[ed] cards ... that the hospital had not sat
down or even talked to the representative of Local 895." Smitas said, "What do we
have to do with this situation? We have nothing to do with the parking lot.... If
you want to force me I am going to have to get an injunction." One of the pickets
then said, "Give us two days." Smitas replied, "I wouldn't give you two minutes.
This involves our contractor who is not involved in this dispute." Smitas asked,
"What can we do in this situation9" Bennett replied, "Go up and see Dr. Hale
[Director of the Medical Center] ... the dispute could be settled if Dr. Hale ordered
the strike breakers ... to be removed from the parking lot, and if the parking lot
company would sit down and bargain with ... Local 895." The foregoing exchange
took place among and in the presence of Fox (Local 895), Grossman (Local 895),
Bennett (Local 294), the pickets, and Smitas During the conversation, as a truck
of Sano Rubin (a general contractor on the job) drove by, Bennett (Local 294) and
the driver exchanged waves, and Bennett said to Smitas, "We are going to stop
these trucks, and wait until we do," throwing up his hands.13 As Smitas left, Bennett
again said to him, "Tell Dr. Hale the matter could be settled if the strike breakers
would be moved from the job site and if the parking lot company would sit down and
bargain with the union." Smitas then saw Finn, who told him the project manager
situation, which he did, and thereafter went to see Dr. Hale.
C. Merchandise deliveries to the hospital
Fred Capman, a Fort Edwards Express truckdriver and member of Teamsters
Local 232 (Albany), dispatched with a fuel oil delivery to Medical Center on the
morning of January 6, was met at the entrance by two pickets who "walked out into
the road and told me to stop.... They told me they had contacted Mr. Bennett 16 and
Mr. Corbett, the representative of our local [232].... That I was not to go in and
unload." Capman proceeded to another entrance, where he observed another picket,
so he parked and telephoned his dispatcher who informed him he had spoken to
Corbett, and told him not to unload. He therefore drove his truck on to South
Glens Falls, without making the delivery of fuel oil to Medical Center.
Various employees 17 of Medical Center testified regarding the impact of the
picketing on merchandise deliveries to and inventories at the Center. Their testi-
mony indicates that at various times during the period from January 6 to 22, drivers
of merchandise (including food and medicine) delivery trucks of various descriptions
(including Fort Edwards Express, Tri-City Produce, and Eastern Freightways) were
observed to stop at entrances to the compound and, after conversation with the
pickets, either to leave or to enter. On one occasion a truckdriver was heard to
say, "Do I have permission to go in," and the picket to reply, "Use your own head
and judgment. We can't stop you from going in." On another occasion a Tri-City
Produce driver who had left without making a delivery returned and "hollared to
the picket that he got permission to make delivery." On another occasion, a truck-
driver (Eastern Freightway) was told by pickets that he "wasn't allowed to go in"
and replied that he was "working for a living ... he was earning his bread and butter
and wasn't it about time they went out and earned theirs. He also gave them the
right to check on what he said he was delivering and the number of cases," but he
drove right on in and made the delivery. Although at times pickets were observed
to "motion[ed] the truck to stop" or "put their hand up like to stop the truck," at
no time was it observed that a picket stood in front of a truck to attempt to prevent
it from entering. Taxicabs, generally other than those privately owned, were flagged
down and spoken to by the pickets. Merchandise deliveries by trucks are, and to the
extent that they occurred during this period continued to be, normally made without
15 Smitas testified that Sano Rubin has a collective agreement with Local 294 obligating
it to employ only Local 294 teamsters as drivers on construction jobs.
19 The motion of Local 294, upon which ruling was reserved , to strike from the record
Capman's testimony regarding Bennett is denied The testimony was unobjected to and
was clearly admissible against Respondent Local 895; and in my opinion was also admis-
sible against Local 294, as part of the res gestae, and because connected with Local 294,
and also in view of findings herein made as to the community of interest of both Respond-
ent Locals . Furthermore , the testimony objected to was not a repetition of a conversa-
tion with Bennett but merely that the pickets had "contacted" him.
17Mero ( assistant director of security, in charge of protection of persons and property),
Martone ( stock supervisor ), and MacMillen and Rymski ( maintenancemen).
LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1001
parking in any lot, but by backing up to the receiving platform or point. There was
testimony to the effect that during the period of the described picketing in January,
hospital inventories, including food, reached unusually or even "critically" low
levels because "the hospital was ordering the merchandise but not getting deliveries"
from its food suppliers.
D. Taxicab transportation of hospital patients and others
The only taxicab stand in the compound is leased by Medical Center to Pine Hills
Taxi, which also has the exclusive franchise to transport patients between buildings
within the compound. The employees of Pine Hills Taxi are represented by Local
895. On January 7, June Averill injured her foot and required emergency treatment.
She called a Pine Hills Taxi. After she got into the cab and told the driver to take
her to Albany Hospital, he said, "Well, you know they're on strike there.... I can't
take you into the hospital, but I will take you as close as I can." She explained she
had injured her foot and was going to the emergency room. The taxidriver "was most
apologetic but he said he wouldn't go into the hospital," and dropped her off on the
street. From there, she "hobbled into the emergency room," where X-ray disclosed
she had a broken toe. On the way home, the hospital was unable to obtain a taxi
for her. She made arrangements for a relative to pick her up.
Ernest R. Klouse, supervisory dispatcher of Pine Hills Taxi, testified that on the
day before the foregoing, that is January 6, Respondent Fox called him between 6:30
and 7:00 a.m, on the direct line from the Pine Hills taxistand within the Medical
Center compound, told him he was there, and that "there was trouble going on there
and to keep the cars out of the circle, meaning the parking stand that we maintain
at the hospital."
Evan Feinman, vice president of Pine Hills Taxi, testified that he, too, spoke with
Fox on the morning of January 6, after he learned of the foregoing direction by
Fox to the Pine Hills dispatcher to keep Pine Hills cabs out of the compound, even
prior to which "they had stopped our cars going into the hospital grounds." Feinman
asked Fox why Pine Hills cabs couldn't cross the picket lines. Fox replied that "they
were negotiating trying to unionize the men handling the parking lot and our cars
could not cross the picket line." Feinman asked how long this would be. Fox said
it might be that day or a few days. Feinman asked Fox about emergency cases and
Fox said they would have to be dropped at the main door,18 "but he said not to cross
the picket line." Feinman again asked him about patients for the emergency
entrance, and whether they would have to be dropped off at the main door, to which
Fox replied, "The cars are not to cross the picket line." Feinman then asked him
about patients requiring transportation from building to building within the com-
pound, and Fox again replied, "The cars aren't supposed to cross the picket lines "
Thereafter Pine Hills cabs "were not allowed to enter the grounds." After Feinman
had received several inquiries from the hospital regarding what his company was
"going to do about the patients," Feinman again called Fox, who once again told
him "that while all this picketing was going on we weren't supposed to cross the
lines." Feinman explained to Fox that the hospital had called and that there were
"emergency patients that had to be transported.... Can't we at least handle these
people?" Fox said he would call him back, and he did so within 15 minutes , stating
"No, your cars aren't to cross the picket lines." Feinman explained to him that he
was helping nonunion taximen at the expense of Pine Hills and other union taximen.
Fox replied, "I realize that, and I think this will be settled shortly, but don't cross
the picket lines." Feinman again asked him, "Are you sure we can't take care of the
patients who need immediate treatment if they are sickly people," and Fox replied,
"Definitely not." Later that day or the following morning, however, Fox called
Feinman and indicated he had permission to transport patients from building to
building within the compound and also sick people to the " main entrance so [as
not to] leave them out in the street." During this time, other taxicabs transported
people in and out of the compound, but Pine Hills drivers, parked on the street,
"let the other companies drive right in and take the people before they got to the
street."
E. Contractors' meetings with Respondent Unions
After the work stoppage on January 6, Dr. Wilhelmus VanEekern, managing
director of Eastern New York Construction Employers, Inc., labor representative of
at least some of the building constriction contractors (including Lange-Finn, Sano
Rubin, and E. G. May) on the Medical Center construction project, visited Albany
Is I.e , point "9" on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2, immediately within the compound
from New Scotland Avenue entrance "B," at the taxistand.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Labor Temple and had a number of conversations regarding the situation at Medical
Center. The first of these took place in the office of Joe Koreman, business agent
of the Electrical Workers Union. Respondent Bennett (Local 294) was also there,
and they were joined later by Tom Riley, business agent of the Plumbers Union.
VanEekern asked Koreman whether it was true that he had ordered the steward at
the Medical Center project "to throw the switch on the electrical current to create a
work stoppage." Koreman said, "I didn't give any such instructions. I would be
stupid to admit this.... [I] told them to use their own judgment. That they knew
what the practice was." Bennett said "that the contractors had no business in this
dispute . . . that he was asking the union to continue the work on the construction
site," but Koreman said "that these were strike breakers." Bennett then said "that in
Schenectady strike breakers were on this parking lot company, and moreover that
the people in the hospital were not very well paid and we might get them all."
Soon thereafter Bennett said the Local 895 representative was there and they would
have a meeting, and Koreman and Riley left. VanEekern then went to the office of
Bricklayers' representative Bocca (Boccar), and there asked Mirabile, representing
the Laborers, "You are not going to stop working," but Mirabile replied, "Sure.
There are strike breakers. You might pull the same thing on us. In the construc-
tion business we are not in a position to hire strike breakers." Later, in the corridor,
Bennett (Local 294) introduced Grossman (Local 895) to VanEekern, and in the
presence of Bennett, Koreman, Riley, Mirabile, and Bocca, VanEekern asked "what
they were going to do about the construction work of Lang[e]-Finn and the other
contractors." Mirabile replied, "We are going to get those Boston bums." 1a
VanEekern-
asked whether this meant that they had decided that the construction units were
not going to work, and they all said that was it.... I asked whether they meant
that they wouldn't allow the construction workers to start up on their work
and they said that was right, they are not going to let their people work .. .
actually the man speaking at that point was Mr Bennett and the others chimed
in . . the bricklayer's representative and the plumber's representative and the
electrician's representatives of their unions, and Mr. Grossman was there.
VanEekern again said that the construction contractors had nothing to do with the
dispute and was referred by Bennett to Respondent Robilotto, President of Local
294. In Robilotto's office, with Bennett and Grossman also represent, VanEekern-
asked them what they wanted from us. We had no way of doing anything in
this dispute. We were being hurt And, he said, `You can go to the hospital
and talk to them and tell them what to do.' 20 And I told him that I was not
going to put the [Construction Employers] Association in any position where I
would be piessuring the hospital to do anything with the parking lot company.
... Mr. Robilotto said they understood, but would I mind calling Mr. Smitas,
my assistant, who they knew was at the moment in Dr. Hale's office . . [at]
the Albany Medical Center ... I asked what they wanted me to convey to
Mr. Smitas They said they wanted me to call Mr Smitas to tell Dr. Hale the
conditions under which these pickets would be removed. I asked the conditions,
and they said, one, to remove all the strike breakers, and number two, that the
hospital forces sit down and bargain with Local 895. . . . Again Mr. Robilotto
[said this], and Mr. Bennett repeated it twice. Mr. Robilotto formulated it and
Mr. Bennett chimed in Then it was repeated. I asked for a repetition and
Mr Grossman repeated it, and I asked him was this what they wanted me to
convey and they said yes.
Robilotto then dialed the hospital for VanEekern, and VanEekern conveyed the
unions' conditions to Smitas, to be passed on to Dr Hale. Smitas asked VanEekern
if it would make any difference that the so-called strikebreakers were "from Boston,
or Albany, or out of town," and, when VanEekern relayed this question on, Gross-
man said no. Bennett and Grossman then left, leaving VanEekern alone with
Robilotto VanEekern said to Robilotto that he thought this was a "secondary
boycott and inviting an injunction" and advised him to withdraw the pickets, at
which, "the conversation became hot and he [Robilotto] said he didn't give a so-
and-so about the injunction . . . it was just a piece of paper and it didn't mean a
19 This could only have been a reference to Fitz-Inn, which has its main office in Boston.
2° In cross -examination , VanEekern added that they also asked him at this time, "Why
don't you go to the hospital to solve this problem" and "Why don't you go to the hospital
and do something about it."
LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1003
thing. That he knew that we could get any injunction or temporary restraining order
from any anti -labor judge in Albany." VanEekern left in a huff with Robilotto
shouting after him.21
On the following Thursday afternoon (January 9 ), VanEekern received a tele-
phone call from Bennett introducing Fox, who said that the pickets would be
removed the next day because "a settlement had been reached ... with the hospital
and the Boston Fitz-Inn firm." VanEekern expressed gratification because of the
"damage to the contractors ." The pickets were indeed removed the next day
(Friday, January 10) and the contractors ' employees returned to construction work
on the project , but the picketing was resumed and work was again suspended on the
following Monday ( January 13 ). Thereafter , VanEekern had a discussion with
Grossman and Bennett in the Federal Courtroom corridor while injunction proceed-
ings were in process. At this time Grossman said there were 11 pickets , that it will
last long," and that "we got very good support from the other labor unions." When
VanEekern asked him , "Financial support?", he said, "Yes." Grossman further
stated "that with the financial support of all the other labor unions that Mr. Robilotto
had given him authority to spend money ... to spend the money that he needed," to
which Bennett expressed assent.
F. Respondents ' defense
As has already been indicated , Respondents Local 895 and Fox in effect inter-
posed no defense , and the case proceeding against them in the nature of an inquest.
Insofar as the remaining Respondents are concerned ( namely Local 294, Robilotto,
and Bennett ) although Local 294 appeared , Robilotto and Bennett did not; 22 and,
although Local 294 was represented at the hearing by counsel , Robilotto and Ben-
nett were not and did not appear or testify . Local 294 called two witnesses , Anthony
Spasioso and Herbert Grossman . The testimony of Spasioso , a business agent of
Local 294, may be disposed of by stating that he merely testified that he was not
familiar with the labor dispute at Medical Center, and that he did not receive or give
any instructions to Local 294 members regarding the Medical Center pickets and
picket lines . However, it was not claimed that he was or did ; nor, even if he was
not and did not, does that establish that no other Local 294 official or agent (e.g.,
Robilotto or Bennett , who did not testify ) was not or did not.23
Herbert Grossman ( an official and assistant business agent of Local 895) testified
that his union had a labor dispute with Fitz-Inn in December 1963 and January
1964. He admitted that in January he , together with other union representatives of
building trades in the area , including Respondents Bennett and Robilotto, and Mira-
bile and Bocca , met at Labor Temple and discussed with VanEekern the situation
at Medical Center. Grossman testified that in response to a question by VanEekern
to him ( Grossman ) in the presence of at least most of the other union agents, as
to how to remove the pickets , Grossman replied that "I would remove all the pickets
all over the hospital if Doctor VanEekern could sway the Fitz-Inn Company to sit
down and simply negotiate , never asking for a binder of any kind but to sit down
and talk and we could not get that at all and that was the end of the conversation."
Grossman further testified that he heard VanEekern ask other building construction
trades union agents whether their men were going to work at Medical Center, but
that some walked away without answering while others said they were "working men
and brothers of union members and their conscience will be their guide." Grossman
also admitted he had another conversation with VanEekern later the same day, along
the same lines , in Robilotto 's private office, probably also in the presence of Fox
and Bennett . According to Grossman , he (Grossman ) did not ask VanEekern to
a A pretrial affidavit given to a Board agent by VanEekern on January 8 Is in large
part to the same general effect, although varying in detail I have considered these
variances in appraising the credibility of VanEekern , whose cross - examined testimony at
the hearing appears to represent a fuller and more precise account of what transpired, in
certain respects supplementing his pretrial statement.
22 At least I so construe the situation , notwithstanding the opening sentence of the
answer of Local 294 , based upon ( 1) the subscription of and also the legal back on the
answer filed on behalf of Local 294, (2) the prayer for relief in that answer , and (3) the
statement of appearance made for the record at the outset of the hearing ( transcript,
pp. 4-5 ;see also p 191).
23 Spasloso testified that Local 294 has a general jurisdiction in the trucking industry
and represents drivers working for various trucking companies , warehouses , and firms in
the area.
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
telephone Smitas (at the hospital).24 When he was asked on direct examination,
"In this conversation at Mr. Robilotto's office, did Mr. Robilotto say or give any
conditions to Dr. VanEekern for the removal of the picket[s]?", Grossman's reply
was, "Not that I know of." Asked the same question with respect to himself, Gross-
man testified that he said to VanEekern that "I would be only too happy to remove all
the pickets from any part of the Albany Medical Center at the moment we could sit
down to talk and try to settle the problem with Fitz-Inn and if he knew of any way
that this meeting could be arranged 1 would be only too glad to cooperate." Accord-
ing to Grossman, it was at this juncture that VanEekern picked up the telephone and
said he would call Smitas to "see if he could figure out a way to set this meeting up"
and then asked Smitas on the telephone "if there was some way to settle this thing." 25
When Grossman was asked on direct examination whether VanEekern said anything
to Smitas on the telephone "about conditions for removing the pickets at the hospital
center," Grossman's reply was, "Not that I can recall." Grossman also testified that
in his presence neither Bennett nor Robilotto told VanEekern that Local 294 Team-
sters would not go to work while the strike was on at Medical Center; and that the
"only thing I can recall" about any conversation in Robilotto's office between
Robilotto and VanEekern regarding the Local 895 dispute with Fitz-Inn was that any
statement which Robilotto might have made was to the effect that he "never gave an
order that [the men] were not to go through [the picket line]" but to "let their
conscience be their guide or use your own judgment." Grossman further testified that
Bennett had indeed sought to "work with meetings of the Fitz-Inn and Albany Medi-
cal Center, which . . . were not successful, we never met"; that Grossman "under-
stood" this was in Bennett's capacity of "representing the American Federation of
Labor Building Trades ... to bring peace between us if it was possible," and that the
Building Trades Group was "a group of Locals and Lodges . . . I am not too
familiar with," having (he thought) Charlie Mirabile of the Construction Workers
or Laborers Union as its President; and that Local 294 attended its meetings was was
therefore "I assume ... a member." 26
Weighing the record as a whole, together with my demeanor observations, I resolve
the conflicts between the testimonial versions of VanEekern and Grossman concern-
ing the meetings of January 6 in favor of VanEekern's versions. Respondents' failure
to produce any of the other participants to these conversations-all union agents-to
testify, fortifies me in this resolution.
It is noted, in this connection, that neither Grossman nor any other witness dis-
puted VanEekern's version of his conversations and dealings with Grossman or other
union representatives on any date other than January 6. I accordingly accept
VanEekern's versions thereof, which I find to be credible.
G. Concluding findings
The primary and only labor dispute in this case was between Local 895 and Fitz-
Inn, over recognition and bargaining on behalf of Fitz-Inn parking attendants whom
Local 895 claimed to represent. Neither Local 895 nor Local 294 had a labor dispute
with Medical Center, or with any of the jobsite building construction contractors or
subcontractors there, or with Pine Hills Taxi, or with any of their employees. Yet,
Respondent sought to embroil these persons, employers and employees, in Local
895's dispute with Fitz-Inn. A Local 895 official caused all electrical power at the
jobsite to be cut off by the electricians' steward, bringing the construction work to a
halt; a Local 294 official on the scene practically simultaneously, stating he was there
"to protect the[ir] rights" of its members,27 shouted, in the presence of a group of
jobsite construction employees, to "Get these SCABS off the job and get that [hoisting
u It is to be noted that Grossman did not expressly deny that-as VanEekern testified-
Robilotto asked VanEekern to make the call to Smitas at the hospital and dialed the num-
ber. His testimony does, however, indicate that VanEekern himself made the call of his
own volition.
25 It is difficult for me to believe that mature and experienced Dr. VanEekern would find
any necessity to call on his young assistant Smitas to "see if he could figure out a way" to
arrange a meeting and "if there was some way to settle this thing."
20 Even if it were possible to differentiate Bennett's activities in the Medical Center
matter in his possible capacity on behalf of the Building Trades Group from those in his
capacity as agent for Local 294 , it would not affect the result , since the group itself was
an agent for its component unions, acting for them, including Local 294 . Cf. Ernest
Modern, Acting Regional Director v. Building Trades Council of New Haven and Vicinsty,
etc (Fondabella Bldg. Co. ), 55 LRRM 2589 , 2591 ( D.C. Conn.).
21 He did not mention what rights or what members.
LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1005
crane operator] down here"; a Local 895 official prevented a woman requiring emer-
gency hospital treatment from being transported to the hospital premises , although
she was disabled from walking, the Local 895 official having placed the taxicab com-
pany and its entire fleet of taxicab drivers under edict not to enter the hospital
grounds; and officials of Local 895 and 294 jointly formulated the conditions for
resumption of the jobsite construction work, which they impressed upon the jobsite
construction contractors for the latters' impressing on Medical Center to enforce
against Fitz-Inn-namely (and only), recognition by Fitz-Inn of Local 895 and bar-
gaining with it. These activities were purposed only to cause secondary pressures to
be brought on Fitz-Inn in order to bring it to heel and accede to the demands of
Local 895. I believe and find that such secondary activity was in violation of Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii ) (B) of the Act.
In so doing, I merely find to have been improper the following specific activities,
which were undertaken to attain a proscribed objective: (1) The inducing of the
shutting off of the jobsite electrical switch and power on January 6, precipitating the
work stoppage and the ensuing concerted withholding of services by the building con-
struction employees; (2) the demand that "scabs" be removed from the jobsite and
that the hoisting crane engineer be grounded; (3) the edict to Pine Hills Taxi not to
enter the hospital premises ; (4) the off-jobsite-premises mandate to Pine Hills Taxi
drivers not to enter the hospital premises ; (5) Respondents' formulation of conditions
upon which jobsite construction work resumption would be permitted to take place-
viz., recognition of and bargaining with Local 895 by Fitz-Inn-for urging by con-
tractors on Medical Center to require of Fitz-Inn.
I do not, however, believe the picketing at the compound entrances was itself vio-
lative of Section 8 (b)(4). The primary and secondary employers here involved
occupied a common situs (Medical Center compound) with common entrances
thereto 28, for use by all-primary employees, secondary employees, and all other
persons. There were no direct entrances to the Fitz-Inn parking lots from any public
street without entering the compound itself, all entrances being within or after enter-
ing the compound. Unless, therefore, impermissible picketing were to occur on the
private property within the compound, the only place where picketing of Fitz-Inn
could reasonably take place was at the entrances to the compound, through which
employees of Fitz-Inn and would-be parkers had to come. Local 895 pickets there-
fore had the right to picket Fitz-inn at these entrances in order to reach the primary
employees, to publicize the dispute generally, and to persuade all potential parkers
to withhold their trade.29 Under Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Diy Dock
Company), 92 NLRB 547, 549, where premises are shared by primary and secondary
employers, "the right of neither the union to picket nor of the secondary employer
to be free from picketing can be absolute." The Supreme Court has pointed out that
the Act reflects the "dual congressional objectives of preserving the right of labor
organizations to bring pressure to bear on offending employers in primary labor
disputes and of shielding unoffending employers and others from pressures in con-
troversies not their own." N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades
Council, et al. (Gould & Preisner) 341 U.S. 675, 692. The Board has pointed out
that "By its Moore Dry Dock decision, the Board has sought to accommodate these
dual statutory objectives in a reasonable and practicable manner in common situs
cases." 30 Union de Trabajadores da la Gonzalez Chemical Industries, Inc., etc.
(Gonzalez Chemical Industries, Inc.), 128 NLRB 1352, 1353-1354. Since it would
seem that herein all four tests of allowable picketing at a common situs laid down in
Moore Dry Dock, supra, were met , in my view, insofar as the picketing of entrances
to Medical Center compound by Local 895 was concerned, it was not in violation of
Section 8(b) (4).
28 Including even the stairways, usable by all, since these were available for ingress to
and egress from the compound by all employees , parkers, and others.
In view of Finn 's testimony that "normally" the pickets left by 10 a.m., it could be
argued that the targets of the picketing were in reality only the construction employees,
whose workday started around 8:00. Finn also testified , however , that the pickets'
"hours were irregular ," and it may also well be that even if they "normally " left by 10.00,
the bulk of the morning public traffic was gone and the bulk of cars parked by then.
30 Although Moore Dry Dock involved picketing at the common situs of a secondary em-
ployer, the Board has extended it to picketing at the situs of a primary employer where
a secondary or neutral employer is engaged . Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks' Union
Local 1017 , etc. (Crystal Palace Market), 116 NLRB 856, enfd., 249 F . 2d 591 (C.A, 9) ;
Local Union No. 55 , and Carpenters ' District Council of Denver and Vicinity, etc. (Pro-
fessional and Business Men's Life Insurance Company ), 108 NLRB 363 , enfd., 218 F. 2d
226 (C.A. 10).
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is urged on behalf of Respondent Local 294 that no witness of General Counsel
testified that he was "threaten[ed], coerce[d], or restrain[ed]." It is not necessary for
a Respondent to employ the words of the statute in order to be subject to its require-
ments. Words have synonyms, and often, as here, actions speak louder than words.
It is the total context of the specific situation which imparts to words-whether they
are specific or mere signals to action-qualitative uniqueness and effectiveness they
might otherwise lack. Identical words in varied circumstances command different
reaction. Here, in total context, it would seem, the import of each Respondent's
words was plainly none other than through economic fear and intimidation, to set or
keep in motion, if not compel, assistive action to assure or promote its aim of com-
pelling recognition by Fitz-Inn. In legal contemplation such actions constitute
threats, coercion, and restraint.
It is further urged on behalf of Local 294 that it did not act with Local 895, but was
motivated solely by "curiosity" and public spirited dedication to the cause of avoidance
of industrial strife. Looking at the actual facts, however, I am unable to assess its
motive as being so pure or its role so passive. Its presence, words, and coercive
activities at the jobsite, its affirmative and assertive participation in relevant confer-
ences off the jobsite promoting secondary pressures, and its desire to have a meaning-
ful if not dominant voice in guiding or controlling the boycott and making it effective,
compounded by its failure to produce witnesses at the hearing to disavow the words
and acts ascribed to it, would appear to indicate more than inert empathy with the
aims of Local 895 or the cause of "Teamsterism" generally, but rather to betoken a
close community of planned endeavor, an active partnership of purpose, with other
end in view than to compel Teamster recognition by Fitz-Inn through mounting
secondary pressures. I so find.
It is also urged that all of the actions which took place here on the part of all neu-
tral construction employees and all taxicab drivers, constituted personal decisions of
the particular individuals concerned. This is an argument which is frequently made,
but which I cannot regard seriously in the total context of the situation here involved,
including the actions preceding and following the cutoff of the electrical current and
the accompanying words and actions of Respondents on January 6 which precipi-
tated the work stoppage.
It is accordingly found that Local 895, through the described conduct of its Busi-
ness Agents Fox and Grossman, and Local 294 through the described conduct of its
President Robilotto and its Business Representative Bennett, as well as the individual
Respondents, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B) of the Act.31
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Employers and other persons set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and taKe certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct, as set forth in section II, supia, of its Business Agents Dean
Fox and Herbert Grossman, Respondent Local 895, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and its said agents
have (a) induced or encouraged individuals employed by Lange-Finn Construction
Co, Inc., E. G May, Inc., and Pine Hills Taxi Company, Inc. (each company being
a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce) to engage in a
strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their
said respective employers, and have (b) threatened, coerced, or restrained said
Lange-Finn Construction Co., Inc., E. G. May, Inc., and Pine Hills Taxi Company,
Inc, and also Albany Medical Center Hospital (a person engaged in commerce or
31 In view of these findings, General Counsel's motion at the conclusion of the entire
case "in the nature of judgment on the pleadings respecting Local 895" is hereby dis-
missed as moot.
LOCAL 895, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1007
in an industry affecting commerce); in each case, with an object of forcing or requir-
ing Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc. (an employer within the meaning of the Act) to recognize
or bargain with said Local 895 as the representative of the parking lot employees of
Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., at Albany Medical Center Hospital in Albany, New York,
although said Local 895 had not been certified as the representative of said Fitz-Inn
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, and with the further object
of forcing or requiring Albany Medical Center Hospital to cease doing business with
Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc.
2. By the conduct, as set forth in section II, supra, of its President Nicholas
Robilotto and its Business Representative Howard Bennett, Respondent Local 294,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and its said president and business representative have (a) induced or
encouraged individuals employed by Lange-Finn Construction Co., Inc., and E. G.
May, Inc. (each being a person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce) to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to
perform services for their said respective employers, and have (b) threatened,
coerced, or restrained said Lange-Finn Construction Co., Inc, and E. G. May, Inc.,
and also Albany Medical Center Hospital (a person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce), in each case, with an object of forcing or requiring
Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc. (an employer within the meaning of the Act) to recognize or
bargain with Local 895, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, as the representative of parking lot employees of
Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., at Albany Medical Center Hospital in Albany, New York,
although said Local 895 had not been certified as the representative of said Fitz-Inn
employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, and with the further object
of forcing or requiring Albany Medical Center Hospital to cease doing business with
Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc.
3. By the conduct set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2, Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (n) (B) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
S. Except as specifically found herein, Respondents have not otherwise violated
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the
entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, I hereby make the following:
Respondent Local 895, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and its Agent Dean Fox, and Local 294, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and its Agents Nicholas Robilotto and Howard Bennett, and their officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Lange-Finn Construction
Co., Inc., E. G. May, Inc., or by any other person engaged in building construction
services at Albany Medical Center Hospital in Albany, New York, or by Albany
Medical Center Hospital or by Pine Hills Taxi Company, Inc, to engage in a strike
or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their respec-
tive employers, with an object thereof to force or require Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., to.
recognize or bargain with said Local 895 as the representative of the parking lot
employees of Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., at Albany Medical Center Hospital without
being certified as such representative under the provisions of Section 9 of the Labor
Management Relations Act, as amended; or with an object thereof to force or require
Albany Medical Center Hospital, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, to cease doing business with Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Lange-Finn Construction Co., Inc.,
E. G. May, Inc., or any other person engaged in building construction services at
Albany Medical Center Hospital in Albany, New York, or Pine Hills Taxi Com-
pany, Inc., or Albany Medical Center Hospital, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, with an object of forcing or requir-
ing Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., to recognize or bargain with said Local 895 as the rep-
resentative of the parking lot employees of Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., at Albany Medical
Center Hospital without being certified as such representative under the provisions
of Section 9 of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended; or with an object
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to force or require Albany Medical Center Hospital, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease doing business with Fitz-
Inn Parking, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act:
(a) Post at the respective business offices and meeting places of said Local 895
and Local 294, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 32 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 3, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondents or their authorized representatives, be posted by said Respond-
ents Local 895 and Local 294 immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to their members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 3 sufficient signed copies of said
notice for posting at the premises of Lange-Finn Construction Co., Inc., E. G. May,
Inc., and all other persons engaged in building construction services at Albany Medi-
cal Center Hospital in Albany, New York, and at the premises of Albany Medical
Center Hospital and of Pine Hills Taxi Company, Inc., they being willing, at places
where they customarily post notices to their employees.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply there-
with 33
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects.
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words, "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order".
`11n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith".
APPENDIX
To ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 895, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA; ALL MEMBERS OF
LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA; ALL EMPLOYEES OF LANGE-FINN CON-
STRUCTION CO., INC., E. G. MAY, INC. AND OF ANY OTHER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR AT ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL; ALL
EMPLOYEES OF ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL; ALL EMPLOYEES OF PINE
HILLS TAXI COMPANY, INC ; LANGE-FINN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., E. G. MAY,
INC., ALL OTHER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
AT ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL; ALBANY MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL;
PINE HILLS TAXI COMPANY, INC.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT, in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act, as
amended, (1) induce or encourage any individual employed by any building
construction contractor or subcontractor at Albany Medical Center Hospital, or
employed by Albany Medical Center Hospital, or by Pine Hills Taxi Com-
pany, Inc., to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
perform any services, or to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, and WE WILL
NOT (2) threaten, coerce, or restrain any building construction contractor or
subcontractor at Albany Medical Center Hospital, or Pine Hills Taxi Company,
Inc., or Albany Medical Center Hospital; where, in either case an object thereof
is (a) to force or require Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc., to recognize or bargain with
Local 895, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America as the representative of parking lot employees of Fitz-
Inn Parking, Inc., at Albany Medical Center Hospital, unless said Local 895
has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of
QUALITY LIMESTONE PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. 1009
such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Labor Management
Relations Act, as amended, or (b) to force or require Albany Medical Center
Hospital , or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce , to cease doing business with Fitz-Inn Parking, Inc.
LOCAL 895, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
Dean Fox, Business Agent.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
Herbert Grossman , Business Agent.
LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
Nicholas Robilotto, President.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
Howard Bennett, Business Representative.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , Region 3,
Fourth Floor , The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Tele-
phone No. TL 6-1782, if they have any question concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions.
Quality Limestone Products, Inc.; Waukesha Lime and Stone Co.,
Incorporated; Halquist Lannon Stone Company; Wislanco Lan-
non Stone Co., Inc.; Monacelli Lannon Stone Co.; Midwest Lan-
non Stone Co.; Milwaukee Lannon Stone Co., Inc. and Drivers,
Salesmen , Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy
Employees and Helpers Local Union 695 , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Cases Nos. 30-CA-6 (formerly 13-CA-5055), 30-CA-
10 (formerly 13-CA-5450), 30-CA-11 (f ormerlry 13-CA-5451),
and 30-CA-16 (formerly 13-CA-5595). July 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 13, 1964, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
153 NLRB No. 93.
796-027-66-val. 153-65