Teamsters Local 710 (University Of Chicago)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Highway Drivers, Dockmen , Spotters , Rampmen,
Meat Packing House and Allied Products Driv-
ers And Helpers , Office Workers and Miscella-
neous Employees , Local 710, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and Univer-
sity of Chicago. Case 13-CP-467
14 March 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
Upon a charge filed on 31 March 19831 by the
Employer, University of Chicago, against the Re-
spondent, Teamsters Local 710, the Regional Di-
rector for Region 13 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint on 8 April alleging
that the Respondent had violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act. On
20 April the Respondent filed an answer admitting
the factual allegations of the complaint but denying
the commission of any unfair labor practice.
On 11 August the Employer, the Respondent,
and the General Counsel entered into a stipulation
of facts and filed a motion with the Board seeking
to have the proceeding transferred directly to the
Board for decision. In their motion the parties
agreed that the stipulation of facts, with the at-
tached exhibits,' and the formal documents3 consti-
tuted the entire record in this case and that no oral
testimony was either necessary or desired by the
parties. They further agreed to waive a hearing
before an administrative law judge and the issuance
of a judge's decision. By Order dated 14 November
the Board approved the parties' stipulation and
transferred the proceedings to itself. The General
Counsel and the Employer thereafer filed briefs
with the Board.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case as stipulated to by the parties, as well as
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the
Employer, and makes the following findings and
conclusions.
i Al] dates are in 1983 unless otherwise indicated
2 The exhibits consist of the Regional Director's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election in Case 13-RD-1458 dated 22 December 1982, the
Board's telegraphic order of 25 January affirming the Regional Director's
decision, the Employer's objections to the election held in that case, the
Regional Director's report and recommendations on those objections, the
Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's report and brief in sup-
port of its exceptions, a document from the Respondent to the Employer
entitled "Notice of Intent to Strike," and a document entitled "What is
the U of C Afraid of7"
9 The formal documents consist of the charge with proof of service,
the complaint with affidavit of service, and the Respondent's answer
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Employer is a private, nonprofit university
located in Chicago, Illinois. During the past calen-
dar year, its gross revenues exceeded $1 million,
exclusive of contributions which were not available
for operating expenses due to limitations imposed
by the grantors. During that same period, the Em-
ployer purchased and caused to be shipped to its
Chicago, Illinois facilities goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
and places located outside the State of Illinois. The
parties stipulated, and in light of the above facts we
agree, that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
We further find, in agreement with the parties,
that the Respondent is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
In 1969 the Employer voluntarily recognized the
Respondent as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its security department employees 4 and
from 1969 to 1975 maintained a series of collective-
bargaining agreements with the Respondent cover-
ing those employees. On 2 August 1976, following
a Board-conducted election which resulted in the
Respondent's decertification, the University Police
Association of the University of Chicago, an inde-
pendent labor organization, was certified by the
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the unit employees. Between 1976 and 1980 the
Employer and the University Police Association
were parties to two collective-bargaining agree-
ments
On 9 December 1980 Illinois Union of Police As-
sociations, Illinois State Council, Local 200, Illinois
Confederation of Police (ICOP) was certified by
the Board, pursuant to a Board-held election, as the
bargaining representative of the employees in the
unit and on 1 February 1981 became party to a 2-
year collective-bargaining agreement with the Em-
ployer.
On 17 November 1982 a petition was filed in
Case 13-RD-1458 seeking to have ICOP decerti-
fied as the unit employees' collective-bargaining
representative. During the hearing in that case, the
Respondent sought to intervene on the basis of a
4 The appropriate unit then and,now is
All regularly scheduled full-time permanent security officers em-
ployed by the Employer in-its Security Department, currently locat-
ed at 5801 South Ellis, Chicago, Illinois , but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, sergeants, lieutenants , captains,
supervisors as defined in the Act, and other employees
274 NLRB No. 142
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 710 (UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO)
requisite showing of interest which had been ad-
ministratively submitted to the Regional Office.
The Employer and ICOP opposed Respondent's
motion to intervene on the ground that the latter
could not be certified under Section 9(b)(3) of the
Acts because it admits to membership and is direct-
ly or indirectly affiliated with an organization
which admits to membership employees other than
guards. The Employer, with ICOP support, also
moved to have language included on the ballot, if
the Respondent were allowed to participate in the
election, advising employees that the Respondent
could not be certified by the Board if it won the
election and that the Employer would be under no
legal obligation to bargain with it.
On 22 December 1982 the Regional Director for
Region 13 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in Case 13-RD-1458 granting the Re-
spondent's motion to intervene, denying the Em-
ployer's motion to have the proposed language in-
cluded on the ballot, and directing that all eligible
employees be allowed to vote on whether they
wished to be represented by ICOP, the Respond-
ent, or neither organization.6 The Employer's re-
quest for review of that decision was denied by the
Board on 25 January 19837 and, on the same day,
the election, as directed, was held. There were 32
ballots cast for the Respondent, 17 for ICOP, and 1
for "no union," with 1 nondeterminative chal-
lenged ballot.
On 1 February the Employer filed objections to
the election, claiming that the Regional Director's
decision to allow the Respondent to intervene and
denying the Employer's request to have certain
language included on the ballot had prevented the
holding of a free and fair election. On 28 February
the Regional Director issued a Report on Objec-
tions recommending that the Employer's objections
be overruled and that the Board certify the arith-
metical results of the election.
On 31 March the Employer received from the
Respondent a copy of a "Notice of Intent to
Strike," which the latter had sent to the Federal
957
Mediation and Conciliation Service, informing it of
the Respondent's intent to engage "in a strike,
picketing, and/or other concerted activity" at "all
gates, entrances and docks to the University of
Chicago" beginning on 11 April and continuing
"unless and until a mutually agreeable resolution of
all outstanding disputes has been reached." Addi-
tionally, on 8 April the Employer's personnel di-
rector Ed Coleman received from the Respondent's
organizer Howard L. Pike a leaflet entitled
"WHAT IS THE U. of C. AFRAID OF?" which,
among other things, reiterated the Respondent's
intent to "take concerted action" to compel the
Employer to meet and "discuss mutual concerns."8
The parties stipulated that since 6 August 1976 the
Employer has neither voluntarily recognized nor
engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with
the Respondent.
The General Counsel does not contend, nor does
the complaint allege, that the Respondent in fact
picketed the Employer. Rather, the General Coun-
sel contends that the Respondent's threat to picket
the Employer, as evidenced by the Notice of Intent
to Strike and the leaflet, to compel it to recognize
and/or bargain with the Respondent as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees violates Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. Thus,
the General Counsel argues that, because a labor
8 The leaflet in its entirety reads as follows
WHAT IS THE U OF C AFRAID OF?
For nine years Teamsters Local 710 represented the University
Police officers We bargained , we agreed and we put our agreements
in writing
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSITY OF R MA YNARD HUTCHINS
AFRAID OF?
In an election conducted by the N L R B on January 25, 1983
Teamsters Local 710 was again selected by the University Police of-
ficers to represent them
But the University of Mortimer Adler has refused to meet with us,
even informally, to discuss mutual concerns
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGE BEADLE AFRAID
OF?
5 Sec 9(b)(3) provides, in relevant part, that no labor organization
shall be certified as the representative of employees in a bargaining unit
of guards if such organization admits to membership, or is affiliated di-
rectly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership,
employees other than guards "
8 In granting the Respondent 's motion to intervene , the Regional Di-
rector relied primarily on the Board's decision in Bally's Park Place, 257
NLRB 777 (1981), which held that a union that is not certifiable under
Sec 9(b)(3) may nevertheless intervene and participate in a Board-con-
ducted election on a requisite showing of interest If the noncertifiable
union were successful, the Board in such case would certify only the ar-
ithmetical results of the election
' The request for review was considered by Member Hunter , former
Chairman Miller, and former Members Jenkins and Zimmerman Member
Hunter and Chairman Miller voted to grant review, and Members Jen-
kins and Zimmerman voted to deny review In the absence of a majority
for granting review, the Regional Director's decision was affirmed
To get a meeting, we notified the Federal Mediation and Concilia-
tion Service of our intention to take concerted action today
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSITY OF HANNAH GRAY AFRAID
OF'
Instead of meeting, the University of Enrico Fermi has threatened
legal proceedings against us if we so much as hand out leaflets'
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSITY OF ED WARD LEVI AFRAID
OF?
The University of Milton Friedman is afraid of free choice'
If you think University Police Officers should have the "Freedom
to Choose," call Ed Coleman, 962-6010, and tell him so
Thank you
Teamsters Local 710
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization such as the Respondent , which admits
both guards and nonguards to membership , cannot
under Section 9(b)(3) be certified by the Board,
any picketing or threat to picket by such an un-
qualified labor organization for recognition as a
representative of a unit of guards violates Section
8(b)(7)(C). We agree with the General Counsel.
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, in relevant part,
states that it is unlawful for a labor organization:
(7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or
threaten to picket or cause to be picketed, any
employer where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring an employer to recognize or bargain
with a labor organization as the representative
of his employees . . . unless such labor organi-
zation is currently certified as the representa-
tive of such employees:
(C) where such picketing has been conduct-
ed without a petition under section 9(c) being
filed within a reasonable period of time not to
exceed thirty days from the commencement of
such picketing . . . .
The Board has, on several occasions , addressed
itself to the very issue currently before us .9 In A-1
Security , supra , for example, the Board found that a
threat by an unqualified labor organization to
picket the employer for recognition as the bargain-
ing representative of a unit of guards violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. In so doing the Board
stated (at 436):
Clearly , under Section 9(b)(3), Respondent
herein is ineligible to be certified as collective-
bargai ing representative of A-1 Security's em-
ployeeI because it admits both guard and non-
guard employees to membership , and any peti-
tion for an election filed by Respondent would
therefore be dismissed . Furthermore, under
Board law any recognitional picketing of A-1
Security that Respondent might engage in, for
whatever duration, would be a violation of
Section 8 (b)(7)(C). Only finding that both
picketing and the threat to picket serve the
same proscribed object will meet with the stat-
utory language and the congressional intent
expressed therein.
The facts in this case are not disputed. The Re-
spondent , in its answer , concedes that under Sec-
tion 9(b)(3) it cannot be certified by the Board as
collective-bargaining representative of the Employ-
9 See Teamsters Local 851 (Purolator Courier), 268 NLRB 452 (1983),
Teamsters Local 282 (General Contractors), 262 NLRB 528 (1982), Team-
sters Local 344 (Purolator Security), 228 NLRB 1379 (1977), Service Em-
er's guard employees because it admits both guards
and nonguards to membership . The Respondent
further admits that , since 25 January and continu-
ing to date, it has sought to have the Employer
recognize it as the bargaining representative of
those employees , and admits having threatened the
Employer with picketing and other concerted
action . It denies , however , the complaint allegation
that its strike threat was designed to force the Em-
ployer into recognizing and bargaining with it as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer 's guard employees.
Notwithstanding the Respondent 's denial, we are
convinced on the record before us that the sole
purpose behind the Respondent 's strike threat was
to induce recognition from the Employer . The Re-
spondent , as noted , admits having threatened to
picket the Employer until a mutual agreement was
reached on "all outstanding disputes." However, as
the leaflet entitled "WHAT IS THE U. OF C.
AFRAID OF?" makes clear, the only dispute that
the Respondent has with the Employer stems from
the latter ' s refusal to recognize and bargain with
the Respondent . The record contains no evidence
of any other dispute between these parties.10
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the
Respondent 's threat to picket the Employer had a
recognitional objective . As the statutory language
of Section 8(b)(7)(C) and the case law interpreting
that language make clear , such a threat by an un-
qualified labor organization violates that section of
the Act regardless whether the threatened picket-
ing actually occurs . We so find.
That the Respondent intervened in, participated
in, and obtained a majority of the votes cast in the
election in Case 13-RD-1458 does not alter our
conclusion that its conduct here was unlawful. To
begin with, on 11 March the Employer timely filed
with the Board exceptions to the Regional Direc-
tor's 28 February Report on Objections in that
case . On 22 October 1984 the Board issued its deci-
sion therein' i overruling Bally's Park Place, supra,
and finding that Section 9(b)(3) precludes "a dis-
qualified labor organization from taking advantage
of the Board ' s election processes, including the
privilege of being placed on the ballot as an inter-
venor with an accompanying certification of the
arithmetical results." Accordingly, the Board con-
cluded that the Respondent's participation in the
election in Case 13 -RD-1458 had been improper
under Section 9(b)(3) and ordered that election set
aside and a new one held from which the Respond-
ent would be barred. Consequently, any reliance by
ployees Local 73 (A-1 Security), 224 NLRB 434 (1976), Teamsters Local 10 The Respondent did not file a brief with the Board in this case
639 (Dunbar Armored), 211 NLRB 687 (1974) 11 See University of Chicago, 272 NLRB 873 (1984)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 710 (UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO)
the Respondent on the results of that election to
justify its conduct here is clearly misplaced.
Further, even if Bally's Park Place had not been
overruled and the Respondent's participation in the
election in Case 13-RD-1458 was proper, the
result would be the same. Under the Bally's deci-
sion the Respondent could only receive a certifica-
tion of the arithmetical results of the election. Be-
cause it could not be certified as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of the unit employees, the
principles of A-1 Security apply. Thus, under either
past or current precedent concerning the participa-
tion of a mixed guard union in a Board election,
the Respondent's 31 March threat to picket the
Employer to obtain recognition as the representa-
tive of the latter's guard employees violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(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. The Respondent admits to membership em-
ployees other than guards and is barred by Section
9(b)(3) of the Act from being certified by the
Board as the collective-bargaining representative of
the Employer's security officers.
4. By threatening to picket the Employer's facili-
ties with an object of forcing the Employer to rec-
ognize it as the collective-bargaining representative
of the Employer's security officers, the Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
5. The above unfair labor practice affects com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act, we shall order it to
cease and desist from engaging in such conduct
and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Highway Drivers, Dockmen,
Spotters, Rampmen, Meat Packing House and
Allied Products Drivers and Helpers, Office Work-
ers and Miscellaneous Employees, Local 710, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Chicago,
12 While the complaint here does not allege an 8(b)(7)(B) violation, in
Teamsters Local 803 (St. Luke's-Roosevelt), 274 NLRB 905 (1985), the
Board found a similar threat by a noncertifiable union violative of both
Sec 8(b)(7)(C) and Sec 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act
959
Illinois, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from threatening to picket
the Employer, University of Chicago, where an
object of its threat is to force or require the Em-
ployer to recognize or bargain with it as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Employer's se-
curity officers, or to force or require employees
who function as security officers for the Employer
to accept or select the Respondent as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its business office copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 13, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where no-
tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director signed
copies of the notice sufficient in number for posting
by the University of Chicago, should it so desire, at
all locations where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
13 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten to picket the University
of Chicago with an object of forcing or requiring it
to recognize or bargain with us as the collective-
bargaining representative of its security officers or
forcing or requiring the Employer's security offi-
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cers to accept or select us as their bargaining rep-
resentative.
HIGHWAY DRIVERS , DOCKMEN,
SPOTTERS , RAMPMEN , MEAT PACK-
ING HOUSE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
DRIVERS AND HELPERS , OFFICE
WORKERS AND MISCELLANEOUS EM-
PLOYEES , LOCAL 710 , INTERNATION-
AL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA