Local Union No. 610, Intl. Brthd. of Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 212 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local Union No. 610, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Wetterau
Foods, Inc.) and Edward W. Newman. Case
14-CB-2393 ,
March 6, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On August 22, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Eugene George Goslee issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respon-
dent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
1 The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE GEORGE GOSLEE, Administrative Law Judge:
This case come on to be heard before me at St. Louis,
Missouri, on July 26 and 27, 1972, upon a complaint'
issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board and an answer filed by Local Union No.
610, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
hereinafter referred to as the Respondent or Local 610.
The issues raised by the pleadings in this case relate to
whether, or not the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
1 The complaint in this proceeding was issued on May 18, 1972, upon a
charge filed on January 24, 1972, and served on the Respondent on or about
and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
by acts and conduct hereinafter specified. At the conclu-
sion of the hearing, all parties waived oral argument and
the filing of briefs with the Administrative Law Judge.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and from my
observation of the testimony and demeanor of the
witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Wetterau Foods, Inc., hereinafter called Wetterau or the
Employer, is a Missouri corporation, maintains its princi-
pal office and place of business at Hazelwood, Missouri,
and is engaged in the sale and distribution at wholesale of
food products, produce, and related items. During the past
calendar year, Wetterau purchased and received goods and
products used in its business operations from sources
situated outside the State of Missouri, in an amount valued
in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, the answer
admits, and I find that Wetterau Foods, Inc., is an
Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENT IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint also alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that the Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
The complaint alleges that since November 15, 1971, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act by causing, and attempting to cause, Wetterau to
discharge or otherwise reduce the work opportunities of the
charging party, Edward W. Newman. By its answer the
Respondent denies that it has engaged in any unfair labor
practices in contravention of the Act and affirmatively
pleads, as the complaint alleges, that Newman is a
member, in good standing, of Local 610.
The evidence adduced in this proceeding is attended by
numerous and crucial conflicts in the versions of events
and conversations related by Newman, representatives of
Wetterau, and agents of the Respondent. Crucial to a
determination of whether the discrimination was caused as
alleged is the issue of whether the Respondent's attempts, if
any, to cause Wetterau to discontinue Newman's employ-
ment occurred before or after November 15, 1971, the date
upon which he became a member in good standing of
Local 610, as required by the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement in effect between the Respondent
and Wetterau.
By way of background, the record reflects that Wetterau
operates a large food warehouse and distribution center in
Hazelwood, which is a suburb of St. Louis. Wetterau's
operations at this location are divided into two depart-
ments, one for warehousing and distributing grocery
products, and the second for warehousing and distributing
the same date
202 NLRB No. 38
LOCAL UNION NO. 610 , INTL. BRTHD . OF TEAMSTERS
produce and frozen foods. Moore Distributing Company,
an affiliate of Wetterau, is located a few blocks from the
Wetterau warehouse.
At times material to this proceeding, the drivers, and
apparently also the warehousemen employed in Wetterau's
grocery department, have been represented by the Respon-
dent, Local 610. The Respondent also represents the
drivers employed by Moore Distributing Company. The
drivers and warehousemen employed in Wetterau's pro-
duce department, however, are represented by Teamsters
Local 688, a sister local of the Respondent, also located in
St. Louis. For the purposes of hiring and dispatching
drivers, Wetterau's grocery and produce departments are
operated as separate entities, and at times material to this
case John E. Alvers was the individual responsible for
hiring and dispatching casual drivers for the grocery
department.
The collective-bargaining agreement in effect between
Respondent and Wetterau provides for three classifications
of drivers; regular, regular casuals, and casuals. Pursuant
to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement casual
drivers do not, like regular drivers and regular casuals,
accrue seniority. The bargaining agreement also contains a
union-security provision, which requires all newly hired
employees in the bargaining unit, including casual drivers,
to become and remain members of Local 610 on and after
31 days of employment. In addition, the bargaining
agreement contains a nonexclusive referral provision,
pursuant to which the Respondent is given equal opportu-
nity to provide Wetterau with additional employees. The
Respondent operates a hiring hall for the use of its
members and the members of sister locals. By recourse to
the referral provision in the agreement and the Respon-
dent's hiring hall, Newman originally obtained employ-
ment with Wetterau on December 31, 1969. The evidence
also reflects that Newman was referred to employment out
of hiring hall on several occasions since November 15,
1971, the date on which it is alleged that the Respondent
caused Wetterau to discriminate against him.
As related above, Newman was hired by Wetterau as a
casual driver in the grocery department on December 31,
1969. Newman continued to work as a casual driver
throughout 1970, earning about $1,400. In 1971, Newman
continued to work as a casual driver, but on a more
extensive basis, and during that year earned approximately
$6,100. The record reflects that Newman originally became
a member of the Teamsters in 1946, but, as a result of a
series of mergers between locals, Newman became a
member of Local 688 in about 1967. In 1968, following the
termination of his employment by a prior employer,
Newman ceased paying dues to Local 688, and was
removed from his status as a member in good standing
with that Local. Following the date of his employment as a
casual driver with Wetterau, Newman made no attempt to
acquire membership in Local 610, although, according to
his testimony, he was aware from the outset of his
employment that membership in the Respondent was
2 I find, contrary to the Respondent's contention, that Charles Cooper is
its agent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) for purposes relevant to this case.
As the record reflects, Cooper had authority to police compliance with the
union-security provision. Included in this responsibility was Cooper's
authority to lodge complaints with management and to request the
213
required by the terms of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. During the same period; Newman remained delin-
quent insofar as the payment of his arrears of dues to Local
688, and at no time until November 15, 1971, was he a
member in good standing in that labor organization.
There is a considerable degree of conflict in Newman's
testimony concerning the first occasion when he was called
upon to submit proof of his membership in Local 610. On
his original direct examination by the General Counsel,
Newman testified that it was not until the first part of
November 1971 that he was called upon to produce his
membership card for the Respondent. On that occasion,
Newman was approached by Charles Cooper, the acting
chief steward for the drivers represented by the Respon-
dent,2 and requested to produce his membership card.
Newman excused himself on grounds that his card was at
home. According to the further testimony of Newman,
Cooper again requested to see his membership card 2 or 3
days later, and Newman again replied that his caid was at
home. A few days later Cooper informed Newman that
Dale Hicks, another casual driver, had blown the whistle
on casuals who were not members in good standing of
Local 610. According to Newman's recollection, Cooper
did not, however, ask to see his membership card on that
occasion. About November 12, 1971,3 Newman produced
a union card from Local 688 and showed it to Cooper.
Cooper held the card at arm's length, indicating some
difficulty reading the print, and returned it to Newman
with the comment, "I knew you had a card, but I had to
see it."
Newman also testified that on November 12 he visited
the union hall and asked Jack Kuper, business representa-
tive for the Respondent, for a transfer from Local 688 to
Local 610. Kuper told Newman he could not transfer until
he was straightened up with Local 688. Later, on the same
date, Newman called Charles Saffo, the Respondent's
hiring hall manager, and informed Saffo that he had been
caught on a Local 610 job without paying union dues.
Newman also informed Saffo that Wetterau intended to
hire some regular drivers, and there was an additional
reason why he wanted to get this straightened up with
Local 610. Saffo told Newman to go to the hall and resolve
his delinquency with Local 688, and then talk to Business
Representative Harlan Horn. Between November 12 and
15; through the intercession of Carol Meyer, who is
identified in the record as a Local 610 steward at another
place of employment, Newman paid off his arrears to
Local 688 and was transferred to Local 610. Newman
admitted in his testimony that Horn agreed to waive
Newman's dues for the current month and, on November
15, Newman received his membership card in Local 610.
On cross-examination Newman adhered to his direct
testimony that he was not approached for a membership
card in Local 610 until early November 1971. When
confronted, however, with the contents of a pretrial
statement given to the Board, Newman admitted that
Cooper requested his card on several occasions prior to
discontinuance of the employment status of any employee who was not a
member of Local 610, or who was in arrears in the payment of dues.
3 All dates recited hereinafter are in 1971, unless specified to the
contrary.
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August or September 1971. Newman also admitted that in
August or September Cooper asked for his card because
Wetterau intended to hire some regular drivers and
Newman was eligible to take the examination for regular
employment . According to Newman , he produced his
Local 688 card . At a later juncture in his testimony, in
response to a question posed by the Administrative Law
Judge, Newman stated that he was first approached by
Cooper about a union card in August or September 1970.
Insofar as the events reviewed about are, concerned,
Newman's testimony contrasts vividly with testimony
adduced from Charles Cooper . Cooper testified that he
first requested Newman 's Local 610 card in May 1971.
Newman told Cooper that his card was at home . Cooper
repeated his request about 2 weeks later , and Newman
again excused his failure to produce because his card was
at home. About May 30, apparently in conjunction with
Wetterau 's intent to use casuals over the Memorial Day
holiday, Cooper asked the Company's management not to
work Newman and two other casual drivers because they
were not members of Local 610. On the same date, and
after he had talked to Wetterau 's management, Cooper
again approached Newman and informed him that if he
did not produce a Local 610 card Cooper would request
Wetterau not to allow Newman to work . Newman replied
that the card might be in his car, and after an absence of
about 45 minutes Newman returned and showed Cooper a
Local 610 card containing the name "Ed Newman."
Satisfied that Newman was a member of Local 610,
Cooper made no further inquiry until the following
October.
In October Cooper called Newman at home to inform
him that Wetterau intended to hire some regular drivers. In
Cooper's opinion , Newman was the best qualified of the
casual drivers , and Cooper intended to see that Newman
was given an opportunity to take the required examination.
Approximately 2 weeks Cooper was told by the Respon-
dent 's hiring hall that Larry Shoemack, Wetterau's general
warehouse superintendent had informed the Respondent
that Newman was a member of Local 688 . Cooper was
unwilling to believe the report because Newman had
produced a Local 610 card , but he left a note for Newman
to contact him. On Sunday , November 14, Newman
contacted Cooper and insisted that he was a member of
Local 610, but that he intended to visit the Respondent's
hall to "get this mess straightened out." On the following,
November 15, Cooper was informed by Harlan Horn that
Newman had transferred from Local 688 to Local 610.
After he received his Local 610 membership card on
November 15, Newman showed the card to Larry
Shoemack and told him that he was "straightened out"
with the Respondent . Following this Newman contacted
John Alvers, the dispatcher , to inquire about work for the
following day . While Newman was in Alvers ' office
Cooper and Assistant Steward Ray Thomas entered.
Newman took out his Local 610 membership card and
showed it to Cooper . Cooper replied that he was aware that
Newman had acquired membership in good standing only
that morning, and accused Newman of having previously
used his deceased son's membership card for Local 610.
According to Newman 's testimony , he denied the accusa-
tion , and during an ensuing exchange of words Cooper
threatened that Newman would be moved back three
places on the list of casual drivers. Newman protested, but
Cooper handed Alvers a list and told Alvers that this was
the way the casuals were going to work . Newman admitted
that he did not see the list, and that Alvers placed the list in
his desk drawer without any comment . The alleged list was
not produced in evidence in this proceeding . Newman also
testified that during the conversation Cooper stated that
any casual in good standing with Local 610 could work.
Newman further testified that after the conversation in
Alvers' office he met Cooper in the drivers ' room . Cooper
again accused Newman of using his son's membership
card , and that Newman had made a dunce out of Cooper.
In response to Newman 's inquiry, Cooper insisted that the
casuals would be worked according to the list Cooper gave
to Alvers.
Before the end of the day, Newman visited the
Respondent 's hall and informed Harlan Horn of Cooper's
threat to move him back three places on the casual list.
Horn replied that Cooper could not change the bargaining
agreement , meaning, insofar as I am able to determine
from the record, that casual drivers do not accrue seniority
for assignment purposes . In April 1972, Newman again
talked to Horn after Alvers had reported to him that
Cooper insisted that Newman work out of the hiring hall.
Newman repeated the accusation that Cooper was depriv-
ing him of casual employment through recourse to the list,
and Horn again replied that Cooper had no such authority.
Approximately a week after the meeting in Alvers' office,
Newman contacted Ray Schrecker , Wetterau's director of
operations for warehousing and transportation . Newman
asked Schrecker if the Company was going to work him
according to the Cooper list. Schrecker replied that Cooper
couldn't change the contract . There was some discussion
about the hire of additional regular employees, and
Schrecker told Newman that he intended to send all the
casuals over to take the examination.
During early January 1972, Newman again talked to
Schrecker and asked if he could take the examination for a
position as a regular driver . According to Newman,
Schrecker replied that Harlan Horn had said that Newman
had been "screwing" the Union for 3 years, and that
Cooper had told Schrecker that Newman had been using
his son 's membership card . In response Newman took out
his Local 610 membership card and informed Schrecker
that his dues were paid up and he was a member in good
standing of the Respondent . Schrecker then agreed that
Newman could take the examination for a position as a
regular driver . Newman subsequently took the examina-
tion and failed to qualify as a regular driver.
On cross-examination , Newman was questioned further
about his January 1972 conversation with Schrecker. In
this testimony Newman related that he asked why he was
not being called to work as a casual driver . Schrecker
replied that the Company was not using casuals because
another driver had passed the examination and had been
hired as a regular driver.
Following November 15, Newman continued for a short
period of time to work for Wetterau 's grocery department
as a casual driver . The record reveals that he worked in the
LOCAL UNION NO. 610, INTL. BRTHD . OF TEAMSTERS 215
grocery department on November 16, 17, 22, and 23,
following which dates Newman was employed as a casual
driver in the produce department on December 27 and 30,
and January 5, 7, 12, 14, and 30, 1972. Newman testified
that in January, while working for the produce department
he asked Alvers if he was off the list of casuals. Alvers
replied, "No, you are not off the list, but Cooper has you so
far back you are not going to work." Alvers testified in this
proceeding, but he neither corroborated nor denied the
remarks attributed to him by Newman in the January
conversation.
Following his employment in Wetterau's produce de-
partment Newman was employed as a driver for Moore
Distributing Company and worked a total of 12 days
during May 1972. As related above, Moore Distributing
Company is an affiliate of Wetterau and its drivers are
represented by the Respondent. On June 12, 1972,
following the issuance of the complaint in this case, the
Respondent sent letters to Wetterau and Newman advising
that Local 610 had no objection to Wetterau's employment
of Newman, so long as his employment in the bargaining
unit was in accordance with the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement. As of the date of the hearing,
Newman had not been recalled by Wetterau, although the
record reflects that the Employer continued to use casual
drivers both before and after June 12, 1972.
John Alvers testified as a witness for the General
Counsel and described generally the conditions under
which Wetterau uses casual drivers and the manner of their
selection. Alvers identified three lists of names of casual
drivers which he relied on at times relevant to the alleged
discrimination against Newman. The list used by Alvers
during November and December 1971, contains the name
"Ed Newman," as does the list of casuals maintained and
used by Alvers after Memorial Day 1972. According to
Alvers' testimony, he customarily called employees for
casual work in accordance with their length of service and
record of reliability. At times proximately related to
November 15, 1971, Alvers considered Newman as second
or third on his list of available casuals.
Alvers was aware that Newman had not been in good
standing with the Respondent. At a time prior to
November 15, which he characterized as a couple of
months, Alvers was told by Steward Cooper that Newman
was not in good standing and would have to go to the hall
to "get squared away," or not work for Wetterau. In spite
of Cooper's words Alvers continued to call Newman for
work until on and after November 15.
Alvers testified to the meeting of November 15 in his
office, which he characterized as approximately the size of
a pool table. Insofar as he testified that Newman came to
the office to inquire about work for the following day,
Alvers' version corroborates that related by Newman. In
most other respects, however, and depending upon which
of his several versions is credited, Alvers' testimony
concerning the November 15 meeting contrasts vividly
with the testimony elicited from Newman. Alvers' testimo-
ny about the meeting also contrasts , in one crucial respect,
with the testimony of Schrecker, and is completely
contrary to evidence elicited from Cooper.
Alvers related that Newman arrived at this office first,
followed by Cooper and Assistant Steward Ray Thomas.
Newman asked about work for the following day and
Cooper interjected the comment that Newman was not in
good standing as far as the Respondent was concerned and
had been working on his deceased son's card. When
questioned as to whether Newman produced a card, Alvers
testified that when the card was produced Cooper replied,
"This is not your card, this is your son's card you are
operating on." When asked about the list Cooper is alleged
to have handed him, Alvers denied that the list was given
to him at that time . As Alvers recalled , at a later time in
November or December Cooper brought a list to his office
which contained the names of four casual drivers. Cooper
told Alvers that these were the casuals to be used in the
future . Newman 's name was on the list , but had been
scratched through. Cooper reminded Alvers that some
casual drivers were being used who were not members of
Local 610, and others were delinquent in the payment of
dues.
At a later stage in his testimony on direct examination,
Alvers recalled that Cooper gave him the list of casual
drivers on November 15 or 16. Alvers also recalled that
about a week following this he had a second conversation
with Cooper concerning Newman. Alvers asked Cooper
how the matter was going about Newman. Cooper replied,
"No way, no way." Alvers asked if Newman had come up
with his dues, and Cooper replied that Newman had been
operating on his deceased son's card. Cooper, according to
Alvers' testimony, also threatened, ". . . if [Newman]
comes back to work you will find umbrellas out in front of
the warehouse."
At the conclusion of his direct examination Alvers was
asked why he failed to call Newman to work after January
1, 1972. Alvers replied that he had never been informed
that Newman was a member in good standing with Local
610, and this was the reason he failed to call him for work.
On cross-examination Alvers admitted that his recollec-
tion of dates and the contents of conversations relevant to
this proceeding was "not too good." Alvers particularly
agreed that he was unsure of the dates of the conversations
he had with Cooper about Newman' s status. With respect
to his testimony of the reasons for failing to call Newman
for work, Alvers stated that he was unaware of Newman's
good standing in the Union until the day before the
hearing commenced , when the Respondent 's letter of June
12, 1972, was brought to his attention. When again
questioned, however, about the meeting in his office on
November 12, Alvers recalled that Newman held up a card
and told Cooper that he was in good standing . Alvers also
recalled that Cooper replied, "Yes, I know you got back in
good standing today." As justification of the conflict with
his prior testimony Alvers related that he was unsure of the
dates, and admitted the possibility that Cooper or someone
else had complained to him before November 15 about
Newman 's lack of good standing in Local 610.
Schrecker testified that he was also present during a part
of the conversation which took place in Alvers' office on
November 15. He testified that he entered the office and
heard that Newman was not in good standing, that he had
been using his deceased son's card , and that Wetterau was
not to use Newman as a casual driver . Schrecker also
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that Cooper gave Alvers a list with the comment
that these were the casual drivers who were paid-up
members in good standing with the Union, but Schrecker
never saw the list.
I do not credit Schrecker 's testimony that he was present
in Alvers' office and overheard part of the November 12
conversation. Newman and Alvers both testified to the
event and specifically named the individuals who were
present. Schrecker was not named . Cooper also testified
about the November 12 meeting, and specifically denied
that Schrecker was present . I find it inherently incredible
that four persons gathered in a room the size of a pool
table could have overlooked the presence of a fifth person.
In view of Newman's testimony of his January 1972
conversation with Schrecker, I also discredit Schrecker's
denial that neither he nor any other management official of
Wetterau was ever made aware that Newman had obtained
membership in good standing and had resolved his
difficulties with Local 610.
In further testimony , Schrecker admitted that sometime
in October or November 1971, but before November 15,
Cooper complained to him about Newman 's nonmember-
ship in Local 610, and told Schrecker that Newman was
not to be used as a casual driver until he was "straightened
out." Schrecker also testified that in January 1972, he
called Harlan Horn to discuss the problem of obtaining
casuals through the hiring hall, and the problem Wetterau
was experiencing in finding qualified regular drivers.
During the course of the conversation, there was a
discussion of employees not in good standing with Local
610, and Newman's name was mentioned along with
several other employees. According to Schrecker, he
expressed his impression that Newman was not in good
standing and Horn replied , "Yes, he's been screwing us for
a couple of years." In the course of his testimony, however,
Schrecker admitted that Horn did not tell him that
Newman was not in good standing and did not tell him
that Wetterau was not to employ Newman.
As related above, Cooper was informed on November
15, that Newman had transferred from Local 688 and had
perfected membership in good standing in Local 610.
When Cooper met Newman in Alvers' office later that day,
Newman told Cooper that he was straightened out. In the
conversation which followed, apparently attended with
some heat, Cooper accused Newman of lying about his
union membership and questioned him about the card he
had produced in May. Newman admitted that the card had
belonged to his deceased son. Newman then asked where
this left him as far as work was concerned , and Cooper
replied, "You are straightened out with the Union, and
your name will be kept on the list of available drivers."
Cooper denied that he ever gave Alvers, or any other
representative of Wetterau, any list of casual drivers on
which Newman's name was crossed off. Cooper did admit
that on November 15, after the confrontation in Alvers'
office, he met with Schrecker about the casual drivers who
were in good standing with Local 610. Using the Compa-
ny's daily run sheet Cooper explained to Schrecker those
employees who were in good standing and available for
continued employment Newman 's name was on the list as
a member of Local 610 in good standing. I credit Cooper's
testimony of the events of November 15, as well as his
testimony of events which preceded that date, and I
discredit the versions of the November 15 meeting related
by Newman and Alvers.
On the basis of the foregoing review of the evidence in
this proceeding , prolix as it is by reason of the necessity to
resolve factual conflicts , I am unconvinced that the
General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proof in
support of the allegations of the complaint . The record
leaves no doubt that until November 15, 1971, Newman
failed to obtain and maintain membership in Local 610 as
required by the collective -bargaining agreement . It is also
clear that on several occasions prior to November 15, the
Respondent 's agents brought Newman 's noncompliance
with the union-security provision to the attention of
Wetterau 's representative , and insisted on compliance as a
condition of Newman's continued employment. I have no
doubt that the Respondent 's agents, particularly Cooper
and Horn , strongly expressed their disapproval of Newman
and the manner in which he avoided his union membership
obligation . This evidence may supply the element of proof
of animus , but more than an unlawful animus is required
to prove that the Respondent attempted to cause, or did
cause Wetterau to discriminate against Newman. I find no
credible evidence that on or after November 15, the date
when Newman perfected his membership in Local 610, the
Respondent overtly, tacitly, or in any other manner,
attempted to cause Wetterau to terminate Newman's
employment or reduce the amount of time he worked as a
casual driver.
In arriving at the foregoing finding , I find particularly
implausible the testimony of Wetterau 's representatives
that the Company's failure to call Newman back to work
was its lack of knowledge that he had acquired member-
ship in Local 610 and was in good standing . Immediately
after receiving his membership card , Newman apprised
Wetterau's warehouse manager , Shoemack , that he was
"straightened out" with Local 610, and he showed
Shoemack his card . Later on the same day, in the presence
of Alvers, Newman showed his card to Cooper, and Alvers
heard Cooper acknowledge that Newman was in good
standing . Alvers also heard Cooper state that any casual
driver in good standing would be permitted to work. As to
Schrecker , assuming that none of this information was
brought to his attention, he was told by Cooper on
November 15 that Newman was in good standing with
Local 610 and eligible for work as a casual driver. In
January 1972, Newman produced his card for Schrecker,
and told him that he was a member in good standing of
Local 610. Finally, in June 1972 , Wetterau was notified in
writing that the Respondent had no objection to Newman's
employment by the Company . In spite of its continued use
of casual drivers , Wetterau did not recall Newman for
work.
Even if I were to assume , contrary to the evidence, that
Wetterau's representatives labored under a misassumption
about Newman's standing in Local 610 , I would , neverthe-
less, be required to dismiss the complaint. I find no
credible evidence that Wetterau was misled or misdirected
by any acts or conduct of the Respondent, and according-
LOCAL UNION NO 610, INTL. BRTHD . OF TEAMSTERS 217
ly, any misassumption or misunderstanding that existed
cannot be imputed to Local 610.
Having found and concluded that the Respondent has
not violated the Act as alleged, I hereby issue the following
recommended: 4
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be
dismissed.
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings . Board and become its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections
conclusions, recommendations , and recommended Order herein shall, as thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes