Teamsters Local 85

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 107 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 85 107
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Lo-
cal No. 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America
and San Francisco Newspaper Printing Company,
Inc. Case 20-CC-999
June 14, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On February 12, 1971, Trial Examiner Maurice
Alexandre issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision . Respondent
filed exceptions and a brief in support, General Counsel
filed limited exceptions with its brief to the Trial Exam-
iner attached, and Charging Party filed a brief in oppo-
sition to Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's 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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision , the exceptions and briefs , and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner, as corrected by his Errata of Feb-
ruary 24, 1971, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Lo-
cal No. 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, San
Francisco, California, its officers, agents , and repre-
sentatives shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner 's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner: This case was
heard in San Francisco , California, on September 24 and 25
and October 1, 1970, upon a complaint issued on May 22,
1970,' alleging that the Respondent had violated Section
' Based on a charge filed on May 14, 1970, by San Francisco Newspaper
191 NLRB No. 26
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended . In its answer, Respondent denied the commission
of the unfair labor practices alleged. The principal issue pre-
sented is whether or not Respondent is responsible for certain
unlawful picketing.
Upon the entire record,' my observation of the witnesses,
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and by the Charging
Party, and a memorandum letter filed by Respondent, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS'
The Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Evidence
1. The picketing
On or about May 11 , 1970 ,4 a number of individuals began
picketing various employers located in the San Francisco Bay
area. At least some of the pickets carried signs which be-
longed to Respondent and bore the latter's name; i.e., Local
85. Richardson, Respondent's recording secretary and busi-
ness manager, testified that the use of such signs was not
authorized, that the signs had been located in Respondent's
hiring hall and were easily accessible, and that he was told by
Montano and Garcia, organizers for Respondent , that the
signs had been taken by the pickets. He further testified that
he knew as early as May 11 that the signs had been stolen and
were being used.
After being notified of the picketing, Richardson went to
one of the picketed locations, told "the fellows over there"
that picketing was not "sanctioned" and that they would
have to go back to work, and asked the pickets who-'had sent
them . Some of the pickets showed him identification from
Teamsters Locals 208 and 257 based in Los Angeles.
On Thursday morning, May 14, some 15 to 20 individuals
began picketing the place of business of San Francisco Print-
ing Company , Inc., hereafter called Printing Company.' Such
pickets similarly carried signs bearing Respondent's name
and containing the legend, "Unfair to Teamsters Local No.
85." Richardson testified that some of the pickets may have
been members of Respondent, but that Respondent had not
authorized such picketing. The reason for the picketing is not
clear.' However, it is undisputed that neither Local 208 nor
Respondent had a collective-bargaining agreement with
Printing Company, that neither represented any of the em-
ployees of that company, and that the company had no pri-
mary dispute with any union at that time.
Printing Company, Inc.
i The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is
granted, and it is ordered that the said motion be, and it hereby is, made a
part of the record herein and is identified as TX Exh. 1.
' No issue of commerce is presented. The complaint alleged, and the
answer admitted facts which, I find, establish, that San Francisco Printing
Company, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
° All dates referred to hereafter relate to 1970 unless otherwise stated
Printing Company , a Nevada corporation , is engaged in the business of
newspaper printing. It maintains a place of business in San Francisco, where
it performs the mechanical , circulation , advertising , accounting , credit, and
collection functions for two local newspapers , the San Francisco Examiner
and the San Francisco Chronicle.
6 The testimony shows variously that Los Angeles Teamsters were seek-
ing additional sick leave , were attempting to exert pressure upon Hearst
newspapers in aid of their strike against Hearst corporation in Los Angeles,
or were seeking reinstatement of certain Los Angeles Teamsters who had
been discharged.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The various picket lines were quite effective. Truckdrivers
refused to cross the lines, as did a number of employees of
Printing Company. Richardson testified that all of Respond-
ent's approximately 6,000 members respected the various
picket lines. As a consequence, such members did not deliver
the newsprint normally shipped by their employers to Print-
ing Company by truck,7 and the local newspapers were not
printed on May 14 and 15. In addition, taxis were not oper-
ated, gasoline supplies for fire trucks and local buses began
to run low, drug and bread deliveries were not made, and
Greyhound buses were not operated.
2. The testimony of Gould
Gould, publisher of the San Francisco Examiner, testified
as follows. He went to the picket line at Printing Company
about 8:30 a.m. on May 14, asked one of the pickets why he
was picketing, and was told by the latter that "we're support-
ing our blood brothers in Los Angeles." Gould asked whether
Richardson had not made a public statement on the preced-
ing day that Local 85 was not to picket, and an unidentified
individual replied, "We do not listen to Mr. Richardson."
Gould then inquired how he could reach someone who could
take action which would permit publication of the San Fran-
cisco Examiner, and the same individual furnished him with
a telephone number and suggested that he call Hank Mon-
tano, an organizer for Respondent. Gould called the number,
found he had reached Respondent's hiring hall, and was told
by an unidentified person that Montano was not available.
When Gould complained about the picketing, the individual
replied: "We are supporting our brothers in Los Angeles who
have been out on strike for seven weeks. It's necessary for us
to support them to bring pressure on to get a settlement."
Although Gould knew that Richardson was "one of the hier-
archy" of Respondent, he did not try to communicate with
Richardson because his attorneys normally handled such
matters.
3. The testimony of Richardson
Richardson testified as follows. He was informed about the
picketing of Printing Company about 9 a.m. on May 14, went
to Respondent's hiring hall, and found that members of Los
Angeles Teamsters, Local 208 were present and had been
there 3 or 4 days. According to Richardson, "[O]ur guys sat
back and welcomed these guys." At one point, he testified
that "we had sandwiches and coffee up there because every-
one was out of work, and I felt if I kept them up there, they'd
stay out of trouble." At another point, he testified as follows:
Q. Did you serve coffee and sandwiches all during the
week?
A. We had coffee and sandwiches at the hiring hall,
open around the clock, just in the hope that these pickets
will go back to Los Angeles, so they'd get out of the way
so we could go back to work. That was my main interest.
Q. When you were serving coffee and sandwiches, did
you instruct that no teamsters-that nobody doing the
picketing should be served these things?
A. No, I didn't.
Richardson then went to the Printing Company building,
saw the pickets carrying signs bearing Respondent's name,
and left because he did not wish to become "implicated." He
returned to the hiring hall and told Montano and Garcia,
another of Respondent's organizers, either to have the signs
retrieved or to have Respondent's name removed from them.
' Richardson testified that there was no newsprint to deliver because no
trucks were moving. He also testified that the drivers refused to cross the
lines because they were being pulled off the trucks.
About 11 a.m. on May 14, Richardson called the hiring hall
from the Del Webb Hotel and was informed by Garcia that
"a couple" of Respondent's picket signs had been retrieved
and that the local number had been changed on others. The
record shows that the local number on the signs was changed
from Local 85 to Local 851 or 158 by the addition of the
number "1". On some signs, the "1" was printed boldly; on
others, it consisted of a thinly drawn pencil line.' Richardson
did not thereafter return to the Printing Company because he
did not wish to become "involved." He took no other steps
to ascertain whether Respondent "had been removed from
the situation" because he was satisfied with his agents' efforts.
He feared a riot if any attempt was made to take the signs
physically from the pickets. During May 11, 12, and 13, he
had visited about 50 picketed areas and urged those truck-
drivers who were there to cross the picket lines. However,
although Respondent preferred that its members continue
working,' he did not instruct Respondent's members to cross
the picket line at the Printing Company building on May 14
and 15 because "it was probably hopeless because everyone
was out." He made no attempt to use the media to disavow
any idea that Respondent was involved in the picketing be-
cause he had "been misquoted so much." He did not notify
Printing Company that Respondent disavowed the picketing
because he is "very guarded" in what he does inasmuch as the
Regional Office has a "real vendetta" against him.
4. The testimony of Goldberger
Goldberger, president of Teamsters' Local 92110 and a vice
president of Teamsters Joint Council No. 7 with which Re-
spondent is affiliated, testified as follows. He received a tele-
phone call early in the morning on May 14, informing him
of the picketing." He telephoned Knox, a labor consultant of
Printing Company, informed the latter of the picketing,
stated that he would try to ascertain who was responsible, and
suggested that Knox make a similar effort. He then attempted
to reach Respondent's offices by telephone "to find out if
they're the one who established the picket line." When asked
what led him to believe that Respondent might have estab-
lished the picket line, he testified as follows:
A. By knowing of the fact that there was local unions
from Southern California in Alameda County and San
Jose, other areas where they were establishing picket
lines from those unions. I wanted to find out what infor-
mation that Local 85 would have by being a freight local
and these locals that had the pickets-picket lines up
from Southern California, our freight locals; they would
be much-would be in a much better position to get
information than I would be.
Q. I see. So, then, when you did call Local 85, did you
suspect that Local 85 was doing some of the picketing
at the newspaper?
A. I was pretty sure that Local 85 was not doing the
picketing.
He made a number of attempts to reach an officer of Re-
spondent; but although he left telephone messages and sent
members of his local to Respondent's office, he was unsuc-
There is neither a Teamsters Local 851 nor 158.
Richardson testified that under the national master freight agreement,
Respondent could reopen its "supplemental" contract if another local ob-
tained better terms; but that a strike by its members was not advantageous
since it might lead to Congressional legislation imposing settlement terms.
A national agreement was signed on May 17, giving Respondent, Local 208,
and other locals "[s]ubstantially improved benefits "
'" Local 921 represented the drivers in Printing Company's circulation
department.
" Goldberger was then at home recuperating from a minor heart attack.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 85 109
cessful until May 15, when he received a call from Haag,
Respondent's vice president. Haag could not answer his in-
quiry, and he asked the latter to "have Richardson, or who-
ever was involved" to call him. However, Richardson never
communicated with him. Richardson testified that he tele-
phoned Goldberger at an unspecified hour on May 14, that
he told the latter that he thought that "they're carrying over
their beef in Los Angeles and bringing it up here," and that
Goldberger replied that he would call Los Angeles. When
asked why he called Goldberger, Richardson testified:
A. Well, I knew that Jack had the papers up there, and
I knew that Jack was handling the papers and I wanted
to find out what the story on them coming up from Los
Angeles and getting away. See, the Examiner was the
first place they moved when they moved from the truck-
ing company on Monday and Tuesday, and they didn't
confine themselves to the trucking companies, and then
on Thursday they went up and they went after the Ex-
aminer, and then they went after the cabs; they went
after the Greyhound buses; they went after the gas line's
trucks.
Q. What was the purpose of your call to Goldberg[er]?
A. Because the first one that came in was when they
went after the paper and I was wondering if they had a
fight they was carrying up from Los Angeles to the
paper.
Acting in his official capacity as vice president of Joint Coun-
cil 7, Goldberger made numerous telephone calls in an at-
tempt to resolve the problem. Although he had received a
request for assistance from Teamsters Local 278, he received
no similar request from Respondent.
5. The testimony of Koelder
Koelder,12 Printing Company's industrial relations direc-
tor, observed the pickets carrying Local 85 signs at the com-
pany's building sometime between 9 and 9:30 a.m. on May
14. He telephoned Goldberger to inquire why Respondent
was picketing the company. Goldberger replied that he had
informed Knox that the pickets "were from 85," that he was
attempting to "resolve the differences," and that Koelder
should go to the picket line and talk to Vergez, secretary-
treasurer of Local 921. He called Goldberger again about
noon, at which time the latter told him that the picketing was
a "power play on the part of Local 85 to cause a city-wide
strike and thereby exert pressure on the [trucking] employers
association to cause them to change their contract with the
Teamsters Union." Goldberger testified that he talked to Ko-
elder on the telephone, but denied making the statements
attributed to him.
6. The termination of the picketing
The picketing continued all day on May 14 and 15. Ko-
elder testified that he could not recall seeing any unaltered
Local 85 picket signs by late afternoon on May 14; and that
on May 15, all signs except one had been altered."
On May 15, a meeting was held in the office of the mayor
of San Francisco." Richardson testified that he reluctantly
agreed to be present at the request of an official of another
local and of the mayor's office; he arrived about 2 p.m.; and
among those present were representatives of Teamsters Lo-
cals 70 and 856, representatives of the Hotel Employers'
Association, and Diviny,15 the president of Respondent and
of Teamsters Joint Council 7. Richardson further testified
that the mayor asked if there was anything Richardson could
do about the situation; he replied that he did not want to be
involved; he stated that the Los Angeles drivers wanted "to
get someone in there on the side of the drivers, and they want
to get the truck driver owners off of this thing about firing
10,000 people"; the mayor telephoned Los Angeles, talked to
Blackmore,16 secretary-treasurer of Los Angeles Local 208,
and offered to mediate the dispute and "plead" on behalf of
the Los Angeles drivers; and the mayor was thereafter given
assurances that the pickets from Los Angeles would leave San
Francisco." Richardson then telephoned Respondent's hiring
hall and told Garcia to advise the Los Angeles pickets to
obtain confirmation of the mayor's promise to intervene and
to request further instructions. The meeting ended about 5
p.m. About 6 p.m., the mayor made a radio announcement
that he had assurances from the "local" and other teamsters
that they would cooperate with him in resolving the situation
and would call off the picketing, and that he wanted to notify
the pickets of what had taken place. The mayor did not
specifically identify who had given him such assurances. Very
shortly thereafter, the picketing in San Francisco ended.
Richardson testified that as the mayor began his announce-
ment, he left and went to the hiring hall in order to instruct
any remaining Los Angeles pickets to leave the hall. On his
arrival, he instructed Garcia and Montano to take any re-
maining picket signs in the hall to another location and put
them under lock and key, and to lock the hall.
B. Concluding Findings
There is no doubt, and Respondent apparently does not
dispute, that the picketing of Printing Company on May 14
and 15 induced or encouraged the employees of Printing
Company and those of its suppliers (i.e., members of Re-
spondent) to cease working; an object of the picketing was to
force or require a cessation of business between Printing
Company, its suppliers, and customers; and all of these were
neutrals. It is thus clear, and I find, that the picketing violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. Miami Newspaper
Pressman's Local No. 46 v. N.L.R.B., 322 F.2d 405
(C.A.D.C.); Local 370, United Association of Journeymen &
Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry (Baughan
Plumbing & Heating Co.) 157 NLRB 20. The remaining
question is whether or not such picketing is attributable to
Respondent.
The General Counsel makes no claim that Respondent
established, authorized, or controlled the picket line at Print-
ing Company. His contention is that Respondent is responsi-
ble for the picketing because, in view of the use of picket signs
bearing its local number, Respondent failed to take sufficient
steps to disavow the picketing; and that, on the contrary,
" Also referred to as Kolder.
Koelder testified that during the morning of May 15, he saw a camper-
truck parked near the site of the picketing at Printing Company, that the
vehicle had two signs on it, one of which contained the words "Unfair
Teamsters Local 85," and that he observed pickets going to the truck and
receiving sandwiches and beer. Fanbrim, a member of Respondent, testified
that he owned the truck, that he parked it merely in order to observe the
picketing; that there were some signs in the truck which were visible through
the window but bore no local number, that there were no signs on the outside
of the truck; and that all he gave to pickets was some cold water
10 Goldberger testified that he had talked to the mayor several times that
week, that he had suggested that he bring together as many union officials
as possible for a meeting, but that he could not recall whether he suggested
Richardson's name. The mayor met with "the trucking group" on May 13
and with "some Teamsters officials" on May 14
" Also referred to as Difiny and Diziny.
16 Also referred to as Blackmarr.
" Goldberger testified that he talked to the mayor several times during
the course of the meeting.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent signaled to its members, who drove trucks for
employers who supplied newsprint to Printing Company,
that it supported the picketing, thereby inducing or encourag-
ing them to respect the picket line. In view of such responsi-
bility for unlawful picketing, the General Counsel argues,
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). The
Charging Party contends that Respondent controlled the
pickets, and that it should be held responsible for the picket-
ing because under the ordinary rules of agency, the pickets
became agents of Respondent. Respondent contends that the
record fails to establish that it took insufficient steps to disa-
vow the picketing, and hence fails to establish that it is re-
sponsible therefor. I find that Respondent violated the above
section of the Act.
The facts establish that when picketing commenced at
Printing Company on the morning of May 14, the pickets
carried picket signs which belonged to Respondent and bore
Respondent's local number. Even if, as Respondent contends,
the signs were stolen from its hiring hall and were used with-
out its authorization, such use necessarily created the impres-
sion that Respondent was involved in the picketing. Accord-
ingly, as Respondent apparently recognizes, it was under an
obligation to take reasonable steps to dispel that impression.
So far as the record shows, the only thing done by Respond-
ent's representatives was to retrieve "a couple" of such picket
signs and to alter the local number on all the signs so as to
change them from "Local 85" to a fictitious "Local 185" or
"Local 851."11 Admittedly, it took no other action to repudi-
ate the picketing. Thus, it did not retrieve all the picket signs
bearing its local number. It may be that an attempt to take
physical possession of the signs might have precipitated a
fight, but there is no evidence to show that Respondent's
representatives even asked the pickets to return the signs. In
this connection, I note the absence of evidence showing that
Respondent reported any theft of its signs to the police. More-
over, there is no evidence showing that such representative
made any attempt to tape over or otherwise conceal Respond-
ent's entire local number. Absent a persuasive explanation for
failing to make such an attempt, it is reasonable to infer that
Respondent did not wish to obliterate all reference to its
identity from the picket signs.
In addition, Respondent made no attempt to use radio or
television facilities to repudiate the picketing, and did not
disavow it in any written communication to Printing Com-
pany which the latter could use in an attempt to persuade its
employees to work despite the picket line. Respondent's ex-
planations for these failures have a hollow ring. Even more
significant was Respondent's failure to instruct its members
to cross the picket line at Printing Company's building. Such
conduct contrasted sharply with Richardson's visits to nu-
merous other picketed locations earlier in the week to instruct
members to cross the picket lines and return to work. If, as
Richardson testified, Respondent truly preferred that its
members go back to work, it could easily have told them so."
Not only did it fail to do so, but it made its hiring hall
available to the pickets and aided and supported them with
refreshments. In such circumstances, it is difficult to see how
Respondent's members could regard such conduct as any-
thing but a signal that they should respect the picket line at
11 I find it unnecessary to resolve the conflict in testimony respecting the
Fanbrmi incident Assuming arguendo that Koelder's version were ac-
cepted, there is no evidence that Respondent 's officials were aware of the
conduct attributed to Fanbrini and made no effort to disavow it.
19 I do not credit Richardson's self-contradictory testimony as to why
Respondent's members failed to cross the picket line at Printing Company
(see fn. 7, supra), or his testimony that he failed to instruct them to cross
the line because it was hopeless to do so.
Printing Company. Indeed, it appears that they did interpret
such conduct as a signal, since the picket lines were respected
by all of Respondent's approximately 6,000 members. I can-
not believe that such unanimous action by so large a number
of members could have occurred independently of, and con-
trary to, Respondent's wishes. To do so would be "to over-
look the basic and fundamental realities of industrial life."
Local Union No. 272, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers (Prestress Erector,
Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 19; accord, U.S. v. International
Union, United Mine Workers, 77 F.Supp. 563 (D.D.C.):
McLeod v. Local 25, 1 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(New York Telephone Co.), 57 LRRM 2107 (D.N.Y.).
It is unnecessary to decide whether Respondent was acting
in its own self-interest, or solely to give aid and comfort to
the Teamsters from Los Angeles. Whatever its motives, a
realistic analysis of all the evidence leads me to conclude that,
although Respondent knew that signs which it owned, and
bore its local number, were being used by the pickets at
Printing Company, it took only token affirmative action to
curtail the use of its name and no steps to end the use of the
signs," that it took no other action reasonably calculated to
disavow the picketing," and that this and the other conduct
discussed above constituted "a wink, a nod, a code"22 which
advised its members that Respondent "adopted, supported
and ratified ... the picketing." Millwrights Local 1102 (Dob-
son Heavy Haul, Inc.), 162 NLRB 217, 218.23 Whether or not
such conduct operated to make the pickets technical agents
'° Cf Teamsters Local 783, etc. (Coca-Cola Bottling Co.), 160 NLRB
1776, 1779, which states: "The record is clear, and indeed the Union admits,
that responsible union leaders were made aware of the repeated serious
misconduct Yet they took no effective action to curtail it . .
31 Cf. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local Union No. 337
(All-American Stamp & Premium Corp.), 159 NLRB 1313, 1315, United
Steelworkers, etc, and Local 2118 (Worcester Stamped Metal Co.), 153
NLRB 1561, 1572
22 U.S. v. United Mine Workers, supra, 566-567
33 I reject the Charging Party's contentions in its brief (pp. 9, 10, 20) that
Respondent "was clearly involved in the physical act of picketing", and had
"control over the picketing." For one thing, this is not the General Counsel's
theory of the case. Cf. Local 1012, United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers (General Electric Co.), 187 NLRB No 46. In any event, the evi-
dence relied on does not support the Charging Party's position. The state-
ments made to Gould by an unidentified person at Respondent 's hiring hall
cannot be attributed to Respondent. Nor can Respondent be held accounta-
ble for Goldberger's statement to Koelder about noon on May 14, that the
picketing was a "power play " by Respondent. Although I credit Koelder's
testimony that the statement was made, there is insufficient evidence to
warrant a finding that Goldberger, by virtue of his position as a vice presi-
dent of Joint Council 7, and of that organization's powers vis-a-vis its
affiliated locals, was acting as Respondent's agent at the time he talked to
Koelder. Richardson admittedly talked to Goldberger that day, and he may
well have appointed the council as Respondent 's agent by asking Goldberger
for help . But there is insufficient evidence to show that their conversation
took place before Goldberger made the statement in question
Moreover, Respondent's control over the picketing is not established by
its cessation immediately after the Mayor announced the settlement of the
dispute over the radio It is true that Richardson and Diviny , both officials
of Respondent, were present at the meeting which led to the Mayor's an-
nouncement, and that, as Koelder testified, the mayor stated over the radio
that he had assurances from "local" as well as other Teamsters that the
picketing would be called off. The presence of the two officials, however,
may be regarded as evidence of their desire to assist in persuading the Los
Angeles Teamsters to call off the picketing. The mayor 's statement regard-
mg the assurances given him by "local" Teamsters is equally unpersuasive
for several reasons It was hearsay . The mayor did not specifically identify
who gave the assurances . The statement may be interpreted to mean that
the Local Teamsters had helped persuade their brothers in Los Angeles to
agree to call off the picketing, and had assured the Mayor that he could rely
on their agreement
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 85
of Respondent, it had the effect of making Respondent re-
sponsible for the unlawful picketing and I so find.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The picketing of Printing Company on May 14 or 15,
1970, induced or encouraged the employees of Printing Com-
pany and those of its suppliers to cease work.
2. An object of such picketing was to force or require a
cessation of business between Printing Company, its suppli-
ers, and its customers, all of whom were neutrals.
3. Respondent is responsible for such picketing and, there-
fore, has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
4. The said unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it
is necessary that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found above. The General
Counsel contends that a broad remedial order should be is-
sued, and I agree. The record, as well as reported decisions
of the Board," establish that Respondent has repeatedly been
ordered to cease and desist from engaging in similar viola-
tions of the Act. The record, as well as evidence of which I
take official notice," also shows that Respondent has been
adjudged to be in contempt of court by reason of its disobedi-
ence and refusal to comply with a temporary injunction or-
der. Where, as here, Respondent's proclivity to disregard the
Act and court orders is demonstrated, a broad order is war-
ranted. N.L.R.B. v. Local 282, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, 344 F.2d 649 (C.A. 2).
Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent be or-
dered to cease and desist from secondary activity against any
person where an object of such activity is to force or require
such person to cease doing business with any other person.
Teamsters Local 85 (Victory Transportation Service, Inc.),
footnote 24, supra.
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:26
ORDER
Respondent, Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck
Drivers Local No, 85, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or en-
couraging any individual employed by San Francisco News-
paper Printing Company, Inc., its suppliers, or any other
person engaged in interstate commerce or in an industry
affecting such commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in
the course of such individual's employment to use, manufac-
" ° Teamsters Local 85 (Viking Delivery Service, Inc), 186 NLRB No. 72,
Teamsters Local 85 (Victory Transportation Service, Inc.,) 180 NLRB No.
109, Teamsters Local 85 (Pacific Motor Trucking Co.), 175 NLRB No. 112,
Teamsters Local 85 (W.S. Hatch Co., Inc.), 162 NLRB 968.
" Hoffman v. San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, et al, N D.
Cal., Civil No. C-70 895 WTS, Orders and Adjudications in Civil and
Criminal Contempt, Dec. 24, 1970.
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
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.
111
ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any
goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any
services, where an object thereof is to force or require Print-
ing Company or any other person to cease doing business
with Printing Company's suppliers, its customers or any
other person; provided, however, that nothing here shall be
construed to forbid Respondent to engage in an otherwise
lawful strike, or in any lawful picketing or other lawful ac-
tivity in support of such a strike.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post in its business offices, meeting halls, hiring halls
and other places where notices to members are customarily
posted by Respondent, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."27 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed
by a representative of the Respondent shall be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Forthwith mail copies of the said notice to the said
Regional Director at the office of the said Region in San
Francisco, California, after such notices have been signed as
provided above, for posting by Printing Company, it it so
agrees, at places where it customarily posts notices to its
employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith."
" 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."
28 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, withm 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any
individual employed by San Francisco Newspaper Print-
ing Company, Inc., its suppliers, or any other person
engaged in interstate commerce or in an industry affect-
ing such commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in
the course of such individual's employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities,
or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to
force or require the said Printing Company or any other
person to cease doing business with Printing Company's
suppliers, its customers, or any other person. Nothing
herein shall be construed to forbid us to engage in an
otherwise lawful strike, or in lawful picketing or other
lawful activity in support of such a strike.
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS & AUTO TRUCK
DRIVERS LOCAL No. 85,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS,
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHAUFFEURS, This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
WAREHOUSEMEN & from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
HELPERS OF AMERICA covered by any other material.
(Labor Organization) Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050
Dated By Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San
(Representative) (Title) Francisco, California, Telephone 556-0335.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.