Truck Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 170

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 519 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

TRUCK DRIVERS AND }HEI.PERS UNION, L()CAI NO 170)
Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 170,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and The Labor Relations Division of
Construction Industries of Massachusetts, Inc.
and The Barletta Company and Massachusetts
Laborers' District Council a/w Laborers' Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL-CIO.
Case 1-CD-579.
September 29, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) ME MBE RS
JiNKINS ANI) PENI.II.O
Upon a charge filed on July 10, 1979, by the
Labor Relations Division of Construction Indus-
tries of Massachusetts, Inc., herein called the Asso-
ciation, on behalf of its member contractor. The
Barletta Company, herein called Barletta or the
Employer, and served on Truck Drivers and Help-
ers Union, Local No. 170, a/w International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, herein called Respondent,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by the Regional Director for Region
1, issued a complaint on May 14, 1980, against Re-
spondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(D) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charge and complaint and notice of hearing before
an administrative law judge were duly served on
the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that Respondent vio-
lated the Act by (1) Business Agent George
Valery, on or about July 10, 1979, ordering a strike
against Barletta and Respondent thereafter striking
Barletta at its two Worcester, Massachusetts, job-
sites, an object of the strike being to force or re-
quire Barletta and its subcontractors to assign the
casual or occasional driving of pickup trucks to
haul material and equipment, the disputed work in
this case, to members of Respondent rather than to
employees of Barletta and its subcontractors, repre-
sented by the Massachusetts Laborers' District
Council a/w Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, herein the Laborers, to
whom the disputed work has been and continues to
be assigned; and (2) failing and refusing to comply
with the terms of the Board's April 8, 1980, Deci-
sion and Determination of Dispute in the 10(k) pro-
ceeding.1 On May 21, 1980, Respondent filed its
answer to the complaint admitting in part, and
denying in part, the allegations in the complaint
and asserting as an affirmative defense that the
Board, by its Decision and Determination of Dis-
pute in this proceeding. condoned a breach of con-
tract and denied Respondent its contract rights.
On May 29, 1980, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a "Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment and Motion to Strike Denials in
Respondent's Answer," 2 submitting that Respond-
ent's answer raises no issues which were not previ-
ously considered and decided by the Board in the
10(k) proceeding; that Respondent's affirmative de-
fense presents no factual issue requiring a hearing
but rather is merely a matter for argument; and
that Respondent admits that it has not and does not
intend to comply with the Board's Decision and
Determination of Dispute. Subsequently, on June 5,
1980, the Board issued an order transferrring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice To Show
Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment should not granted. Respondent
did not reply to the Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, in-
cluding the record in the 10(k) proceeding and the
Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute
therein, the Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by the Association on behalf of Barlet-
ta, alleging that Respondent had violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act, a hearing was held
on August 13, 1979. On April 8, 1980, the Board
issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute in
which it concluded, inter alia, that Respondent's ar-
guments that its contract gave it the right to per-
form the disputed work and that Respondent's
members had always performed the work in the
past were without merit; found reasonable cause to
believe that Respondent had violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the Act; and awarded the
disputed work to employees who were represented
by the Laborers rather than to employees who
Iriuck Driver, and IHelpers L'nion. Local .o. 170. affilhaed with Inter-
aulionual Brolh'rhd f lIearniers, Chauffeurs. 14arehouwnmen and llp.-ri
of 4mLrica (lhb HBarlhtta Companvi. 248 NlRH I(X)0
We find it unnlecessars to pass on the General Counsel', tmollin to
strike denials ill Respondent's answer in light of our granting the Motion
for Summary Judgment
:l' /hal Brlctiu Colnpulav, upru
252 NLRB No. 78
519
DECISIONS OF NATI()NAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were represented by Respondent. Thereafter, Re-
spondent refused to comply with the Decision and
Determination and the Regional Director issued
the complaint herein.
In its answer to the complaint, Respondent
denied (1) that Business Agent George Valery, on
or about July 10, 1979, ordered a strike against
Barletta and that it subsequently did strike Barletta
at its two Worcester, Massachusetts, jobsites; (2)
that an object of the acts and conduct engaged in
by Respondent was to force and require Barletta
and its subcontractors to assign work to employees
represented by Respondent rather than to employ-
ees represented by the Laborers; and (3) that such
conduct constituted unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(D) of the
Act. Respondent also asserted, as an affirmative de-
fense, that the Board by its Decision and Determi-
nation of Dispute condoned a breach of contract
and denied Respondent its contractual rights.
We find no merit in Respondent's contentions.
Vincent Barletta's uncontroverted testimony in the
10(k) proceeding revealed that (1) Respondent en-
gaged in a strike on July 10, 1979, as a direct result
of laborers transporting a compressor and a gener-
ator in a pickup truck on July 9, and (2) that Re-
spondent Business Agent George Valery discussed
the strike with Barletta later on July 10 and in-
formed Barletta that:
. . . it was for the cumulative, non-compliance
of laborers utilizing quote pickup trucks, and
particularly, in regards to an incident which
happened the day before, on July 9, in regards
to a laborer, one pulling a compressor and
two, carrying a generator, on a pickup truck.
Valery later testified in the 10(k) proceeding and
stated that employees represented by Respondent
had always performed the disputed work but he
did not, at any time, contradict Barletta's testimony
cited above. Therefore, we find that it was estab-
lished in the 10(k) proceeding that the strike in fact
occurred and that the object thereof was to force
Barletta to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by Respondent rather than employees
represented by the Laborers. Moreover, although
Respondent generally denied the strike and its un-
lawful object in its answer, it has neither pleaded in
its answer nor submitted any evidence to contro-
vert those findings.
Furthermore, in it brief in the 10(k) proceeding,
Respondent asserted that the strike on July 10,
1979, was based on Barletta's violation of the con-
tract as illustrated by Respondent's filing of over
200 grievances against Barletta. It is clear that the
grievances were filed because employees represent-
ed by the Laborers were driving pickup trucks, the
disputed work in this case. Thus, the inescapable
conclusion is that an object of the strike was to
force Barletta instead to assign the disputed work
to employees represented by Respondent.
Accordingly we find that all issues, including
Respondent's affirmative defense that its contract
entitled it to the work, were addressed and decided
by the Board in the 10(k) proceeding. As all mate-
rial issues have been previously decided by the
Board or admitted by Respondent in its answer, we
find that no additional hearings are warranted or
required, and we grant the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment. 4
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. HI:. BUSINESS OF THE EMP.OYER
The Employer, a Massachusetts corporation, is
engaged in the heavy and highway construction
business as a general contractor and annually pur-
chases, directly from points outside Massachusetts,
steel, asphalt, and cement used by it in the con-
struction of highways in Massachusetts, and valued
in excess of $50,000. We find, therefore, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert ju-
risdiction herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLIVED
Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No.
170, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, and Massachusetts Laborers' District
Council a/w Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
Barletta has been a general contractor in the
highway and heavy construction industry through-
out New England for a number of years and is sig-
natory to a statewide agreement with Respondent
as well as a statewide agreement with the Labor-
ers' Union. In connection with the construction of
highways in Massachusetts, Barletta and its subcon-
tractors utilize a number of small pickup trucks.
Respondent threatened to picket and strike Barletta
over the assignment of the work of occasional
4 International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron-
workers, AFL-CIO, Local 433 (Plaza Glass Company), 218 NLRB 848, 849
(1975).
520
TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 170
hauling material and equipment in pickup trucks to
Laborers in 1978 and early 1979. On July 10, 1979,
Respondent's business agent, George Valery, or-
dered a strike against Barletta because employees
represented by the Laborers rather than employees
represented by Respondent were operating pickup
trucks.
B. The Determination of the Dispute
On April 8, 1980, the Board issued its Decision
and Determination of Dispute assigning the casual
or occasional driving of pickup trucks to haul ma-
terial and equipment to employees represented by
the Laborers. The Board also found that Respond-
ent was not entitled by means proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act to force or require the
Employer to assign such work to individuals repre-
sented by Respondent.
C. Respondents Refusal To Comply
In addition to its strike, Respondent has refused,
and continues to refuse, to comply with the
Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute
that it is not entitled to force or require the Em-
ployer to assign the disputed work to employees
represented by the Laborers.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire
record in this proceeding, we find, as described
above, that Respondent's strike and its refusal to
comply with the Board's Decision and Determin-
tion of Dispute violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act.
IV. 'THi. 1FFECT OF THFI UNFAIR I ABOR
PRACTICFS UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE RNMEI)Y
Having found that Respondent had engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. The Barletta Company is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No.
170, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, and Massachusetts Laborers' District Council
a/w Laborers' International Union of North Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations wvithin the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(D) of the Act by (1) striking the Employer to
assign the casual or occasional driving of pickup
trucks to haul materials and equipment to employ-
ees who are members of, or represented by, Re-
spondent by means proscribed by that section of
the Act, and (2) failing to and refusing to comply
with the Board's Decision and Determination of
Dispute which also covers the assigning of the
casual or occasional driving of pickup trucks to
haul materials and equipment.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 170,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Worcester, Massachusetts, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to comply with
the Board's Decision and Determination of Dispute
or striking or refusing to perform services for The
Barletta Company and its subcontractors or any
other persons engaged in commerce or an industry
affecting commerce, where an object is to force or
require The Barletta Company and its subcontrac-
tors to assign the casual or occasional driving of
pickup trucks to haul materials and equipment to
employees who are members of, or represented by,
Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 170,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, rather than to employees who are members of,
or represented by, Massachusetts Labcrers' District
Council a/w Laborers' International Union of
North America. AFL-CIO.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
521
DECISIONS OF NAI'IONAI. LABOR RELATIONS HOARD
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 1
signed copies of such notice for posting by the Em-
ployer, if willing, in places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
I: 1 e t c cunt t lill I}1is Order i, ceIforced hy al Judgment iofa Ilted
a51;1t C'curl f Appeals,. the Ntords in it1 1lot reading 'otel hb
()rder of l he Nattill I .lahor Relaliocs t oilld" h. l 1 Il read oll ci d Iurs-
lilt to i JlgllCTil Iof l i U litCed Stales ('c Jrl a' A\ppcalt I orilcr mg ;an
Order f I hic Natiaull I abor Rctlltions It.ati '
APPENDIX
No-rici To MIMBI:RS
POST:I) Y ORI)R OF THEt
NATIONAI. LABOR Rl-1 ATIONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
W'E WIlol. NOI' refuse to comply with the
Board's Decision and Determination of Dis-
pute awarding the work of casual or occasion-
al driving of The Barletta Company's and its
subcontractors' pickup trucks to haul materials
and equipment, or to strike and to refuse to
perform services for The Barletta Comany and
its subcontractors, or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or an industry affecting
commerce, where an object is to force or re-
quire The Barletta Company and its subcon-
tractors to assign the above work to employ-
ees who are members of or represented by
Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No.
170, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, rather than to employees who are
members of or represented by Massachusetts
Laborers' District Council a/w Laborers' In-
ternational Union of North America, AFL-
CIO.
TRUCK DRI[ FRS AN) HEI PRS
UNION, LOCAl NO. 170, A/W INTER-
NA'IONAI. BRO IIRHOOI) O TAM-
STERS, CIAUFI tIURS WARIHOUSIEI-NN
\NI) HI(I PILRS 01 AMERICA
522