Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1037 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS,
LOCAL 145, (ALSO KNOWN AS FOOD, BEVERAGE AND ExPREss DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION No. 145) AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and THE HOWLAND DRY GOODS COMPANY
In the Matter of SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS , SALESMEN , AND HELPERS,
LOCAL 145, (ALSO KNOWN AS FOOD, BEVERAGE AND EXPRESS DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION No. 145) AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and MEIGS & Co., INC.
In the Matter of LOCAL 191 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, AND SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS,
LOCAL 145, (ALSO KNOWN AS FOOD, BEVERAGE AND ExPREss DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION No. 145) AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL and D;. M. READ COMPANY
Cases Nos. 2-CC-64, 2-CC-65, and 2-CC-66, respectively.-
Decided August 31, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 11, 1949, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
each of the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that each of them cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
I In their exceptions and brief , as at the hearing, the Respondents urge the dismissal of
the complaint on the grounds that : (a) the Board lacks jurisdiction over the charging par-
ties ; (Section 8 (c) of the Act protects the peaceful picketing activity found by the
Trial Examiner to be violative of the Act ; (c) if the Act is construed to interdict peaceful
picketing , it is unconstitutional ; and (d ) inasmuch as the Respondents have abandoned
85 N. L. it. B., No. 181.
1037
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case to a three-member panel [Melnbers Murdock, Reynolds, and.
Gray].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the brief and exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications:
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Local 145 violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner also found, and we agree, that Local 191, by
instructing 2 the employees of the Read Company not to cross the
the activities found by the Trial Examiner to be unlawful, the matter is moot, and no cease
and desist order should issue.
With regard to the first ground, we find, as did the Trial Examiner., that the Companies
are subject to the Board's jurisdiction. See Matter of Retail Merchants Association of
Terre Haute, Indiana, 83 N. L. it. B. 112; Matter of Providence Public Market Com -
pany, 79 N. L. R. B. 14S2 ; Matter of Sam's, Inc., Randolph Drug Company, and Sam's
Drug Department, Inc., 7S N. I,. R. B. 826 ; Matter of Whitney's Department Store, 73
N. L. R. B. 1.245 : Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. 2d 769 ; N. L. R. B. V.
Al. E. Blatt Co., 143 F. 2d 268 (certiorari denied 323 U. S. 774) ; and J. L. Brandeis & Sons
v. N. L. R. B., 142 F. 2d 977 (certiorari denied 323 U. S. 751, rehearing denied 323 U. S.
815). In further support of their contention that the Board has no jurisdiction In this
case, the Respondents allege that there is no evidence in the record that the activities of
the Respondents affected commerce or tended to lead to any labor dispute burdening or ob-
structing commerce or the free flow of commerce. Such evidence has long been held to be
immaterial in a proceeding under the Act. See N. L. R. B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance
Company, 167 F. 2d 983 (certiorari denied 335 U. S. 845).
As to the second ground, we have recently held that peaceful picketing in furtherance
of an objective proscribed under Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act is not protected by
Section 8 (c). United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, District Council
of Kansas City, et at. (Wadsworth Building Company, Inc.), 81 N. L. R. B. 802 ; Local 1796,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. (liontgomery Fair Co.). 82
N. L. R. B. 211 ; P inting Specialties and Paper Converters Union, Local 388, AFL (Seal-
right Pacific, Ltd.), 82 N. L. R. B. 271. We accordingly reject this contention of the
Respondents.
With regard to the constitutionality objection, the Board has frequently declared that,.
as an administrative agency of the Federal Government, it would be inappropriate for us
to pass upon the constitutionality of Congressional enactments. Matter of Rite-Form.
Corset Company, Inc., 75 N. L. It. B. 174.
. In connection with the last of the above grounds for dismissal, the question of mootness,
the Respondents point out that the activities alleged in the complaint were discontinued'
prior to the issuance of the complaint. Consequently, argue the Respondents, no cease
and desist order should issue. Similar arguments by employers have been rejected by the
Board. See Matter of Pacific Moulded Products Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 1140; Matter of
United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Division, 67 N. L. R. B. 594: Matter of
Floward Foundry Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 60 ; N. L. R. B. v. The Burke Machine Toot
Company, 133 F. 2d 618 ; Pueblo Gas & Fuel Company v. N. L. R. B., 118 F. 2d 304 ; and
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 305 U. S. 1.97. We believe
that, to bar resumption of unfair labor practices, the same procedure should be followed
with respect to cases in which labor organizations are respondents, and shall accordingly
order the Respondents to cease and desist from certain activity hereinafter found to be
violative of the Act.
, In adopting the Trial Examiner's findings to the extent indicated, we do not rely upon
the finding that Business Agent Allen, in addition to Steward Davenport, instructed the
employees of the Read Company not to cross the picket line of Local 145. Although the
record supports the finding that Steward Davenport did so instruct the employees of the
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1039
picket line of Local 145, in support of the objectives of Local 145,
violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by inducing and encourag-
ing 3 the employees of the Read Company to engage in a strike or con-
certed refusal in the course of their employment to handle or trans-
port goods, articles, and commodities, or to perform services for the
Read Company, an object thereof being to force the Read Company to
cease doing business with the Delivery Company.
The Trial Examiner further found that Local 191 had similarly
induced and encouraged the employees of other employers engaged in
the transportation of goods and merchandise to and from the Read
Company in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). With this we do not
agree. The Trial Examiner found, and he is substantiated by the
record, that drivers of transportation companies did refuse to cross
the picket line maintained by Local 145 at Read. The evidence, how-
ever, does not relate these refusals to any activity by Local 191, and
they presumably were induced by the mere presence of the Local 145
pickets. Accordingly, we hereby modify the Trial Examiner's find-
ings in this respect.
2. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Local 145 and Local 191
violated Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act.4
Local 145 picketed the Read, Howland, and Meigs Companies and
thereby induced and encouraged the employees of these companies
and the employees of companies supplying transportation service to
these companies to engage in a concerted refusal to perform services
required by their employment, that is, to make deliveries to and from
the Read, Howland, and Meigs Companies. Similarly, Local 191, by
Read Company, we do not believe that it clearly substantiates a similar conclusion with
regard to Business Agent Allen.
The Respondents allege that there is no proof that Davenport had authority to bind
Local 191. The evidence clearly establishes that Davenport, an employee of the Read
Company, was the union steward at Read. The responsibility of Local 191 does not rest
upon either express authority or express ratification of Davenport's actions by Local 191,
but upon whether or not they were within the scope of his general authority. As union
steward; we find that his activity was within the general scope of his authority and that,
accordingly, Local 191 is responsible for his acts. Matter of International Longshoremen's
and 117arehoasent en's Union , C. 1. 0., Local 6, et al ., and Sunset Line and Twine Company,
79 N. L. It. 13. 1487 ; and Matter of Local 760, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, A. P. of L. (Roane-Anderson Company), 82 N. L. R. B. 696.
3 As the complaint does not allege actual engagement by Local 191 in a strike or con-
certed refusal, we limit our conclusions to a finding of inducement or encouragement, as
did the Trial Examiner.
' Section 8 (b) (4) (B) makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents
. . . to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to
engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is : (B)
forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organiza-
t'on as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been
certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section
9; . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its instructions to the employees of Read not to cross the picket line,,
induced and encouraged the employees of the Read Company to en-
gage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment
to make deliveries to and from the Read Company. An object of this
encouragement and inducement was to force Delivery Company to
recognize Local 145 as the representative of its employees, although
Local 145 had not been certified as the bargaining representative of the
employees of Delivery Company under the provisions of Section 9
of the Act.
In other words, the employers being picketed (Read, Howland, and
Meigs Companies) are the "any" employers in the terms of the stat-
ute ; the employees of Read, Howland, and Meigs Companies are
likewise "the employees of any employer." They have been induced
or encouraged by Locals 145 and 191 "to engage in, a strike or a con-
certed refusal in the course of their employment to . . . transport
... or to perform any services." The object of the activities of
Locals 145 and 191 was not to force the Read, Howland, and Meigs
Companies (the "any" employers in this case) to recognize "a labor
organization," but, on the contrary, to force or require the Delivery
Company (the "any other employer".in this case) to recognize "a
labor organization" (Local 145), which had not been certified by the
Board. It seems clear to us that the activities of the Respondents are
proscribed by the very terms of Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of the Act.a
3. The Trial Examiner recommended that Local 145 be ordered to
"Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging ... the employees
of other employers engaged in the transportation of merchandise to
and from the business of the D. M. Read Company, The Howland
Dry Goods Company, or Meigs & Co., Inc., to engage in a strike .. .
to force or require Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., to recognize amid
bargain with Local 145 . . ."
The Respondents urge that this provision of the recommended
order would forbid picketing of the primary employer, Delivery Com-
pany, by its employees, members of Local 145, for the purposes of
securing recognition as bargaining representative. The Respondents
contend that Section 8 (b) (4) (B) was not intended to proscribe pri-
mary recognition strikes and that, consequently, the recommended.
order is too broad. We find merit in the Respondent's contention.
I We are not persuaded , as is our colleague , Member Murdock , that we are precluded
from finding that Local 191 violated Section 8 ( b) (4) (B) because of lack of proof that
Local 191 was actually aware that Local 145's dispute with Delivery Company was one
over the recognition of an uncertified union . We do not believe that knowledge is a nec-
essary factor in finding a violation by Local 191 of Section 8 (b) (4) (B). Local 191
assisted Local 145 in unlawful activity and, thereby, became responsible for Local 145's
unlawful objective.
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1041
The Trial Examiner has used the statutory language, "other em-
ployer," which was also incorporated in the orders in the other Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (A) cases previously decided by the Board. Those
orders, however, involved Section 8 (b) (4) (A) only. Here we
have a combined order to cease and desist from both 8 (b) (4) (A)
and 8 (b) (4) (B) activities. As it is clear that Congress did not
intend to prohibit recognition strikes against the primary employer
we shall modify the Trial Examiner's recommendations in this
respect.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National. Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders :
. I. That the Respondent, Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and
Helpers, Local 145 (also known as Food, Beverage and Express
Drivers Local Union No. 145), affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL; and its officers, representatives, and agents shall:
(a) Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the employees
of D. Al. Read Company, the employees of The Howland Dry Goods
Company, the employees of Meigs & Co., Inc., or the employees of
other employers (other than Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc.),
engaged in the transportation of merchandise to and from the busi-
ness of the D. M. Read Company, the Howland Dry Goods Company,
or the Meigs R Co., Inc., to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in
the course of their employment to transport or otherwise handle
goods, articles, commodities, or to perform services for their respec-
tive employers, where an object or objects thereof are to force or re-
quire D. M. Read Company, The Howl and Dry Goods Company, or
Meigs. & Co., Inc., to cease doing business with Bridgeport United
Delivery, Inc., or to force or require Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc.,
to recognize and bargain with Local 145 as the collective bargaining
representative of its employees unless and until Local 145 has been
certified as such bargaining agent in accordance with the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
6 Although H . R. 3020 was originally intended apparently to outlaw primary recognition
strikes, the Senate version of Section 8 (b) (4) (B ) prevailed in Conference Committee.
Senate Report No. 105 on S. 1126 (p. 22) contains the statement : "It is to be observed
that the primary strike for recognition ( without a Board certification ) is not proscribed.
Similarly , the House Conference Rept . No. 510 on H . R. 3020 declares : "It is to be observed
that the primary strike for recognition ( without a Board certification ) was not prohibited."
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) Post at its business office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, copies
of the notice attached hereto as "Appendix A."' Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second
Region, shall, after being duly signed by its official representative, be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for
a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material ; and
(2) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
II. That the Respondent, Local 191 of the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL, and its officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the employees
of D. M. Read Company to engage in a strike or concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to transport or handle goods, ar-
ticles, commodities, or to perform services for their employer, where
an object or objects thereof are to force or require D. M. Read Com-
pany to cease doing business with Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., or
to force and require the Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., to recognize
and bargain with Local 145 as the collective bargaining representative
of its employees unless and until Local 145 has been certified as such
bargaining agent in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Post at its business office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, copies
of the notice attached hereto as "Appendix B." 8 Copies of said no-
tice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by an official representative, be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are
net altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; and
T In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words "DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
I In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words "DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1043
(2) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
MEMBER MURDOCK, concurring and dissenting in part :
Although otherwise agreeing with the foregoing opinion I cannot
agree with the finding and conclusion of the majority.that Local 191
has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (B). It is my opinion that, in order to
find Local 191 culpable under this section, proof of Local 191's knowl-
edge and adoption of the unlawful object is essential.. The record
contains no evidence that Local 191, when it directed the employees of
Read Company to honor the picket line established by Local 145 at the
Read Company or at any time thereafter, was at all aware that a
purpose of the activity of Local 145 at the Read Company was to
force Delivery Company to recognize Local 145, an uncertified union,
as bargaining agent for the employees of Delivery Company. It is
one thing, in finding a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), to hold that
the unlawful object, that of forcing or requiring the Read, Howland,
and Meigs Companies to cease doing business with the Delivery Com-
pany, was, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, implicit in the
act of picketing and that, therefore, in supporting Local 145, Local 191
adopted, ipso facto, that objective. It is quite another matter to im-
pute to Local 191 intimate knowledge of the basic issues involved in
the dispute between Delivery Company and Local 145. As there is
no evidence that Local 191 was cognizant of the reason for the original
dispute, there is no proof of the motivation made illegal by Section
8 (b) (4) (B). Such motivation is an essential ingredient of that
unlawful labor practice, and, as it has not been proved, I would find
that Local 191 has not'violated Section 8 (b) (4) (B).
For this reason, I hold that the Board should dismiss the allega-
tions of the complaint alleging a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (B) of
the Act by Respondent Local 191.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of D. M. Read
Company, The Howland Dry Goods Company, or Meigs & Co.,
Inc., or the employees of any other employers (other than
857829-50-vol. 8 5-6i 7
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc.) engaged in the transportation
of goods and merchandise to or from the business premises of
D. Al. Read Company, The Howland Dry Goods Company, or
Meigs & Co., Inc., to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the
course of their employment to handle or transport goods, articles,
commodities, or to perform services for their respective employers,
where an object or objects thereof are to force or require D. M.
Read Company, The Howland Dry Goods Company, or Meigs &
Co., Inc., to cease doing business with Bridgeport United Delivery,
Inc., or to force or require Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc. to
recognize its as the representative of its employees unless and until
we have been certified as such representative in accordance with
the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.
SERVICE TRADES CiIIATTFI ET7RS, SALES-
MEN, AND HELPERS, LOCAL 145,
(also ]clown as FooD, BEVERAGE
AND EXPRESS DRIVERS LOCAL UNION
No. 145) affiliated with INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CIIATiFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL
(Labor Organization)
Dated---------------------- By------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice that :
WVE WILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of D. M. Read
Company to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course
of their employment to handle or transport goods, articles, com-
modities, or to perform services for their employer where an
object or objects thereof are to force and require D. M. Read Com-
pany to cease doing business with Bridgeport United Delivery,
Inc., or to force and require Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc. to
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS , SALESMEN , AND HELPERS 1045
recognize Service Trade Chauffeurs , Salesmen , and Helpers, Local
145, (also known as Food, Beverage and Express Drivers Local
Union No. 145 ) affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, as bargaining representative for its employees , unless and
until Local 145 has been certified as such representative in accord-
ance with the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
LOCAL 191, OF TIIE INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREFIOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,,
AFL
(Labor Organization)
Dated---------------------- By------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Mr. Vincent M. Rotolo, for the General Counsel.
Miss Mary C. Fitzgerald, of Hartford, Conn., for the Respondents.
Mr. Edward J. McCarthy, of Bridgeport, Conn., for Meigs Company.
Mr. Dwight F. Fanton, of Bridgeport, Conn., for The Howland Company.
Mr. Milton A. Mandelson, of Bridgeport, Conn., for the Read Company.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on September 27, 1948, in each of the above-entitled cases
by The Howland Dry Goods Company (hereinafter referred to as the Howland
Company), by Meigs & Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Meigs Company),
and by D. M. Read Company (hereinafter referred to as the Read Company),
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board' by the Regional
Director for the Second Region (New York, New York) issued an order con-
solidating these cases on October 19, 1948, and on the same day issued his
complaint against Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers , Local 145,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL, and also against Local 191 of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL (hereinafter referred to jointly as the Respondents , and individually as
Local 145 and Local 191, respectively).
The complaint alleged that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
'The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are herein referred to as
the General Counsel , and the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board.
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended June 23, 1947' (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Copies
of the complaint, the charges, the order consolidating the cases, a notice of
hearing, and notices of postponements of hearing, were duly served upon the
Respondents, the Howland Company, the Meigs Company, and the Read Company.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
(1) that on and after September 22, 1948, Local 145 and Local 191, jointly and
severally induced and encouraged the employees of the Read Company at its
warehouse and its store, and also the employees of other employers engaged in
the transportation of goods and merchandise to and from the said warehouse
and store, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to handle or transport goods, articles, commodities, or to perform
services for their respective employers, objects thereof being (a) to force or
require the Read Company to cease doing business with Bridgeport United
Delivery, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Delivery Company) and (b) to
force or require the Delivery Company to recognize or bargain with Local 145
as the collective, bargaining representative of the employees of the Delivery
Company; (2) that on and after September 22, 1948, Local 145 engaged in, or
induced or encouraged the employees of the Howland Company, the employees of
the Dleigs Company, and also the employees of other employers engaged in the
transportation of merchandise to and from the business premises of the Howland
Company and the Aleigs Company, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise handle goods, articles,
commodities, or to perform services for their respective employers, objects
thereof being (a) to force or require the Howland Company and the Meigs
Company to cease doing business with the Delivery Company, and (b) to force
or require the Delivery Company to recognize or bargain with Local 145 as
the collective bargaining representative of the employees of the Delivery Com-
pany; and (c) that Local 145 was not at that time or at any time thereafter
certified as the bargaining agent of the employees of the Delivery Company, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
Local 145 and Local 191 filed separate answers admitting certain allegations
of the complaint, but denying the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on February
15, 16, and 17, 1949, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the. Respondents, the Howland
Company, the 1\Ieigs Company, and the Read Company, participated in the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. During
the course of the hearing, the undersigned denied a motion made by counsel for
the Respondents to strike the complaint for want of jurisdiction. At the con-
clusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, counsel for the Respondent rested,
without adducing any evidence in the case. At the same time, counsel for the
Respondent made a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the
acts and conduct of the Respondents shown by the testimony were protected by
Section 8 (c) of the Act. The undersigned reserved decision upon this motion
which is disposed of in accordance with the consideration hereinafter set forth.
Before the close of the hearing the General Counsel and counsel for the Respond-
ents presented oral argument to the undersigned. Although the parties were
1 61 Stat. 136.
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1047
advised of their right to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of
law, none have been received by the undersigned.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, is a motor trans-
portation company with its garage and place of business located in Bridgeport,
Connecticut. With automobile trucks manned by its own employees, it operates
a package delivery service for various department stores in Bridgeport, including
the D. Al. Read Co., The Howland Dry Goods Company, and Meigs & Co., Inc. It
also rents three automobile trucks to The Howland Dry Goods Company and five
to the D. Al. Read Co. These rented trucks, although garaged and serviced by the
Bridgeport United Delivery Inc., are supplied for the exclusive use of the respec-
tive lessees, bear the respective lessees' names, and are operated at all times
solely by the employees of each lessee.
D. M. Read Company, a Delaware corporation, operates a retail department
store in Bridgeport, Connecticut. During 1948, the Read Company purchased
merchandise for sale in its store at a cost to it in excess of $4,000,000, of which
93.5 percent was purchased from companies, dealers, and manufacturers located
at points outside the State of Connecticut, and was shipped from those points to
the Read Company's store in Bridgeport, Connecticut. During the same year
the Read Company sold merchandise of a retail sales value of more than $6,000,000
of which 1.96 percent was shipped to customers outside the State of Connecticut.
The Howland Dry Goods Company, a Connecticut corporation, also operates a
retail department store in Bridgeport, Connecticut. During the year ending
November 30, 1948, the Howland Company purchased merchandise for sale in its
store at a cost to it in excess of $4,000,000, of which 90.38 percent was shipped to
the Bridgeport store from points outside the State of Connecticut. During the
same year, the Howland Company sold merchandise of a retail sales value in
excess of $5,000,000, of which .77 percent was shipped to customers at points
outside the State of Connecticut.
Meigs & Co., Inc., a Connecticut corporation, operates a retail store in Bridge-
port, Connecticut, at which it specializes in the sale of men's and women's ready-
to-wear clothing. During 1948, it purchased merchandise at a cost of $846,529 for
Sale at its store, approximately 99.5 percent of which was purchased at points
outside the State of Connecticut and shipped to its Bridgeport store. Less than
I/ of 1 percent of the merchandise sold by Meigs & Co., Inc., is shipped to
customers at points outside the State of Connecticut.
Contrary to the Respondents' contention, the undersigned finds that an inter-
ruption of the operations of D. M. Read Company, The Howland Dry Goods Com-
pany, and Meigs & Company, Inc., and their use of the services supplied by the
Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., would constitute a substantial disruption of
interstate commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
0
Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers, Local 145, (also known as
Food, Beverage and Express Drivers Local Union No. 145) affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL, and also Local 191 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The strike
The Delivery Company has never recognized any labor organization, nor has
any labor organization been certified by the Board, as the bargaining representa-
tive of any of its employees.
On Thursday, September 16, 1948,' Vice President John Heanue of Local 145
visited Manager Daniel Wahlberg, the Delivery Company's manager. Claiming
that Local 145 represented a majority of the Delivery Company's employees,
Heanue asked that Local 145 be recognized by the Delivery Company as the
bargaining representative of its employees and left a form of proposed agreement
between the Delivery Company and Local 145. The proposed agreement provided
for recognition of Local 145, membership in Local 145 as a condition of employment
after 30 days' service with the Delivery Company, and the negotiation by Local 145
and the Delivery Company of a comprehensive contract covering wages, hours,
and other conditions of employment. In accordance with his promise to Heanue,
Wahlberg immediately forwarded the proposed agreement to Percy Arnold, presi-
dent of the Delivery Company, who had his office in Providence, Rhode Island, and
told Arnold by telephone of Local 145's demand.
Two days later, Saturday, September 8, Patrick Lapore, one of the Delivery
Company's drivers who had been short in his accounts and had given a week's
notice of his intention to quit, informed Manager Wahlberg that he had joined a
union, and was not quitting his job. Wahlberg, however, refused to permit Lapore
to continue to work for the Delivery Company. When-informed by Wahlberg of
this by telephone on the same day, President Arnold confirmed Wahlberg's action.
On Sunday, September 19, Vice President Heanue of Local 145 telephoned
Manager Wahlberg at the latter's home and asked Wahlberg to continue Lapore
on the Delivery Company's pay-roll. Wahlberg refused, but suggested that
Heanue might telephone to President Arnold about the matter.
On Monday evening, September 20, President Arnold received a telephone call
at his home from Timothy Collins, an international representative of the Team-
sters, with whom be had had friendly dealings for a number of years. Collins
told Arnold that he had been informed during a conference with representatives
of Local 145, including Secretary Cleary of that Local, that, unless Lapore was
reinstated, Local 145 would call a strike on Tuesday, September 21, and would
picket the Delivery Company's garage, the site of its new garage then in the
course of construction, and also the places of business of the Delivery Com-
pany's customers. Collins suggested that Arnold should come to Bridgeport
early the next morning. When Arnold said he could not do so until Thursday,
it was agreed that he should instruct Wahlberg early the next morning to rein-
state Lapore until Arnold should come to the Delivery Company's garage on
Thursday, and that in the meantime "matters would stand in status quo."
However, at 7 o'clock the following morning, Tuesday, September 21, before
Arnold called Wahlberg, seven pickets including six of the Delivery Company's
employees, began patrolling in front of the Delivery Company's garage with signs
bearing the legend, "Unfair to Local 145." Thus, when Arnold telephoned Wahl-
berg at about 8 o'clock that morning and instructed Wahlberg to reinstate Lapore
8 All of the incidents material to th e. present case occurred in 1948.
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1049
until Arnold could come to Bridgeport on Thursday, Wahlberg told him that it
was too late since the strike had already started. Thereupon, Arnold told
Wahlberg to disregard his instructions concerning Lapore.
At about 9 o'clock the same morning, Tuesday, September 21, Wahlberg re-
ceived a letter from Local 145, dated September 20 and signed by Cleary as secre-
tary-treasurer. In this letter, Local 145 made "a formal request for recog-
nition" of Local 145 as bargaining representative of the Delivery Company's
drivers, pick-up men, route men, and working foremen, claiming that it repre-
sented a majority of these employees, and asked the Delivery Company to make
arrangements by return mail for immediate bargaining conferences. Nothing
was said in this letter about Lapore.
The picketing of the Delivery Company's garage continued for about a week.
and a half, and several days later spread to the site of the construction of
the Company's new garage, where it continued for several weeks. In both cases,
the picketing was peaceful. After September 21 the pickets carried signs stating
"Bridgeport United Delivery Unfair to Local 145." Vice President Heanue of
Local 145 appeared with the pickets at both places and on one occasion carried
a sign at the construction site.
During the course of the picketing at the Delivery Company's garage, Heanue
first told Manager Wahlberg that Local 145 insisted upon Lapore's reinstatement,
but later, asked Wahlberg whether the Delivery Company would confer with
Local 145 "if Mr. Lapore was not made the issue." When William Lavery, the
Delivery Company's attorney, visited IIeanue and Business Agent Regneri a few
days later at the offices of Local 145 and asked them "what the whole matter was
about," they told him "that they were not too much concerned with Mr. Lapore"
since they could get a job for him somewhere else, but that "their main object
was to be recognized as the bargaining agent for the truck drivers of the Delivery
Company." The undersigned accordingly finds that the primary object of Local
145 in picketing the Delivery Company was to force and require the Delivery
Company to recognize and bargain with Local 145 as the representative of its
employees although Local 145 had not been certified as such representative in
accordance with Section 9 of the Act.
B. The Respondent's conduct with respect to three department stores
As has already been noted, the Read Company, the Howland Company, and
the Meigs Company use the Delivery Company's services in delivering packages
to their respective customers, and the Read Company and the Howland Company
also rent trucks from the Delivery Company for the delivery of bulky and heavy
merchandise.
Shortly after Local 145 began picketing the garage of the Delivery Company,
pickets bearing signs stating, "Bridgeport United Delivery Unfair to Local 145,"
also appeared and patrolled peacefully at various entrances to the business
premises of each of these three customers of the Delivery Company. In the case
of the Read Company, the truck entrance to its warehouse building, which is some
distance from its store, was thus picketed during the morning of Thursday,
September 23; all day on Saturday, September 25; all day of Monday, September
27 (which was not, however, a working day) ; and the greater part of Tuesday,
September 28. The receiving entrance in the store building of the Read Company
was also similarly picketed on Saturday, September 25; Wednesday, September
29; and Saturday, October 1. On approximately the same days, pickets with the
same signs or signs of similar import, patrolled the receiving platform and
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
various customer entrances of Howland Company's store and the entrance to the
store of Meigs Company.
None of the three department stores which were customers of the Delivery
Company had any controversy or dispute with its employees or with any labor
organization representing its employees. Neither the Howland Company nor
Meigs Company had contractual relations with any labor organization. The Read
Company had a contract with Local 191, which, like Local 145, was affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL.
On Tuesday, September 21, the drivers of the Read Company went to the De-
livery Company's garage to get the trucks which were rented by Read Company.
Returning without the trucks, they explained to Henry Welsh, warehouse super-
intendent for Read Company, that there was a strike at the Delivery Company's
garage. When consulted by Welsh, Charles Davenport, who was one of Read
Company's drivers and the shop steward for Local 191, made a telephone call,
after which he informed Welsh that Read Company drivers would have to respect
the picket line at the Delivery Company's garage, but that they might drive the
trucks if they were brought over to the Read Company's warehouse. Accord-
ingly, the rented trucks were brought over to the Read Company's warehouse by
a mechanic employed by the Delivery Company, were garaged at the Read Com-
pany's warehouse that night, and were driven by Read Company' s drivers on
their regular deliveries during Tuesday and Wednesday, September 21 and 22.
On the morning of Thursday, September 23, two pickets bearing signs which
stated "Bridgeport United Delivery Unfair to Local 145," were patrolling the
entrance to Read Warehouse when Read Company's drivers came to work.
Steward Davenport of Local 191, after again making a telephone call, told Superin-
tendent Welsh that the drivers would have to respect the picket line. Vice
President Mandelson of Read Company then protested over the telephone to John
J. Allen, business agent of Local 191 against the picketing, and Allen said he
would speak with Secretary Cleary of Local 145 as to what could be done. At
approximately noon, Cleary telephoned to Mandelson. Stating that Allen had
spoken to him about the matter, Cleary told Mandelson that Local 145 leas trying
to organize the drivers of the Delivery Company and would use every "economic
pressure" possible to accomplish this objective. Mandelson said that Read Com-
pany's sales people had been notified that they should urge customers to carry their
parcels. Cleary's reply was that this was fairly good cooperation.
From Secretary Cleary's statement to Mandelson on this occasion, it appears
clear, and the undersigned finds, that the objectives of Local 145 in picketing
the department stores which were customers of the Delivery Company, were to
require and force the department stores to cease doing business with the Delivery
Company and thereby to require and force the Delivery Company to recognize
and bargain with Local 145 as the representative of its employees.
The picket line at the Read Company was lifted during the afternoon of
Thursday, September 23, after Mandelson told Secretary Cleary of Local 145
that the Read Company was urging its customers to carry their parcels, and it
did not reappear on the following day, Friday, September 24. On Saturday,
September 25, however, pickets with the same signs again patrolled Read
Company's warehouse entrance, and for the first time appeared at the store.
Mandelson again called Business Agent Allen of Local 191 but Allen said he could
do nothing with Cleary. On the same day, the Read Company's drivers were
told by Steward Davenport of Local 191, that they must respect the picket line.
As a result, the drivers did not load or take the trucks out.
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1051
On Tuesday, September 28, the next working day, the picket line was again
present at the Read Company's warehouse and Superintendent Welsh, upon
instructions from Vice President Mandelson told the men there was no work for
them and that they might go home. Business Agent Allen of Local 191 thereupon
called Mandelson by telephone from Read Company's warehouse, stating that he
might be able to do something with Cleary if Read Company did not use the
Delivery Company's trucks nor the trucks of Wilson Company with whom Mandel-
son had made a temporary arrangement for relief. Allen suggested that Read
Company secure trucks from Meyer Brothers, whose employees were members
of Local 191. Mandelson followed these suggestions and the picket line at the
warehouse was thereupon removed.
There is credible uncontradicted testimony that the picketing of the business
premises of the Read Company and the Howland Company induced drivers for
various transportation companies not to cross the picket line and thus not to make
deliveries to the Read Company and the Howland Company in the usual course
of their employment. Upon such testimony, the undersigned finds (1) that a
driver for the Adley Express Company, whose bargaining contract with Local 191
expressly relieves its employees from ally obligation to cross a picket line, returned
a consignment of 260 cartons of paper bags shipped from Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, to Read Company, rather than cross the picket line; (2) that a driver for
Associated Transport Company also refused to cross the picket line to make
another delivery to Read Company; and (3) that a driver for the Railway Express
Company also refused to cross the picket line at the Howland Company's store but
instead made delivery to Howland Company's receiving clerk on the street.
C. Conclusions
It has been found that the objectives of Local 145 in peacefully picketing the
business premises of the Read Company, the Howland Company, and the Meigs
Company were (1) to force or require the Read Company, the Howland Com-
pany, and the Meigs Company to cease doing business with the Delivery Com-
pany; and (2) thereby to force or require the Delivery Company to recognize
and bargain with Local 145 as the representative of its employees although
Local 145 was not certified as the representative of such employees under the
provisions of Section 9. Contrary to the Respondents' contention in the present
case, the Board has recently held ° that peaceful picketing in pursuit of such
objectives at the business premises of an employer not involved in the dispute
which gives rise to the picketing constitutes inducement and encouragement of
the employees of the picketed neutral employer concertedly to refuse to perform
service in the course of their employment, which is not protected by Section 8
(c) of the Act,` and is, therefore, an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of the applicable subsection of 8 (b) (4). Similarly, in the present case, such
peaceful picketing also constitutes forbidden inducement and encouragement of
the employees of transportation companies not to cross the picket line in the
course of their employment for the purpose of making deliveries to the picketed,
Matter of Wadsworth Building Company, Inc. and Klassen and Hodgson, Inc., 81 N. L.
R. B. 802, 23 LRRM 1403, decided February 18, 1949. See also United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Sperry, 170 F. 2d 863 (C. A. 10).
5 Section 8 (c) of the Act provides that :
"The expressing of any views, arguments, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof,
.whether, in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence
of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression
contains no threat of reprisal or force or a promise of benefit."
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
neutral employer. The undersigned accordingly finds that, by picketing the
business premises of the Read Company, the Howland Company, and the Meigs
Company, Local 145, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B), induced and
encouraged the employees of the Read Company, employees of the Howland
Company, employees of the Meigs Company, and also the employees of other
employers engaged in the transportation of merchandise to and from the business
premises of the Read Company, the Howland Company, and the Meigs Company,
to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
transport or otherwise handle goods, articles, commodities, or to perform serv-
ices for their respective employers, objects thereof being (a) to force and require
the Read Company, the Howland Company, and the Meigs Company to cease
doing business with the Delivery Company, and (b) to force and require the
Delivery Company to recognize and bargain with Local 145 as the collective bar-
gaining representative of it, employees although Local 145 was not certified as
the bargaining agent of th :se employees in accordance with the provisions- of
Section 9 of the Act.
It has also been found that Local 191, through Steward Davenport and Busi-
ness Agent Allen, instructed the employees of the Read Company not to cross
the picket line of Local 145 at the Read Company warehouse, and thereby, in
support of the objectives of Local 145, to refuse to make deliveries for the Read
Company from its warehouse in the course of their employment. It is accord-
ingly found that Local 191, in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B), induced
and encouraged the employees of the Read Company, and the employees of other
employers engaged in the transportation of goods and merchandise to and from
the Read Company, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of
their employment to handle or transport goods, articles, commodities, or to per-
form services for their respective employers, objects thereof being (a) to force
and require the Read Company to cease doing business with the Delivery Com-
pany, and (b) to force and require the Delivery Company to recognize or bargain
with Local 145 as the collective bargaining representative of its employees al-
though Local 145 was not certified as the bargaining agent of these employees in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Companies set forth in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead, and have led, to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and
(B) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that they cease and desist there-
from, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers, Local 145, (also known
as Food, Beverage and Express Drivers Local No. 145) affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1053
America, AFL, and also Local 191 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers, Local 145, (also known
as Food, Beverage and Express Drivers Local No. 145) affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging em-
ployees of the D. M. Read Company, employees of The Howland Dry Goods Com-
pany, employees of Meigs & Co., Inc., and also employees of other employers en-
gaged in the transportation of merchandise to and from the business premises
of the D. M. Read Company, The Howland Dry Goods Company, and the Meigs
& Co., Inc., to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to transport or otherwise handle goods, articles, commodities, or to
perform services for their respective employees, objects thereof being (a) to force
and require D. Al. Read Company, The Howland Dry Goods Company, and Meigs
& Co., Inc., to cease doing business with Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., and
(b) to force and require the said Bridgeport Delivery, Inc., to recognize or bar-
gain with Local 145 as the collective bargaining representative of its employees,
although Local 145 was not certified as the bargaining agent of these employees
in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
3. Local 191 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL, has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, by inducing
and. encouraging employees of D. 1\1. Read Company, and the employees of other
employers engaged in the transportation of goods and merchandise to and from
the business premises of the said D. M. Read Company, to engage in a strike
or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle or transport
goods, articles, commodities, or to perform services for their respective em-
ployers, objects thereof being (b) to force and require the D. M. Read Company
to cease doing business with Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., and (b) to force
and require the Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc. to recognize and bargain with
Local 145 as the collective bargaining representative of its employees although
Local 145 was not certified as the bargaining agent of these employees in accord-
ance with the provisions of Section 9 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
recommended :
1. That the Respondent, Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers,
Local 145, (also known as Food, Beverage and Express Drivers Local Union
No. 145) affiliated with International. Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL; and its officers, representatives,
and agents shall :
(a) Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging, the employees of D. M.
Read Company, the employees of The Howland Dry Goods Company, the employees
of Meigs & Co., Inc., or the employees of other employers engaged in the trans-
portation of merchandise to and from the business of the D. M. Read Company,
The Howland Dry Goods Company, or the Meigs & Co., Inc., to engage in a strike
or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
handle goods, articles, commodities, or to perform services for their respective
employers, where an object or objects thereof are to force or require D. M. Read
Company, The Howland Dry Goods Company, or Meigs & Co., Inc., to cease doing
business with Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., or to force or require Bridgeport
United Delivery, Inc., to recognize and bargain with Local 145 as the collective
bargaining representative of its employees unless and until Local 145 has been
certified as such bargaining agent in accordance with the provisions of Section
D of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
1. Post at its business office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto as "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by its
official representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained for a period of sixty (00) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted.
'Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; and
2. Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing within twenty
(20) days from the (late of this Intermediate Report what steps. it has taken to
comply herewith.
II. That the Respondent, Local 191 of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, and its
officers, representatives, and agents, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the employees of D. M.
Read Company or the employees of other employers engaged in the transporta-
tion of goods and merchandise to mind from business premises of the D. M.
Read Company, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to transport or handle goods, articles, commodities, or to perform
services for their respective employers, where an object or objects thereof are
to force or require D. M. Read Company to cease doing business with Bridgeport
United Delivery, Inc., or to force and require the Bridgeport Delivery, Inc., to
recognize and bargain with Local 145 as the collective bargaining representative
of its employees unless and until Local 145 has been certified as such bargaining
agent in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
1. Post at its business office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, copies of the notice
attached hereto as "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after being duly signed
by an official representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to members are, customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; and
2. Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of this Intermediate Report, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 1055
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondents shall, within twenty
(20) days from receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
notify said Regional Director in writing that they will comply with the fore-
going recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order
requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file
with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement
In writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Rec-
ommended Order or to any other part of the record or proceedings (including
rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may,
within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of
this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately upon the filing
of such statement of. exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall
serve a copy tliereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on the
other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as re-
quired by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must he made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 11th day of April 1949.
WILLIAM F. SCIIARNIKOw,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE
Pursuant to an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations board. and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice
that:'
WE WILL NoT induce or encourage any employees of D. M. Read Company,
The Howland Dry Goods Company, or Meigs & Co., Inc., or the employees of
any other employer engaged in the transportation of goods and merchandise
to or from the business premises of D. M. Read Company, The Howland Dry
Goods Company, or Meigs & Co., Inc., to engage in a strike or concerted
refusal in the course of their employment to handle or transport goods,
articles, commodities, or to perform services for their respective employers,
where an object or objects thereof are to force or require D. M. Read Com-
pany, The Howland Dry Goods Company, or Meigs & Co., Inc., to cease doing
business with Bridgeport United Delivery, Inc., or to force or require Bridge-
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
port Delivery, Inc., to recognize us as the representative of its employees
unless and until we have been certified as such representative in accordance
with the provisions of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act.
SERVICE TRADES CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS, LOCAL 145 (also
known as FOOD, BEVERAGE AND EXPRESS DRIVERS LOCAL UNION No. 145)
affiliated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL.
(Labor Organization)
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
Pursuant to an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby give notice
that :
WE wILL NOT induce or encourage any employees of D. M. Read Company,
or employees of any other employer engaged in the transportation of goods
and merchandise to or from the business premises of D. M. Read Company,
to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment
to handle or transport goods, articles, commodities, or to perform services
for their respective employers where an object or objects thereof are to
force and require D. M. Read Company to cease doing business with Bridge-
port United Delivery, Inc., or to force and require Bridgeport United De-
livery, Inc. to recognize Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers,
Local 145, (also known as Food, Beverage and Express Drivers Local Union
No. 145) affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, as bargaining representative
for its employees, unless and until Local 145 has been certified as such repre-
sentative in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
LOCAL 191, OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-.
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL
(Labor Organization)
Dated -------------------- By --------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.