Meat And Provision Drivers Local 626, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 186 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meat and Provision Drivers Union Local 626 , Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Quality
Meat Packing Company ) and Food Employers
Council, Inc
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No 501 , AFL-CIO and Food Employers
Council, Inc Cases 21-CB-5011 and 21-CB-5012
May 27, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND WALTHER
On October 23, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V S Robbins issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding Thereafter, Respondent Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union
No 501, the Charging Party, Food Employers Coun-
cil, Inc , and the Acting General Counsel each filed
exceptions and briefs, and Respondent Meat and
Provision Drivers Union Local 626, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, filed cross-exceptions
and a brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to
the extent consistent herewith and to adopt her rec-
ommended Order
We agree with the findings and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge that by fining Chief Engi-
neer Stanley Noonan, a supervisor within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) and an employer representative
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B), for working
as a supervisor for Gold-Pak Company (Case 21-
CB-5012) behind a valid picket line, Respondent Op-
erating Engineers had engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section of 8(b)(1)(B)
of the Act
We also agree with the conclusions of the Admin-
istrative Law Judge that by fining Shipping Supervi-
sor Fred Herrington and Loading Foreman Fred
Sandoval for performing rank-and-file work, while it
was engaged in a labor dispute with Quality Meat
Packing Company (Case 21-CB-5011), Respondent
Teamsters had not violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) How-
ever, our basis for agreeing with the Administrative
Law Judge is not the rationale set forth in her Deci-
sion, but the reasons discussed below
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we are
unable to agree that Loading Foreman Sandoval was
a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act It is well established that the issue as to
whether an employee enjoys supervisory status is not
determined on the basis of job titles, but upon wheth-
er the person in question has the required statutory
supervisory powers and responsibilities 1
Although titled "foreman," Sandoval spent practi-
cally all his time doing rank-and-file work, cutting
meat and assisting the other bargaining unit employ-
ees in seeing that the beef was properly loaded onto
trucks for delivery The record shows that Sandoval
spent some time giving directions In our opinion
such directions did not require the exercise of inde-
pendent judgment, but were more in the nature of
customary leadman duties a more experienced em-
ployee overseeing and facilitating the work of less
experienced employees
Although the applicable collective-bargaining
agreement expressly states that a bargaining unit em-
ployee may be terminated if issued a sufficient num-
ber of written notices or reprimands, and Sandoval
apparently had the power to issue such reprimands,
there was no evidence presented at the hearing as to
what effect, if any, reprimands issued by Sandoval
had upon an employee's job status Despite the writ-
ten notices issued by Sandoval, the employees in-
volved have not in any way had their job status af-
fected by such notices Indeed, on the one occasion
that Sandoval attempted to terminate a bargaining
unit employee, his decision was unilaterally reversed
without any consultation with or explanation to San-
doval The clear inference was that he had neither
the power to terminate an employee nor to effective-
ly recommend the termination of an employee There
is no showing that he ever had been instructed to the
contrary
Moreover, the uncontradicted testimony at the
hearing indicates that the employees who work with
Sandoval are generally required to ask Traffic Man-
ager and Dispatcher Herrington for authorization or
permission if they want to leave work for personal or
medical reasons
Furthermore, the record is devoid of any evidence
showing Sandoval had ever hired or successfully rec-
ommended the hiring of an employee, made up work
schedules, authorized overtime, transferred or suc-
cessfully recommended the promotion of an employ-
ee, or selected or required an employee to work over-
1 See Wisconsin River Valley District Council of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America AFL-CIO (Skippy Enterprises, Inc) 211
NLRB 222 (1974)
224 NLRB No 40
MEAT AND PROVISION DRIVERS LOCAL 626, TEAMSTERS 187
time Nor was any evidence presented that Sandoval
had ever adjusted or become involved in the griev-
ance procedure
Accordingly, we find on the basis of the record as
a whole that Sandoval was a rank-and-file member
of Respondent Teamsters who on January 8, 1974,
performed bargaining unit work at the time Respon-
dent Teamsters had a valid picketing line in effect
and which Sandoval crossed to perform his work
Thus Respondent Teamsters fining of Sandoval for
performing work behind a valid picket line in viola-
tion of its internal rules was not proscribed by the
Act 2 We shall, therefore, dismiss the 8(b)(1)(B) alle-
gations relating thereto
As for Herrington, it is clear he not only carried
the job title traffic manager and dispatcher, but had
the authority and responsibilities which such title
suggests He supervised the entire shipping depart-
ment of approximately 20 employees, and made the
final decision as to the hiring and the discharging of
employees under his supervision Herrington was the
employer representative designated with the authori-
ty to adjust grievances with Respondent Teamsters
shop steward Like Sandoval, Herrington was a
member of Respondent Teamsters and received all
the fringe benefits under the collective-bargaining
agreement Herrington worked all 3 days of the strike
on January 7, 8, and 9, 1974 Before the strike he did
little or no rank-and-file bargaining unit work
Herrington admitted in his testimony that during
the strike he did a certain percentage of bargaining
unit work not normally performed, such as carrying
loads onto the truck to instruct the 8 to 10 temporary
replacements hired during the strike, some scaling,
and moving trucks around Although it is difficult to
estimate the amount of time such work entailed it
would appear to involve as high as 10 percent of his
day In addition Herrington admittedly performed
Sandoval's loading work on January 7 and 9 when
Sandoval did not work behind the picket line Before
the strike such work involved about 50 percent of
Sandoval's workday
In view of the fact that during the strike the opera-
tion was required to function with a drastically re-
duced and inexperienced work force, we agree with
the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions, based
upon the credible testimony of Respondent's picket
captain, Filipoff, that the unit work usually per-
formed by both Herrington and Sandoval increased
and involved a higher percentage of their workdays
A reasonable inference from the uncontradicted
and credible testimony is that Herrington devoted
from 40 to 50 percent of his workday, including his
2 See Florida Powet & Light Co v International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local 641, et at 417 U S 790, 794-795 (1974)
taking over Sandoval's work, to nonsupervisory
rank-and-file struck work We find, therefore, that
during the strike Herrington spent a substantial
amount of his time performing bargaining unit work
which he had not previously done Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the 8(b)(1)(B) allegations relating to
Herrington 3
ORDER4
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders the Respondent, International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers, Local Union No 501, AFL-CIO,
Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, and rep-
resentatives, shall take the action set forth in said
recommended Order
MEMBER FANNING, concurring in part and dissenting
in part
In regard to the fines levied against Shipping Su-
pervisor Fred Herrington and Loading Foreman
Fred Sandoval, I concur only in the result reached by
my colleagues As I indicated in my dissenting opin-
ion in Chicago Typographical Union No 16 (Ham-
mond Publishers, Inc), 216 NLRB 903 (1975), and for
reasons set forth therein, I would find that the perfor-
mance of any rank-and-file function will place subse-
quent union discipline of a supervisor-member out-
side the ambit of Section 8(b)(1)(B) I do not find it
essential-as does the majority here-that a supervi-
sor-member spent a substantial amount of time dur-
ing the strike performing bargaining unit work he
had not previously performed Accordingly, as Her-
rington performed rank-and-file work during the
strike, I would dismiss the complaint as to him Fur-
ther, even were I to find that Sandoval was a supervi-
sor, I would also dismiss the complaint as to him It
is clear that Sandoval performed some bargaining
unit work during the strike and thus the fine against
him was outside the prohibition of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
Based on the facts before me, I also find no viola-
tion as to Supervisor Noonan In past cases,' I have
stated that the operative test in establishing a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(B), as I read the Supreme
Court's decision in Florida Power and Light, supra, is
whether it is reasonable to conclude that the union
3 Chicago Typographical Union No 16 (Hammond Publishers Inc) 216
NLRB 903 (1975) Glaziers and Glassworkers Local Union No 1621 Intl
Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades AFL-CIO (Glass Management A sso
ciation) 221 NLRB 529 (1975)
4The Administrative Law Judges Conclusion of Law 3 is amended by
deleting the name Fred Sandoval
' See e g my dissent in New York Typographical Union No 6 Internation
at Typographical Union AFL-CIO (Daily Racing Form a subsidiary of Tram
gle Publications Inc) 216 NLRB 896 (1975)
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discipline may adversely affect a disciplined
supervisor's future performance of two distinct func-
tions, grievance adjustment and collective-bargaining
representation Here, though Noonan performed
only "supervisory functions" during the strike, there
is no evidence that Supervisor Noonan, either prior
to or during the strike, had any responsibility or
function regarding grievance adjustment or collective
bargaining Thus, it cannot be inferred either that the
Union's discipline of Noonan was imposed because
of the manner in which he had performed any griev-
ance adjustment or collective-bargaining function or
that the discipline would adversely affect his future
performance of these functions Where, as here, a
supervisor-member was fined solely for crossing a
picket line, I do not believe that any violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) can be found Therefore, I dissent
from the failure of my colleagues to dismiss the com-
plaint as to Supervisor Noonan
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
course and conduct of its business operations, Quality
Meat annually purchases and receives goods and products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located
outside the State of California
Bristol Foods, Inc, d/b/a Gold-Pak Meat Company,
herein called Gold-Pak, is a California corporation en-
gaged in the operation of a meat-processing plant in Ver-
non, California In the normal course and conduct of its
business operations, Gold-Pak annually purchases and
receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000
directly from suppliers located outside the State of Cali-
fornia
The consolidated complaint alleges, Respondent Team-
sters admits, Respondent Operating Engineers stipulates,
and I find that Quality Meat and Gold-Pak each is an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
II LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The complaint alleges , Respondents admit , and I find,
that Respondent Teamsters and Respondent Operating
Engineers each is , and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act
EARLDEAN V S ROBBINS Administrative Law Judge This
case was heard before me in Los Angeles, California, on
August 12 and 13, 1975 The charge in Case 21-CB-5011
was filed by Food Employers Council, Inc , on July 11,
1974, and served on Respondent Teamsters on that same
date The amended charge in Case 21-CB-5011 was filed
by Food Employers Council, Inc, on July 11, 1974, and
served on Respondent Operating Engineers on that same
date The first amended charge was filed and served on
Respondent Operating Engineers on May 28, 1975, and the
second amended charge was filed and served on Respon-
dent Operating Engineers on May 29, 1975 The consoli-
dated complaint, which issued on June 5, 1975, alleges that
Respondents each has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act
The issues herein are (1) whether Noonan, Herrington,
and Sandoval are employer representatives within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, (2) if so, did they
perform more than minimal rank-and-file struck work, and
(3) whether the fines levied upon them were violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the oral arguments made by General Counsel and Respon-
dent Operating Engineers and the briefs of the parties, I
make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I JURISDICTION
Quality Meat Packing Company, herein called Quality
Meat, is a corporation engaged in the operation of a meat-
processing plant in Los Angeles, California In the normal result in termination
III CASE 21-CB-5011
A Facts
Quality Meat is signatory to a collective-bargaining
agreement with Respondent Teamsters covering drivers
who are responsible for loading meat for delivery onto
trucks and delivering the meat to customers Overall re-
sponsibility for the supervision of Quality Meat's shipping
department, which includes loading and delivery, resides in
Fred Herrington, traffic manager and dispatcher
Herrington's undisputed testimony is that he supervised
the entire shipping department with 18 to 20 employees
under his supervision, including Loading Foreman Fred
Sandoval and Scaling Foreman Larry Guzman Herrington
scheduled all deliveries, estimating the weights for each in-
voice, routing each load and assigning drivers to particular
trucks Guzman has authority to make changes, as neces-
sary, in the dispatch schedule Both Sandoval and Herring-
ton have authority to issue warning notices 1 Herrington
makes the final decision as to hiring and discharging em-
ployees under his supervision except that extra drivers em-
ployed by the day are usually hired by Guzman Herring-
ton is usually the person who grants time off to employees,
but Guzman and Sandoval may also grant time off He is
also the employer representative designated to adjust griev-
ances with the shop steward Guzman is a member of the
Butchers Union and Sandoval and Herrington are mem-
bers of Respondent Teamsters and receive all of the fringe
benefits under the collective-bargaining agreement
Guzman and Sandoval are working foremen Guzman
1 Under the collective-bargaining agreement three warning notices can
MEAT AND PROVISION DRIVERS LOCAL 626, TEAMSTERS 189
weighs all meat prior to loading it on the truck and once
the trucks are loaded he dispatches the drivers Sandoval
separates the fore and hind quarters of a side of meat and
directs the drivers as to the loading sequence Herrington
prepares a recap which is essentially a routing sheet which
shows what cuts of meat are to be delivered to a particular
customer and the proper loading sequence A copy of the
recap is sent to the cooler and Guzman and Sandoval each
receive a copy
Following the meat's transfer from the cooler to the
truck, the meat, cut in sides and ribbed, is hooked onto an
overhead rail The hooks are on rollers and one hook goes
into the hindquarter and one into the forequarter Butchers
push the sides of meat from the cooler on the overhead rail
The meat is pushed onto the scale where it is weighed by
the scaling foreman (Guzman) The meat is then pushed
beyond the scale The forequarters are swung over to a
lower rail, hooked with another smaller hook, and the fore-
quarter is cut from the hindquarter by the loading foreman
(Sandoval) The loading foreman then cuts down the fore-
quarter and it is pushed on the lower rail to the end of the
dock A driver removes the quarter from the lower rail,
carries it onto the truck 2 and places it in accordance with
instructions from the loading foreman 3 The same proce-
dure is used in loading the hindquarter Occasionally, if the
loading foreman is busy, one of the drivers will cut the
meat When the loading is completed and he is ready for a
driver to leave, Guzman gives him the invoices and truck
keys and the driver leaves to make the deliveries
Occasionally, if shorthanded or if he wanted to give a
loader-driver some relief, Sandoval would carry meat into
the truck and let someone else cut Also occasionally, if
shorthanded, Herrington will assist on the scale during
breaktime and, more infrequently, substitute for the load-
ing foreman Occasionally, when there is a new employee,
the loading foreman will carry a quarter into the truck once
to demonstrate how to balance the meat on one's shoulder
and how to walk inside the truck so as to avoid injury
On the morning of January 7, 1974,4 at around 9 am,
Respondent Teamsters pulled the Quality Meat drivers off
the job A picket line was set up at the plant immediately
Driver and Shop Steward Alex J Fihpoff was picket cap-
tain and manned the picket line until noon on the first day
and from 6 am until noon for the last 2 days the work
stoppage was in effect-January 8 and 9 Herrington
crossed the picket line and worked throughout the strike
Sandoval did leave the premises on January 7 after the
other drivers had left He crossed the picket line and
worked on January 8 He did not work on January 9
On January 7, within an hour after the drivers had
walked off the Job, Quality Meat secured 8 to 10 temporary
replacements from Rent-a-Man, a supplier of temporary
help These replacements completed the loading of the
2 Some trucks are equipped so the meat can be rolled directly onto the
truck
3 The meat has to be arranged in the truck in a certain way It has to be
loaded and papered off to keep the orders separate so the driver will know
what to unload at each stop The orders are placed in the truck in reverse
order according to the routing of the deliveries so that the meat loaded first
will be delivered last
4 All dates hereinafter will be 1974 unless otherwise indicated
trucks and made the deliveries 5 According to Herrington,
when the replacements arrived he showed them what had
to be done to load the trucks, and carried a few quarters of
meat into the trucks to demonstrate how it should be done
He also did some scaling 6 as did the company president
and one of the salesmen Herrington estimates that he
spent about 15 to 20 percent of the day scaling and 40 or
50 percent of the day doing Sandoval's Job According to
him, the replacements had no previous experience handling
meat so he had to show them how to carry the meat to
avoid injury and how to place the meat in the truck proper-
ly He denies carrying meat except for instructional pur-
poses He made no deliveries, but he did move five or six
trucks from the back parking lot to the front dock, a dis-
tance of about one-half block According to him, he did
this in order to expedite the loading since the replacements
did not know the location of the trucks After the loading
was finished, Herrington organized the scheduling for the
next day's loading
On January 8 and 9, according to Herrington, he did
little or no scaling On January 8 Sandoval worked, so,
according to Herrington, he did no loading or work nor-
mally done by Sandoval He did not even go onto the dock
On January 9 he did the work normally performed by San-
doval
Both Sandoval and Herrington testified that although he
was the last to walk off the job, Sandoval did not work on
January 7, the day the strike was called They both also
testified that on January 8 he only did the work normally
performed by him Sandoval concedes that because the re-
placements were inexperienced he probably demonstrated
a couple of times the proper way to carry the meat He
estimates that he spent no more than a couple of minutes
actually carrying meat 7
Filipoff testified without contradiction that it usually
takes two persons to swing off meat from the high rail to
the low rail One pushes up the forequarter, the other sticks
the smaller hook from the low rail into the forequarter and
cuts it off, and they both push it up toward the truck An-
other person pushes the meat into the truck This does not
contradict the testimony of Sandoval and Herrington
Rather, it seems to clarify their testimony Thus Herring-
ton and Sandoval testified that Sandoval does a lot of
pushing meat onto the lower rail Neither of them testified
that he does this alone, and Filipoff's description of a two-
man operation was not rebutted I credit Filipoff's testimo-
ny in this regard and conclude that his description of
swinging meat onto the lower rail is the most accurate and
complete I therefore find that Sandoval and a driver to-
gether swing the meat onto the lower rail In so doing, I am
not discrediting either Sandoval or Herrington I merely
5 Production (loading) was considerably below normal
6 The weighing of meat normally done by Scaling Foreman Guzman The
Butchers Union was also on strike and Guzman was not at work at any time
during the Teamsters strike
7 The witnesses appeared to use three different terms in describing the
handling of the meat during the loading procedure Carrying' or "lugging
apparently refers to walking with the beef on one's shoulder 'Pushing
refers to propelling the meat while it is hooked to either the high or the low
roller, and swinging refers to transferring the meat from one roller to
another using an upward swinging motion
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find their description of the loading process is incomplete
as to swinging the meat onto the lower rail
Filipoff testified that during the strike, on a number of
occasions, he saw Herrington and Sandoval swinging off
meat from the high rail onto the low rail This is consistent
with the testimony of Sandoval, who testified that he per-
formed his normal duties, and of Herrington, who testified
that he performed the tasks normally performed by Sando-
val Filipoff testified that on January 7, about 10 or 10 30
a in, he observed Sandoval swinging meat This is not in-
consistent with the testimony of Herrington and Sandoval
Herrington merely testified that Sandoval was the last per-
son to walk off the job, but that he finally left Neither of
them testified as to exactly when he left or what he did
between the time the strike was called and the time he left
Herrington did say that Sandoval did not work the first
day of the strike, but it was not clarified whether he meant
Sandoval did not work after the strike was called or after
Sandoval walked off In the circumstances, I find that
Filipoff's testimony is essentially uncontradicted in this re-
gard and I credit him
Filipoff testified that he saw Herrington swinging meat
onto the lower rail on all 3 days of the strike Herrington
testified that he did not assist in the loading on January 8
when Sandoval was there Filipoff also testified that when
he saw Herrington, one of the salesmen was working with
him and when he saw Sandoval, Sandoval was swinging
meat to the lower rail Since this particular operation seems
to require, at the most, two men, I find that Filipoff is
mistaken in his testimony that he saw both of them work-
ing on January 8 Also, Filipoff's undenied testimony is
that on January 8 he saw Sandoval switching hindquarter
hooks by himself and that this is something he does not
usually do unless there is not enough help on the docks
Sandoval did not testify as to specifically what he did on
January 8 He merely stated that he performed his normal
duties Herrington, however, concedes that when they are
shorthanded Sandoval does perform some of the duties
normally performed by drivers During the strike, even as-
suming that they were not shorthanded,' they were utiliz-
ing a totally inexperienced crew which would suggest some
of the same manpower problems occasioned by a short-
handed crew Neither Sandoval nor Herrington handled
any grievances or participated in any negotiations during
the strike
By individual letters dated April 1, 1974, Sandoval and
Herrington were notified by Respondent Teamsters that
intraunion charges had been filed against them and a hear-
ing thereon was scheduled for April 30 Attached to each
letter was a copy of the charge stating that Herrington and
Sandoval had been seen crossing the picket line On April
20, the hearing was held as scheduled before Respondent
Teamsters' Executive Board The undenied testimony of
Herrington and Sandoval is that during their respective
hearings nothing was mentioned about the type of work
they each performed during the strike By individual letters
I It appears that they may have been working with a reduced crew since
Herrington testified that he supervised 18 to 20 employees and that during
the strike they utilized between 8 and 10 replacements However the record
does not indicate whether Herrington supervised employees other than driv-
ers
dated May 16, Sandoval and Herrington were each noti-
fied that the Executive Board had found him guilty and
had decided that he be fined $1,000-$250 to be paid im-
mediately and $750 to be held in abeyance The fines,
which have not been paid, are still outstanding
B Conclusion
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a labor organization "to restrain or coerce
an employer in the selection of his representatives for
the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances" Since Herrington has the authority to hire,
fire, and discipline employees and is the employer repre-
sentative designated to adjust grievances with the shop
steward, he is clearly a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, and an employer representative
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act I also
find, in view of his authority to issue warning notices, three
of which may result in discharge, that Sandoval is a super-
visor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act,9 and
thus an employer representative within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act Operating Engineers, Local No
501 (Anheuser Busch, Inc), 199 NLRB 551 (1972), United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local
Union No 14, AFL-CIO (Max M Kaplan Properties), 217
NLRB 202 (1975)
The Supreme Court has recently considered the applica-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(B) to the fining of supervisory-mem-
bers who cross picket lines in Florida Power & Light Co v
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 641,
622, 759, 820 and 1263 and N L R B v International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et al, 417 U S 790
(1974) In those cases the Court held that the unions did
not violate Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by disciplining
supervisor-members for crossing picket lines and perform-
ing rank-and-file work during lawful economic strikes
against the employers The Court further held that the dis-
ciplining of supervisor-members can violate Section
8(b)(1)(B) only when such discipline adversely affects their
conduct in performing the duties of, or acting in the capac-
ity of, grievance adjusters or collective bargainers on the
behalf of the employer In the Court's view the conflict of
loyalties problem which arises when supervisor-members
are faced with performing rank-and-file struck work was
not intended by Congress to be reached through Section
8(b)(1)(B) Rather, Congress addressed itself to this prob-
lem through Sections 2(3), 2(11) and 14(a) of the Act,
which permit the employer to refuse to hire union members
as supervisors, to discharge supervisors because of union
' The record is somewhat confused as to whether Sandoval also possessed
authority to discharge employees He testified that he was told he had such
authority and that he did, in fact, discharge one employee but that this
employee was back at work the next day Sandoval states that he does not
know what happened that he assumed the Union had successfully protested
the discharge but that he was never told that he should not have discharged
the employee or had no authority to do so The record does not reflect the
circumstances of this employees return to work Although I am inclined to
the view that since Sandoval was not told he had exceeded his authority by
discharging the employee he did in fact possess such authority it is unnec
essary to reach this conclusion inasmuch as he possesses the authority 'o
issue disciplinary warning notices and it is well established that Sec 2(11) of
the Act is to be read in the disjunctive
MEAT AND PROVISION DRIVERS LOCAL 626, TEAMSTERS 191
activities or membership, and to refuse to engage in collec-
tive bargaining with them
Subsequently, the Board has, in a number of cases, con-
sidered the question of "when that discipline may adverse-
ly affect the supervisor's conduct " and has concluded
that the answer depends on an analysis of the activity en-
gaged in by the supervisor during the period for which the
discipline is imposed rather than on an evaluation of the
union's motivation Chicago Typographical Union No 16
(Hammond Publishers, Inc), 216 NLRB 903 (1974), Bakery
and Confectionery Workers International Union of America,
Local Unions 24 and 119 (Food Employers Council, Inc),
216 NLRB 917 (1974), New York Typographical Union No
6, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (Daily Rac-
ing Form, a subsidiary of Triangle Publications, Inc), 216
NLRB 896 (1974), Local Union No 1959, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Aurora Modular
Industries), 217 NLRB 508 (1975), Detroit Newspaper
Printing Pressmens' Union, Local Union No 13, Internation-
al Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO (Observer Newspapers, Inc), 217 NLRB 576
(1975)
In Hammond Publishers, the Board concluded that when
the effect test is applied in a situation where the displined
supervisor has engaged "only in the performance of super-
visory activities (not limited to grievance adjustment or
collective bargaining)," there is clearly a violation since it is
reasonably likely that an adverse effect will carry over to
the supervisor's performance of his 8(b)(1)(B) duties when
he is disciplined after having engaged only in the perfor-
mance of supervisory duties Conversely, the Board con-
cluded, in situations where the disciplined supervisor has
engaged "only in the performance of rank-and-file struck
work" there is no violation since it is not reasonably likely
that an adverse effect will carry over where the supervisor
has engaged in the performance of only rank-and-file
struck work
The disciplined supervisors in Hammond Publishers per-
formed, at the most, a minimal amount of rank-and-file
struck work The Board found that the union there violated
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by disciplining supervisor-
members who performed substantially only supervisory
functions and only a minimal amount of rank-and-file
work during a strike
In Food Employers Council, Inc, supra, the Board found
that the unions violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) where the disci-
plined supervisors spent 50 percent of their time during the
strike performing rank-and-file work
General Counsel and Charging Party contend that Her-
rington and Sandoval only performed a minimal amount
of rank-and-file struck work General Counsel argues that
even though Sandoval did perform physical labor, what he
primarily did was cut the forequarter from the hindquarter,
and since this job is normally only performed by the load-
ing foreman it cannot be considered as rank-and-file struck
work General Counsel concedes that cutting meat may not
be supervisory work but contends it is not unit work Ap-
parently he is interpreting "rank-and-file struck work" as
synonymous with unit work and interpreting Hammond
Publishers, supra, as holding that a union violates Section
8(b)(1)(B) when it disciplines a supervisor-member for per-
forming any work other than unit work General Counsel
further argues, as does Charging Party, that if one were to
add up the number of 5-minute periods that Filipoff ob-
served Herrington and Sandoval during the 3 days of the
strike, it would only indicate a minimal amount of time in
the performance of rank-and-file struck work-65 minutes
and 25 minutes, respectively
What General Counsel and Charging Party have over-
looked in making this latter argument is that Filipoff's tes-
timony as to what he observed them doing does not con-
flict with what Sandoval and Herrington admitted doing
So what is involved here is not 25- and 65-minute periods
but rather 40 to 50 percent of the workday
General Counsel and Charging Party seem to view the
carrying of meat into the truck as comprising the sum total
of the rank-and-file struck work involved in the loading
process and assume that cutting meat was the primary, in-
deed almost sole, physical labor performed by Sandoval
and Herrington The evidence supports neither of these po-
sitions Although it is unclear whether butchers or drivers
push the meat from the scale to the point where it is to be
switched from the upper rail to the lower rail, the evidence
establishes that normally a driver, together with Sandoval,
swings the side of beef over to the lower rail and that an-
other driver pushes the quarters to the end of the dock If a
truck equipped with rails is being loaded, the meat is
pushed onto the truck by a driver If a truck without rails is
being loaded, it is carried onto the truck by a driver There-
fore, rank-and-file struck work definitely includes swinging
meat over to the lower rail and pushing meat along the rail
as well as carrying meat into a truck
It is apparent, then, that Sandoval's normal job duties
involve several distinct functions (1) assisting a driver in
swinging the meat over to the lower rail, (2) holding hooks
while the meat is being transferred to a smaller hook, pre-
sumably by a driver, (3) cutting the forequarter from the
hindquarter, (4) telling the drivers how to position the
meat so as to expedite delivery and unloading, and (5)
demonstrating to new employees the technique of carrying
meat so as to avoid injury Sandoval admits that on Janu-
ary 8 he performed all of his normal duties Additionally,
Filipoff's credited testimony is that on about three to five
separate occasions, when he positioned himself so he could
observe the activity on the dock, he saw Sandoval switch-
ing the hindquarter hooks by himself, something that is
normally done by a driver Contrary to the position of
General Counsel and Charging Party that this establishes,
at the most, that Sandoval spent 25 minutes switching the
hindquarter hooks, I infer from this testimony that Sando-
val engaged in this activity for a considerable period of
time It stratus credulity to assume that the only times San-
doval switched hindquarter hooks was when Filipoff ob-
served him A more reasonable inference is that the reason
Filipoff observed him performing this task each time he
looked is because Sandoval was continuously performing
this task, and I so conclude
General Counsel made no attempt to establish on the
record the amount of time Sandoval and Herrington spent
on each of the above functions The only ones that might
probably be considered as supervisory are directing em-
ployees as to the loading sequence and the training of em-
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees as to the proper way to carry meat According to
Sandoval, this latter took maybe a couple of minutes
There is no testimony as to the time expended in the for-
mer, but I would suspect from the nature of the directions
that they were given while Sandoval and Herrington con-
tinued with the physical aspects of their jobs Even conced-
ing, which I do not, that General Counsel and Charging
Party are correct that disciplining Sandoval and Herring-
ton would be violative of 8(b)(1)(B) if they performed sub-
stantially only the cutting function, the evidence does not
establish what proportion of their time was spent in cut-
ting Hence this case presents a situation where the supervi-
sors, during the strike, performed some clearly rank-and-
file work (swinging the beef over to the lower rail and
changing the hindquarter hooks), some work which is argu-
ably supervisory 10 (giving directions and training), and
some work, the nature of which is uncertain for the purpos-
es of the "effects" test (cutting) Unfortunately, there is no
evidence as to how much time was spent in performing
each of these functions 11 I therefore find that General
Counsel has failed to meet his burden of establishing that
the rank-and-file work performed by Sandoval and Her-
rington was minimal 12
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Teamsters has not
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act
IV CASE 21-CB-5012
Gold-Pak is signatory to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Respondent Operating Engineers covering oper-
ating engineers, maintenance engineers, and apprentice en-
gineers Gold-Pak is a slaughterhouse with approximately
450 employees, about 18 or 20 of whom are engineers rep-
resented by Respondent Operating Engineers These engi-
neers are responsible for operating, maintaining, and re-
pairing all boilers, compressors, refrigeration equipment,
generators, and other mechanical equipment The auto-
matic boiler is blown down every 4 hours, and twice a shift
the boiler is treated with a compound to reduce scale One
engineer, designated as the shift engineer, has the primary
responsibility for the operation of the boiler room, com-
pressors, and refrigeration equipment That is, at the begin-
ning of the shift he checks the engine room and checks all
compressors to see that they have oil He also checks every
2 hours the ammonia receiver, back pressure and high pres-
sure gauges on the ammonia system, the boilers, and the
temperature readings from the coolers and freezers There
are three shifts Two persons work on the 3 to 11 p in
shift,2onthe 11 pm to7am shift, and 14 to 16 onthe7
10 It is questionable whether the directions given by Sandoval as to the
sequence for loading the trucks required the exercise of independent judg-
ment
n In these circumstances although I am inclined to reject General
Counsel s argument, I find it unnecessary to apply the ` effects test to the
cutting function
12 In view of this finding I find it unnecessary to reach Respondent
Teamsters' argument that the fines could not constitute unfair labor practic-
es inasmuch as neither Herrington nor Sandoval functioned as an 8(b)(i)(B)
representative of their employer, i e negotiated contracts and/or adjusted
or settled any employee grievances, during the 3 day strike However a
similar argument urged by Respondent Operating Engineers is discussed
below
a in to 3 p in shift Three to four engineers on the day shift
are assigned to the kill floor, some are assigned as roving
maintenance men, and some are assigned as needed to new
construction (the construction of equipment to Noonan's
design)
The engineers work under the supervision of Stanley
Noonan, chief engineer All engineers are hired and dis-
charged by Noonan He directs their work, assigning and
reassigning them as necessary to various tasks and shifts
He is the employer representative authorized to discuss
and adjust grievances with the shop steward He is a mem-
ber of Respondent Operating Engineers and is covered by
the collective-bargaining agreement
On December 4, 1973,13 butchers employed by Gold-Pak
went on strike Noonan estimates that about 400 butchers
were on strike and that by December 11 at least 90 percent
of the normal production had ceased All slaughtering and
consequently all activity on the kill floor had ceased A
small boning operation continued in the boning room Re-
lieved of daily maintenance and repair chores, the engi-
neers were engaged in general maintenance-cleaning
motors, overhauling equipment, repairing kill-floor
equipment, etc
On December 7 or 8, Coy Black, business representative
for Respondent Operating Engineers, informed Noonan
that the engineers were going on strike According to Noo-
nan, upon his request, Black agreed to permit five engi-
neers to work during the strike
On December 11, between 7 and 8 am, Black came to
the plant and talked to the day shift engineers assembled in
the engine room In essence, Black said Respondent Oper-
ating Engineers was pulling the engineers off the job in a
sympathy strike in support of the butchers, and that they
would be subject to a fine if they did not honor the picket
line There is some dispute as to whether Black offered an
orderly shutdown 14 Black testified that he asked Noonan
if he would like them to give him an orderly shutdown and
secure the plant safely before they left, or if he wanted to
assume the responsibility Noonan replied that he had no
choice in the matter, he would have to stay and take care of
the plant Noonan testified that Black said nothing about
an orderly shutdown that he can recall Black just came in
and said he was going to pull the engineers off the job
Noonan said he thought Black had agreed to permit five
men to work Black said no, he was pulling them all off the
job
There is also some dispute as to whether all of the engi-
neers except Noonan and perhaps one other engineer
walked off the job Noonan testified generally that eight or
nine engineers walked off and four or five remained When
asked to be specific, he testified that Ross Hastings, the
day shift engineer, remained Tencati remained He
worked from 4 a in to f p in Takashita walked out but
"All dates in this section in December are in 1973
14
An orderly shutdown according to Black would be to secure the boil-
ers make sure the refrigeration equipment is secured properly and make
sure that any other equipment involving safety hazards is secured before
leaving the plant Noonan testified that he was not familiar with the term
orderly shutdown ' but stated that the Union is supposed to give the Com
pany time to empty the coolers of meat before a strike is called Black
contends that the purpose of an orderly shutdown is to ensure safety that
there is no danger to property life or limb
MEAT AND PROVISION DRIVERS LOCAL 626, TEAMSTERS 193
returned at 11 a in Sissdeu walked off and later returned,
but Noonan could not recall whether he returned later that
same day or whether he returned on the second day The
two engineers on the 3 to I 1 p in shift worked, as did
the two engineers on the 11 p in to 7 a in shift More
employees returned the following day Thereafter, eight en-
gineers worked until the strike ended on about January 15
Although Black first testified that all of the engineers
except Noonan walked off the job, he later admitted that
possibly one engineer who worked in the boning room did
not walk off the job He also testified that the engineers did
not walk out in a group, that it was probably 40 minutes
before the last one left, and that he did not personally see
them all leave He further testified that none of the engi-
neers returned to the plant, and that he was sure of this
because he was at the gate However, he also testified that
he left the plant at least by 9 a in and remained at the gate
for 2 or 3 hours and then left the premises Also, he further
testified that after he had finished speaking to the assem-
bled engineers, he remained in the boilerroom for the ap-
proximate 40 minutes it took for the engineers to leave
Later, he testified that he went through the plant before he
left to make sure all of the engineers had gone
Noonan appeared to me to be an honest, forthright wit-
ness whose testimony in regard to who worked on the day
of the strike contained no internal inconsistencies On the
other hand, I found Black's testimony unreliable Thus, as
set forth above, although he testified quite positively that
all of the engineers left except Noonan and that no one
could have returned to work on that first day, he later
admitted that he did not personally see each of them leave,
and from his own testimony he quite possibly had left the
premises before Takashita returned to work at 11 a in Fur-
ther, even if he did check the plant looking for engineers, I
doubt that such a check would necessarily reveal any engi-
neer who did not wish to be seen I discredit Black's testi-
mony in this regard
I have considered and reject Respondent Operating En-
gineers' contention that the duplicate timecards 15 impugn
Noonan's credibility, since he was not involved in their
preparation I credit Noonan and find that at least three
engineers worked on the day shift on the first day of the
strike
By letter dated March 4, 1974, Respondent Operating
Engineers notified Noonan that intraunion charges had
been filed against him for "working behind a picket line
during a sanctioned strike " Charges were also filed against
the other engineers who worked behind the picket line On
March 20, Respondent received a letter from Noonan
which states in answer to the charges
15 Upon Respondent's request made later on the first day of the hearing
Gold-Pak produced some of the timecards for the engineers for the week in
question Apparently there had been insufficient time to locate all of the
cards which were stored in a warehouse The timecards produced for the
engineers who crossed the picket line were handwritten Noonan testified
that these were not the original timecards, that the cards he had approved
and signed were all machine stamped He further testified that it was his
understanding that duplicate cards had been prepared for the purpose of
secluding information from the Union in order to protect the employees
who worked during the strike He credibly testified that he had never seen
these duplicate cards prior to the hearing and had no knowledge of whether
they accurately reflected the information from the original cards
I am in a supervisor [sic] capacity, an [sic] under the
Occupational Safety an [sic] Health Act it was neces-
sary for the equipment at the plant to be attended for
safety reasons
On March 28, Respondent Operating Engineers execu-
tive board held a meeting on the charges filed against Noo-
nan and the other engineers According to Noonan, Tenca-
ti was spokesman for the engineers 16 He argued that it was
the Butchers strike, not the Operating Engineers, and they
felt in those circumstances the fines were unfair The Board
then met in executive session for 15 or 20 minutes After
Noonan and the other charged engineers were called back
into the meeting, they were told that they had violated Re-
spondent Operating Engineers constitution and they would
be fined $1,000 for crossing the picket line and working
during the strike There was no discussion of the type of
work performed by Noonan during the strike, and no one
stated that the fine was for any particular day 17
By letter dated April 2, Respondent Operating Engineers
notified Noonan that at the March 28 meeting the execu-
tive board found that the charges filed against him were
meritorious and a trial would be held on April 16 at the
next general membership meeting The trial was held as
scheduled According to Noonan, he and each of the other
charged engineers were asked if they crossed, and worked
behind, the picket line Noonan and each of the others
replied affirmatively Black testified that each of the
charged members were asked if they respected the picket
line on the first day, and that each of those on the day shift
replied by saying they did come out of the plant He also
testified that each of them said they did cross the picket
line on the following morning, a Tuesday morning, and
came back to work He also testified that he asked Noonan
if he did not in fact perform work and assume the responsi-
bility of the plant on the first day, and Noonan answered
yes Noonan testified that there was no discussion of, or
questions asked about, the type of work he performed dur-
ing the strike, nor was anything said to the effect that he
was being fined only for his work on one particular day I
credit Noonan and discredit Black to the extent his testi-
mony is inconsistent with Noonan's as indicated above
There is nothing in the letters, the account of the proceed-
ings or the statement of the question at issue to indicate
any concern or interest in any one particular day of the
strike With the exception of Black's testimony everything
points to only one concern did they cross the picket line
In these circumstances, I consider it unlikely that nine per-
sons were questioned individually as to their conduct on
different days, particularly since Black thought they had all
left that first day I don't question that he believed this, I
only question that it was, in fact, true Furthermore, as
indicated above, he displayed a tendency to testify with
facility and certainty about matters on which he was, in
fact, uncertain
A vote was taken by secret ballot on the group as a
whole The question put to a vote, according to Black, was
"did these employees work behind a sanctioned picket
line " The result of the balloting was guilty It was then
16 Noonan and the other charged engineers chose to be tried as a group
17 This is from Noonan's testimony which I credit
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
announced that Noonan and the others were each fined
$1,000
Conclusions
Noonan testified that during the strike he engaged in his
normal supervisory duties and that he performed no rank-
and-file work Therefore, General Counsel contends, dis-
ciplining him for working behind the picket line is violative
of Section 8(b)(1)(B) Respondent Operating Engineers
contends, however, that Noonan must have performed
rank-and-file work since boilers, compressors, and refriger-
ation equipment were in operation This equipment had to
be attended and there was no one else to do it I find this
argument without merit since I have found that at least
three nonsupervisory engineers worked on the day shift the
first day of the strike
Alternatively, Respondent argues, even assuming that
the three engineers did work that day, there was too much
work to be performed without Noonan's assistance This
argument is based on the assumption that Tencati and Ta-
kashita both worked in the boning room and only Hastings
was available for operations Since, the argument goes,
there are normally 14 engineers on the day shift who each
spent about one-third of their time on operations, there
would be about 28 hours of work to do and Hastings could
not have done it alone Therefore, Respondent contends
Noonan had to have spent most of his time on operations,
checking, repairing, and operating the equipment that was
running that day
There is one fatal flaw in Respondent's argument Pro-
duction at the plant had practically ceased The only oper-
ations in progress were the removal of meat from the cool-
ers, an activity which would appear to require no support
from the engineers, and the operation of one boning table
by about 10 persons, where normally five or six boning
tables were in operation In those circumstances, one can-
not assume that two engineers would be assigned to the
boning room, and Noonan testified only that Tencati was
assigned to the boning room He was not asked what Taka-
shita did when he returned to work that day The only
other required tasks were those normally performed by the
shift engineer Noonan's undisputed testimony was that the
routine checking of the boilers, refrigeration, compressors,
ammonia equipment, and the treating and blowing of the
boiler was less than a fulltime job for one engineer Hast-
ings normally performed this function and he worked on
the first day of the strike Noonan testified that during the
strike five engineers spread among the three shifts were all
that were required Certainly five was the number he re-
quested Black to permit to work during the strike There is
no evidence in the record to dispute this claim, and it ap-
pears logical If, during normal operations, two engineers
could man the plant from 3 p in to 4 a m,18 it is not im-
plausible that three could man it when the only production
was a small boning operation utilizing one boning table
and about 10 employees
Contrary to Respondent's position, I do not find that
Noonan's letter in answer to the intraunion charges
amounts to an admission that he engaged in rank-and-file
work Also, even assuming that Black's testimony is credi-
ble, which I find it is not, an affirmative answer to the
inquiry-did he perform work and assume responsibility of
the plant on the first day-does not constitute an admis-
sion that he engaged in rank-and-file work Noonan is the
chief engineer, in charge of all the engineers He assumes
responsibility for the plant every day, strike or no strike
Accordingly, I find that during the strike Noonan per-
formed only supervisory functions and engaged in no rank-
and-file work
Respondent further argues that in Hammond Publishers,
supra, the Board stated that two factors had to be present
to find a violation One, the supervisor must have per-
formed only a minimal amount of rank-and-file work
Two, the supervisor must be performing some grievance
adjusting or collective bargaining during the strike Thus,
the argument goes, since Noonan performed neither, there
can be no violation I find no merit in this argument Al-
though it is true that in Hammond Publishers the Board did
refer, in its conclusionary findings, to the fact that the su-
pervisors performed supervisory duties (including griev-
ance adjusting), later cases appear to accord no weight to
this factor The Board continues to find supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act to be employer
representatives within the meaning of Section 8(b)(I)(B)
regardless of whether their current supervisory assignments
include grievance adjustment or collective bargaining Max
M Kaplan Properties, supra Certainly a concomitant of
that principle would be a conclusion that it is irrelevant
whether during the strike a supervisor actually engages in
grievance adjustment or collective bargaining Also sup-
portive of this latter conclusion is the Board's refection of
the argument that Section 8(b)(1)(B) is violated only where
the discipline is directed toward the manner in which a
supervisor performs his 8(b)(1)(B) duties New York Typo-
graphical Union No 6, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO (Daily Racing Form, a subsidiary of Triangle
Publications, Inc), 216 NLRB 896 (1974) Finally,
Respondent's argument ignores the essence of the Ham-
mond decision, i e , that the prime consideration is the rea-
sonably forseeable effect of the union's discipline on the
supervisor-member's performance of his 8(b)(1)(B) duties
Food Employers Council, Inc, supra Such consideration
must, of necessity, look also to the future and should not
be governed by the happenstance of whether the supervi-
sor-member had occasion during the course of the strike to
engage in grievance adjustment or collective bargaining
Accordingly, I find that, by levying an intraunion fine of
$1,000 on Noonan for crossing and working behind a pick-
et line where he performed only his normal supervisory
duties and no rank-and-file work, Respondent Operating
Engineers violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
18 The record does not indicate but I assume that no production was in
progress during those hours
I Quality Meat Packing Company and Bristol Foods,
Inc, d /b/a Gold-Pak Meat Company , each is an employer
MEAT AND PROVISION DRIVERS LOCAL 626, TEAMSTERS 195
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act
2 Respondents each are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 At all times material herein Fred Herrington, Fred
Sandoval, and Stanley Noonan each has been a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and an
employer representative within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act
4 By fining Fred Herrington and Fred Sandoval for
working for Quality Meat Packing Company while it was
engaged in a labor dispute with that employer after they
had performed substantial rank-and-file struck work dur-
ing said labor dispute, Respondent Teamsters has not en-
gaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act
5 By fining Stanley Noonan for working for Gold-Pak
Meat Company while it was engaged in a labor dispute
with that employer when he had performed only superviso-
ry functions during said labor dispute, Respondent Operat-
ing Engineers has engaged in an unfair labor practice with-
in the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Operating Engineers has
engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent
Operating Engineers be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and that it take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the follow-
ing recommended
ORDER 19
A Paragraph 11 of the consolidated complaint and all
other paragraphs therein insofar as they relate to Respon-
dent Meat and Provision Drivers Union Local 626, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, are hereby dismissed
B Respondent International Union of Operating Engi-
neers , Local Union No 501 , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Restraining or coercing Bristol Foods , Inc, d/b/a
Gold-Pak Meat Company in the selection of representa-
tives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust-
ment of grievances
(b) Fining or otherwise disciplining , or attempting by
any means to collect or enforce any fine or discipline im-
19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the findings
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become
its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
posed against any such representative, including Stanley
Noonan, who performed substantially only supervisory
functions for said employer, while Respondent is engaged
in a labor dispute with that employer
(c) Engaging in any like or related conduct constituting
such restraint or coercion
2 Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Rescind and expunge all records of the fine levied
against Stanley Noonan after he had performed only su-
pervisory functions for Bristol Foods, Inc, d/b/a Gold-
Pak Meat Company, while Respondent was engaged in a
labor dispute with that employer
(b) Advise Stanley Noonan in writing that the said fine
has been rescinded and that the records of such fine have
been expunged
(c) Post at its business office and meeting hall copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix " 20 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are custom-
arily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(d) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 21 with
signed copies of said notice for posting by Bristol Foods,
Inc, d/b/a Gold-Pak Meat Company, if willing, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith
20 In the event that the Boards Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading `Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Gold-Pak Meat
Company in the selection of representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances (a) by fining or otherwise disciplining, or
attempting in any manner to collect or enforce any
fine or discipline heretofore imposed against any such
representative, including Stanley Noonan, who per-
formed only supervisory functions for Gold-Pak Meat
Company while we were engaged in a labor dispute
with that employer, (b) by engaging in any like or
related conduct constituting such restraint or coer-
cion
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL rescind and expunge all records of the fine Stanley Noonan, in writing, that we are rescinding and
levied by us against Stanley Noonan after he had per- expunging such records
formed substantially only supervisory functions for
Gold-Pak Meat Company while we were engaged in a INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS Lo-
labor dispute with that Employer, and WE WILL notify CAL UNION No 501, AFL-CIO