Teamsters, Local 85

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Local 85 and W. S. Hatch Co., Inc.
Case 20-CC-564. January 16,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 7, 1966, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recom-
mended that these allegations be dismissed. The Respondent filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations-Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with, this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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, the cross-exceptions, the briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the
modification noted below.:,
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
. 1 The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the Section
8(b) (4) (i ) (B) allegation of the complaint on the ground that the threats made by Re-
spondent 's representatives to the operations manager at the John P . Lynch Company were
overheard by a Lynch employee , Charles Brasher . Brasher is a nonunit sales employee
whose production duties relate solely to items which he sells. The General Counsel failed
to adduce any evidence to establish that Respondent induced other Lynch employees in
any manner . In these circumstances, and as it does not appear that the threats were
directed toward Brasher, and as it does not clearly appear that Respondent 's representa-
tives were aware of his presence in the room at the time the remarks were made , and as this
same conduct was found by the Trial Examiner to violate Section 8 ( b) (4) (ii ) ( B) and a
remedial order against this conduct has been provided herein , we find it unnecessary to
decide whether Respondent 's conduct also violated Section 8 ( b) (4) (1) (B ) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was tried before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in San Fran-
cisco, California, on April 11, 1966.1 At issue is whether International Brother-
1 Charges filed November 2 and December 23, 1965. Complaint issued January 14, 1966
162 NLRB No. 88.
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 85 969
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 85,
herein the Respondent, by threats directed to an employer and by inducement and
encouragement of his employees engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (ii) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, in consideration of the brief filed, and from
my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
W. S. Hatch Co., Inc., herein Hatch, is a Utah corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Woods Cross, Utah, and with a terminal in Pitts-
burg, California. Hatch is a common carrier by truck and performs services in
transporting materials in interstate commerce to a value exceeding $50,000
annually.
John P. Lynch Company, herein Lynch, is a California corporation with its
principal office in San Francisco, California, where it is engaged in distributing
laundry and drycleaning products and supplies at wholesale in California, Nevada,
Arizona, and Hawaii.
Dow Chemical Co., herein Dow, is engaged in the manufacture of chemical
products and among other plants in the United States has one located at Pittsburg,
California.
Hatch, Lynch, and Dow are employers engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is and at all times material herein has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Since October 1964, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 222, has been engaged in a strike
against Hatch at the latter's Utah terminal. For several months Local 222 has
picketed the premises of certain customers of Hatch in the San Francisco Bay area
at times when Hatch was making delivery to such customers from its Pittsburg,
California, terminal.
On November 1, 1965, L. D. Deaton, a truckdriver employed by Hatch at Pitts-
burg, drove to the Dow plant also in Pittsburg and obtained a load of a chemical
(perchlorethylene) used in connection with Lynch's laundry supply business. While
at Dow, the Hatch truck was picketed by Local 222. Arriving in San Francisco at
the premises of Lynch at about 11:45 that morning, Deaton noticed that the Local
222 pickets were still with him, and as soon as he had parked his truck at the point
for unloading, the pickets began their patrol around his vehicle. Deaton went into
the Lynch warehouse in order to bring out the hose that would drain the chemical,
hereinafter called Pere, from his truck. A Lynch warehouseman told Deaton that
the picketing might prevent the unloading. The warehouse employees of Lynch
are represented by a Teamsters local. Lynch's drivers are represented by the
Respondent. Eugene P. Lind, operations manager at the Lynch location, testified
that when the Hatch truck arrived both of his warehousemen refused to accept the
delivery because of the picketing. Shortly after 1 p.m. that day, Lind telephoned
Dow and informed Dow of the picketing. A few minutes later, Lind was asked by
means of a telephone call from Hatch to have Deaton return the truck to Pittsburg.
About 1:30 p.m. James Rourke, Respondent's business agent, and Timothy Rich-
ardson, its secretary and business manager, came to the Lynch plant. At about the
same time four or five other men appeared. One of these walked over to the Hatch
truck carrying a sign reading, "This Union Member Refuses to Cross a Picket Line."
Richardson and Rourke proceeded toward Lind's office with some of the men who
had recently arrived following them. Lind, stepping outside his office, told Richard-
son and Rourke that they might come in but that the "other goons" must leave.
Either Richardson or Rourke then told the men behind them to go. T:iey did so
but then stayed about the Hatch truck along with the Local 222 pickets. Lind testi-
fied that Richardson and Rourke told him on this occasion that if he accepted the
load on the Hatch truck the Respondent would cause a strike of the Lynch drivers
and set up a picket line. Lind replied that he had already refused the delivery.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD
Charles Brasher, a Lynch employee ; testified -that he was in Lind's office on this;
occasion and that he heard Rourke threaten - a'strike by the drivers if the Hatch,
delivery was accepted . Brasher testified that he stood behind Rourke and Richard-
son and that neither may have been aware of his presence. . . 1„ -
Richardson testified that he learned in the early afternoon of November 11 from
an agent of the Teamsters local representing the warehouse employees .that pickets
had appeared at the Lynch premises . Richardson asked Rourke to join him and
the two went to the Lynch warehouse where they told Lind that if the picketing
continued it would be difficult to keep the warehousemen and drivers on the job.
Both Rourke and Richardson denied that at any time they threatened to cause a
strike by the Lynch employees or to picket the warehouse..Both denied any knowl-
edge of the identity of the, four or five men who arrived at the Lynch premises at
about the same time and who attempted to follow them into Lind 's office:
Rourke, Richardson, and 'another agent-of the Respondent, Andrade, -stayed at
the Lynch warehouse until about 3 p m. At some time in the afternoon Deaton
noticed that Perc was flowing from one of the valves on the truck but because of
the presence of the'pickets felt if unsafe to approach the truck to attempt to stop
the flow. Police and firemen were called . The valve was closed and when he could
safely inspect his truck , Deaton discovered that'the ignition keys were missing, his
tools were gone, and the air hoses cut. Late in the afternoon the truck was removed.
There have been no subsequent deliveries by Hatch to Lynch.
Although the presence of the pickets around the Hatch truck in the afternoon of
November 1 and the absence of any suggestion that anyone other than pickets
were near the truck - almost forces the conclusion that the outrageous vandalism
was committed by the pickets, it does not follow as of course that this conduct can
be attributed to the Respondent. - -
It is not contended that the pickets who appeared when the truck arrived were
representatives of the Respondent. The suggestion is made, however, that the four
or five additional men who arrived at about" 1:30 that afternoon must have been
recruited or directed or in some way brought to the warehouse by the Respondent.
Other than the timing of the arrival there is little to support such a conclusion
and I find it not to be established. Even if the Respondent did bring individuals to
join the Local 222 pickets, I do not see how any violation of the Act was thus
committed. There is nothing to evidence that any employee knew that the addi-
tional pickets were supplied by the Respondent and the Respondent was not identi-
fied on the signs they carried From all that any Lynch employee could see, the
picketing remained as it was with a greater number of individuals involved. I find
no violation of the Act on the part of the Respondent by reason of the additional
pickets.
Manager Lind testified flatly that Rourke and Richardson threatened to picket
the warehouse if the Hatch delivery was accepted. They denied that they did more
than warn Lind that it might be difficult to keep the warehousemen at work because
of the picketing I credit Lind. The rather extraordinary concentration of Respond-
ent's officialdom at the Lynch premises and the duration of their stay could hardly
have been required if no more than a simple friendly warning had been intended.
I conclude that the Respondent made the threats that Lind testified about and
remained at the warehouse to implement them if it became necessary. By threaten-
ing Lind with picketing should he accept the Hatch load, the Respondent threatened,
coerced, and restrained Lynch with an object to force or require Lynch to cease
doing business with Hatch. The Respondent thereby engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii ) (B) of the Act.
Brasher, a salesman , overheard the threat to picket. It is argued that he thus
was exposed to inducement and encouragement to refuse to perform services for -
Lynch all in furtherance of Respondent's object to break any business relationship
between Lynch and Hatch. As an employee, Brasher had nothing to do with accept-
ing the Hatch delivery. It is difficult for me to envision how a threat to picket in
the event of acceptance could induce Brasher to do anything. I conclude that no
violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) (B) as alleged has been established.
IV° THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Lynch, Hatch, and Dow described in section I, above,
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 85 971
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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. John P. Lynch Company, Dow Chemical Company, and W. S. Hatch Co.,
Inc., are employers engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By threatening to picket at the Lynch warehouse on November 1, 1965, with
an object to force or require Lynch to cease doing business with Hatch, the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting 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, I recom-
mend that International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local 85, San Francisco, California, its officers, repre-
sentatives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening to picket or otherwise coercing or restrain-
ing John P. Lynch Company or any other person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce with an object to force or require John P. Lynch
Company or any other person engaged in commerce to cease doing business with
W. S. Hatch Co., Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 20, shall be duly signed and posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 20 signed copies of the aforemen-
tioned notice for posting by John P. Lynch Company or by any of the affected
employers at their election. Copies of said notices to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Respondent, shall be forthwith
returned to him for disposition.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps have been taken in compliance.3
2In 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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall he modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten to picket or otherwise coerce or restrain John P.
Lynch Company or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce where an object is to force or require John P . Lynch Com-
pany or any other person engaged in commerce to cease doing business with
W. S. Hatch Co., Inc.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 85,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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 pro-
visions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , 13050 Fed-
eral Building , 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco , California
94102 , Telephone 556-3197.
Arduini Manufacturing Corp. and Sheet Metal Workers Interna-
tional Association , AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-4593. January 17,
1967
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 30, 1965, the National Labor Relations Board issued its
Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,'. finding, inter
alia, that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Leo Cassanelli and
Ernest Gibeault in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Respondent was directed
to make an offer of immediate and full reinstatement to the discrimi-
natees to their former or substantially equivalent positions and to
make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them.
Pursuant to a backpay specification and appropriate notice issued
by the Regional Director for Region 1, a hearing was held before
Trial Examiner Harry H. Kuskin for the purpose of determining
the amount of backpay due the discriminatees. On July 1, 1966, the
Trial Examiner issued his Decision in Backpay Proceeding, attached
hereto, in which he found that discriminatee Cassanelli was entitled
to payment of a profit-sharing credit of $202.66 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1964, but denied him backpay for any period there-
after preceding his reinstatement by Respondent on July 28, 1965.
The Trial Examiner also found that discriminates Gibeault was
entitled, contrary to the specification claim of $1,878.64, to backpay
1153 NLRB 887.
162 NLRB No. 90.