Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 483 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 728 483
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 728, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., AND R. C. COOK, ITS BUSINESS AGENT
and NATIONAL TRUCKING COMPANY
TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 728, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA, AFL and NATIONAL TRUCKING COMPANY. Cases
Nos. 10-CC-64 and 10-CC--83. February 2,1955
Decision and Order
On August 17, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in Case No. 10-CC-64, finding that the Respond-
ents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint based upon a charge filed by the National Trucking Company.
He recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in Case
No. 10-CC-64 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommendations of the Trial Examiner only insofar as they are con-
sistent herewith.
National Trucking Company filed another charge against the Re-
spondent Union on July 20, 1954, Case No. 10-CC-83, and the Gen-
eral Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued a
complaint dated August 20, 1954, alleging that the Respondent Union
had further independently violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B)
of the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly
served upon the Respondent on or about August 23, 1954. On August
30, 1954, the Respondent Union filed its answer to the complaint.
Thereafter, all parties to Case No. 10-CC-83 entered into a stipu-
lation setting forth an agreed statement of facts. The stipulation pro-
vides that the parties thereby waive the right to a hearing, Intermedi-
ate Report of a Trial Examiner, the filing of exceptions, oral argument
before the Board, and the making of proposed findings and conclu-
'In addition , the Respondent Union requested permission to file a reply brief and the
General Counsel requested permission to file a supplemental brief. These requests are
hereby granted The Respondent 's reply brief, the General Counsel' s supplemental brief,
and the Respondent 's reply brief to the General Counsel' s supplemental brief are hereby
accepted
111 NLRB No 68.
344056-55-vol 111-32
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sions by the Board. The stipulation provides further that the stipu-
lation, charge, complaint, notice of hearing, affidavit of service of
complaint and notice of hearing, and Respondent's answer shall con-
stitute the entire record in Case No. 10-CC-83, and that, upon such
record, the Board may make findings of fact and conclusions of law
and issue an appropriate order as though after hearing, Intermediate
Report, exceptions, and oral argument before the Board.
The stipulation is hereby approved and accepted and made a part
of the record in Case No. 10-CC-83. In accordance with Section
102.45 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended,
Case No. 10-CC-83 is duly transferred to, and continued before, the
Board. Upon the basis of the stipulation and the entire record in
Case No. 10-CC-83, the Board, having duly considered the briefs sub-
mitted by the parties, makes findings of fact and conclusions of law
and issues the order which follows.
Because the issues in the two cases based upon the charges filed by
National Trucking Company against the Respondent Union are
closely related and generally involve the same parties, and to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act, the Board, acting upon its own motion,
hereby consolidates the two cases for the purpose of issuing a single
Decision and Order.
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The business of the Employer
National Trucking Company is a Florida corporation engaged in
Hapeville, Georgia, in transporting motor vehicles for the Ford Motor
Company. During the 12-month period before the hearing in Case
No. 10-CC-64, National transported vehicles for Ford having a value
in excess of $41,000,000 to points outside the State of Georgia. The
value of National's services in transporting the vehicles was in excess
of $1,000,000.
We find that National Trucking Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
B. The Respondent labor organization
Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act, and Respondent R. C. Cook has, during the period here material,
been its president and business agent.
C. The nature of National's business operation
National maintains a terminal on South Street in Hapeville,
Georgia, at which it loads on its tractor trailers new automobiles as-
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 728 485
sembled by Ford. This terminal is across South Street from the Ford
assembly plant, which has no entranceway on South Street. To ob-
tain the Ford cars for transportation, National, about 40 times daily,
has sent a vehicle carrying 3 or 4 of its drivers to a fence enclosed
area on Ford's premises exiting on Rockwell Street.' The customary
practice on each of approximately 40 daily trips has been for the
operator of National's vehicle to drop the 3 or 4 National employees at
the fence enclosed part of Ford's property on Rockwell Street. The
drivers then enter the enclosure through a gate reserved exclusively
for National use, and each then drives a new Ford car back to Na-
tional's premises on South Street for loading on National' s carriers.
The fenced area on Ford's property is leased to Motor Convoy, Inc.,
another transporter of new Ford vehicles. The enclosed area has
three gates, one through which Ford and Motor Convoy employees
drive in cars from the assembly plant, a second out of which Motor
Convoy drives the Ford cars it will transport, and the third, which
only National employees use to drive out new cars.' The national
entranceway to the enclosed area is approximately 30 feet from the one
used by Ford employees on their way into and out of the assembly
plant.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Case No. 10-CC-64
The Respondent Union requested recognition as representative of
National's employees in about January 1954. Since approximately
April 12, the Respondent has picketed an area near the entrance to
National's terminal on South Street. Shortly after 7 a. m. on April
16, one of the individuals assigned to picket duty at National's prem-
ises appeared with a picket sign on the corner of South Street and
Central Avenue, a point approximately 400 feet from National's
premises. When Vaske, the Respondent's representative in charge of
picketing National, noticed him there, he told him to join the other
pickets closer to National's premises.
Later, that day, at about 1: 30 p. m., Vaske went to the Ford plant
and spoke to Chinn, Ford's industrial relations manager, and to
Young, president of the UAW-CIO Local Union representing the
Ford employees. Vaske advised Chinn and Young that the Respond-
ent Union was going to picket National's vehicle each time it reached
a point in front of the fence enclosed area while on its periodic trips
2 Rockwell Street is the border of Ford's property running roughly parallel to South
Street. Connecting South and Rockwell Streets, and roughly at right angles to them, is
Central Avenue. South and Rockwell Streets and Central Avenue dead end at, or just
beyond, three sides of the Ford plant, the fourth side is undeveloped area.
3 Within the enclosure , cars destined for transport by National are stored in four columns
and are separated by portable stanchions from the portion of the lot used for storage of
vehicles destined for Motor Convoy transport.
486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to pick up new Fords. Chinn objected, complaining that such picket-
ing would interfere with the work of Ford employees: Vaske then
told Chinn that the picketing of National's vehicle was not "to be inti-
mated to be in any way against Ford Motor Company."
Around 2 or 3 p. m. of the same day, while National's truck was on
one of its periodic runs, Vaske stopped the vehicle about 65 feet from
National's entrance to the fenced enclosure on Ford's property.
Thereupon, Vaske, carrying a picket sign, walked around the truck
for about 15 to 20 minutes, until stopped by two Hapeville policemen.
That afternoon, a Georgia State court issued an order enjoining Re-
spondent picketing of National at places other than at National's
premises on South Street.
The Trial Examiner found that whatever the effect of the indi-
vidual's presence at the corner of South Street and Central Avenue it
was not attributable to the Respondent Union. The General Counsel
and National contend that the individual was acting as the Respond-
ent's agent and that by virtue of his actions the Respondent violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B).
We find that the presence of the individual on the corner of South
Street and Central Avenue was so trivial and insignificant in effect
that it did not constitute inducement or encouragement of employees
within the meaning of the Act's secondary picketing proscription.
Accordingly, we deem it unnecessary to determine whether the Re-
spondent Union was responsible for the individual's actions 4
As to the picketing of National's vehicle in front of Ford's property,
the complaint alleges, in substance, that the Respondent thereby at-
tempted to induce and encourage the employees of Ford to cease work
to compel Ford to cease doing business with National and to force
National to recognize the Respondent Union as the representative of
its employees. The Respondent claims, and the Trial Examiner found,'
that the function of driving new cars out of Ford's premises was the
most essential part of National's business operation. On this premise
the Respondent contends, in effect, that, although the picketing was at
'Member Rodgers would find that the South Street-Central Avenue incident was at-
tributable to the Respondent Union and, as such, was violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
and (B).
5 The Trial Examiner found also that the picketing of National's vehicle did not induce
or encourage employees within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) because
there was no record evidence that any employees other than National's even saw the picket-
ing of the truck However, the record does not substantiate this finding. Vaske advised
the UAW-CIO representative of Ford's employees that the National truck would be
picketed on each of its periodic tiips Chinn testified "there is nearly always somebody
getting off or going to work" through a gate but 30 feet from the entrance to the fenced
area on Ford's property used by National. Vaske conceded that Ford employees prob-
ably go into and out of the assembly plant "at all times of the day." Upon such evidence,
we are convinced that Ford employees were, in fact, aware of the picketing of National's
truck in front of the Ford plant, and we deem it unnecessary here to pass upon the validity
of the Trial Examiner's legal conclusion based upon a contrary fact finding
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 728 487
a secondary employer's premises, its purpose was to reach only the
National employees and it was, therefore, lawful primary picketing.
As indicated above, the record shows that, for each of the 40 daily
trips that National employees made to pick up new Ford cars, they
twice passed through the Respondent's picket line at National's South
Street premises. Also, the general area in which the Respondent
stated its intent to picket National's vehicle was only about 30 feet
from the entrance to the plant used by Ford employees. Thus, it is
clear that the Respondent's principal object in picketing in front of
Ford's premises was not to reach National employees. We are con-
vinced, rather, that the Respondent picketed National's truck near
Ford's employee entrance to apprise Ford employees of its dispute
with National and to attempt, thereby, to induce and encourage Ford's
employees to cease work. As the Respondent's ultimate objective was
to force National to recognize the Respondent as the representative of
its employees, we find that the Respondent's picketing of National's
vehicle violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B).e
B. Case No. 10-CC--83
The charge in this case was filed after the hearing in Case No. 10-
CC-64 was closed on June 22, 1954. On July 9 and 10, 1954, the Re-
spondent periodically picketed the gate to Ford's property used by
National, but only while National employees were there to pick up the
new cars for delivery to National's premises on South Street.
On July 10, National contracted with Air Travelers, Inc., a Geor-
gia corporation doing business in Hapeville, to have Air Travelers
perform the car pickup operation between National's premises and
the fenced area on Ford's property. Three Air Travelers employees
started work under the contract on July 12. Since July 19, the Re-
spondent has picketed at the National entrance to Ford's property
whenever the Air Travelers employees arrived for the new Ford cars.
The Respondent has also picketed Air Travelers' main premises in
Hapeville. At both locations, the Respondent's pickets have carried
signs reading :
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union 728
Picketing
Air Travelers, Inc.
We invite you to join our Local Union
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union 728
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, AFL.
6 Associated Gene, al Contractors of America. Inc, Georgia Branch, 110 NLRB 2192;
Thurston Motor Lines, Inc., 110 NLRB 748; Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc.,
107 NLRB 299.
488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Also involved in Case No. 10-CC-83 is a work stoppage by Motor
Convoy employees which lasted just more than 1 day. As mentioned
above, Motor Convoy is another independent company engaged in
over-the-road delivery of Ford cars. The Respondent Union repre-
sents Motor Convoy employees in a separate unit. There was con-
cededly no dispute between Motor Convoy and the Respondent on
July 26, 1954. On that day, the Respondent's steward submitted to
Motor Convoy a petition signed by its employees stating :
We the unsigned [sic] do hereby issue notice to Motor Convoy
that due to the Strike at National Trucking Co. we refuse to oper-
ate until it is settled. This is due to the fact that we feel it unsafe
because of our trucks being run off the road and one being blown
up. We are in fear of bodily harm....'
The Motor Convoy employees did not work on July 26. Motor Con-
voy thereupon notified the Respondent's business agent of the work
stoppage and advised that it considered the stoppage a violation of its
bargaining contract with the Respondent Union. On July 27, the
Respondent Union called a meeting of Motor Convoy drivers, and
they reported for work that evening, shortly after their usual starting
time.
The July 9 and 10 picketing in front of National's entrance to Ford
property is indistinguishable, in law, from the picketing of National's
vehicle in Case No. 10-CC-64 which we have found violated the Act.
For the same reasons, therefore, we find that by its picketing in front
of Ford's premises on July 9 and 10 the Respondent Union has fur-
ther violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B).
With respect to the picketing in front of Ford's premises after July
19, the Respondent contends that Air Travelers was a completely neu-
tral employer and that the picketing constituted lawful organizational
picketing of Air Travelers employees. On the other hand, the Gen-
eral Counsel and National argue that Air Travelers was, in effect, an
alter ego of National, and that the picketing after July 19 was legally
equivalent to that occurring before July 19. It is clear that Air Trav-
elers and National operated under a close contractual relationship,
that Air Travelers employees substituted directly for National em-
ployees to perform the identical business function of driving the Ford
cars to National's South Street premises, and that the Air Travelers
employees spent a large portion of their workday at National's prem-
ises. In these circumstances, we find, in agreement with the General
Counsel and National, that Air Travelers was in the labor dispute con-
7 Prior to July 26, one Motor Convoy trailer was side-swiped by a hit -and-run driver
and another trailer was dynamited . Motor Convoy trailers are red and gray with diagonal
stripes on the rear, and National trailers are green and yellow and have no stripes on the
rear. Away from the immediate area of Ford 's premises, Motor Convoy trucks, on about
25 percent of their deliveries , use the same highways , for all or part of a trip, as do
National trucks.
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 728 489
text of this case an ally of National, not a neutral employer. With the
same legally defined parties involved in the picketing that occurred
after July 19 as were involved in the picketing before that date, we
find, for the reasons already stated, that the Respondent's picketing
on and after July 19, 1954, violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B).
The General Counsel and National contend that the work stoppage
at Motor Convoy was caused by the Respondent with the object of
requiring Ford to cease doing business with National and requiring
National to recognize the Respondent. The Respondent asserts that
the work stoppage was an independent employee decision impelled by
their fear of bodily harm.
In asserting that the strike at Motor Convoy was impelled by the
employees' fear of injury, the Respondent has failed to explain: (1)
Why the Motor Convoy employees stopped operating on all their trips
rather than on only those 25 percent which traversed common high-
ways with National trailers; and (2) how it convinced the Motor
Convoy employees to return to work without obtaining for them any
assurance of safer work conditions but 1 day after they, allegedly in
common fright, refused to work. In contrast with these serious flaws
in the Respondent's explanation for the Motor Convoy strike are
these significant facts : the Respondent is the bargaining representa-
tive of the Motor Convoy employees; the Respondent's steward at
Motor Convoy, who otherwise assisted in the picketing at National's
South Street premises, presented the petition to Motor Convoy; the
petition stated explicitly that the stoppage was due to the strike at
National; and the Motor Convoy employees returned to work promptly
after a meeting conducted by the Respondent Union. These circum-
stances impel the conclusion that the Respondent fostered and was
in complete control of the Motor Convoy work stoppage.' We con-
clude, therefore, that the Respondent caused the Motor Convoy em-
ployees to strike and, as alleged in the complaint, thereby violated
Section8 (b) (4) (A) and (B).
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section II,
above, occurring in connection with the operation of the National
Trucking Company, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to
burden and obstruct commerce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has violated Section 8
(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist
8 See Los Angeles Busldong and Construction Trades Council, AFL, et al. ( Oil Workers
International Union, CIO ), 105 NLRB 868.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which is necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, A. F. L., has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) by inducing and encourag-
ing employees of Ford Motor Company and Motor Convoy, Inc., to
engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities
or to perform services for their respective employers with the objects
thereof being (a) to force and require Ford Motor Company to cease
doing business with National Trucking Company, and (b) to force
National Trucking Company to recognize or bargain with Truck
Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
A. F. L., as the representative of its employees, although the Union
has not been certified as the bargaining agent of those employees in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Truck Drivers
and Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A. F. L.,
and R. C. Cook, its business agent, and their officers, representatives,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging employees of
Ford Motor Company and Motor Convoy, Inc., to engage in a strike
or concerted refusal in the course of their employment, to handle or
work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform serv-
ices for their respective employers where an object thereof is (a) to
force or require Ford Motor Company to cease doing business with
National Trucking Company, or (b) to force or require National
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 728 491
Trucking Company to recognize or bargain with the Respondent
Union, as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees,
unless and until the Respondent Union has been certified as such bar-
gaining representative in accordance with the provisions of Section
9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at the Respondent Union's business office in Atlanta,
Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." s
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by official representatives
of the Respondents, be posted by the Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by the Respondents for a period of
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to members of the Respondent Union are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order as to the steps the
Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in Case No. 10-CC-64
insofar as it alleges that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4)
(A) and (B) of the Act, by virtue of an incident occurring on April
16, 1954, on the corner of South Street and Central Avenue, Hapeville,
Georgia, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
U In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION
No. 728, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our members that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Ford Motor
Company and Motor Convoy, Inc., to engage in a strike or con-
certed refusal in the course of their employment, to handle or
work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform
services for their respective employers where an object thereof is
(a) to force or require Ford Motor Company to cease doing busi-
ness with National Trucking Company, or (b) to force or require
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Trucking Company to recognize or bargain with us, as
the collective-bargaining representative of its employees, unless
and until we have been certified as such bargaining representative
in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION
No. 728, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREIIOUSEMEN
& HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.,
Labor Organization.
R. C. CooK, An Individual.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent,
a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8
(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat.
136), herein called the Act, was held in Atlanta, Georgia, on June 22, 1954, before
the duly designated Trial Examiner.
As to unfair labor practices, in substance the complaint alleges and the answer
denies that on April 16, 1954, the Respondent: by picketing the premises of Ford
Motor Company, herein called the secondary employer, and a truck of the Charging
Company, herein called the primary employer, near the premises of the secondary
employer, in an attempt to induce the employees of the secondary employer to engage
in a strike, an object of which was to force their employer to cease doing business
with the primary employer, and to force the primary employer to bargain with the
Respondent Uniun.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to
the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law. All counsel waived argument; all filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING COMPANY
National Trucking Company is a Florida corporation, engaged in the business of
transporting motor vehicles over the public highways in various States by tractor
trailer. Its principal Georgia office and place of business is in Hapeville, Georgia.
During the 12-month period before the hearing it transported vehicles for the Ford
Motor Company from Georgia to Florida, said vehicles having a value of more than
$41,000,000, such services in transporting such vehicles being valued at more than
$1,000,000.
The Charging Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE RESPONDENT UNION
Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A. F. L., is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Charging Company.
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 728 493
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The events from which this proceeding stemmed were simple in nature, two in
number, and the evidence pertinent to them largely undisputed.
The two incidents of "picketing," which General Counsel claims were violative
of the Act, occurred the same day, on April 16, 1954, during a period when the
Respondent Union was attempting, by picket action, to persuade the Charging Com-
pany to recognize it as the collective-bargaining agent for its employees. It was, in
effect, an organizing strike; it is apparent that the Union did not at the time represent
a majority of the employees. General Counsel makes no claim that the strike itself
was illegal, but urges that two items of action taken during the course of the strike,
because they occurred at some distance from the main gate of the primary employer
concerned, were violative of the Act.
The two items at issue took place in a setting which may be quickly described.
National's only operation at Hapeville, or from this terminal, is to load and haul
away vehicles assembled by Ford. Its office and yard are directly across South
Street from a large, fenced area occupied by the Ford assembly plant. There is
no entrance to the Ford area on South Street-a side and dead-end street, but only
the gate entrance to National's yard. South Street branches off Central Avenue,
upon which the Ford area fronts, at a point about 400 feet from National's gate.
Until the morning of April 16 picketing had taken place only at National' s gate on
South Street. To this General Counsel appears to have no objection.
The first incident which General Counsel claims was illegal happened between
7 and 8 o'clock the morning of April 16. One of National's striking employees stood
briefly, with a picket sign, on South Street near its junction with Central Avenue,
some 400 feet distant from National's gate farther down South Street, where all
picketing until then had been conducted. The sign: "Employees of National Truck-
ing Company, members of Local No. 728, AFL, on strike." At this time Ford em-
ployees were coming to work, along Central Avenue, and it is reasonable to suppose
that some or many of them, as they drove by the junction, may have seen the one
individual with a sign, standing on the wasteland corner of South Street. But the
testimony of Ford's Industrial Relations Manager Chinn, a witness for General
Counsel, makes it clear that if any employee saw it he was not barred, deterred,
delayed, or in any manner induced not to proceed along Central Avenue to the
employees' entrance to the Ford property-some 4 city blocks away. And before 8
o'clock an organizer for the Respondent Union who had charge of the picketing
of National came along and told the employee with the sign to get back to National's
gate where he belonged. Thereafter, so far as the record shows, no other picket
wandered up to the open end of dead end South Street-even to watch the traffic on
Central Avenue pass by.
The second incident occurred in the afternoon of the same day, on Central Avenue.
National's customary procedure of operating at its Hapeville yard is as follows:
Some 40 times a day a driver in a pickup truck emerges from National's gate on
South Street, with 3 or 4 other drivers as passengers. He transports such passen-
gers-all employees of National-up South Street, turns right on Central, and pro-
ceeds a distance of several city blocks up Central until he reaches a certain gate
entering the Ford property. It is clearly established by the record that this certain
gate is reserved for the use of National only. The 3 or 4 drivers debark, go into
Ford's property, and each picks up a newly assembled Ford car parked and placed
there specifically for hauling away by National. The driver of the car which brought
them to the gate goes up Central Avenue, turns around, stops on the way back to
record the numbers of the cars the others are to drive back to National, and then
himself drives back to National. All day and every day this same procedure is fol-
lowed. (The new Fords are loaded onto carriers at the National yard, and from
that point are driven on into Florida.)
Early during the afternoon of April 16, according to the testimony of General
Counsel's witness, Chinn, of Ford, he and the head of the union representing Ford's
employees were visited by Vaske, of the Respondent Union. Vaske told them that
the Union intended to "picket" National's pickup truck when it came to the gate
specifically reserved for National employees on Central Avenue. It was made plain
to the representatives both of Ford's management and Ford's employees, that only
National's truck was to be picketed, and that there was no intention to involve Ford's
employees in any way.
Later that afternoon, for a period of about 15 minutes, Vaske did "picket" Na-
tional's truck while it was on Central Avenue-but not at or near any gate, and on
the opposite side of the highway from Ford's property. The driver of the National
pickup truck, it seems, had gone up the road after depositing the other drivers,
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had just turned around, and was then met by Vaske, who merely asked him
to stop while he walked around the truck with the picket sign-the same sign
seen earlier in the day and clearly defining the dispute as one with National
and no other employer. No harsh words were spoken, the driver apparently readily
agreed to this respite in the shuttling nature of his work. In a few minutes, however,
a local police car came along. A cop got out, who asked Vaske what he was doing.
Vaske said he was picketing the truck. Another cop told the pickup truckdriver to
go along about his business, and Vaske was told, according to the testimony of the
cop involved, that "the police department would not tolerate any breach of peace."
Also according to the testimony of the same cop, "there hadn't been any violence of
any kind, wasn't any indication of violence." The truckdriver, Vaske, and the cops
then went their several ways. The incident was ended.
Upon these minor diversions from the monotony of picket life on two dead end
streets, it would appear that General Counsel would have the Trial Examiner, the
Board, and even the courts invoke a Federal law and the weight of a permanent in-
junction. It also appears that the Hapeville, Georgia, police have the situation
well in hand.
The nub of General Counsel's argument seems to be that no individual bearing
a picket sign must stray anywhere from a point entering upon the property of the
primary employer in the labor dispute. He urges that the Board's decision in
Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc. (107 NLRB 299), is controlling. In
that case, however, the Board specifically found that "the object of this picketing
activity was to sever the business relationship between Coca-Cola and its customers
and between those customers and their suppliers." The instant case, the Trial Exam-
iner believes, fails to meet the requirement of the Board's definition, in the above-
cited case, of an illegal secondary boycott.
In this case there is not an iota of direct evidence that any employee, of any other
employer than National, even saw the picket sign in question. Nor is there any evi-
dence, either of action or of a statement of intent, upon which the Trial Examiner
can base a finding that, in the language of the complaint, the Respondent "attempted
to induce" the employees of Ford or of any other employer than National "to en-
gage in strikes or concerted refusals" to perform work with "the object . of forc-
ing" Ford or any other employer to cease doing business with National.
One desolate corner of a dead end street (as depicted by photograph of the lo-
cality at issue which is in evidence), at least 4 city blocks from Ford's employee en-
trance, was the scene of one incident. National's pickup truck, stopped across a
public highway from the Ford property but nowhere near an employee entrance, was
the scene of the second. No employee of any employer except the primary employer
was induced to stop doing anything.
But General Counsel argues that the Respondent intended to induce Ford's em-
ployees to stop work. It appears to be his claim that because a picket strayed from
a point directly in front of National's gate on South Street, he must have been up
to some mischief and the Trial Examiner and the Board must conclude that some
act prohibited by law was intended. The Trial Examiner cannot agree. Here we
have not only the undisputed fact that there was no overt act of inducement (from
which one might reason backwards and infer an intent to perform an illegal act),
but also the testimony of General Counsel's own witness, Chinn of Ford, that a
representative of the Respondent specifically informed him and a representative
of Ford's employees, before the pickup truck incident, that the Respondent had no
intention of involving Ford's employees.
The Trial Examiner is of the opinion, and finds, that the complaint is not sustained
by the evidence on the crucial point of encouraging or inducing, or attempting to
induce, Ford's employees to cease work. In view of this conclusion, it appears un-
necessary here to pass upon the legality of the Respondent's stated intention, to
Chinn, to picket National's truck when it came to the gate reserved for National's
employees on Ford's property. For whatever the thought may be worth to the Board,
however, in the event the case comes to its members for consideration, it is suggested
that National's operation is not confined to the one situs on South Street, but that
an integral part of that operation-in fact the most essential part of it, is to go to the
space on Ford's property specifically reserved to it and to no other employer, and
pick up the cars. As has been noted, National has no other business at Hapeville
other than picking up and transporting Ford cars.
It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
W. A. SWANSON LOGGING CO. 495
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Charging Company occur in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A. F. L., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices , as alleged in the
complaint , within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
W. A. SWANSON LOGGING Co.; GEORGE SECOR LOGGING Co.; SPOELSTRA
BROS . LOGGING CO. ; SANDBERG LOGGING Co.; Fox LOGGING CO.;
L. O. G. LOGGING Co.; N. ANDERSON LOGGING CO., PETITIONERS and
OLYMPIC PENINSULA INDEPENDENT WOODWORKERS UNION, PETI-
TIONER and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 23-90,
CIO. Cases Nos. 19-RM-149, 19-RC-15924, 19-RM-149, 19-RC-
1527, 19RM 14.8, 19-RC-1558, 19-RM-150, 19RC-1522, 19-RM-
151, 19-RC-1526, 19-RM-152, 19-RC-1530, 19-RM-153, and
19-RC-1540. February 2,1955
Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Melton Boyd, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. All the above-mentioned Employers, except George Secor Log-
ging Co., are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
George Secor Logging Co., herein called Secor, is engaged at Port
Angeles, Washington, in the business of cutting and transporting logs
for several firms who own stumpage. During 1954, Secor was under
contract to the Albion Creek Logging Company, herein called Albion,
to cut, yard, buck, and transport logs removed from Albion's stump-
age to the place of business of its customers. For these logging serv-
ices, Albion paid Secor approximately $160,000 during the past year.
Record testimony reveals that Albion has no production employees,
and contracts all of its logging operations to Secor and three other
logging contractors. Annually, Albion sells about $850,000 worth
of logs, of which approximately $300,000 worth are cut and delivered
by Secor to Albion's customers. Thus, of the amount produced by
Secor, it delivered about 45 percent to Nettleton Timber Co., and the
remainder to two other lumber companies, all located in the State of
Washington. There is no evidence as to how Albion disposes of the
lumber cut by other contractors.
111 NLRB No. 73.