Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Etc., Local Union 631

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 504 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

504 DECISIONS _OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The laborers employed by Pipe Linings, Inc., who are repre-
sented by Laborers District Council of the Metropolitan, Area of
Philadelphia and Vicinity, Local 57, International Hod Carriers,
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, are
entitled to perform the disputed work in connection with the site
designated as Race Street between 52d and 65th Streets, in Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania.
2. Local 690, United Association of Journeymen. and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO, is not entitled, by means proscribed by Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Company to assign
the above-described disputed work to plumbers.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local 690, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for
Region 4, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forcing
or requiring the Company, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4)
(D), to assign the work in dispute to plumbers rather than laborers.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union
No. 631 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Reynolds Electrical
and Engineering Co., Inc. Case No. 0O-CD-134. December 16,
1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding'pursuant to Section 10(k) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, following charges filed May. 5,
1964,1 and amended May 11, 1964, by Reynolds Electrical and Engi-
neering Co., Inc., designated herein as REECO or the Employer,
alleging that Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local
Union No. 631, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, designated herein as the Team-
sters, had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. A duly sched-
uled hearing was held before Hearing Officer Melton Boyd on June 4
through 25, 1964. All parties appearing were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings made at the hear-
i The May 5 charge is dated April 28, 1964.
150 NLRB No. 44.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS^'ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 505.
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
Employer , the Teamsters , and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 357, designated herein as the IBEW, have
filed briefs which have been duly considered by the. Board.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board 2 makes the following
findings :
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
REECO ' is the prime ' contractor, operating under a "cost plus a
fixed fee" agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission, desig-
nated herein as A.E.C., to provide construction services at the A.E.C.
Nevada Test Site, designated herein as N.T.S. During the 12-month
period immediately preceding the filing of the charges herein,
REECO purchased and received at N.T.S. goods, supplies, and equip-
ment valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to it directly
from sources outside the State of Nevada. During this same period
REECO performed services for the A.E.C. valued in excess of $100,-
000 at N.T.S. and having a substantial impact on the national de-
fense. It is admitted, and we find, that REECO is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.'
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Teamsters and the IBEW are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act .3
M. THE DISPUTE
A.' The work at issue
The dispute herein involves two kinds of work. The first of these
is described in the notice of hearing as :
The unloading of materials and equipment from vehicles at con-
struction staging areas or area compounds within .. '. the Nevada
Test Site, the checking, tallying and placement or "spotting" of
the materials and equipment within the construction staging
areas or area compounds....
We shall refer to this issue as the composite staffing dispute.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Leedom, Fanning,
and Brown].
8 Other labor organizations named in the charge as affected include: Laborers Union,
Local #873; Painters Union, Local 159; Plumbing and Pipefitters , Local 525; Sheet Metal
Workers, Local 88; Iron Workers , Local #433; International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local 12. The latter organization was granted leave to intervene at the hearing.
-506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The second area of dispute involves :
The subsequent loading of materials and equipment on to
vehicles at the construction staging area or area compounds and
driving such vehicles and unloading same at the point of utiliza-
tion or installation of such materials or equipment.
B. Evidence of conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
Since 1952 when REECO became the prime construction support
.contractor at' N.T.S. there have been conflicting jurisdictional claims
by the Teamsters and IBEW with respect to the staffing of ware-
houses used exclusively for the storage of electrical supplies , and with
respect to the transportation of electrical supplies.
' In 1952 in an effort to resolve these disputes Ralph A. Legion,
business manager of the IBEW , and William F. Carter, secretary-
treasurer of the Teamsters , entered into an agreement known as the
Carter-Legion Agreement which was intended to incorporate and
adapt a preexisting agreement between the Teamsters International
and the IBEW International known as the Greenbook agreement'
to the special problems at N.T.S. The Carter-Legion agreement in
relevant part provided as follows :
The mutual understanding as to the interpretation of the exist-
ing [Greenbook] agreement , copy of which is attached , between
-the' two International Unions was determined as follows :
Paragraph #2: Crew or Line truck referred to in this para-
graph shall be loaded by Warehousemen if available , or com-
posite crew , at the start of the shift , and operated by I.B.E.W.
-men. All other materials required during the shift other than
first loaded as above, shall be requested from the warehouse or
yard and delivered by vehicle operated by Teamsters.
It was further mutually agreed that a composite crew of Ware-
housemen and Electricians shall work together in the warehouse
storing electrical material exclusively . One to one ratio between
the two crafts shall be maintained as equally as possible.
4 This agreement in relevant part provided as follows:
It is further agreed that the operators of vehicles used for electrical construction
work, maintenance work, or electrical repair work-that is, when such vehicles are
used for transporting man or men and/or material to and from job, and said vehicle
'remains at jobsite with man or men in the performance of electrical work, and the
operation of the vehicle is an integral part of the work-such operator comes under
the jurisdiction of the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS.
It is understood and agreed that the equipment operated by electrical workers shall
only be the truck carrying the line and maintenance crews, tools, etc , to and from
the job, or the emergency car from electrical contracting shops carrying only tools
and repair equipment for emergency work . Operation of all delivery equipment for
the delivery of materials of all character , such as poles , pipes, transformers , cables,
and electrical appliances, such as refrigerators , radios, etc ., shall be the jurisdiction
of the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 507
The record shows that from the time of its execution REECO fol-
lowed the Carter-Legion agreement in making work assignments, and
has referred to and relied upon said agreement as a basis for resolv-
ing conflicts which arose between the Teamsters and IBEW. The
provisions with respect to composite staffing soon ceased to be actively
applied, however, as the exclusive electrical warehouse was converted
in 1952 to a mixed materials warehouse where the Teamsters undis-
putedly had exclusive jurisdiction.
Commencing in October 1958 there was a moratorium on testing
which continued until September 1961. Whereas prior to the mora-
torium virtually all testing had been conducted in the atmosphere,
all testing after the resumption in 1961 was conducted underground.
Because of the change in the method of testing there developed for-
ward staging and supply areas known as compounds proximate to
the points where the tests occurred. These compounds were sub-
divided into segments known as craft compounds. At the electrical
compounds a practice developed of storing electrical supplies for
future use.
On April 17 or 20, 1964, Carter accompanied an A.E.C. inspector
on a tour of the testsite. At that time Carter observed electrical
compounds being used for the storage of supplies and electricians per-
forming loading work at the electrical compounds. Carter advised
REECO that he considered the electrical compounds to be "exclusive
electrical 'warehouses" within the meaning of the Carter-Legion
agreement and that REECO was violating that agreement by not
utilizing composite crews to perform "warehousemen's" duties at the
electrical compounds. Discussions between Carter and REECO offi-
cials failed to produce any agreement with respect to the matter and
on April 23 Carter told the job stewards and Teamster business rep-
resentatives to inform Teamster drivers not to deliver supplies to
electrical compounds unless there. was a composite crew and/or a
warehouse receiving clerk. From April 23 to 28 Teamster drivers
refused to make deliveries to the electrical compounds .5
6 The record also shows that in some instances drivers refused to deliver to the other
craft compounds . REECO claims that the Teamsters ' demand that there be a receiving
clerk at the compounds was not limited to the electrical compounds but encompassed the
other crafts as well , and that a jurisdictional dispute exists as to these other crafts. It
appears, however , that to the extent there were refusals to deliver to the other craft com-
pounds these were the result of a mixup in carryink out Carter ' s instructions rather than
deliberate economic action in support of a jurisdictional claim . Moreover , at the hearing
all of the unions other than the IBEW where such refusals occurred entered into a
stipulation with the Teamsters that there was no jurisdictional dispute between them
during the relevant period ( the Plumbers did not so stipulate but there is no evidence of
any special circumstances indicating a jurisdictional dispute as to the Plumbers) Under
these circumstances we find that there is no dispute cognizable under Section 8(b) (4) (D)
between the Teamsters and any craft named in the charge other than the IBEW. (See
footnote 2, supra )
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Applicability of the statute
While the Teamsters do not deny that,they caused a work stoppage
to I support their claims to composite staffing at the electrical com-
pounds, they'contend, in effect, that there is no jurisdictional dispute
under the Act as they do not seek the reassignment of work now
being performed by electricians but merely that teamsters be em-
ployed on an equal ratio with electricians. -
It is obvious, however, that the Teamsters could not have assumed
that REECO would maintain twice the necessary work force at the
compounds. Thus, the Teamsters in making their demand for com-
posite staffing must have contemplated a reduction in the existing
staff of electricians to permit an equalization of the number of team-
sters and electricians. We conclude, therefore, that as a practical
matter the Teamsters' claim for composite staffing at the electrical
compounds constituted a demand for the reassignment of work being
performed by electricians to teamsters, and that a dispute within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) exists and the issue is properly
before the Board for determination under Section 10(k).
As to the Teamsters' claim to the work of driving delivery vehicles
from the compounds to the point of use, it is undisposed that the
Teamsters engaged in picketing from May 12 to May 28, 1964, when
picketing was halted by court order, to enforce their demand that the
Employer reassign the driving of such vehicles from the electrical
compounds to the point of use of the supplies. We conclude, there-
fore, that a dispute within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) exists
with respect to this issue and that it is properly before the Board for
determination under Section 10(k).
D. Merits of the dispute
As we stated in J. A. Jones Construction Company,6 we will, pur-
suant to the Supreme Court's decision in Columbia Broadcasting Sys-
tem,7 determine in each case presented for resolution under Section
10(k) of the Act, the appropriate assignment of disputed work only
after taking into account and balancing all relevant factors. The
following factors are asserted in support of the claims of the parties
herein.
6International Association of Machinists , Lodge No. 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction Com-
pany ), 135 NLRB 1402.
7 N.L.R.B. v. Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers , Union, Local 1212, et at . ( Colum-
bia Broadcasting System), 364 U.S. 573.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 509
1. The composite staffing of the electrical compounds
The Teamsters' claim for composite staffing of the electrical com-
pounds rests solely on the Carter-Legion agreement.8 The Employer
and IBEW dispute the Teamsters' interpretation of the agreement.
Carter-Legion provides that there shall be composite staffing only in
"the warehouse storing electrical material exclusively." The record
shows that at the time Carter-Legion was adopted there existed a
conventional warehouse used exclusively for the storage of electrical
supplies. There were no electrical compounds in existence at the
time. Thus, it would appear that the agreement is referring to "the
warehouse" in existence in 1952 as is argued by REECO and IBEW,
rather than the electrical compounds. The record indicates that the
Teamsters apparently so interpreted the agreement as they did not
make any demands for composite staffing at the electrical compounds
until April 1964 although the compounds had obviously been operat-
ing in their present form for a substantial period prior to that date.
However, even if it is assumed that the Carter-Legion agreement
may be construed as having a broader application than the ware-
house which was in existence at the time of its execution, the Team-
sters' claim must nonetheless fail unless it can be established that the
compounds are "warehouses" within the meaning of 'that agreement.
In this respect the record shows that while supplies are stored at the
compounds, in some cases for periods of several months, such supplies
are ordered not for the purpose of maintaining a general inventory
but in connection with the performance of some specific task. More-
over, the great bulk of these supplies consists of various types of
coaxial cable which is normally prefabricated at the compounds for
installation at the point of use. The compounds are also used to store
tools and the electricians' personal belongings. Also the compounds
are normally within a mile or so of the wellholes where the cable
and other materials are installed. While such distances may be
8 Neither the Teamsters nor the IBEW have been certified by the Board with respect to
any employees involved in the instant proceeding . Although both unions have contracts
with the Employer , such contracts shed no light on the dispute as they are silent on the
issue of composite staffing of the electrical compounds While both the IBEW and
REECO claimed that the work involved requires the skills of an electrician , the record
does not clearly establish the superiority of electricians over teamsters with respect to the
skills involved in the. disputed work. However, because of our disposition of the Team-
sters' claim on other grounds we find it unnecessary to consider the allegedly superior
skills of the electricians . We do find, however , that with respect to such factors as em-
ployer, industry , or area practice , and efficiency or economy of operation , the record on
balance tends to support the Employer 's assignment of the work to the electricians rather
than the teamsters.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
viewed as substantial in the usual construction project, in view of
the fact that the warehouses may be as many as 35 miles from the
testholes and the 1,500 square mile area of N.T.S. such distances must
be viewed as relatively proximate under the circumstances of this
case. Thus, we find that the electrical compounds are not ware-
houses as that term was used in the Carter-Legion agreement but are,
rather, in the nature of on-the-site supply dumps and/or workshops.
We find, therefore, that the Carter-Legion agreement does not sup-
port the Teamsters' claim to composite staffing at the compounds;
and, as the Teamsters have no other basis for such claim, we conclude
that there is no merit in their contention that they are entitled to
any of the work being performed by the electricians at the electrical
compounds.
2. The dispute over the delivery of supplies from the electrical
compounds to the point of use
The Teamsters' claim that they are entitled to drive nonwork ve-
hicles transporting electrical supplies and equipment is based pri-
marily on an award interpreting their contract with the Employer,9
the Carter-Legion agreement, and the Employer's previous disposi-
tion of an allegedly similar dispute in 1957 known as the BJY
dispute.
O The Teamsters relied in particular upon an award by the A G.C. Joint Conference
Board interpreting the parties' contract in connection with a grievance filed by the
Teamsters protesting the Employer's practice of assigning to electricians the work of
operating vehicles used for the hauling of supplies between the compounds and the point
of use. As a result of the Teamsters' grievance a proceeding was conducted under the
A G.C. contract between REECO and the Teamsters (the IBEW did not participate in the
proceeding ) which resulted in a finding by the Joint Conference Board that the Employer's
assignment of the work to the electricians was in conflict with area practice and, therefore
constituted a violation of article III F of the A G.C. agreement which provided as follows:
III F During the life of this Agreement, no Contractor signatory hereto or on whose
behalf this Agreement has been made shall assign employees of another craft to per-
form work in the classifications covered by this Agreement contrary to the decisions
or agreements of record or established trade practice in the area
As the Supreme Court has held, an arbitrator ' s award in a jurisdictional dispute case is
a proper consideration in a 10(k) proceeding but is not binding upon the Board Carey
v. Westinghouse, 375 U S 261, 271-272; also see International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, et al (J R Condon d Sons, Inc.), 148 NLRB 356,
footnote 5 We have considered the award in light of the evidence adduced herein The
Joint Board ' s finding that REECO was in violation of article III F rests on an implicit as-
sumption that an area practice exists with respect to situations comparable to that present
herein. Other than the award itself , however, there is no evidence of any such practice On
the contrary, there is it great deal of evidence in the record with respect to area practices
which establishes that there are no construction projects of comparable , size or where
comparable work is being performed N.T.S. presents a unique situation . We cannot
agree , therefore, in these circumstances that the award controls the disposition of the
Teamsters ' claim to jurisdiction in this case over the driving of vehicles hauling electrical
supplies from the compounds to the point of use.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 511
Since the resumption of testing in 1961 REECO has assigned the
work of driving vehicles delivering electrical supplies from the elec-
trical 'compounds to the electricians. Neither the agreement with the
IBEW or the Teamsters, however, contains a clear-cut assignment of
the disputed work.10 Nor has either union been certified with respect
to any employees involved herein. The Carter-Legion agreement,
however, which incorporates the Greenbook agreement,'1 establishes
guidelines relevant to the claims of the IBEW and the Teamsters to
the disputed work. In essence, this agreement provides that jurisdic-
tion over the driving of vehicles transporting supplies from points
outside of the jobsite to the first drop on the jobsite shall be per-
formed by the Teamsters. After the first drop at or on the jobsite,
the transportation of such materials as are necessary to or utilized
in the electricians' performance of their work is within the jurisdic-
tion of the IBEW. The evidence on the record establishes that at
all times the Teamsters, the IBEW, and REECO have applied the
provisions of the Greenbook agreement. Thus, the conflicting claims
of the Teamsters and the Electricians, with respect to the Greenbook,
turn on the question of whether the compounds are part of the job-
site. REECO and the IBEW contend that the compounds are part
of the jobsite, while the Teamsters, as we have seen, claim that they
are electrical warehouses.
We have already found that the compounds are not exclusive elec-
trical warehouses; however, this does not necessarily mean that they
are part of the jobsite. The record reveals in this connection that the
compounds' as they are presently constituted have developed over the
years as the methods of testing have changed. During the period of
atmospheric testing there were no compounds such as presently exist.
For the most part supplies were transported directly from the ware-
house to the point of use where they were fabricated into the various
components required by the job. Much of the electrical work 'was
performed in portable shacks. Supplies could not be stored for any
period of time in the test area, for they would have been destroyed
by the wide-range destructive effects of atmospheric testing.
With the resumption of testing in 1961 when atmospheric testing
was abandoned and replaced by underground testing in tunnels and
wells, primitive, unfenced compounds were developed which in fact
were no more than forward supply depots. These were normally
quite close to the point of use, and it is undisputed that the elec-
10 See footnote 9, supra
11 See supra.
7 7 5-69 2-6 5-v o 1 150-34
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tricians transported supplies from these compounds to the point of
use or the mouth of the tunnel (when this type of testing was utilized).
With the development of testing in wells the compounds have be-
come less transitory in nature, as the well technique permits the prep-
aration and conduct of several tests contemporaneously and at rela-
tively close distances to the supply point. Nevertheless, the com-
pounds have not changed their basic characteristics. They continue
to be utilized as forward area supply dumps for materials ordered
specifically for the performance of a particular job. Moreover, the
buildings where the electricians fabricate components are in effect no
more than adaptations of the preexisting portable shacks, albeit a
more sophisticated and efficient version thereof.
In light of these facts we believe that the compounds are, in essence,
an integral part of the jobsite, and, therefore, under the provisions
of the Carter-Legion agreement, jurisdiction over the transportation
of electrical supplies utilized by the electricians in the performance
of their work is vested in the electricians rather than the teamsters.12
The Teamsters' reliance upon the Employer's resolution of the
BJY dispute as a precedent supporting their claim herein is mis-
placed in our opinion.13 The record shows that the BJY was an
area which was utilized during the period of atmospheric testing as
a supply dump and staging area. It was of necessity located many
miles from the point of use of the supplies. There is no evidence
that it was utilized for the prefabrication of components as are the
compounds, and it would appear that supplies were deposited for
general use rather than ordered in connection with the performance
of a specific job as in the case of the compounds. Thus, for both
geographic and functional reasons the BJY could not be considered
as part of the jobsite, and can have no relevance with respect to the
disposition of this dispute.
While we do not agree with REECO and the IBEW that the dis-
puted work necessarily requires the skills of electricians only and
that teamsters are not capable of performing the work, we find, how-
ever, that the record supports the Employer's contention that it would
be more efficient and practicable for electricians rather than teamsters
to perform the work.
12It is not disputed that the work of delivering materials from points outside of the
jobsite to the compounds or any other part of the jobsite is work performed by the
Teamsters.
13 The BJY dispute involved a claim by the Teamsters that teamsters rather than electri-
cians were entitled to the work of operating supply delivery vehicles from the BJY to
the point of use. In that instance REECO agreed with the Teamsters ' claim and assigned
such work to teamster employees.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL UNION 631 513
E. ConeTiusions as to the merits of the disputes
On the basis of the whole record and appraisal of the relevant
considerations, for all of the reasons set forth above we shall deter-
mine the existing jurisdictional disputes by deciding (1) that the
-teamsters are not entitled to composite staffing at the electrical com-
pounds but that such work is properly the work of the electricians,
and (2) that electricians rather than teamsters are entitled to per-
form the work of driving vehicles transporting electrical supplies
from the electrical compounds to the point of use. We shall there-
fore assign the disputed work to the electricians. Our present deter-
mination is limited to the particular controversy which gave rise to
this proceeding. In making this determination, we are assigning the
disputed work to electrician employees represented by IBEW, but
not to IBEW or its members.'
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case,
the Board makes the following Determination of Dispute pursuant
to Section 10(k) of the Act:
1. Electricians currently represented by International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 357, are entitled to the work of unload-
ing of materials and equipment from vehicles at the electrical area
compounds within the Nevada Test Site, the checking, tallying, and
placement or "spotting" of said materials and equipment within said
compounds, and the subsequent, loading of materials and equipment
on vehicles at the said compounds and driving of such vehicles and
unloading of same at the point of use or installation of said materials
and equipment.
2. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union
No. 631, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, is not and has not been lawfully
entitled to force or require Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co.,
Inc., to assign the disputed work to teamsters.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers,
Local Union No. 631, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, shall notify the
Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Reynolds Electrical and Engineer-
ing Co., Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the work in dispute to teamsters who are its members rather than to
electricians who are represented by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers. Local 357.
Local Union No. 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Deaton Truck Line, Inc. Case No. 10-CP-37. December 17, 196.
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 6, 1964, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support
thereof.
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 exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint].
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman, on a complaint l pur-
suant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
called the Act, alleging that since on or about January 12, 1963, Local Union No.
612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called Respondent or the Union, violated Section 8(b)
(7)(C) of the Act, by picketing for more than 30 days without a representation
petition being on file and not being then certified as the representative of Deaton's
employees, the Birmingham, Alabama, terminal and offices of Deaton Truck Line,
Inc., herein called Deaton or Company, with an object of forcing or requiring
Deaton to recognize or bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of Deaton's employees, or to force or require said employees to accept or
select the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. Respondent, by
answer, admitted the picketing, the lack of a certification, and that the picketing
continued for more than 30 days without a representation petition being on file,
but denied that its picketing had any recognition or organizational object, and
averred that its picketing was solely to protest alleged unfair labor practices on the
part of Deaton.
On March 25, 1964, the parties entered into a stipulation submitting this case
for decision by a Trial Examiner to be designated by the Chief Trial Examiner,
upon a record consisting of the formal documents and the transcript of evidence
1 Issued February 12, 1964; based on a charge filed August 19, 1963.
150 NLRB No. 40.