Teamsters Local 600 (Directory Distributing)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1103 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 600 (DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING)
Highway and City Freight Drivers, Dockmen and
Helpers Local Union No. 600 (Directory Dis-
tributing Associates) and Ray Randolph. Case
14-CB-6317
30 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND'BABSON
On 12 June 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order. I
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Highway
and City Freight Drivers , Dockmen and Helpers
Local Union No. 600, St.'Louis, Missouri , its offi-
cers , agents, and representatives , shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
i The Respondent excepts to the language of the backpay provision in
the judge's recommended Order, arguing that the judge failed to take
into account the periodic nature of the Employer 's business This matter
is best left for the compliance stage of this proceeding
Sharon G. Birenbaum, Esq. and Stephen B. Smith, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Cary Hammond, Esq. (Diekemper, Hammond & Shinners),
of St. Louis, Missouri, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard at St. Louis, Missouri, on 21 March
19851 pursuant to a charge filed on 31 January by Ray
Randolph, an individual, and a complaint issued on 26
February.
The complaint, which was amended at the hearing, al-
leges Highway and City Freight Drivers, Dockmen and
Helpers Local Union No. 600 (the Respondent) violated
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act) by filing charges against and fining Ray Ran-
dolph, a member of the Respondent, $1000 for acting in
accordance with his duties as a supervisor under Section
' All dates referred to are in 1985 unless otherwise stated.
1103
2(11) of the Act and as a natural and potential represent-
ative of Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. (the Em-
ployer) for the purposes of collective bargaining or the
adjustment of grievances and causing the Employer to
refuse to employ Ray Randolph. as a leadman , thereby
restraining and coercing the Employer in the selection of
its representative for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or the adjustment of grievances.
The Respondent in its answer served on 5 March
denies Randolph is a supervisor under the Act or having
violated the Act as alleged. While the answer further al-
leges the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, inasmuch as the allegations on their
face clearly allege a violation under the Act this defense
is rejected.
The issues are whether Ray Randolph is a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
whether the Respondent unlawfully restrained and' co-
erced the Employer and violated Section.8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act by filing charges against and fining Ray Ran-
dolph $1000 and causing the Employer to refuse to
employ Ray Randolph as a leadman.
On the entire record-in this case, from my observation
of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent I make
the following2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Directory Distributing Associates, Inc., a Missouri
corporation with its office and place of business located
at St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the business of the
distribution of telephone directories. During the 12-
month period preceding 31 August 1984, in the course of
its operations, it provided services valued in excess of
$50,000 to Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, an
enterprise located within the State of Missouri which is
directly engaged in interstate commerce.
Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. -
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Highway and City Freight Drivers, Dockmen and
Helpers Local Union No. 600 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Employer, with an office and place of business lo-
cated at St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the distribu-
tion of telephone directories in about 40 States. Since
1945, as part of its operations, it has distributed telephone
directories for Southwestern Bell Telephone in the great-
er St. Louis, Missouri area. It makes three deliveries a
2 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings,
admissions , stipulations , and undisputed evidence contained in the record,
which I credit -
276 NLRB No. 116
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
year there and each delivery period lasts approximately 4
to"6 weeks.` To facilitate these deliveries the Employer
has four temporary delivery offices. They are located at
153 Ferry Road, -50 St. Francis Place, 225 Old- Sulphur
Springs Road, and 6403 Clemons. Each of these loca-
tions, except for the 6403 Clemons address (the Main
Office), are similar with a building and an adjacent yard
where the semitrailers are spotted and carriers' vehicles
are loaded with bundles of directories for delivery to
customers. Unlike these three locations the Main Office
has its own-yard facility (the Yard) which is located sev-
eral blocks away at the corner of Kingsland and Vernon.
David Mohme, who -is employed as a supervisor on a
full-time basis by the Employer, is in charge of the Main
Office. There are also three full-time supervisors under
Mohme in charge of- each of the other, three locations.
The employees employed at these four locations include
employees who load the carriers' vehicles with directo-
ries and clerical employees in addition, to errand boys
and mailroom personnel employed at the Main Office.
These are all part-time employees who are only em-
ployed for that particular delivery'period.
The employees used to load the -carriers' vehicles,
which normally include six employees each at two of the
locations, three employees at another location, and seven
employees at the Yard, are members of the Respondent
and are referred to the Employer by the Respondent's
hiring hall.
Supervisor Mohme, who hires all of the personnel
needed for these deliveries, upon learning the starting
date for the particular delivery period contacts the :Re-
spondent's hiring hall and informs Robert Ramshaw Jr.,
who was manager of the hiring hall,3 how many em-
ployees he wants at each location to load the carriers'
vehicles, whereupon the employees are then sent to the
jobsites by the Respondent. Mohme is also allowed to
ask for one person by name,-referred to as a leadman, at
each of these four locations. These hiring arrangements
are pursuant to an agreement between the Employer and
the.Respondent. This agreement, as set forth in a letter
from-the Respondent to the Employer dated 24 February
1981, provides that the Employer has.the right to choose
one leadman for each location; the Employer will call
the Respondent's hiring hall for any additional people
needed; and the people would be laid off at each location
in the reverse order as they were called out of the hiring
hall. During 1980 when the Employer attempted to make
the deliveries without using the Respondent's members
the Respondent picketed the Employer's premises. The
pickets were removed after the Employer agreed, as set
forth in a letter dated 12 August 1980, to continue using
day labor from the Respondent to unload the directories
during the initial distribution of telephone directories
B. The Supervisory Status of Ray Randolph
Ray Randolph,- who has been a member of the Re-
spondent since February 1969, was initially referred to
the Employer for employment by the Respondent's
hiring hall. However in 1973 Supervisor Mohme made
Randolph a supervisor and put him in charge of the
Yard where he continued to work until 22 August 1984
during the periods deliveries of directories were made.
On those occasions Mohme would request Randolph by
name from the Respondent's hiring hall as one of the
leadman and Randolph obtained his employment on
those occasions by Supervisor Mohme contacting him di-
rectly.
Randolph's duties and responsibilities at the Yard con-
sisted of logging in the arrival times of trailers and noti-
fying Supervisor Mohme when they were emptied;
making sure there was an orderly flow of traffic by the
carriers to pick up the directories for delivery to custom-
ers; directing the three-man crews as to the number of
bundles of directories to be loaded on each carrier's ve-
hicle; insuring that the carriers' vehicles were properly
loaded with the correct number of directories; locking
up at the end of each day the conveyors used to unload
directories from the trailers; purchasing ice for water and
kerosene for the heaters; and when new employees first
reported to the Yard after being referred by the Re-
spondent's hiring hall providing them with forms to fill
out listing their names, addresses, social security num-
bers, marital status , and number of dependents, which in-
formation was, then given to Supervisor Mohme to use in
preparing their pay forms. Randolph, who was hourly
paid, reported to Supervisor Mohme. Randolph directed
the crews in loading and normally did not do any load-
ing himself. Whenever employees needed to take time off
from work they would ask Randolph, who had the au-
thority to grant them time off. Randolph also had the au-
thority to discharge employees and while working there
he discharged quite a few of them. Included among the
employees discharged were three employees in 1979 who
were discharged for sliding books across and damaging a
carrier's vehicle an employee and.in 1983 an employee
for calling customers names. Two other employees Ran-
dolph fired were Elmer Lindsey, who was fired over 5
years ago, and a Mr. Bull, who was fired between 1974
and 1976. Randolph also selected which employees were
to work together in the crews. Although Supervisor
Mohme decided the number of employees to be laid off
when work got slack, Randolph selected the employees
who were actually laid off whenever the Respondent
had not funiished referral slips Under the hiring hall
agreement employees were to be laid off in the reverse
covering St. Louis City and county and to continue to' order they were referred by the Respondent. However,
use the services of the Respondent's labor in the same
manner as it had during the preceding 20 years..
Ray Randolph, the discriminatee, was employed part
time by the Employer each year from 1970 to 22 August
1984 during the periods the directories were delivered..
the Respondent did not always provide referral slips
which contained the number showing the order in which
employees were referred to the job and on those occa-
sions Randolph would make his own-determination as to
which employees were to be laid off.4 On those occa-
3 Ramshaw held that position from August 1984 through February 4 The Employer's supervisors at the other locations made their own
1985. decisions on which employees working under them were to be laid off
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 600 (DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING)
sions Randolph would keep whom' he considered his best
employees.
Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as "any
individual having authority, in the interest of the em-
ployer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees,
or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their griev-
ances, or effectively to recommend such action; if in
connection with the foregoing the exercise of such au-
thority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment." An individual
need only have one of the indicia enumerated to be a su-
pervisor. Research Designing Service, 141 NLRB 211
(1963)
Based on the above evidence which establishes Ran-
dolph was a supervisor in charge of the Yard; directed
the work force employed there by assigning them work
and making sure it was carried out ; and possessed and
exercised the authority to select members of the crews,
grant employees time off, discharge employees, and
select employees for layoff, I am persuaded and find con-
trary to' the Respondent's denial, that Randolph was a
supervisor within the meaning of 'Section 2(11) of the
Act.
C. The Charge and Fine Levied Against Ray
Randolph'
Prior to the delivery of directories scheduled for July
and August 1984 Supervisor Whine contacted the Re-
spondent's manager Ramshaw and requested six employ-
ees and Randolph as leadman for work at the Yard. The
six employees referred to the Yard by' the 'Respondent,
who then worked under Randolph, did not have referral
slips. After these employees had worked'- about 2-1/2
weeks the work slacked off and on 10 August 1984
Mohme instructed Randolph to keep the best three em-
ployees and to let the other three employees go: Ran-
dolph, after first attempting on two occasions to call
Manager Ramshaw, who was not in, to find out, the
order in which the employees had been referred to the
job, then made the decision on which employees to keep
and which employees to lay off. That same day he laid
off Marvin Mitchell, Steve Peck, and Donald Sparks.
The three employees retained, which included Ran-
'dolph's son , Gary Randolph, and two of his nephews,
Orvelle Hulen and Jack Hulen , continued to work a
couple more weeks. Randolph claimed his son and two
nephews were his best three employees.
Following the layoff of\these employees Manager
Ramshaw contacted 'Supervisor Mohme ' by telephone
and informed him he had a list of order in which the em-
ployees' were to be laid off and "according to 'his, list
Mohme had let the wrong employees-,go. Mohme point-
ed out Ramshaw's'list did not help Mohme and he did
not know 'which employees were to be released first but
had told Randolph to let three employees go and Ran-
dolph had followed his instructions.
On 13 August Manager Ramshaw, accompanied by
two of the laid-off employees, Marvin Mitchell' arid,,
Donald Sparks, went to the Yard-where Randolph and
two other employees- were working in the trailer.- On
their arrival Ramshaw informed Randolph he was going
1105
to bring the two employees working in the trailer out
and was going to put Sparks and Mitchell to work. Ram-
shaw then went into the trailer and told the two employ-
ees working there to come out. However, Randolph in-
structed them to stay in the trailer because Ramshaw
was not their boss.
Manager Ramshaw, accompanied by another unidenti-
fied man from the Respondent, then went over to Super-
visor Mohme's office followed by Randolph. Ramshaw
informed Mohme the employees had been laid off incor-
rectly and he had a correct list. Mohme pointed out the
laid-off employees' pay forms had already been forward-
ed through, channels for their checks to be made out and,
it would be a tremendous inconvenience to change ev-
erything to suit Ramshaw's list. After reminding Ram-
shaw that in the past they had referral slips to. go by but
had nothing in writing on this occasion, Mohme said the
decision would stand. Ramshaw then asked who decided
which employees would .stay and who would go and
when Mohme replied Randolph made the decision Ram-
shaw remarked he would see Randolph at the Yard.
On returning to the Yard Ramshaw informed two of
Randolph's employees they would never work anymore
'out of the Respondent's hiring hall and told Randolph
'that he was going to get Randolph's book.
That delivery period ended on 22 August 1984.
Randolph, who had had no further communication
with the Respondent at the time, went, to the Respond-
ent's hall on 29 August 1984, at which time he obtained
withdrawal cards for himself and his son and two neph-
ews. To obtain his withdrawal card Randolph made sure
that his dues for August were paid up'anJ'paid an addi-
tional 50 cents to the woman working at the Respond-
ent's hall who had worked there for many years.
Randolph's practice in the past when completing the
periods for delivering directories and there was no work
available was- to obtain his withdrawal card using the
same procedure. The Respondent's records covering the
period '8 July 1981 through 29 August 1984 reflect Ran-
dolph had obtained his withdrawal card on a number of
occasions, including on 29 August 1984.
The Respondent's manager Ramshaw sent Supervisor
Mohme a letter dated 15 August 1984 advising him when
using employees from the Respondent 's hiring hall it was
necessary for him to adhere to the practice that the first
employee had the most seniority and would be the last
employee to be laid off and that=Ramshaw would furnish
Mohme with a list of employees and the last person on
the list would be the first person to be laid off:
A charge was filed with the Respondent by Manager
Ramshaw and Donald Sparks alleging on 13 August
1984 Randolph did not comply with the Respondent's
hiring hall rules and regulations by' refusing Ramshaw's
request that he. comply with seniority at his jobsite,
which Randolph refused, and that Sparks had lost about
a week's wages because Randolph kept three employees
who were all Randolph's relatives while letting Sparks
and another member of the Respondent go.
The Respondent notified Randolph by letter dated 9
October 1984 that charges were being filed against him
by Manager Ramshaw under article 22, section 22.01(b),
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c), and (i),5 of the Respondent's constitution and bylaws
and that the charges specifically were-"you are acting in
a capacity of an employer and that you are refusing to
use men supplied you by Local 600's hiring hall." The
letter further requested Randolph to be present at the
next executive board meeting to be held on 19 October
1984.
The minutes of the Respondent's executive board
meeting held on 19 October 1984, which Randolph did
not attend, reflect that the charges against Randolph
were read charging him with not complying with the
rules and regulations of the Respondent's hiring hall, that
the charges were filed under article 22, section 22.01(b),
and (i) of the Respondent's constitution and bylaws, and
that Randolph's action costs two members of the Re-
spondent each at least a week's pay and it was decided
Randolph would be fined $1000.
The Respondent informed Randolph by letter dated 20
November 1984 that he had failed to appear before the
executive board on 19 October 1984 for charges brought
against him and the executive board at that hearing had
found him guilty of violating article 22, section 22.01(b),
(c), and (i) of the-Respondent's constitution and bylaws,
and that he was being fined $1000 payable 30 days from
the date of the letter in accordance with section 23.08,
and that under section 23 09 of the bylaws he had the
right to appeal the decision. -
Randolph has not paid the fine imposed.
D. The Refusal to Employ Ray Randolph
On 23 January Randolph was informed by Supervisor
Mohme the new directories would be out about 30 or 31
January. During this meeting Randolph.showed Mohme
the letters he had received from the Respondent earlier
about the charge and fine levied against him.
On 25 January Randolph went to the Respondent's
hall and talked to President Tim Barnes, Business . Repre-
sentative Donald Lane, and Secretary-Treasurer Robert
Robertson. Randolph, in reference to the Employer's
job, told them they ought to try to get along on the job.
During the conversation Randolph mentioned he did not
think his $1000 fine was right or constitutional because
he was on withdrawal and not an active member. How-
ever, Lane replied it was legitimate and that was the
way it should be. Barnes also informed Randolph he was
going to try and get Randolph's job. -
On 28 January Randolph, who knew the directories
would be out about 30 or 31 January, went to the Re-
spondent's hall and asked the woman working there
what it would cost him to get his union book.out. After
checking, the woman, who he had always dealt with in
5 This article and sections provide as follows
Section 22 01 The basis for charges against officers and , members of
this organization for which they shall be required to stand trial as
hereinafter provided shall consist of one or more of the following
(b) Violation of the responsibilities of members to this organization
as an institution
(c) Any action which is disruptive of or interferes with the per-
formance or obligations of other members of Local Unions under
collective bargaining agreements
(i) Abuse of fellow members or officers in the meeting hall
the past, informed him he could not get his union book
out until he saw Barnes. Randolph did not see Barnes on
that occasion.
The procedure Randolph had always used in the past
to go off of withdrawal and get his union book was to
pay his dues for that month to become a member in
good standing.
About 28 January Manager Ramshaw made an ap-
pointment to see Supervisor Mohme at Mohme's office
where Ramshaw reminded Mohme of the Respondent's
15 August 1984 letter to Mohme concerning how em-
ployees hired through the Respondent's' hiring hall were
to be laid off according to seniority so there would be no
problem' with the new delivery of directories.
That evening Supervisor Mohme contacted Randolph
and- informed him Manager Ramshaw had been to see
him and everything was alright and there was not going
to be any problem.
The next day, 29 January, Randolph returned to the
Respondent's hall and paid the dues for two other mem-
bers, Steve Seidenstricker and Larry Seidenstricker.
While there . Randolph again asked the woman about
paying his dues; however, she again informed him she
could not accept any dues from him until he saw Barnes,
who she said was out of town and would not be back
until Friday, which would have been 1 February.
On 30 January Supervisor Mohme, who had learned
the directories would be available on 31 January, called
Manager Ramshaw and requested employees for each of
the four locations and requested four leadmen by name,
including Randolph. Ramshaw, iiformed him that would
be fine. However, within an hour or so later, Ramshaw
called Mohme and asked him to 'contact Randolph and
have Randolph call Ramshaw because there seemed to
be a problem with Randolph's dues.
That same day Mohme called Randolph and gave him
the message saying he needed to get it straightened out if
he wanted to work. Randolph also said he did not see
why he had to pay dues for the month of January in
order to work 1 day on 31 January,' but that he would
go down to the hall and get it straightened out.
After this conversation Manager Ramshaw called..Su-
pervisor Mohme that 'same day and informed him he
would not be , able to use Randolph' because' his dues
were not current and asked Mohme who he would like
as a leadman at the Yard. Mohme told Ramshaw they
would move Paul Steinbrook there from 'another location
and he would leave it. up to Ramshaw. who to send to
replace Steinbrook at his old location. '
Supervisor Mohme then called Randolph that day and
informed him Manager Ramshaw had called and Mohme
told Randolph they could not use him because of the
dues situation . Although Mohme indicated to Randolph
if he got his union book back he- could come back to
work, Randolph told Mohme it was the last'day of. the
month and he did not think he would get his book out.
However, Randolph said since he was not handling di-
rectories he did not really need a• union book which was
for people handling them. Mohme repeated Randolph
could not work and told him to' call the'Employer's vice
president Jack ' Ross and gave him Ross ' telephone
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 600,(DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING) 1107
number. During the 'conversation after Mohme told Ran-
dolph they could not use him Randolph also said he was
not going to pay the whole month's dues for 1 day.6
Randolph explained that the reason he was not going
to get his union book out was because if he did he could
not get withdrawal status again until he paid the $1000
fine, that without being on withdrawal status his dues
would be $36 a month whether he was working or not,
and that if he did not pay his dues for 3 months he
would be automatically suspended from membership.'
Although Randolph called Vice President Ross, Ross'
position was he had ,an agreement which he had to go
along with, whereupon Randolph mentioned he was
going to the Labor Board about the situation.
On 30 January Ramshaw called Supervisor Mohme
and told him there was also a dues problem with Stein-
brook and requested Steinbrook's telephone number. It
was discussed between them whichever man paid his
dues by 5 p.m. would be the leadman at the Yard and it
was left up to Ramshaw to send some one else if neither
Randolph nor Steinbrook paid his dues. Later that day
Ramshaw informed Mohme that Steinbrook would be
the leadman at the Yard. Steinbrook at the time of the
hearing was still the supervisor there.
Randolph was not employed by the Employer in Janu-
ary and although he has been available to work he has
not worked there since. Supervisor Mohme, who wanted
to use Randolph for the January delivery, did not do so.
According to Mohme, his sole reason was because he
was told by the Respondent he could not use Randolph
as Randolph's dues were not current.
All of the above findings are based on letters and doc-
uments and the undenied testimony of Supervisor
Mohme and Ray Randolph, which I credit. '
E. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends, contrary to the Re-
spondent's denials, that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by unlawfully filing charges against
and fining member Ray Randolph $1000 and causing the
Employer to refuse to employ Randolph as a leadman
for acting in accordance with his duties as a supervisor
under the Act and as a natural and potential representa-
tive of the Employer, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or the adjustment of grievances, thereby restrain-
ing and coercing the Employer in the selection of its rep-
resentative for the purpose of collective bargaining or
the-adjustment of grievances.
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a union from
restraining or coercing an employer in the selection of its
representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
or the adjustment of grievances.
Discipline.by a union of its member who serves as an
employer representative within the meaning of Section
6 Randolph denied he had any intention of not paying the whole
month 's dues for January.
° Art. XVIII, sec- 18 03, of the Respondent 's constitution and bylaws
provides for members . who leave employment to obtain a withdrawal
card , upon the payment of 50 cents plus all dues, assessments , and fines
due at the time Upon subsequently obtaining employment employees can
then - be readmitted to membership in good standing by paying the cur-
rent month 's dues -
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act violates that section only when it
,.may adversely affect the supervisor's conduct in per-
forming the duties of, and acting in the capacity as,
grievance adjuster or collective bargainer on behalf of
the employer." Iron Workers Local 46 (Cement League),
259 NLRB 70 (1981), enfd. in part sub nom. NLRB v.
Lathers Local 46, 727 F.2d 234 (2d Cit. 1984).
Under Board law all supervisors under Section 2(11)
of the Act are representatives within the intent of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) of•the Act even absent evidence those
persons are specifically vested with 'authority to act for
the employer in collective bargaining or the adjustment
of grievances. Teamsters Local 296 (Northwest Publica-
tions), 263 NLRB 778, 779 fn. 6 (1982). _
The Board in its decision in Typographical Union 18
(Northwest Publications), 172 NLRB 2173 (1968), in
which it held a union violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the
Act by imposing fines and other discipline upon
foremen/members for allegedly violating the contract be-
tween their employer and- the union regarding work as-
signments made the following observation (id. at 2174):
[T]he relationship primarily affected is the one be-
tween the Union and the Employer, since the un-
derlying question was the interpretation of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between the parties.
The relationship between 'the Union and its mem-
bers appears to have been of only secondary impor-
tance, used as a convenient and, it would seem,
powerful tool to affect the employer-union relation-
ship; i.e., to compel the Employer's foremen to take
prounion positions in interpreting the collective-bar-
gaining agreement. The-'Purpose and effect of Re-
spondent's conduct literally and directly contra-
vened the statutory policy of allowing the Employ-
er an unimpeded choice of representative for collec-
tive bargaining and settlement of grievances. In our
view it fell outside the legitimate internal interests
of the Union.
The above principles have consistently been applied by
the Board in finding union disciplinary actions against su-
pervisors to be unlawful where they are rooted in dis-
putes between employers and unions over the interpreta-
tion of their collective-bargaining agreement. Teamsters
Local 524 (Yakima County Beverage);. 212 NLRB 908
(1974). •
• The above findings establish Randolph was a supervi-
sor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Acting in his supervisory capacity Randolph on 10
August 1984 at the direction of Supervisor Mohme to lay
off three employees and keep the best three employees,
he selected for layoff and laid off three employees while
retaining three other employees who were all related to
him and who he contended were his best employees.
None of these employees upon being referred by the Re-
spondent at the time he was hired was furnished-with a
referral slip by the Respondent showing the order in
which he was referred to, the job. The Respondent,
through its Manager Ramshaw, protested to the Employ-
er's supervisor Mohme and. to' Randolph his selection of
the employees laid off contending the wrong employees
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were laid-off and that under the hiring hall agreement
they should have been laid off according to their seniori-
ty. Not only did Ramshaw's unsuccessful attempt to re-
place two of the employer, retained on the job with two
of the laid-off employees, 'namely Donald Sparks and
Marvin Mitchell, by ordering the two employees work-
ing to leave the job, which order was countermanded by
Randolph, but Ramshaw then threatened the two em-
ployees they would never work out of-the Respondent's
hiring hall again and threatened Randolph that he was
going to get Randolph's union book. -
Ramshaw and Sparks together then filed a charge with
the Respondent against - Randolph arising out of his
laying off the employees, whereupon the Respondent by
letter dated 9 October 1984 informed Randolph he was
charged with violating the Respondent's constitution and
bylaws by acting in a capacity of an employer and refus-
ing to use men supplied by the Respondent's hiring hall.
Randolph, who was on withdrawal status from the Re-
spondent at the time, which was his usual practice when
no work was available, was found guilty as charged by
the Respondent's executive board on 19 October 1984
and was fined $1000 by the Respondent. When Randolph
later complained to the Respondent's officials, President
Barnes, Business Representative Lane, and Secretary-
Treasurer Robertson, on 25 January that he-did not think
his fine was right or constitutional, Lane disputed this
claiming the fine was legitimate and Barnes threatened
Randolph that he was going to get Randolph's job.
Upon Randolph attempting to be employed by the
Employer for the next delivery of directories beginning
31 January, the Employer consistent with its practice
since 1973 planned to' and would have hired Randolph.
However, the Respondent' s manager Ramshaw on 30
January informed Supervisor Mohme he would not be
able to use Randolph because his dues were not current,
as. a result of which the Employer acceded to the Re-
spondent's- demands and'Randolph was not employed by
the Employer either on that occasion or since. This oc-
curred notwithstanding Randolph, consistent with prior
procedures, on 28 and again on 29 January had previous-
ly attempted- to pay his dues and to get his union book
back but was. prevented from doing so until he saw
Barnes, who, as noted, was the person that had only a
few days before threatened to get Randolph's job. Previ-
ously, "Manager Ramshaw had threatened to get Ran-
dolph's union book. Further, had Randolph secured his
union book on that occasion he no longer would have
been able to go on withdrawal status as was his usual
practice when there"was no work available until he paid
the $1000 fine levied against him, which thereby would
have required him to continue paying his dues even
though he was not working or be expelled from member-
ship in the Respondent for nonpayment of dues. Thus, it
is clear from the evidence the Respondent about 9 Octo-
ber 1984 filed a charge against and on 19 October 1984
fined Randolph $1000 and caused the Employer not to
rehire Randolph as a leadman on 31 January or since be-
cause Randolph acting in his supervisory authority on
behalf of the Employer laid off three employees whose
selection the Respondent found objectionable under the
hiring hall agreement, and sought by its actions, includ-
ing threats directed against Randolph to get' his union
book and his job, to impose upon Randolph and the Em-
ployer its own selection of which employees should have
been laid off under its interpretation of the hiring hall
agreement. -
Under these circumstances, and considered in light of
the applicable law, I am persuaded and find the Re-
spondent restrained and coerced the Employer in the se-
lection of its representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by filing it charge against
and fining supervisor/member Ray ,Randolph and caus-
ing the Employer on 31 January 1985 and since not to
employ Randolph as a leadman in its attempt to impose
the Respondent's interpretation of the hiring hall agree-
ment on Randolph and to infringe upon the Employer's
control over Randolph. Even the Respondent's own
letter to Randolph about the charge reveals its actions
were being taken against him for acting in the capacity
of an employer, which refutes any contention the Re-
spondent's actions were limited to internal union matters.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, found to constitute unfair labor"practices oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Em-
ployer described in section I,- above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS-OF LAW
1. Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion. 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Highway and City Freight Drivers, Dockmen and
Helpers Local Union No. 600 is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. - -
3. By filing a charge against and fining Ray Randolph
$1000 because he allegedly violated the hiring hall agree-
ment between the Respondent and the Employer, the
Respondent has restrained and coerced the Employer in
the selection and retention of its representative for-col-
lective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances and
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the- meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. ' -
4. By causing the Employer since about 31 January
1985 not to employ Ray Randolph as a leadman because
he allegedly violated the hiring hall agreement between
the Respondent and the Employer, the Respondent has
restrained and coerced the Employer in the selection and
retention of its representative for collective bargaining or
the adjustment of grievances and has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
of the Act.
.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 600 (DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING)
11
THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent has engaged ' in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the
Act I shall recommend that it cease and'desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Accordingly, the Respondent shall be ordered to re-
scind the unlawful charge filed against and the $1000 fine
imposed upon Ray Randolph and to expunge from its
records all references to the charge and fine and notify
Randolph in writing that the rescission and expunction of
the charge and fine have been taken.
To remedy causing the Employer not to employ Ran-
dolph the Respondent shall be ordered to make Ran-
dolph whole for any loss of earnings and benefits he may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against -him from 31 January 1985 when it caused
the Employer not to employ Randolph until he is em-
ployed by the Employer to his former or substantially
equivalent job or until Randolph obtains substantially
equivalent employment elsewhere. Further,'the Respond-
ent shall notify the Employer in writing, with a copy to
Randolph, that it has no objection to Randolph. being
employed as a leadman and affirmatively request that the
Employer employ Randolph for the job which he would
have had were it not for the Respondent's unlawful con-
duct or for a substantially equivalent job. Backpay shall
be computed in the manner set forth in F." W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon as pre-
scribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See
generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
The Respondent shall also be ordered to expunge from
its records any references to the refusal of the Employer
to employ Randolph and to notify Randolph, in writing,
this has been done and that evidence of this unlawful
action will not be used as a basis for future personnel ac-
tions against Randolph.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent, Highway and City Freight Drivers,
Dockmen and Helpers Local Union No. 600, St. Louis,
Missouri , by its officers, agents , and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Restraining and coercing Directory Distributing
Associates, Inc. in the selection of its representatives for
the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment
of grievances by filing charges against or imposing fines
upon such representatives for allegedly violating the
hiring hall agreement between Directory Distributing
Associates, Inc. and Highway and City Freight Drivers,
Dockmen and Helpers Local Union No. 600.
(b) Restraining and coercing Directory Distributing
Associates, Inc. in the selection of its representatives for
8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
1109
the purposes of collective bargaining or-the adjustment
of grievances by causing it 'not- to employ such represent-
atives for allegedly violating- the hiring hall agreement
between Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. and
Highway and City Freight Drivers, Dockmen and Help-
ers Local Union No. 600. -
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing Directory Distributing Associates, Inc., in the selec-
tion or retention of its representatives for the purposes of
collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act. - - .
- (a) Rescind the charge filed against and the $1000 fine
imposed upon Ray Randolph and expunge from its
record all references to the charge and fine.
(b) Notify Ray Randolph, in writing; that the rescis-
sion and expunction of the charge and fine and have
been taken.
'-(c) Make Ray Randolph whole for any loss of earnings
and benefits he may have suffered by reason of its dis-
crimination against him from 31 January 1985 when it
caused Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. not to
employ him until he is employed by Directory Distribut-
ing Associates, Inc. to his former or substantial equiva-
lent job or until he -obtains substantially equivalent em-
ployment elsewhere in the manner set forth in that sec-
tion of, this decision entitled-"The Remedy."
(d) Notify Directory Distributing Associates, Inc., in-
writing, with a copy to Ray Randolph, that it has no ob-
jection to Randolph serving as a leadman and request
that Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. employ Ran-
dolph as a leadman or in a substantially equivalent job.
(e) Expunge from its records any references to the re-
fusal of Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. to
employ Ray Randolph and notify Randolph, in writing,
this has been done and that evidence of this unlawful
conduct will not be used as basis for future personnel ac-
tions against Randolph.
(f) Post at its office, hiring hall, and all other places
where it customarily posts notices to members copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent-immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by ,the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(g) Forward signed copies of the notice to the Region-
al Director for Region 14 for posting by Directory Dis-
tributing Associates, Inc., if willing, at all locations
where notices to its employees in the greater St. Louis,
Missouri area are customarily posted.
8 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(h) Notify the Regional Director in, writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the amended com-
plaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor prac-
tices not specifically found.
DECISION
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain and coerce Directory Distribut-
ing Associates , Inc. in the selection of its representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjust-
ment of grievances by filing charges against or, imposing
fines upon such representatives for allegedly violating
the hiring hall agreement between Directory Distributing
Associates, Inc. and Highwat and City Freight Drivers,
Dockmen and Helpers Local Union No. -600.
WE WILL NOT restrain and coerce Directory Distribut-
ing Associates, Inc. in the selection of their representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the ad-
justment of grievances by causing it not to employ such
representatives for allegedly violating the hiring hall
agreement between Directory Distributing Associates,
Inc. and Highway and City Freight Drivers, Dockmen
and Helpers Local Union No. 600.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. in the se-
lection or retention of its representatives for the purposes
of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
WE WILL rescind the charge filed against and the
$1000 fine imposed upon Ray Randolph and WE WILL
expunge from our records all references to the charge
and fine.
WE WILL notify Ray Randolph, in writing, that the re-
scission and expunction of the charge and fine have been
taken.
WE WILL make Ray Randolph whole for any loss of
earnings and benefits he may have suffered by reason of
our discrimination against him from 31 January 1985
when we caused Directory Distributing Associates, Inc.
not to employ Randolph until he is employed by Direc-
tory Distributing Associates, Inc. to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent job or until Randolph obtains sub-
stantailly equivalent employment elsewhere.
WE WILL expunge from our records any references to
the refusal of Directory Distributing Associates, Inc. to
employ Ray Randolph and WE WILL notify Randolph, in
writing, this has been done and that evidence of this un-
lawful conduct will not be used as a basis for future per-
sonnel actions against him.
HIGHWAY AND CITY FREIGHT DRIVERS
DOCKMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION
No. 600