San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 261 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

SAN FRANCISCO LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
San Francisco Labor Council , AFL-CIO and ITO
Packing Co., Inc. and Arden-Mayfair, Inc. Case 20-
CC-833
June 17, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On March 16, 1971, Trial Examiner James T. Barker
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answer-
ing brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act , as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent,
San Francisco Labor Council , AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard
at San Francisco, California, on January 20, 1971, pursuant
to a charge and a first amended charge filed by ITO Packing
Co., Inc., and Arden-Mayfair, Inc., on September 26, 1968,
and October 28, 1968, respectively. On July 30, 1969, the
Acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations
Board for Region 20 issued a complaint and notice of hearing
alleging that San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, here-
inafter called Respondent, had violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter
called the Act. At the hearing the Respondent offered a clos-
ing statement on the record, and on February 16, 1971, the
General Counsel timely filed a brief with me.
191 NLRB No. 59
261
Upon consideration of the brief of the General Counsel and
upon the entire record in this caseiand my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTIONAL FACTS
At all times material herein, Pagliarulo Fruit Co., Inc.;
John Pagliarulo, Inc.; John A. Pagliarulo; Paul A. Pagliarulo
and John Pagliarulo & Sons, hereinafter called Pagliarulo et
al., have been engaged in business as growers and shippers of
California table grapes. Each separate enterprise has had a
place of business in Delano, California, and each of the busi-
nesses has been operated as a single-family enterprise, com-
monly owned and controlled. Together, the aforesaid enter-
prises constitute a single employer. Pagliarulo et al. annually
sells and ships products in excess of $50,000 directly to non-
retail customers outside the State of California.
Barr Packing Company, herein called Barr, is a partner-
ship composed of Edwin L. Barr, Sr.; Merle Barr; Edwin L.
Barr, Jr.; and Caroline H. Barr. At times material herein,
Barr has been engaged in business as a grower and shipper of
California table grapes and has had a place of business in
Sanger, California. Barr, annually sells and ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to nonretail customers
outside the State of California.
Giumarra Vineyards has been at all times material herein
a California corporation engaged in business as a grower and
shipper of California table grapes. Giumarra has its principal
place of business in Kern County, California, and annually
sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to nonretail customers outside the State of California.
At all times material herein, Lucky Stores; Safeway Stores,
Inc.; Arden-Mayfair, Inc.; Cala Foods; Lee Bros.; Quality
Foods; Purity Stores, Inc.; and Diamond Properties, Inc.
have operated retail stores in San Francisco, California,
and/or in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each has had annual
sales from such operations in excess of $500,000 and each has
annually purchased goods and merchandise valued in excess
of $5,000 which were shipped to them directly from outside
the State of California, or which were shipped to them from
suppliers of California who obtained said goods directly from
outside the State of California.
At material times, Food Employers Labor Relations As-
sociation, Inc., hereinafter called Food Employers, has been
an employer association with an office and place of business
located at San Francisco, California. At material times, Food
Employers has had as members retail food stores with places
of business in the San Francisco Bay Area. Food Employers
has at material times herein bargained collectively with labor
organizations, including members of Respondent, on behalf
of its employer-members.
The employer-members of Food Employers, in the course
and conduct of their business operations, annually sell at
retail merchandise valued in excess of $500,000. Addition-
ally, in the course and conduct of their business operations,
employer-members of Food Employers annually purchase
and receive goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
from points and places located outside the State of California.
Moreover, they annually, purchase and receive goods and
merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 from other enter-
prises located in the State of California, which other enter-
' Pursuant to a motion of the General Counsel, it is hereby ordered that
the transcript in this proceeding and, where pertinent, exhibits in evidence
herein are corrected by substituting for references and designations "Charg-
ing Party's Exhibit is - 1c," the reference and designation "Respondent's
Exhibits 1(a) - 1(c) "
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prises receive said ,goods and merchandise directly from
points outside the State of California.
At all times material herein,-Pagliarulo et al., Barr, and
Giumarra Vineyards have constituted employers and/or per-
sons engaged in commerce and in operations affecting,cam
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
At all times material herein, Lucky Stores; Safeway Stores,
Inc.; Arden-Mayfair, Inc.; Cala Foods; Lee Bros.; Quality
Foods; Purity Stores, Inc.; Diamond Properties, Inc.; and
Food Employers have been employers engaged in commerce
and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The San Francisco Labor Council is a chartered central
labor body chartered by the American Federation of Labor
and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. From time to
time various AFL-CIO labor organizations have been affi-
liated with the San Francisco Labor Council. The constitu-
tion and bylaws of the Council provide as follows:
The Council shall be composed exclusively of delegates
from locals of national and international unions and
organizing committees affiliated with the AFL-CIO, di-
rectly affiliated local unions and such other subordinate
bodies as the AFL-CIO may determine are eligible for
affiliation.
Affiliated unions are entitled to elect delegates to the Council
based on the size of the affiliated union's membership and
under the constitution and bylaws only delegates are eligible
to serve as officers of the Council. The day-to-day activities
of the Council are conducted by officers and standing com-
mittees whose membership is comprised of delegates to the
Council. The Council has an executive committee consisting
of 17 members who are delegates chosen by the affiliated
unions. The committee serves as an executive, mediating, and
organizing committee. Article VIII, section 2 of the constitu-
tion and bylaws of the Council provides:
(a)s an Organizing Committee it should assist in the
organization of all trades and occupations not already
organized, if requested to do so by the national AFL-
CIO or the International Union involved and lend such
assistance as necessary to aid AFL-CIO organizations
to maintain their organization ....
Article II, section 1 declares a purpose and principle of the
Council to be:
(t)o organize all branches of labor in order that each may
cooperate with the other in establishing and maintaining
in the various crafts and callings the highest possible
standard of living for our members.
Section 2 of the same article declares a purpose and principle
of the Council to be the effectuation of "an amicable and just
settlement of all disputes arising between employer and em-
ployee."
At times pertinent herein, Retail Clerks International
Union, Local 648; Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, Local 115; Building Service
Employees International Union; and Office and Professional
Employees Union have been affiliated with the Council. In
furtherance of the interests and objectives of affiliated labor
organizations, the Council has, at times pertinent herein,
recommended placing employers on the Council's "We Do
Not Patronize List" and has recommended the granting of
strike sanctions to an affiliated labor organization. Moreover,
the record reveals that at times material the Council has given
assistance to and served a mediative role in collective-bar-
gaining negotiations being conducted with employers by affi-
liated unions of the Council.
Upon the foregoing , I find that at all times material herein
San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
Respondent, has been a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. See Local 60 International
Association of Bridge, Structural, and OrnamentalIron,.Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, et al. (NALEWS, INC.) 177 NLRB= No.
73(TXD), and cases cited therein ; Washoe Investment Co.,
Inc.,, d/b/a/ Crystal Bay,, 3lub; ,169 NLRB 838; ,Halliburton
Company, 142 NLRB 644,'645,' andacases cited therein at
footnote 4.
III THE -UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A: The Issues
The principal issue-in this proceeding is whether the evi-
dence sustains the General Counsel in his contention that, in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, and for a pro-
scribed object, Respondent threatened neutral food store op-
erators with picketing, union refusal to handle California
table grapes, and the loss of their sources of supply for Cali-
fornia table grapes if the individual food stores did not cease
handling or selling California table grapes.
No issue is raised with respect to the existence at material
times of a primary labor dispute between United Farm Work-
ers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called
UFWOC, and Pagliarulo et al., Barr, Giumarra Vineyards,
and other growers of California table grapes. The Respondent
contends, however, that the General Counsel failed to sustain
his burden of proof in that (a) it was not shown that the
alleged threats were made by agents of Respondent and/or
related to strike or boycott activity by labor organizations
affiliated with Respondent; (b) that the statements of record
which the General Counsel contends comprise threats were
other than ambiguous allusions to prospective consumer boy-
cott activity, lawful under the Tree Fruits2 and Servette3 deci-
sions; and (c) that Respondent acted in any unlawful manner
in support of UFWOC.
B. Pertinent Facts
1. The minute entries
As found above, at all times material herein, UFWOC has
had a primary labor dispute with Pagharulo et al., Barr,
Giumarra Vineyards, and other growers of California table
grapes. On Monday, August 26, 1968, the San Francisco
Labor Council held a regularly scheduled meeting. The
synopsis of the official minutes of the meeting contains the
following entry:
Communications: - Filed: From United Farm Workers
thanking the Council for their contribution and efforts
in behalf of the grape boycott.
The synopsis of the meeting of the executive committee of
the Council for August 26, 1968, contains the following:
In the matter of the telegram dated 8-23-68 from
William Kircher, Director of Organization, AFL-CIO
and requesting support of boycott of California grapes as
unanimously voted by AFL-CIO Executive Council
May 14, 1968, the following appeared: Sisters Kathy
Murguia, and Martha Schaffter, and Messrs: George
Casey, Jr., Wholesale Fruit and Produce Dealers Assn.
of San Francisco, P. Repetto, Golden Gate Produce Ter-
minal of So. San Francisco, and Arthur Jacobs of Food
Employers Labor Relations Association, H. Houston of
' NL.R.B. v. Fruit & Vegetable packers & Warehousemen , Local 760, et
al., 377 U.S. 58.
' NL.R.B. v. Servette, Inc., 377 U.S 46.
SAN FRANCISCO LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO 263
Purity Stores, Inc., and E. Schmidt of Louis Stores, Inc.
and Brothers Gene DeChristofaro, Joseph Ciraulo, Jo-
seph Bologna, Emerson Street, Victor Lazzaro, Dan
Flanagan, J. Lupe Murguia, Andres Chevez, Paul
McCormick, Fred Ross, James Drake, Peter Velasco,
Harold Lopez, Alfred Lumbardi, George Mesure, L. J.
McNichol, Edwin Michelsen, Art Carter, Pat Savin, and
J. H. Trimble. It was reported that a series of meetings
had been held with representatives of the Commission
Markets and with Retail Chain Store Growers, all on the
subject of a boycott of grapes in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Mr. Arthur Jacobs, representing the Food Em-
ployers Labor Relations Association took the position
this was not a labor dispute, that the question of whether
a commodity should be sold or not sold was not a labor
matter but was a trade and merchandising matter and
reported actions of certain chain stores as follows: Al-
bertsons, QFI, Lucky Stores, Garden Mayfair, Safeway
Stores, Lee Brothers and Cala will continue to handle
grapes. Diamond Properties requested further discus-
sion on the subject matter. Purity was present and at this
time stated they were not prepared to answer, they were
not opposed to grape workers of the AFL-CIO, and
would cooperate with a peaceful boycott, it being their
feeling that some kind of cooperative and peaceful effort
might be worked out in furtherance of this effort of the
Labor Council. Lewis Stores stated they would continue
to handle grapes but they cannot delineate their thinking
at this time. Mr. George Casey, Jr., representing the
Wholesale Food and Produce Directors Association of
San Francisco and Mr. P. R. Repetti of the Golden Gate
Produce Terminal, So. San Francisco, then issued com-
parable statements that they were licensed and bonded
by the State law, to move, dispose, and sell any kind of
produce that the growers ship to them. The position of
management not being unanimously firm as has been
reported above, it was proposed and agreed to by all
parties present, that this matter be held over one week
until 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, September 3, in the hope of
reaching an amicable understanding in relation to this
boycott.
Annexed to the printed synopsis of the minutes of the meet-
ings of Monday, August 26, 1968, was a printed list bearing
the names of certain employers under the heading "National
and International Boycotts." Included in the list was Gi-
umarra Vineyards Corporation. The listing of Giumarra was
followed by the additional notation, "by AFL-CIO on behalf
of United Farm Workers Organizing Committee." There
then followed a specification of Giumarra products by brand
name.
In a similar manner, the synopsis of the minutes of the
executive committee for its Tuesday, September 3, 1968,
meeting contained the following reference:
In the matter of the telegram dated 8/23/68 from
William Kircher, Director of Organization, requesting
support of the boycott of California grapes as unani-
mously voted by the AFL-CIO Executive Council on
May 14, 1968. The following appeared before your com-
mittee: Harold Lopez, Teamsters; Gene DeChristofaro,
Pete Velasco, LeRoy Chatfield, J. Lupe Murguia, Kathy
Murguia, Martha Schaffer, and Cesar Chavez, United
Farm Workers Organizing Committee; and Dan Flana-
gan, Regional Office, AFL-CIO. During the past week
every effort has been made by the Labor Council to
activate negotiations between the United Farm Workers
Organizing Committee and the table grape growers. This
effort having been unsuccessful to date, your committee
recommends that we lend our efforts to effect a boycott
in the San Francisco area, in commission markets, ware-
houses, retail stores, restaurants, hospitals, and any
place else that in the past has handled table grapes. It is
our hope that as we now enter the harvest season for
table grapes that no consumer in the entire area will have
any part of this merchandise. We also serve notice that
if the Governor attempts to provide legislation to protect
these grape growers, we will use all efforts to defeat such
an inhuman purpose. We urge all local unions through
publicity and direct communications with their mem-
bers to support the purposes of this boycott action. We
request the support of the Mayor and Board of Super-
visors in any way possible. We recommend immediate
activation of such a boycott.
2. The meetings
In the meantime, on or about August 19, 1968, Arthur
Jacobs, who at the time in question served as executive direc-
tor of Food Employers, attended a meeting at the San Mateo
office of Safeway Stores pertaining to the subject of the Cali-
fornia table grape boycott. Also in attendance was Thomas
Kane, then an assistant to Jacobs. H. F. Weber, vice president
of industrial relations for Safeway Stores, and David Newell,
Northern California branch manager of industrial relations
for Safeway, also attended the meeting. In attendance also
was Jack Crowley, assistant secretary of Respondent; Claude
Jinkerson, secretary of Retail Clerks International Union,
Local 648, and a member of Respondent's executive commit-
tee; Dan Flanagan, regional director of the AFL-CIO; and
Gene DeChristofaro, an organizer of the AFL-CIO stationed
in San Francisco. Moreover, associated with UFWOC and in
attendance at the meeting were Dave Averbruck, Pete Del-
gado, Kathy Murguia, and Lupe Murguia.
The meeting commenced with an explanation by a trade
union representative as to the purpose of the meeting.' It was
stated by the trade union representative that Safeway was
being asked to remove table grapes from their shelves. As the
discussion developed, Jack Crowley and either Dan Flanagan
or Gene DeChristofaro said that- "all of the unions were
working together" through their respective labor councils to
obtain the removal of California table grapes from retail gro-
cery store outlets and that the "wholesale unions" were not
going to handle table grapes. There followed an extensive
discussion between the trade union representatives and repre-
sentatives of Safeway concerning the details of the farm labor
dispute involving grapes. As a consequence of this discussion,
Herman Weber stated that the company did not wish to be
placed in the position of judging what products should or
should not be sold in its stores. He asserted that this was a
decision for the public to make. He further asserted that the
farm labor dispute involving grapes was not a labor dispute
involving Safeway Stores in that Safeway and Food Employ-
ers had contractual relations with a number of labor organi-
zations. He stated that neither Safeway nor the Food Em-
ployers at the time in question had disputes with any of these
labor organizations. Weber asserted that the issue of remov-
ing California table grapes was essentially a "merchandising
decision." Arthur Jacobs enunciated a view similar to that
expressed by Weber and asserted that there existed no labor
dispute involving Safeway or Food Employers and that the
question posed by the trade union statement articulated at the
meeting was a merchandising decision.
Arthur Jacobs who testified concerning this meeting was unable to
recall whether the explanation was offered by Dan Flanagan, Gene DeChns-
tofaro, or Jack Crowley.
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At a time subsequent to the San Mateo meeting with Safe-
way Stores, there followed a meeting at the offices of Re-
spondent which Arthur Jacobs attended. Also in attendance
was Milton Barker, a representative of Arden-Mayfair, Inc.
Jack Crowley was present. Either Dan Flanagan or Gene
DeChristofaro was present.' Six or seven individuals affiliated
with UFWOC were present, including those who had at-
tended the earlier Safeway meeting. Attorney Jerry Cohn and
Fred Ross identified with UFWOC attended.
At the outset of the meeting it was explained by the AFL-
CIO representative - either Flanagan or DeChristofaro -
that "they were asking" Arden-Mayfair to remove table
grapes from sale on the store shelves. The trade union repre-
sentative explained in detail the trade union position that
there were no "fair" California grapes being disseminated to
grocery stores at the time in question because of the nature
of the farm labor dispute. It was further stated that the unions
were working together in the matter through their various
labor councils and that the "wholesale unions" would not
handle the grapes. During the course of the meeting, the
boycott of California table grapes being conducted in eastern
cities was discussed as was the rates of pay being received by
farm workers. At the conclusion of the meeting, Milton
Barker stated that the issue posed was one involving a mer-
chandising decision and did not constitute a "labor decision."
Barker stated that he would report the matter to his company
and would convey the company answer to the Union through
Arthur Jacobs.'
On or about August 22, 1968, a series of meetings was
conducted at the offices of the San Francisco Labor Council.
Representatives of various retail grocery store entities at-
tended the meetings. Thomas Kane, in his capacity as a staff
representative of the Food Employers, also attended the se-
ries of meetings. Arthur Jacobs attended only portions of
some of the meetings . Jack Crowley was in attendance as
were Claude Jinkerson, Art Carter from the Contra Costa
Central Labor Council, and a representative of Local 115 of
the Meat Cutters. Additionally, several individuals affiliated
with UFWOC were in attendance.
Separate meetings were held with each employer and dur-
ing the course of the day meetings were held with Diamond
Properties; Lucky Stores; Lee Brothers; Quality Foods, Inc.;
Cala Foods; and Purity Stores. Each separate meeting fol-
lowed essentially the same pattern. Each meeting commenced
with a statement by Jack Crowley to the effect that "various
unions" were working through the central labor councils in
order to assist in the boycott of California table grapes. Crow-
ley stated that these unions had the "full cooperation of
wholesale unions" and that those latter unions would not be
handling table grapes. At the various meetings, after making
his opening comments, Crowley asked the employer repre-
sentative present if his company would agree to the removal
of table grapes from sale. There followed at the separate
meetings a general discussion which included a summation by
a representative of UFWOC or of the AFL-CIO of the back-
ground of the table grape dispute.
During the course of the meeting held with Diamond Prop-
erties, Jack Crowley stated that on August 26 the Labor
Council would meet to determine what kind of strike sanction
would be issued by the Council. Crowley further stated that
he could not assure Diamond Properties that the picketing
would be limited to retail outlets but asserted that it might
extend to docks or warehouses as well. Crowley further stated
with respect to the picketing that the Council "was not sure"
what kind of picketing would be involved. He asserted that
"it might not be simply informational" in nature. During this
same meeting, Claude Jinkerson also observed that the Coun-
cil was uncertain what kind of picketing would be involved.
Jinkerson also observed that the picketing might not be lim-
ited to retail outlets, and he stated that the distribution cen-
ters of larger firms were possible picketing sites. Jinkerson
also observed that the picketing might "go beyond" informa-
tional picketing.
At the meeting with Purity Stores, the representative of
Purity, Howard Houston, inquired if all unions were par-
ticipating in the boycott effort. Jack Crowley assured Hous-
ton that all unions were participating. Houston sought to
extract a guarantee that there would be no picket line "trou-
ble," and Crowley stated that he could not give such a guar-
antee as to the "picket lines as they might appear." During
the course of the meeting, Houston asked if there would be
any effort to "cut off the grapes at their source" as opposed
to limiting their sale at the retail market. Jack Crowley an-
swered that efforts were being made to "cut off" the grapes
at their source.'
One of the meetings held on August 22 was with Lucky
Stores, represented on this occasion by William Shea, vice
president in charge of labor relations. Arthur Jacobs and
Thomas Kane were also present during the meeting. Jack
Crowley was present, as were Claude Jinkerson and Al Lom-
bardi of Meat Cutters Local 115. Dan Flanagan of the AFL-
CIO and Art Carter of the Contra Costa Labor Council were
in attendance. Three or four individuals affiliated with the
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee attended this
meeting.
Jack Crowley commenced the meeting by identifying him-
self as a representative of the San Francisco Labor Council
and by introducing Dan Flanagan as the personal representa-
tive of George Meany of the AFL-CIO. Other individuals
present were introduced to Shea. Thereupon, Crowley de-
scribed the plight of the farm workers in the grape industry
in California and stated that Flanagan was present as a repre-
sentative of the AFL-CIO because the Farm Workers were
affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Crowley stated that the unions
affiliated with the San Francisco Labor Council had given full
support to the grape boycott activities of UFWOC and as-
serted that individual local unions affiliated with the San
Francisco Labor Council had committed themselves to sup-
port the boycott activity. Additionally, those unions had
agreed, according to Crowley, not to handle any table grapes
that were being marketed. Crowley then stated that he would
like to have the commitment of Lucky Stores that Lucky
would cease handling the table grapes. Crowley suggested
that it would be desirable to determine the matter "in this
fashion" rather than to subject the company to "such picket-
ing activity" as the unions might be able to bring to bear on
the company. Crowley requested a commitment from Shea.
Shea responded that if he had to give a commitment immedi-
ately that it would be a negative one. Thereupon, Crowley
stated that he desired Lucky Stores to communicate its inten-
tion prior to 5 p.m. on the following Friday. Crowley stated
that, absent a commitment to cease handling the California
' The foregoing is based on the credited, unrefuted testimony of Thomas
Kane With respect to union participation in the grape boycott, I specifically
Arthur Jacobs who testified concerning this meeting could not recall credit the testimony of Kane to the effect that at the meeting with Purity
which individual attended However, he testified that only one of the two Stores, in contradistinction to the meetings with other employers wherein
was in attendance he referred specifically to wholesale unions as refusing to handle California
6 All of the foregoing is based on the credited and unrefuted testimony table grapes, Crowley stated that "all unions" would participate in the
of Arthur Jacobs boycott.
SAN FRANCISCO LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
table grapes, Lucky would be subjected to picketing and boy-
cott activity. Crowley specified Local 648 of the Retail Clerks
and Local 115 of the Meat Cutters as retail locals which
would support the boycott activity.
3. Table grape shipments
Pursuant to brokerage arrangements, California table
grapes handled by Lucky Stores are shipped directly from the
grower to the distribution center of Lucky Stores located in
San Leandro, in Alameda County. Upon arrival at the San
Leandro distribution center the grapes are handled by ware-
housemen represented by Local 853 of the Teamsters. The
table grapes are delivered from the San Leandro facility to the
various retail stores of the Lucky chain by employees affi-
liated with Local 70 of the Teamsters.' The Teamsters Union
is not affiliated with the San Francisco Central Labor Council
and the San Leandro facility located in Alameda County is
within the jurisdiction of the Alameda County Central Labor
Council.' Teamsters represent certain employees at the
wholesale distribution centers in the area.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence establishes the existence at all material times
of a primary labor dispute between UFWOC and growers of
California table grapes. Similarly established is the existence
at relevant times during August 1968 of a definitive policy on
the part of Respondent to lend support and assistance to
UFWOC in its efforts to effectuate a boycott of California
table grapes. In support of the complaint which alleges
threats, coercion, and restraint by agents of Respondent vi-
olative of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, the General Coun-
sel alludes to certain statements which, it is asserted, ex-
ceeded the bounds of permissible persuasion and appeal for
cooperation. The Respondent asserts, however, that certain
of the statements on which the General Counsel relies were
not made by its agents and, in any event, that the statements
in question depict and portend nothing more than the possi-
bility of lawful consumer picketing in support of a nationwide
boycott of California table grapes.
The Board has held that, absent accompanying acts of
coercion, the secondary boycott provisions of the Act are not
violated by a mere request of a union addressed to a neutral
employer that the neutral withhold patronage from an em-
ployer with whom the requesting union has a primary labor
dispute." Nor are those provisions of the Act violated by a
mere union request to a neutral employer to cease doing
business with a primary employer, when the request in ques-
tion merely seeks the cooperation of the neutral and carries
a disclaimer of any intention to threaten the neutral em-
ployer." However, the Board has held that, given a pro-
scribed object, threats of picketing which are without restric-
There is insufficient evidence in the record to reveal whether Lucky's
procedures are typical of those of other retail grocery stores in the area
9 All of the foregoing relating to the meeting with Lucky Stores and
delivery of table grapes to Lucky is based on the credited and unrefuted
testimony of William Shea. I specifically credit the testimony of Shea to the
effect that at the meeting with Lucky Stores Crowley did not state in terms
or substance that only the wholesale unions would refuse to handle Cali-
fornia table grapes shipped to Lucky stores . I further credit Shea 's testimony
to the effect that Crowley did not state in terms that the picketing activity
that would evolve from the refusal of Lucky Stores to cease handling table
grapes would be "informational" only.
10 American Federation of TV & Radio Artists, 150 NLRB 467, 469.
" See Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 592, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers ofAmerica (Estes Express Lines, Inc ), 181 NLRB No. 121.
265
tion or limitation violate Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act
when lodged by a union against a secondary employer.12
In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that by and
through statements of its agents Crowley and Jinkerson Re-
spondent unlawfully threatened neutral employers for an ob-
ject proscribed by the Act." Thus, the evidence of record
establishes that at a meeting with Diamond Properties on or
about August 26 both Crowley and Jinkerson threatened
picketing of retail outlets as a likely consequence of Dia-
mond's failure to honor Respondent's request to remove table
grapes from sale, and both articulated the concept that the
picketing might extend beyond the retail stores to shipping
and distribution centers of the retail grocery concerns of the
area. Both refrained from defining the character of the picket-
ing and conveyed, in words, the possibility that the picketing
might be more than informational in nature. Similarly, Crow-
ley conveyed to the respective representatives of Purity Stores
and Lucky Stores a threat of picketing, which, as with Dia-
mond Properties, was not limited or restricted as to charac-
ter. Thus imbued, and considering the declared congressional
objective of "shielding unoffending employers and others
from pressures in controversies not their own,"" I conclude,
and find, that the foregoing constituted threats within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
I find, contrary to the contention of the Respondent, that
the aforesaid conduct of Respondent does not fall within the
ambit and reach of the Servette and Tree Fruits decisions,
supra. In Servette the Court decided that a mere request
addressed to a secondary employer asking that it cease doing
business with a struck primary employer is not itselfviolative
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. The Court further decided
that, under the publicity proviso to Section 8(b)(4), secondary
employers are not threatened when legitimate cease doing
business appeals are accompanied by warnings that the place
of business of the secondary employer would be subjected to
handbilling and when handbills were actually distributed.
However, in reaching this decision, the Court drew the dis-
tinction between this proviso-exempted conduct which con-
stituted a mere request for voluntary cooperation on the part
of the secondary employer and conduct which by its nature
had the effect of coercing a secondary employer into acquies-
cence. In Tree Fruits the Court found no congressional plan
to proscribe all peaceful consumer picketing at secondary
sites and found that such picketing, which had an object of
persuading the secondary employer therein to cease handling
products sold by the primary employer against whom the
picketing union was conducting a strike, was not precluded
by the provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act in cir-
cumstances wherein prior to setting up the picket line the
managers of the picketed secondary establishment had been
" Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 2669 (T & D
Roofing Co., Inc.), 173 NLRB No. 188, Sheet Metal Workers International
Association (S. M. Kisner and Sons), 131 NLRB 1196, 1202, 1203 ; General
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union No. 886 (The Stephens Com-
pany), 133 NLRB 1393, 1395, 1396.
" I find no merit in Respondent 's contention that Jinkerson 's statements
at the meetings in question were not attributable to Respondent . Not only
was Jmkerson at the time in question a member of Respondent 's executive
committee which was specifically empowered by Respondent's constitution
and bylaws to act for the Respondent Council in tradeunion matters in the
interim between meetings, but Jinkerson made statements in the presence
of Jack Crowley, another committee member and an officer of Respondent,
which were in furtherance of the avowed purposes of the meetings in ques-
tion and which were consistent with those made by Crowley. Moreover,
Jinkerson's statements were in no manner refuted or disavowed by Crowley
I thus find Jmkerson's statements to be binding on Respondent.
" N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, 341
US 675, 692
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
advised by the union that the picketing was only an appeal to
customers and that there would be no interference with store
work or deliveries of merchandise. It is apparent that the rule
of neither Servette nor Tree Fruits is applicable here for Re-
spondent in warning of picketing went beyond a mere request
for cooperation and gave no assurance that the picketing
would be limited to appeals to consumers. What in actuality
is "veiled coercion of secondary employers, cannot by the
simple use of the words `consumer directed' be given statu-
tory protection."i5
Indeed, the coercive nature of the aforesaid veiled threats
gains greater definition when it is considered that the state-
ments were made in context of admonitions, that, as with
Diamond, strike sanctions were being considered and were
imminent, or that, as with Lucky, deadlines were specified for
a decision by the company on the question of withdrawing
table grapes from sale. Further, these warnings of picketing
were made in context of statements projecting a refusal of
unions participating in the boycott effort to handle California
table grapes. I find these statements in themselves constitute
threats unlawful under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) for their practi-
cal effect was to inform neutral employers that, if they did not
cooperate with the unions by removing California table
grapes from their respective stores, the unions would with-
hold those services required of union members to render
California table grapes marketable and available for sale to
retail customers. Statements having a similar import and
meaning have been held to constitute conduct proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.i6 Contrary to Respondent,
these statements are not purged of their illegality by the fact
that to some employers only the "wholesale" unions were
specified as the entities which would refuse to handle the
grapes. In point of fact, no such distinction as between
"wholesale" and "retail" unions was made to the representa-
tive of Lucky; and to all employers the "refusal to handle"
statement was made in context of underscoring given to the
unity among all unions in the effort to assist in the grape
boycott and the coordinated nature of this effort. Signifi-
cantly, the statements of unity and cooperation were given
currency repeatedly at meetings presided over by an officer of
Respondent and held under Respondent's auspices. The
threat implicit in the statement made to Lucky is apparent;
it is not rendered less viable as to other neutrals by reason of
the lack of affiliation of the Teamsters "wholesale" unions in
Respondent Council. That Respondent may not have had the
capacity to fully implement the warning it transmitted does
not change their violative character."
Further, I specifically conclude and find that the foregoing
threats and acts of coercion were for an object proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. The record establishes that
at no time pertinent herein did Respondent have a labor
dispute with any of the retail grocery concerns which are here
designated as neutrals. Moreover, the record establishes con-
clusively the existence of a labor dispute between UFWOC
and Pagliarulo et al., Barr, Giumarra Vineyards, and other
growers of California table grapes. The record also amply
discloses that the efforts undertaken by Respondent in sup-
port of UFWOC were related principally, if not exclusively,
to a question of labor relations between UFWOC, on the one
15 N.L.R.B. v. Millmen & Cabinet Makers Union, Local No. 550, 367
F.2d 953 (C A. 9), enfg 153 NLRB 1285
15 Highway Truckdrivers & Helpers, Local No. 107, etc. (Riss & Company,
Inc.), 130 NLRB 943, 947; Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355
(A. S. Abell Company), 183 NLRB No. 99
" See XL R.B. v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York, 226 F.2d
900 (C A. 2), N.L.R.B. v. Laundry, Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers
Local 928, 262 F.2d 617 (C.A.9)
hand, and Pagliarulo , Barr , Giumarra Vineyards , and other
growers of California table grapes, on the other hand . In this
circumstance , the Respondent 's conduct was secondary in
nature and was proscribed by Section 8(b(4)(ii )(B) of the
Act."
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lucky Stores; Safeway' Stores, Inc.; Arden-Mayfair,
Inc.; Cala Foods; Lee Bros.; Quality Foods; Purity Stores,
Inc.; Diamond Properties, Inc.; Food Employers Labor Rela-
tions Association, Inc.; Pagliarulo et al.; Barr; and Giumarra
Vineyards are employers and persons engaged in commerce
and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
2. San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) and Section
8(b) of the Act.
3. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Lucky Stores;
Safeway Stores, Inc.; Arden-Mayfair, Inc.; Cala Foods; Lee
Bros.; Quality Foods; Purity Stores, Inc.; Diamond Proper-
ties, Inc.; and Food Employers, as found herein, with an
object of forcing or requiring the aforesaid persons and em-
ployers to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or oth-
erwise dealing in the products of Pagliarulo et al., Barr, and
Giumarra Vineyards, Respondent engaged in, and is engag-
ing in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action designed to remedy its unfair
labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I hereby issue the following recommended:19
ORDER
Respondent, San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening, coercing, or restraining Lucky Stores;
Safeway Stores, Inc.; Arden-Mayfair, Inc.; Cala Foods; Lee
Bros.; Quality Foods; Purity Stores, Inc.; Diamond Proper-
ties, Inc.; and Food Employers Labor Relations Association,
Inc.; or any person engaged in commerce, or an industry
affecting commerce, to cease using, selling, handling, trans-
" See Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 355, etc, supra. As the
cease-doing-business object was implicit and foremost in Respondent's con-
duct, the Respondent is not aided by the fact that the threats emerged from
a union policy having arguably valid social objectives. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Inter-
national Longshoremen's Association and Local 1355 [Ocean Shipping Ser-
vice, Ltd.], 332 F.2d 992,998-999 (C.A 4).
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
SAN FRANCISCO LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Pagliarulo et
al.; Barr; and/or Giumarra Vineyards.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended:
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office, meeting
halls, and all other places where notices to members are
customarily posted signed copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Because of the nature of the structure and organization of
Respondent as a labor council, I shall further direct that
copies of said notice, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, be transmitted to each local
union and/or labor organization which is a member of Re-
spondent and that each local union and/or labor organization
post said notices in their respective meeting halls and other
places where notices to their members are customarily
posted. Said notices shall be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof and shall be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
all aforesaid notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Sign and furnish to the aforesaid Regional Director, on
forms to be supplied by him, sufficient copies of the attached
"Appendix" for posting by Lucky Stores; Safeway Stores,
Inc.; Arden-Mayfair, Inc.; Cala Foods; Lee Bros.; Quality
Foods; Purity Stores, Inc.; Diamond Properties, Inc.; and
Food Employers Labor Relations Association, Inc.; said em-
ployers being willing, at all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Said copies, after being signed by duly
authorized representatives of Respondent, shall be forthwith
returned to the aforesaid Regional Director for disposition by
him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days
2° In the event that the Board's 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
267
from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
" In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce Lucky
Stores; Safeway Stores, Inc.; Arden-Mayfair, Inc.; Cala
Foods; Lee Bros.; Quality Foods; Purity Stores, Inc.;
Diamond Properties, Inc.; Food Employers Labor Rela-
tions Association, Inc.; or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to cease
using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise deal-
ing in the products of Pagliarulo Fruit Co., Inc.; John
Pagliarulo, Inc.; John A. Pagliarulo; Paul A. Pagliarulo
and John Pagliarulo & Sons; Barr Packing Company;
and/or Giumarra Vineyards or to cease doing business
with the aforesaid growers and shippers of California
Table Grapes.
SAN FRANCISCO LABOR
COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050
Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-3197.