Teamster Local No. 671

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 994 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local No.
671 (Airborne Freight Corporation of Delaware),
and James W. Brundage . Case 1-CB-1874
October 24, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER AND ORDER
RESCINDING CERTIFICATION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On April 19, 1972, Administrative Law Judge '
Louis Libbin issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, finding, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.3
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act by failing to represent part-time ware-
housemen in a fair and impartial manner to which
they were statutorily entitled in the adoption of con-
tract proposals and in the negotiations for the pro-
posed contract. The facts, more fully set forth in the
Administrative Law Judge' s Decision, show that, after
its certification as collective-bargaining representa-
tive of all regular full-time and part-time drivers and
warehousemen employed by the Employer at its
Bradley Field location, Respondent's conduct reflect-
ed a determination to represent only the drivers and
resulted in the unfair treatment of the part-time ware-
house employees which constituted the violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. We find that by such
conduct Respondent has effectively disclaimed any
interest in the part-time warehousemen and, in dero-
gation of its certification, has never bargained for
them. Having issued a certification under Section 9 of
the Act, the Board has the power to police and revoke
the certification on a showing of good cause. Because
Respondent has failed to represent the part-time
warehousemen, as required by the certification cover-
ing them and all other unit employees, we find that
such conduct is contrary to the policies and purposes
of the Act and that it would be inconsistent with good
practice to permit such certification to remain in ef-
fect 4 Accordingly, we shall rescind the outstanding
certification herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge , as modified
herein , and hereby orders that the Respondent , Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local No.
671, its officers , agents , and representatives , shall take
the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order, as modified below.
Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge 's notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification of
April 8 , 1971, issued in Case 1-RC-11415 be, and it
hereby is , rescinded.
i The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Administra-
tive Law Judge's finding that Respondent did not violate Sec. 8 (b)(2) of the
Act as alleged in the complaint.
3 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings.
° See, e.g., A. 0 Smith Corporation , 119 NLRB 621 , Alto Plastic Manufac-
turing Corporation, 136 NLRB 850, 854; Setzer 's Supermarkets of Georgia,
Inc, 145 NLRB 1500, 1502; Hughes Tool Company, 147 NLRB 1573 See
also United States Baking Company, Inc, 165 NLRB 951; and Gino Morena
Enterprises, 181 NLRB 808.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fail to represent part-time
workers, or any other unit employees, in a fair
and impartial, manner in the event we should
again become the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative for employees at the Airborne Freight
Windsor Locks, Connecticut, facility.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL pay James Brundage, Herbert Han-
son, Chester Gulla, Peter Farr, Patrick Tallarita,
and Joseph Marcinowski the wages they lost,
with 6-percent interest, as a result of our failing
to represent them in a fair and impartial manner.
WE WILL notify the above-named employees
199 NLRB No. 167
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 671
and Airborne Freight Corporation that we have
no objection to the above-named employees
working as part-time warehousemen or dock
workers at Airborne's facility in Windsor Locks,
Connecticut.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 671
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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, Seventh Floor, Bulfinch Building, 15
New Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114,
Telephone 617-223-3300.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Louis LIBBIN, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed on
August 31, 1971, and January 12, 1972, by James W. Brund-
age, an individual, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 1 (Boston , Massachusetts), issued a complaint, dated
January 19, 1972, against International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 671, herein called the Respondent or
Local 671 or the Union. With respect to the unfair labor
practices, the complaint alleges, and the Respondent's duly
filed answer denies, that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by threatening employees with
discharge if they failed to join Respondent, by failing to
fairly and impartially represent their interests as part-time
employees, and by attempting to cause and causing Air-
borne Freight Corporation of Delaware, herein called Air-
borne or the Company, to discharge six named part-time
employees because of their lack of membership in Respon-
dent.
This case was tried before me at Hartford, Connecticut,
on March 9, 1972. All parties appeared at the trial and were
given full opportunity to participate therein. On April 3 and
5, 1972, the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively,
filed briefs, which I have fully considered. For the reasons
hereinafter indicated, I find that Respondent violated the
Act only in certain specific respects.
995
Upon the entire record I in the case, and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testify-
ing under oath, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Airborne Freight Corporation of Delaware, herein
called Airborne or the Company, is a Delaware corporation
with its principal office in Seattle, Washington, and an of-
fice and place of business at Bradley International Air Field
in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, where it is engaged in the
air freight forwarding business. Only Airborne's operations
at its Bradley Field location are herein involved. Airborne
annually provides services valued in excess of $50,000 to
businesses located outside the State of Connecticut.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent's
answer also admits, that Airborne is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE RESPONDENT UNION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record
shows, and I find that International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local No. 671, herein called Respondent or Local 671 or the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
As previously noted, Airborne is engaged in the air
freight forwarding business at Bradley International Air-
port in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. In the operation of this
business at this facility Airborne employed drivers and reg-
ular part-time warehousemen. The part-time warehousemen
had full-time jobs elsewhere and worked at Airborne three
nights a week, averaging about 20 hours a week but never
as much as 8 hours in any one night. They performed dock
work, handling the inbound freight, unloading it, and seeing
that it was delivered to the appropriate airlines at Bradley
Field.
At the times material herein, William Murtha was
Airborne's Regional Manager in charge of the location at
the Bradley International Field in Windsor Locks. Howev-
er, his office was located at the John F. Kennedy Airport
in New York. Thomas McKenna was Airborne's District
Manager at this location. Admitted agents of Respondent
1 Before the close of the hearing I stated I would after its close receive and
make part of the record a stipulation submitted by the parties with respect
to the posting by Respondent 's steward of a notice pertaining to a union
meeting and would also receive as part of the record said notice as Resp. Exh.
2 Thereafter, on March 23, 1971, 1 received a stipulation , signed by the
General Counsel and Respondent , that Resp . Exh 2 was posted on or about
April 14, 1971, on the union bulletin board at the Airborne Freight Terminal,
herein involved, by Union Steward Stnmste, that said exhibit be admitted as
Resp Exh 2, and that said exhibit was posted on or about April 14, 1971,
at the Employer's premises . Said stipulation is hereby accepted and made
part of the record herein . Said stipulation has been placed in the Official
Exhibit Folder as Resp. Exh. 6
,996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were Business Agent Arthur Quattrocchi and Secretary-
Treasurer Richard E. Robidoux.
The Respondent filed a petition with the Board for an
election in a unit of six drivers. However, the Board found
that the appropriate unit included drivers and warehouse-
men, both full-time and regular part-time, and directed an
election in that unit. Pursuant to a duly conducted Board
election, the Respondent was certified by the Board on
April 8, 1971, as the collective-bargaining representative of
,,all regular full-time and part-time drivers and warehouse-
men employed by the Employer (Airborne) at its Windsor
Locks, Connecticut, Bradley Field location." The part-time
warehousemen were concededly part of this unit and had
voted in the election. The issues in this proceeding arose out
of Respondent's conduct with respect to these part-time
dock workers or warehousemen during the negotiations
with Airborne for a collective-bargaining agreement for the
unit employees.
B. The Facts 2
1. The union meeting of April 22 to discuss and vote on
contract proposals
On April 14, a notice on union stationery dated April
13 and signed by Business Agent Quattrocchi was posted by
the union steward on the union bulletin board at Airborne's
premises . The notice stated as follows:
NOTICE
TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 671 EMPLOYED AT AIRBORNE FREIGHT
CORPORATION
This is to advise you a special meeting will be held on
Thursday, April 22, 1971 at 8:00 p.m. at the Local
Union Office, 9 Signor Street, East Hartford.
At that time Airborne's work force in the appropriate unit
consisted of six drivers and six regular part-time warehouse-
men performing the above-described dock work. Only the
drivers were members of Respondent Union.
The meeting was attended only by the six drivers, all
union members . Contract proposals to be negotiated with
Airborne were discussed. The employees voted to accept as
their contract proposals the New England Supplement of
the National Master Freight Agreement.
Quattrocchi admitted at the instant trial that the only
employees he talked with about contract proposals were the
drivers in attendance at this meeting and that he never had
any conversations with the part-time employees prior to the
execution of the contract with Airborne.
2. Contract negotiations
Thereafter, Respondent's Business Agent Quattrocchi
and Airborne's Regional Manager Murtha met at the Local
Union's office to negotiate a collective-bargaining agree-
2 All dates mentioned herein are in 1971 . Unless otherwise indicated, the
factual findings are based on admissions and credited evidence which is not
denied
ment . The Respondent Union was also represented at the
first meeting by Business Agent Liberator and Secretary-
Treasurer Robidoux.
At that meeting the discussion centered around the
problem arising from the fact that some of the unit employ-
ees were full-time and some were regular part-time employ-
ees and the Company wanted to negotiate a contract
covering both classifications. There was no particular prob-
lem with regard to the full-time employees because it was
understood that they would come under the Teamsters New
England Supplement to its Master Freight Agreement, a
copy of which was given to Murtha at that time. The crux
of the problem centered around the part-time employees
and the type of contract that would be made available to
cover them.
Quattrocchi stated that under the terms of the Master
Freight Agreement, New England Supplement, there were
several conflicts that existed which would make it difficult
to include the regular part-time employees under that agree-
ment. These conflicts included the fact that the New Eng-
land Supplement would not allow any employee to be
covered by any other labor agreement, and at that time one
of the regular part-time employees was a member of another
union . Another area of conflict was the fact that Respon-
dent requested that Airborne make contributions to the
pension and welfare fund of the Teamsters Union; however,
the regular part-time employees would not be allowed to
participate in any of the benefits that would be derived from
these contributions unless they had accumulated 96 hours
of work in a given month and, based on the work record of
these part-time employees, it was obvious that they would
never accumulate that amount of time. Still another area of
conflict was the fact that the regular part-time employees
would not be allowed to accumulate seniority and, as a
result, would not be entitled to any additional benefits. The
Union also took the position that once a part-time employee
clocked in, the New England Supplement required that he
be paid for 8 hours regardless of how many hours less than
8 he worked that day. While Murtha objected to some of
these provisions on a cost basis, he nevertheless wanted a
contract which would cover the part-time employees and
from which they would benefit from any payments made by
the Company on their behalf. Some reference was made to
some provisions in the back of the New England Supple-
ment to the effect that its provisions could not be changed.
However, there was also some discussion at this meeting
about the possibility of working up a separate agreement for
the regular part-time employees with provisions similar to
those which Respondent had with United Parcel Service
which provided for part-time employees who did not work
8 hours in a single day. The meeting ended with an agree-
ment to meet at a later date for further discussions with
respect to a contract which would cover Respondent's reg-
ular part-time employees.3
3 The findings in this section are based on the credited testimony of Mur-
tha who testified , under subpoena , in a manner which impressed me with his
trustworthiness as a witness entitled to full credence I was not sumlarly
impressed with the manner in which Quattrocchi and Robidoux testified and
therefore do not credit their testimony to the extent that it may conflict with
that of Murtha as set forth in the text Moreover, Respondent 's unexplained
failure to call Business Agent Liberator as a witness to corroborate any
contradictory testimony of Quattrocchi and Robidoux further convinces me
of the veracity of Murtha 's testimony.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 671
In the latter part of July, Airborne's District Manager
McKenna invited Quattrocchi to dinner at a restaurant.
Business Agent Liberator accompanied him. Also present
were Mrs. Fournier and John Lynch of Fournier's Express.
At this dinner, they broached with Quattrocchi the possibili-
ty of Airborne subcontracting its work to Fournier's.
Quattrocchi immediately reported this meeting to Sec-
retary-Treasurer Robidoux who thereupon instructed Quat-
trocchi to get a contract signed with Airborne as soon as
possible so that the employees would be protected by the
contract in the event that any subcontracting arrangement
was made.
3. Telephone conversations about July 22
About July 22, Quattrocchi telephoned Murtha at his
New York office, requesting that Murtha come to Hartford
the following morning to sign a contract for Airborne's
full-time employees. Murtha replied that it was impossible
for him to be there on the following day as he was engaged
in some labor problems at his New York office. In response
to Murtha's query as to what provisions would be made for
the part-time employees, Quattrocchi replied that they
would discuss a contract for the regular part-time employ-
ees at a later date. When Murtha again stated that it would
be difficult for him to be in Hartford the following day,
Respondent's Secretary-Treasurer Robidoux got on the
phone and stated that if the contract was not signed by 8
the following morning, Airborne's employees would be on
strike. Murtha asked if it would be acceptable for
Airborne's district manager in Hartford to sign on behalf of
Airborne. Robidoux replied that he did not care who signed
for Airborne but that if the contract was not signed by 8 the
following morning "we'd have problems like we never had
before." Murtha then agreed to have the district manager in
Hartford sign the following morning. Robidoux stated that
Quattrocchi would be at Airborne's Hartford office at 8 the
following morning and a contract would be signed for the
full-time employees. He added that Murtha was to work out
a contract for the part-time employees with Quattrocchi at
a later date.4
Murtha then telephoned District Manager McKenna
The findings with respect to these conversations are based on the credited
testimony of Murtha.
Quattrocchi testified that Murtha had met him in the Union's office in
June at which time Murtha had agreed to accept and to sign the New
England Supplement to the National Master Freight Agreement for all his
employees, including the part-time warehouse or dock workers, and merely
wanted time to work out a schedule for the night shift employees whereby
they would work an 8-hour shift . He further testified that he had no further
contact with Murtha thereafter . I do not credit Quattrocchi's testimony in
these respects.
Robidoux admitted having had a telephone conversation with Murtha
but testified that it occurred on August 4 and that Murtha was in Seattle,
Washington , at that time . He admitted telling Murtha that the men would
not work if the contract was not signed and that it would be agreeable if
Airborne' s District Manager signed for Airborne the next morning. He de-
med however stating that the contract was to cover only regular full-time
employees. He further admitted that the contract did not contain a part-time
clause . The date on which these conversations occurred does not, in my
judgment , have a significant bearing on the resolution of the relevant issues.
However , under all the circumstances, I do not credit Robidoux ' version of
the telephone conversation to the extent that it conflicts with that of Murtha,
as set forth in the text.
997
at his Hartford office and instructed him to meet with Quat-
trocchi the following morning at 8'o'clock to sign the con-
tract to cover the full-time employees and not to worry
about the part-time employees "because we were going to
discuss them at a later date."
4. Execution of the contract
At 8 o'clock the next morning, Quattrocchi appeared
at McKenna's office with the New England Supplement to
the National Master Freight Agreement which already bore
the signature of Secretary-Treasurer Robidoux. McKenna
asked if this contract involved the part-time in any way.
Quattrocchi replied that it did not, that the part-time em-
ployees would be a separate entity to be discussed at a
future date, and that the contract they were signing covered
the drivers who at that time were all full-time employees.
McKenna thereupon signed the contract on behalf of Air-
borne. The executed contract contains no date of execu-
tion.'
At the time when the contract was executed, Airborne
had in its employ only 11 unit employees. Five of the unit
employees were full-time drivers; the remaining six were the
regular part-time employees known as warehousemen or
dock workers who are in issue in this case .6
5. August meetings between the parties
concerning part-timers
After the execution of the contract, Airborne contin-
ued to employ the regular part-time employees for the same
number of hours as it had in the past because of Murtha's
understanding that the contract covered only full-time em-
ployees. In other words, they worked less than 8 hours in
any one day and were paid only for the number of hours
actually worked, as had been the practice before the execu-
tion of the contract.
About August 13, Murtha met with Respondent' s Busi-
ness Agents Quattrocchi and Liberator at Respondent's of-
fice in East Hartford. Robidoux was also present for a brief
period. Part of the meeting was held in the Union's office
and the balance in a Hartford restaurant. During this meet-
ing Murtha asked Quattrocchi and Liberator what contract
provisions they had determined would be applicable to cov-
er the part-time employees. They stated that the Union had
decided that there would be no contract covering the part-
time employees and that they would either have to go on a
full-time basis and become members of Respondent Local
671 or they would have to be discharged. Murtha responded
that this would create some conflict because these employ-
ees were asking when they were going to have a contract
that would cover them: Murtha also stated that Airborne's
S The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited and undisputed
testimony of McKenna who at the time of the instant trial was no longer
employed by Airborne and was testifying under subpoena . Quattrocchi did
not deny that McKenna made the queries and that he gave the rephes set
forth in the text . Whether the contract was in fact signed on July 23 or, as
Quattrocchi testified , on August 5 has no significant bearing on the deter-
mination of the relevant issues
6 District Manager McKenna was employed by Airborne from June 14 to
October 22, 1971 He credibly testified, without contradiction , that during his
period of employment there were five full-time employees, all of whom were
drivers, and six regular part-time employees who were the warehousemen.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position was that it wanted a contract to cover the regular
part-time employees and that was their understanding from
the beginning. Quattrocchi replied that he would call a un-
ion meeting with the regular part-time employees and in-
form them that they would either have to become full-time
employees or they would have to be discharged. Murtha
stated that he would check with his local manager to see
whether it would be possible, in terms of operating hours,
to rearrange the schedule so as to give the regular part-time
employees who wanted to go on a full-time basis the oppor-
tunity to do so.
About August 23, Quattrocchi met with Airborne's
District Manager McKenna at the latter's office at Bradley
Field. Quattrocchi informed McKenna that the present
part-timers would have to work on a full-time basis like the
other union members did or that McKenna would have to
terminate them. McKenna replied that he had no instruc-
tions from his region to do this. Quattrocchi insisted that
McKenna would just have to get them in or there "would
be a lot of trouble at the airport and we'd have a lot of labor
problems." McKenna replied that until he received further
instructions from his region he was going to continue to
employ the part-timers on a part-time basis.
6. The union meeting of August 28
The following notice on union stationery, dated Au-
gust 23 and signed by Business Agent Quattrocchi, ap-
peared on the union bulletin board on Airborne's premises.
TO: ALL MEMBERS EMPLOYED AT AIRBORNE
FREIGHT CORPORATION
This is to advise you that a special meeting will be held
on Saturday, August 28, 1971 at 10:30 a.m. at the Local
Union Office, 9 Signor Street, East Hartford of all
full-time and part-time employees regarding the con-
tract.
Please make every effort to attend as it will be benefi-
cial to you.
Present at this meeting were all full-time drivers and four of
the part-time dock workers. All the drivers were members
of the Union and had been members since the first union
meeting in April; none of the part-timers were members.
Quattrocchi presided over the meeting which lasted over 2
hours.
Quattrocchi told the part-time employees that an
agreement had been signed which made no provision for
part-timers and asked what they were going to do and
whether or not they were going to join the Union. When one
part-timer asked why they had to join the Union, he replied
it was because the contract covered full-time employees
only and they would have to loin as full-time workers. In
response to an inquiry by another part-timer, Quattrocchi
said this contract could not be amended to provide for
part-time employees because it was a standard contract
coming out of Washington. He also named other freight
carriers at Bradley Field which had the same kind of a
contract and stated that if he tried to put in an amendment
to permit part-time workers at Airborne he would have to
do the same for the other carriers. He further stated that
there was no room for part-timers in freight companies and
that he was against them. Part-timers asked what benefits
they would receive if they joined the Union. He replied that
they would have to pay an initiation fee of $250, pay union
dues of $10 a month and that they would have to work a
minimum of 32 hours a week in order to obtain any benefits.
He also stated that they would have to work a minimum of
an 8-hour shift and would be paid for 8 hours every time
they clocked in. He further stated that as far as he was
concerned there would only be full-time employees at any
freight company which he represented at Bradley Field.
When asked about United Parcel Service and the fact that
they had part-time workers, Quattrocchi said that it was a
different category and a special contract. He was also asked
what benefits they would receive for their initiation fees if
they did not work 32 hours. He replied, "none," and further
admitted that "under those conditions he wouldn't pay the
$250 either." He further stated that as far as Respondent
was concerned, there was no room for part-time dock work-
ers in the contract. He further told them that they would all
have an opportunity to bid for full-time jobs. Part-timers
stated they had full-time jobs elsewhere which they did not
want to leave and therefore could not possibly work an
8-hour shift in any one day. They also told Quattrocchi that
the Union was not representing them because the Union did
not want any part-timers. The part-timers left before the
meeting ended.?
7. Further discussions concerning part-timers
About September 14, Quattrocchi told McKenna at
the latter's office that the part-timers would have to be paid
on a full-time basis and would have to join the Union.
McKenna replied that he would continue to operate as in
the past until he received instructions to the contrary from
his regional office. -
By letter dated October 4, Murtha requested Quattroc-
chi to advise him of Respondent's "present position" "in
regard to our part-time employees." Murtha pointed out in
this letter that:
As you recall, we originally intended to include these
employees under separate contract. Subsequent con-
versations indicated that this was no longer true.
At this point, neither I nor our Hartford management
is totally clear as to the position of the Union at this
time in regard to these employees.
Murtha received a reply by letter dated October 12 from
Robidoux. He stated that to have a separate contract for
part-timers would be a violation of the New England Sup-
plemental Freight Agreement which Airborne had signed.
Meanwhile, about October 6, Quattrocchi told Mc-
Kenna that the part-timers would have to become full-tim-
ers or "there would be a hell of a lot of trouble there." He
also told McKenna that "the bids" would have to be posted
by 8 the following morning "or else." The bids referred to
the positions discussed to require the part-timers to work
full time.
7 The findings in this paragraph are based on a composit of the mutually
consistent testimony of Part-Timers Fan and Brundage and Union Business
Agent Quattrocchi
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 671
The next morning , Quattrocchi arrived and again in-
quired if the bids had been posted . McKenna replied in the
negative , explaining that until he received instructions from
New York the situation would remain status quo . Quattroc-
chi then left McKenna 's office and returned to inform Mc-
Kenna that certain vehicles would not be able to operate
that day because of certain defects. McKenna thereupon
called a mechamc who spent the day repairing the trucks.8
8. Posting of bids and discharge of part-timers
During the course of that day, McKenna spoke with
Murtha on three different occasions to inform him of what
was going on. During the last conversation, about 3 p.m.,
McKenna advised Murtha that the Company was getting
complaints from customers that their freight was not being
delivered or being picked up. Murtha thereupon advised
McKenna to post the bids the following morning and that
anyone who did not sign up would no longer be employed
by Airborne.
The bids were posted by notice, dated October 6, offer-
ing "All Union Employees & Part Time Employees" the
"privilege and right to bid on positions & starting times
listed" therein. The bids were for jobs on a full-time basis.
The positions for the jobs which had been performed by the
part-time employees were posted as positions for 9-hour
shifts. The part-time employees were told that effective the
following Monday there would be only full-time workers at
Airborne and that there would be no positions available for
part-time employees.
None of the six part-time employees applied for the
posted positions although McKenna had informed them of
their right to put their names down. The part- timers were
thereupon terminated because McKenna had been in-
formed by Respondent that they could no longer be em-
ployed unless they worked full time .9
C. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that, as the certified
collective-bargaining representative of all the unit employ-
ees, both full-time and part-time, Respondent had an ob-
ligation to represent the interests of all the unit employees
in a fair and impartial manner, that it failed to fulfill this
obligation with respect to the part-time employees in con-
nection with its contract proposals and during the negotia-
tions for a contract, and that by such conduct it violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. He further contends that by
Respondent's conduct with respect to the part-timers, it
threatened part-timers if they failed to become members of
Respondent Union and at various times attempted to cause,
and finally did cause, Airborne to discharge the part-timers,
in part because of their lack of membership in Respondent
8 The findings concerning the conversations between McKenna and Quat-
trocchi are based on the credited testimony of McKenna . Quattrocchi admit-
ted having had further meetings with McKenna but could not recall the
dates. I do not credit Quattrocchi's testimony as to what occurred at these
meetings to the extent that it may conflict with that of McKenna , as set forth
in the text.
9 One of the six part -timers, Chester Gulla, was retained as a clerical
worker inside but had nothing to do with the outside operation
999
Union, thereby also violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act.
Respondent concedes that there is a statutory duty to
represent all unit employees in a fair and impartial manner.
It contends, however, that it fulfilled this obligation, that its
conduct represented the will of the majority of the unit
employees, and that its actions were pursuant to the con-
tract terms and to obtain compliance therewith. It denies
that any of its conduct or actions constituted a threat of
discharge for failing to join the Union, or an attempt to
cause, or a causing of, Airborne to discharge the part-timers
for lack of membership in Respondent Union.
D. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Failure to accord part-timers fair and
impartial representation
It is now well settled that as the exclusive bargaining
representative of Airborne's employees, Respondent as-
sumed the statutory "responsibility to act as a genuine rep-
resentative of all the employees in the bargaining unit"
(Miranda Fuel Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 181, 184-185), that
it was "responsible to, and owed complete loyalty to, the
interests of all whom it represents" (Ford Motor Co. v. Huff-
man, 345 U.S. 330, 338), and that "a breach of the duty of
fair representation constitutes an unfair labor practice."
(Local Union No. 12 et al. v. N. L. R. B., 368 F.2d 12, 24 (C.A.
5).) I agree with the General Counsel that Respondent has
failed to fulfill its statutory obligations of representing the
part-time employees in a fair and impartial manner in pre-
paring for and conducting the contract negotiations and
that, contrary to Respondent's contentions, this is not a case
of the mere existence of differences in the manner and
degree to which terms of a negotiated agreement affect
individual employees and classes of employees. In arriving
at this conclusion, I have been motivated primarily by the
following factors:
In the first place, the six part-time employees herein
involved were not informed of the Union's contract-propos-
al meeting of April 22 and therefore had no opportunity to
discuss it and vote thereon. Thus, the April 13 notice which
was posted on the Union's bulletin board at Airborne was
addressed to all members of Respondent employed at Air-
borne. None of the part-timers were members of Respon-
dent. Moreover, the notice made no mention of the purpose
of the meeting or that contract proposals would be dis-
cussed. These part-time employees therefore could not rea-
sonably be expected to divine that this was a meeting which
would affect their employment.
Moreover, as the meeting was attended only by six
drivers, all of whom were members of Respondent Union,
only 50 percent of the unit was present to discuss contract
proposals and voted to accept the New England Supple-
ment to the National Master Freight Agreement. Had the
six part-time employees also been present and been in-
formed by Respondent that this contract would require
them to become full-time employees or be discharged, they
would have had the opportunity to argue and to vote against
it and thereby to have prevented its adoption as the Union's
contract proposal. This would have enabled the unit em-
ployees to discuss other ways and means of covering the
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
part-timers. Indeed, Quattrocchi admitted that the only em-
ployees with whom he talked concerning contract proposals
were the drivers in attendance at this meeting and that he
never had any conversations with the part-time employees
about it prior to the execution of the contract.
In addition, before the execution of the contract Re-
spondent misrepresented its coverage to Airborne as ap-
plying only to full-time employees and deceitfully promised
to negotiate separately for the part-time employees at a later
date. Both Quattrocchi and Robidoux engaged in this stra-
tagem . Thus, in the July 22 telephone conversation with
Murtha, Quattrocchi answered Murtha's query in this re-
spect by promising to discuss a contract for the part-time
employees at a later date. And Robidoux, upon obtaining
Murtha's agreement, under a strike threat, to have the con-
tract signed the next morning, promised that Quattrocchi
would work out a contract with Murtha for the part-time
employees at a later date. Because of these assurances, Mur-
tha instructed McKenna to sign the contract the next morn-
ing for the full-time employees and not to worry about the
part-time employees because they were going to discuss
them at a later date. Finally, before signing the contract the
next morning, McKenna specifically asked if it covered the
part-timers in any way. Quattrocchi assured him that it did
not, explained that part-time employees would be a separate
entity to be discussed at a further date, and emphasized that
the contract they were signing covered only the drivers.
McKenna then signed the contract which had already been
signed by Robidoux. Thus, at the time when the contract
was executed, at least half of the unit employees were the
part-time dock workers who had not been apprised of its
coverage or given an opportunity to discuss or vote on it.
Once the contract had • been executed, Respondent
demonstrated its duplicitous conduct and bad faith with
respect to the part-time employees by repudiating earlier
promises to negotiate separately for the part-timers whenev-
er the question was raised by Airborne. Thus, at the August
13 meeting, Quattrocchi bluntly told Murtha that there
would be no separate contract covering the part-time em-
ployees and that they would either have to go on full time
or be discharged. And again, on August 23, Quattrocchi told
McKenna that the part-timers would have to work on a
full-time basis like the other union members did or Mc-
Kenna would have to terminate them. Respondent took this
position with full knowledge that the part-time dock work-
ers had other full-time jobs and therefore could not accept
full-time positions with Respondent. Quattrocchi admitted
at the instant trial that the part-time dock workers could not
continue to work on a part-time basis and be represented by
Respondent.
Counsel for Respondent contends that the contract
covers part-time employees so long as they work an 8-hour
shift at least one day a week. However, the contract in
evidence defines "part-time" as those employees who are
replacements for absenteeism . and vacations. In addition,
the contract defines a normal workweek as 5 days and pro-
vides that any employee who is called or reports as sched-
uled shall be guaranteed a minimum of 8 hours work or pay.
Respondent knew that Airborne would not agree to pay 8
hours for less than 8 hours work. Moreover, under this
contract, in order to become eligible to be placed on the
seniority list employees must work a minimum of 96 hours
during their 30-day probationary period, and in order to
qualify for health, welfare, and pension Benefits employees
must work a certain number of hours which was far in
excess of the number these part-time employees would be
able to work.
Not until after the contract was executed did Quattroc-
chi inform the part-time workers who attended the August
28 union meeting that the contract which Respondent and
Airborne had signed made no provisions for part- timers,
that the contract could not be amended to provide for part-
timers, that he was against part-timers being employed at
any freight company represented by Respondent, and that
in order to continue to work for Airborne they would have
to become full-time employees. He also explained the re-
strictions and limitations on the union benefits. Resentful at
the manner in which they had been represented, the part-
time employees accused the Respondent Union of not rep-
resenting them and left the meeting before its adjournment.
I am convinced and find that the discharge of the part-
time dock workers resulted from Respondent's failure to
fulfill its statutory obligation to accord to these part-timers
the fair and impartial representation to which they were
statutorily entitled. The chain of causation is unmistakable.
Thus, it is clear, and I find, that Respondent caused Air-
borne to discharge the part-time employees because they
were unable to accept positions as full-time employees. And
this action stemed directly from Respondent's conduct in
failing to represent the part-time employees in a fair and
impartial manner in the adoption of contract proposals and
in the negotiations for the proposed contract. I therefore
find that Respondent's conduct in this respect constitutes a
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
2. As to allegations of threats to discharge,
and attempts to cause and causing
Airborne to discharge the parttimers, for
failing to become members of
Respondent Union
The record does not warrant a finding that at any time
following its certification Respondent predicated any posi-
tion on the lack of membership of the part-time employees.
As I have previously found, Respondent caused Airborne to
discharge the part-time employees, not because they were
not union members, but because they refused to become
full-time employees. Any reference to the part-timers be-
coming union members, both during the negotiations and at
the August 28 union meeting, was in a context that they
would first have to become full-time employees. The con-
tract contained a valid union security clause requiring full-
time employees to become union members. The part-time
employees were privileged to become union members while
they were still employed as part-time dock workers. But
Respondent would still have caused their discharge for fail-
ing to become full-time employees. It strikes me as pure
sophistry to argue that, because full-time employees were
required under the contract to become union members,
therefore the discharge of the part-timers-which was threat-
ened and caused by Respondent for failure to become full-
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 671
timers was also in part for failure to become union mem-
bers.
I find no merit in the General Counsel's position with
respect to these allegations and will recommend that they be
dismissed.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
employer named in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By failing to represent the part-time warehousemen
or dock workers, -unit employees, in a fair and impartial
manner, Respondent Union has engaged and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in any other unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which
will effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the discharge of the six part-time
dock workers (James Brundage, Herbert Hanson, Chester
Gulla,10 Peter Farr, Patrick Tallarita, and Joseph Marci-
nowski) was the direct result of Respondent's unfair labor
practice in failing to accord them the fair and impartial
representation to which they were statutorily entitled. I will
therefore recommend that within 5 days from the date of
this Decision and Order, Respondent inform each of the
above-named employees and Airborne Freight Corpora-
tion, in writing, that it has no objection to them working
part-time as dock workers at Airborne's facility in Windsor
Locks, Connecticut. I will further recommend that Respon-
dent make them whole for any loss of earnings which each
may have suffered as a result of Respondent's unlawful
conduct with respect to them, by payment to each of a sum
of money equal to that which each normally would have
earned as wages from the date of their discharge to the date
when Respondent informs them and Airborne as herein-
above recommended, less his net earnings during such peri-
od, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the
manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com-
10 As previously noted, Gulla was retained as an inside clerical worker.
1001
pany, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of
law, and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER II
Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
No. 671, its officers, agents , representatives, successors and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing to represent part-time workers, or any other
unit employees, in a fair and impartial manner.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole James Brundage, Herbert Hanson,
Chester Gulla, Peter Farr, Patrick Tallanta, and Joseph
Marcinowski for any loss of wages incurred as a result of
Respondent's failure to accord them the fair and impartial
representation to which they were statutorily entitled, in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Notify each of the above-named employees and
Airborne Freight Corporation in writing, within 5 days from
the date of this Decision and Order, that it has no objection
to the above-named employees working as part-time ware-
housemen or dock workers at Airborne's facility in Windsor
Locks, Connecticut.
(c)-Post in conspicuous places in Respondent' s business
offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted, including the Airborne's bulle-
tin boards if Respondent has access to them, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."12 Copies of said no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
1, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced or covered by any other material.
(d) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Region
1, sufficient copies of said notice, to be furnished by him for
posting by Airborne, if it is willing, at places where it cus-
tomarily posts notices to its employees.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
11 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, recommendations , 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
12 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."
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision , missed insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8(b)(2) of
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'3 the Act and of Section 8(b)(1)(A) not herein specifically
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dis- found.
13 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to
exceptions have been filed , notify said Regional Director , in writing , within comply herewith