Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Etc., Local 327

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 998 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Helpers and Taxicab Drivers
Local Union 327, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Breeko
Industries and its Subsidiary , Breeko Crane Ser-
vice) and Leonard Simmons. Case 26-CB-361
October 24, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
On June 23, 1967, Trial Examiner Wellington A.
Gillis issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's ex-
ceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the
extent consistent herewith.
The Trial Examiner found that, although there
was no written agreement, "there existed an exclu-
sive referral arrangement or understanding between
the Respondent and Breeko, by which applicants
for employment with Breeko must be cleared by the
Respondent," and, therefore, that the Respondent's
refusal to clear Simmons at Breeko's request,
because Simmons had been on withdrawal and had
not paid his dues qualifying him as a member in
good standing, was violative of Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act. The Trial Examiner also concluded that,
aside from his finding of an exclusive referral ar-
rangement, the Respondent's refusal to clear Sim-
mons because he was not a member in good stand-
ing, knowing that its refusal would be honored by
Breeko, constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act.
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's
conclusions from the facts, which are for the most
part undisputed, and contends that the record
establishes that no referral arrangement existed
between it and Breeko; Breeko could have hired
Simmons without clearance from the Respondent;
and Breeko's requirement that Simmons obtain
such clearance was voluntary unilateral action on
Breeko's part. We find merit in the Respondent's
exceptions and contentions.
Breeko admitted at the hearing that it customarily
employs ironworkers and operating engineers
through a union hiring hall operated by a union not
here involved; it denied, however, that it had any
such arrangement with the Respondent. Its
truckdriving work, in fact, is generally contracted
out, with the contractor furnishing the drivers. The
first instance shown in the record of Breeko's hiring
a driver, with the Respondent's clearance, was
when it hired Simmons to work on a project about
a year before the events here in issue. When Breeko
decided to rehire Simmons for the project here in-
volved, the Respondent refused to clear Simmons
because he had been on withdrawal and was not
paying dues. Breeko then refused to employ Sim-
mons, and instead hired a driver who had been
referred by the Respondent.
The president of Breeko testified that, if Breeko
had hired a driver who was not cleared by the
Respondent, "I assume there would have been a
work stoppage." The Trial Examiner found the
testimony as to Breeko's various reasons for not
hiring Simmons "not convincing." In any event,
this remark by a Breeko official is the only
reference in the record to work stoppage.
In Gouverneur Iron Works, Inc.,' on which the
Respondent relies, the Board found no competent
evidence of a threat by the respondent union "to
take economic action against Gouverneur if
Schrader, a member in bad standing, was hired."
The Board went on to state: 2
It is well established that "[n]either employer
nor union can be held accountable for the uni-
lateral actions of the other. Neither is bound to
police the other nor can it be inferred that an
unfair labor practice indulged in by one is
caused by the undisclosed activity of the other
or through the tacit understanding of both.
Evidence of such activity or understanding is
necessary." [citing Local 626, United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO (Food Fair Stores, Inc.,) 142
NLRB 1238, which in turn cited Brotherhood
of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of
America, etc. (Spoon Tile Co.), 242 F.2d 477
(C. A. 10).] In our opinion, the evidence set
forth above is insufficient to warrant the con-
clusion that the Employer was at any time
bound by an understanding with the Respond-
ent to use only union members in good stand-
ing. So far as the record shows, although the
' Local 60, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, 149 NLRB 316
Y 149NLRBat317
167 NLRB No. 141
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL 327 999
Employer refused to hire Schrader without
prior clearance by the Respondent, the Em-
ployer could have, if it desired, employed iron-
workers without reference as to whether they
were union members or in good or bad standing
with the Union.
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that this
case is inapplicable to the present facts. Other than
the situation here in issue, in which the Respondent
refused to clear Simmons and sent another in-
dividual in his stead, the only instance in the record
of Breeko obtaining the Respondent's clearance
was when it first hired Simmons about a year earli-
er. As noted, there is in this case, as in Gouverneur,
no probative evidence of a threat by the Respond-
ent of economic action if Simmons were hired by
Breeko without clearance. We note, moreover, that
Breeko as well as the Respondent denied that there
was any hiring arrangement between them.
On the basis of the foregoing reasons, and upon
the entire record, we find that the evidence does not
establish that an exclusive referral arrangement or
understanding existed between Breeko and the
Respondent. We find further that the Respondent's
refusal to clear Simmons for employment at
Breeko's request did not violate the Act. Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
close of the hearing, briefs were filed by the General
Counsel and by the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the witness
stand, and upon substantial, reliable evidence "con-
sidered along with the consistency and inherent proba-
bility of testimony" (Universal Camera Corporation v.
N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 496), 1 make the following.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. COMMERCE
Breeko Industries and its Subsidiary , Breeko Crane
Service, hereinafter referred to as Breeko or the Em-
ployer, the Employer of the employee -applicant filing the
instant charge, is a Tennessee corporation, maintaining
an office and place of business at Nashville , Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the rental of cranes and erection
work During the year immediately preceding the is-
suance of the complaint , Breeko purchased and received
at its Nashville, Tennessee , location, goods and equip-
ment valued in excess of $50 ,000, of which amount goods
and equipment valued in excess of $50,000 were trans-
ported and received from other enterprises located within
the State of Tennessee , which , in turn , had received the
said goods and materials directly from States other than
Tennessee . During this same period , Breeko was an em-
ployer engaged in the construction industry, and per-
formed services valued in excess of $50,000 for general
contractors at various construction sites, including the
construction site at the Consolidated Aluminum Com-
pany at New Johnsonville, Tennessee . The parties agree,
and I find , that Breeko is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
WELLINGTON A. GILLIS, Trial Examiner: This case
was heard by me on April 24, 1967, at Nashville, Tennes-
see, and is based upon a charge and an amended charge
filed on February 13 and March 13, 1967, respectively,
by Leonard Simmons, an individual, upon a complaint is-
sued on March 17, 1967, by the General Counsel for the
National Labor Relations Board against Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers Local Union
327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, alleging violation of Sections 8(b)(2) and 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61
Stat. 136), and upon an answer timely filed by the
Respondent, as amended at the hearing, denying the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.' At the hearing,
both parties were represented by counsel and were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the
issues, and to engage in oral argument. Subsequent to the
' Hereinafter Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers
Local Union 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, will be referred to
as the Respondent or the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, as
the Board, and the National Labor Relations Act, as the Act
11. THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
The parties admit, and I find, that the Respondent is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issue
Whether, notwithstanding the absence of a written
referral agreement, there existed between Breeko and the
Respondent an exclusive hiring or referral arrangement,
pursuant to which the Respondent, in violation of Section
8(b)(2), refused to clear Leonard Simmons for employ-
ment because he was not a member in good standing,
thereby causing Breeko to refuse to hire Simmons in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.2
B. The Facts
In late December 1966 or early January 1967, Breeko
was getting ready to commence a job as subcontractor for
2 Section 8 (b)(2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
against an employee in violation of Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act The latter
section prohibits an employer from discriminating against employees "to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I
J.A. Jones Construction Company at the Consolidated
Aluminum Company site in New Johnsonville, Tennes-
see, some 85 miles from Nashville. Arlie Carter, at the
time the president of Breeko, called his former job
foreman, W. G. O'Daniel, apprising him of the prospec-
tive job and telling him that he wanted the same crew
which worked on the same job a year earlier. Pursuant to
Carter's instructions, O'Daniel went about contacting the
men and getting the old crew together, including the
truckdriver Leonard Simmons. O'Daniel dropped by
Simmons' house, asked Simmons if he wanted the job,
and, upon receiving an affirmative answer, told Simmons
that "You'll have to call the Hall and clear it through to
go to work." Shortly thereafter, on or about January 7,
1967,3 Simmons, who was a member of the Respondent
but on withdrawal, went by O'Daniel's house and, from
there, placed a telephone call through to Business Agent
William "Corky" Ellis, at the union hall in Nashville.
Simmons told Ellis that he had been offered a job with
Carter Crane4 and that he wanted to call and clear himself
through the Union. Ellis told him that "we're not hiring
on the job," and advised him that his prospective em-
ployer would have to clear him through the hall. Upon
hanging up the receiver, Simmons told O'Daniel that Ellis
would not clear him and that he would have to call Carter
and have Carter call the union hall. The following day,
O'Daniel, by telephone, asked Carter to call Ellis.
Shortly thereafter, according to the testimony of Carter,
Carter called the union hall, found Ellis in conference,
and left word with the secretary that he wanted Simmons
to work for him again as he had on the identical job the
year before. Ellis subsequently returned Carter's call, this
time with Carter absent.5 Carter finally contacted Ellis,
asking him what the trouble was with Simmons, and stat-
ing that Simmons had been on the job before and that he
would like to have him back. Ellis told Carter that he
could not'allow Carter to hire Simmons due to the fact
that his dues were not up to date. The conversation ended
with Carter saying, "Well, that's good enough for me. If
the man's dues wasn't up to date he couldn't go to
work. `6
At the conclusion of this call, Carter immediately
called O'Daniel, apprising him that Simmons could not go
to work, "that Mr. Ellis had denied that," that Ellis had
said that Simmons was not eligible, and asked O'Daniel
to pass the word on to Simmons for him. O'Daniel, who
only that morning had told Simmons that he was sup-
posed to go to work the following morning, stopped by
Simmons' house and told him that Carter had called and
9 Unless otherwise set forth, all dates refer to the year 1967
4 Carter Crane was the predecessor to Breeko Crane
Shirley Victory, bookkeeper and secretary to Carter, testified that she
received a telephone call for Carter from a man identifying himself as El-
lis, who left a message to tell Carter that "we have the right to furnish the
truck driver and we don ' t like for them to solicit members unless they are
members " A note she made during the conversation varies slightly, read-
ing, "have the right to furnish the driver Do not like members to solicit
especially when their [sic] not members." Ellis denied that he ever gave
Victory a message
6 Ellis' version of this telephone conversation vanes from that of
Carter According to Ellis, Carter asked what he had on a Leonard Sim-
mons . Ellis then went through the active file , some 5,000 cards filed
alphabetically , and found nothing . (Explained by the fact that Simmons
was on withdrawal, and therefore his card was in the "dead file ") Carter
said he was going to need a driver and one who would get along with other
people Ellis concluded by saying that he could send him one, that he
would have one down there and, if he could not get along with people, for
said that he could not go to work, that F,llis had said that
he would have to give Carter somebody else.
On the following day, January 25, Simmons, accom-
pained by his wife, drove to Nashville and went to the
union hall where he talked with Ellis. Simmons asked
Ellis about the job, to which Ellis replied that he had
promised it to another fellow. Upon Simmons' inquiry as
to who the person was, Ellis told him that it was between
Himes and Breedon. Mrs. Simmons said that she un-
derstood that her husband was in bad standing with the
Union and asked why. Ellis, who, according to the
testimony of Mrs. Simmons, acknowledged without com-
ment that Carter had called, left to check the files and
returned, saying that Simmons' dues were paid through
October, at which time he had taken out a withdrawal
card, and that he was in good standing. According to the
further testimony of Mrs. Simmons, Ellis also stated that
he would give job preference to the man who paid dues
the year around over one who was on withdrawal,
promised Simmons the next job opening, and concluded
the conversation by stating that "Simmons knows as well
as I do that we don't allow our members to go out and sol-
icit jobs."7
The following day, O'Daniel called Carter and told him
that Simmons had gone to Nashville and had worked out
his problem, having ascertained that he was not behind in
his dues. With this, Carter called Ellis "to find out if he
[Simmons] was eligible to go to work," saying that he un-
derstood that Simmons now had the matter straightened
out. Ellis replied, "No ... he's had a withdrawal card and
hasn't been paying his dues and I have people here that
have been paying their dues and you'll have to use them.
You contact my steward, Mr. O'Guinn, on the job when
you arrive on the job and he'll provide you a man."8
Carter then said that he wanted a man who was capable
of doing the work and getting along with other employees.
Carter then proceeded to the jobsite and personally
sought out O'Guinn. Whether as a result of this meeting
or before, truckdriver Jessie Himes was called by
O'Guinn who told him to come to work, asking him how
soon he could, get there. Upon reporting, Foreman
O'Daniel showed Respondent to a Nashville job which
he refused, Simmons has at no time since been employed
by Breeko.
Before engaging upon a discussion of the issue
presented, certain additional evidence must be noted. In
connection with its normal functions, the Respondent
operates a union hall through which referrals to construc-
tion jobs are made, facilitating employees in securing em-
Carter to call him back
As to this conversation, Ellis testified that this was the first time he
was aware Simmons was seeking employment , he had already referred
someone to the job the Friday before, and he immediately placed Sim-
mons' name on the list of available people Ellis also denied having had
any telephone conversations with Simmons While I cannot say that Ellis'
demeanor on the witness stand left me with other than a favorable impres-
sion of the man, the inherent probability of the total testimony herein, cou-
pled with considerable corroboration of contrary testimony by disin-
terested witnesses, testimony which I consider credible in itself , dictates
an adverse finding with respect to Ellis' testimony to the extent that it is
contradicted by other credited testimony
9 It was stipulated that Hugh O'Guinn was the job steward for Local
327 on the Consolidated Aluminum Company site, and that he was job
steward within the limitations imposed by the Union's bylaws which state
in part that "Stewards are not officers or agents of the Local Union, that
his sole authority on the job is to handle grievances between the employer
for whom he works and the employees for whom he is a steward "
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL 327
ployment, on the one hand, and aiding employers in ob-
taining qualified help, on the other. Although the Com-
pany, in obtaining a truckdriver once before, did so by
calling the union hall and accepting the person sent, Sim-
mons, there exists no written exclusive referral contract
between Breeko and the Respondent. Breeko normally
has need only for ironworkers and operating engineers,
which employees it' obtains through other union referral
systems, and seldom employs truckdrivers. Generally,
when Breeko has need for truck-hauling services, this is
handled by Tankersley Transfer Company, an indepen-
dent outside outfit.
Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel asserts that, notwithstanding the
absence of a contract or written referral agreement, there
existed between Breeko and the Respondent a verbal ex-
clusive hiring arrangement, pursuant to which the
Respondent refused to clear Simmons for employment
because he was not a member in good standing, thereby
causing Breeko's refusal to hire. The Respondent, in con-
tending that it did not cause Breeko to refuse to hire Sim-
mons, asserts that no such agreement existed, and relies
for the most part on the Board's decision in the
Gouverneur Iron Works case.`
Although at first blush it might appear the Gouverneur
Iron Works, in which the employer refused to hire an em-
ployee without prior clearance by the union , and the
cases cited therein,10 is closely analagous to the instant
proceeding, the Board's entire rationale therein is
premised upon a finding that the Employer "could have,
if it desired, employed ironworkers without reference as
to whether they were union members or in good or bad
standing with the Union," and therefore, upon an absence
of evidence of a hiring arrangement or practice of referral.
In the case at hand, however, and notwithstanding denials
by the Company and the Respondent as to the existence
of an agreement, the record warrants no such finding,
and, in fact, compels just the contrary.''
Thus, without relying on any one factor as controlling,
I view the totality of the following conduct such as to
estop the Respondent from denying the existence of an
exclusive referral understanding between it and Breeko;
(a) O'Daniel's telling Simmons that he would have to
clear through the Union to go to work; (b) Ellis' sub-
sequent advising Simmons that Breeko would have to
- clear him through the hall; (c) Ellis, responding to
Carter's expressed desire to hire Simmons, leaving a
"Local 60, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (Gouverneur Iron Works, Inc ),
149 NLRB 316
10 Local 626, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners ofAmer-
ica, AFL-CIO (Food Fair Stores, Inc.), 142 NLRB 1238 Brotherhood
of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, etc (Spoon Tile
Co ), 242 F 2d 477 (C A 10)
" Even Carter 's testimony as to his reasons for clearing Simmons
through the Union and for not hiring him is not convincing Thus, at one
point, in reply to the question of why he found it necessary to call Ellis ini-
tially, Carter replied, "Well, that's the proper procedure If you want to
get a union man you call the Union Hall " At another point, Carter
testified that he wanted to rehire Simmons and that was why he called the
Union In reply to the question as to why he did not hire Simmons after
talking with Ellis, Carter testified that because he knew that the general
contractor on the job had a contract with the Teamsters (which was not a
fact), he knew that "it would create a disturbance, unfavorable condition
on the job if I hired a non -union truck driver, or someone that wasn't eligi-
ble to go to work " Carter subsequently clarified this by testifying that,
1001
message for Carter to the effect that "we have the right to
furnish the truck driver ... '; (d) Ellis subsequently
telling Carter that he could not allow Carter to hire Sim-
mons because his dues were not up to date, coupled with
Carter's reply that "that's good enough for me. If a man's
dues wasn't up to date he couldn't go to work;" (e)
Carter's calling Ellis a second time "to find out if he
[Simmons] was eligible to go to work," having un-
derstood, erroneously, that Simmons was back in good
standing with the Union, and Ellis' reply to the effect that
Simmons had been on a withdrawal and had not been pay-
ing his dues and telling Carter that "I have people here
that have been paying their dues and you'll have to use
them;" and (f) the fact that O'Daniel's instructions to
Simmons to report for work the next morning were
rescinded because Ellis told Carter that he could not
allow him to hire Simmons.12
On the record as a whole, I find that there existed an
exclusive referral arrangement or understanding between
the Respondent and Breeko, by which applicants for em-
ployment with Breeko must be cleared by the Respond-
ent as a condition of securing employment. This being
so, the Respondent was obliged to refer employees from
its hall in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard
to their union status. Here it is clear that, notwithstanding
Breeko's desires to reemploy Simmons, the Respondent
would not clear him because of the fact that he had been
on withdrawal and had not paid his dues which would
qualify him as a member in good standing. Thus, the
Respondent's refusal to clear Simmons for this reason is
unlawful, 13 since the refusal caused Breeko to dis-
criminate against Simmons by refusing to hire him, a fact
which the Respondent knew or should have known would
tend to encourage Simmons, and other applicants for
referral, to pay up his union dues and to become a
member in good standing in order to obtain employ-
ment.14
Even from the finding of the existence of an exclusive
referral arrangement, the fact remains that Ellis was
aware that Carter wanted to employ Simmons but would
not hire him without the Union's clearance. Thus, by
refusing to clear Simmons because he was not a member
in good standing, knowing that its refusal would be
honored by Carter, it must be held that the Respondent
caused Breeko to discriminate against Simmons in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Accordingly, upon the facts herein recited and for
reasons above expressed, I find, as alleged in the com-
plaint, that the Respondent committed unfair labor prac-
had he hired a nonunion driver , " I assume there would have been a work
stoppage "
'Z While recognizing that the Respondent might not be responsible on
an agency basis for statements uttered by O'Guinn , steward on the job,
nevertheless , his statements to O'Daniel on two occasions lend support to
the finding that such a relationship or referral understanding existed
Thus , O'Daniel testified that on January 25 O'Gumn called him, saying,
"Just who the hell are you , who in the hell hired Leonard Simmons'?"
When O'Daniel attempted to refer him to Carter , O'Gumn replied, "I'll
tell you one thing , regardless of who goes to work , they'll come through
me or the union hall, one " The following morning at the ,iobsite , in reply
to O'Daniel's inquiry as to who the Teamster would be , O'Guinn repeated
his comment , saying, "Damn who it's going to be , he'll come through me
or the Union "
" In fact , Ellis' directive to Carter that he would have to use a dues-
paying member smacks of a closed-shop situation
'" See N L R B v International Longshoremen 's & Warehousemen's
Union , Local 12 (Donald D Wilson ), 378 F 2d 125 (C A 9)
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tices within the proscription of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act
by unlawfully causing and attempting to cause Breeko to
discriminate against Leonard Simmons in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operation of
Breeko Industries and its Subsidiary, Breeko Crane Ser-
vice, set forth in section 1, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act, it is recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affir-
mative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully
caused Breeko Industries and its Subsidiary, Breeko
Crane Service, to refuse to employ Leonard Simmons, it
is recommended that the Respondent notify Breeko In-
dustries and its Subsidiary, Breeko Crane Service, in
writing, that it has no objection to the employment of
Leonard Simmons and that it simultaneously serve copies
of said notice on Simmons. In addition, it is recom-
mended that the Respondent make Simmons whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the
Respondent's having caused the Company not to hire him
on and after January 26, 1967, by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would
have earned as an employee of Breeko, absent any dis-
crimination, less his net earnings during the period he
would have been so employed. Backpay shall be com-
puted with interest on a quarterly basis in the manner
prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Because of the character and scope of the unfair labor
practices engaged in by the Respondent, it is recom-
mended that Respondent cease and desist from in any
other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The Respondent , Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers
and Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of the Act.
2. Breeko Industries and its Subsidiary , Breeko Crane
Service, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
3 By causing Breeko to discriminate against Leonard
Simmons in violation of Section 8(a)(3), the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this matter, it
is recommended that Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers
and Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Breeko Industries
and its Subsidiary, Breeko Crane Service, to refuse to
hire Leonard Simmons, or any other employee, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3), or otherwise to discriminate
against employees or applicants for employment in viola-
tion thereof.
(b) In any like or related manner, restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify Breeko Industries and its Subsidiary,
Breeko Crane Service, in writing, that it has no objection
to the employment of Leonard Simmons.
(b) Make Leonard Simmons whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered, as set forth in "The Remedy."
(c) Post at all of its offices and union halls, in Nash-
ville, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
its members are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notice from
the Regional Director, return to him signed copies for
posting by Breeko Industries and its Subsidiary, Breeko
Crane Service, it being willing , at all places where notices
to the Company's employees are customarily posted, in-
cluding all sites where the Company will be engaged in
operations during the 60-day period commencing with the
date of this notice.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith 'S
15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
'S In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , ETC., LOCAL 327 1003
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, HELPERS AND TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL
UNION 327, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Breeko
Industries and its Subsidiary , Breeko Crane Service,
or any other employer, to discriminate against
Leonard Simmons , or any other employee, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the excerise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Leonard Simmons whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered because of our hav-
ing caused Breeko Industries and its Subsidiary,
Breeko Crane Service, not to hire him.
WE WILL notify Breeko Industries and its Subsidi-
ary, Breeko Crane Service , that we have no objec-
tion to the employment of Leonard Simmons, and
WE WILL serve a copy of such notice upon him.
All our members in Tennessee are free to remain mem-
bers of our union and to engage in any or all lawful union
activity, and they also are free to terminate their member-
ship and to cease any or all union activity.
Dated By
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
HELPERS AND TAXICABS
DRIVERS LOCAL UNION
327, AFFILIATED WITH IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Ten-
nesse 38103, Telephone 534-3161.