Truck Drivers, Local No. 100, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 1201 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL NO. 100, TEAMSTERS
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local No. 100,
an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and King Containers, Inc.,
a Division of King Wrecking, Inc. and ELDA, a
Division of Waste Management, Inc. and Jen-
nings Drayage, Inc. Cases 9-CC-998, 9-CC-
999, and 9-CC-1000
July 29, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On March 14, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief,' counsel for the
General Counsel filed a limited cross-exception and
a supporting brief, and Charging Parties King Con-
tainers, Inc., and ELDA each filed answering
briefs.
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.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local No.
100, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph l(c).
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
t Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record. the exceptions. and the briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions or the parties
2 The Administrative Law Judge found that on April 2, 1979, Re-
spondent's steward. Robert Sellmeyer. made various threats to driver
John Bossman when Bossman crossed Respondent's picket line Howev-
er. the Administrative Law Judge. apparently by inadvertence, failed to
make a specific finding that this conduct was unlawful. although he or-
dered Respondent to cease and desist from such threats. We thererfre
find that Sellmeyer's conduct, as found by the Administrative Law
Judge. violated Sec 8(bH4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. as alleged
250 NLRB No. 157
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT picket the gate reserved for
King, ELDA, Jennings, and other neutral em-
ployers with an object of forcing King and
Jennings to cease doing business with ELDA,
or to force ELDA to cease doing business
with BFI.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with
bodily harm or fines for crossing our picket
line.
TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS &
HELPERS LOCAL No. 100, AN AFFILI-
ATE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BRUCE C. NASDOR, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Cincinnati, Ohio, on July 26, 1979.
The charge in Case 9-CC-998 was filed by King Con-
tainers, Inc., a Division of King Wrecking, Inc. (King),
on April 3, 1979. The charge in Case 9-CC-999 was
filed by ELDA, a Division of Waste Management, Inc.
(ELDA), on April 6, 1979. The charge in Case 9-CC-
1000 was filed by Jennings Drayage, Inc. (Jennings), on
April 9, 1979. The order Consolidating cases and the
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing issued on
April 25, 1979.1 The complaint alleges that the Respond-
ent Union engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to
as the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and, after due considera-
tion of the briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
King, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in refuse collec-
tion in the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio, area. During the
past 12 months, a representative period, King purchased
and received goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000, which were shipped to its various jobsites
within the State of Ohio directly from points outside the
State of Ohio.
I All dates are in 1979 unless otherwise indicaled
1201
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ELDA, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the dispos-
al of solid waste at its landfill in Cincinnati, Ohio.
During the past 12 months, a representative period,
ELDA performed services valued in excess of $50,000
for nonretail enterprises located within the State of Ohio,
each of whom, in turn, during the same period, pur-
chased and received goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000, which were shipped to their respective loca-
tions within the State of Ohio, directly from points out-
side the State of Ohio.
Jennings, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in refuse
collection and disposal in the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio,
area. During the past 12 months, a representative period,
Jennings purchased and received goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to its
business locations within the State of Ohio directly from
points outside the State of Ohio.
Browning and Ferris Industries (BFI) is engaged in
refuse collection in the Greater Cincinnati, Ohio, area.
During the past 12 months, a representative period, BFI
purchased and received goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000, which were shipped to its Cincinnati,
Ohio, place of business directly from points outside the
State of Ohio.
At all times material herein, King, ELDA, Jennings,
and BFI are, and have been, employers within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2) of the Act, and are engaged in com-
merce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local No. 100,
an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica (herein called the Union or Respondent), is, and has
been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At the hearing the parties submitted a joint exhibit en-
titled "Stipulation" which to a great extent eliminated all
factual issues in this case.
On March 20, the Union commenced to engage in an
economic strike against BFI. Respondent picketed the
main and only gate to the ELDA landfill from March 23
until April 5, 1979, with placards proclaiming "Team-
sters Local 100 is on strike against Browning-Ferris In-
dustries." There is no dispute that the picketing took
place only at times when BFI trucks were at the ELDA
landfill. The picketing was successful in that it interrupt-
ed the landfill operation which services many companies
in addition to BFI, King, and Jennings. There is record
testimony that on some occasions trucks of neutral em-
ployers had to wait in line for as much as 2 hours be-
cause of the picketing. Kenneth Louder, ELDA's man-
ager, therefore, found it necessary to inform King that, if
trucks were to block traffic into the landfill, they would
have to go elsewhere for their business. Louder informed
BFI similarly.
On April 4, a second gate was constructed at the
ELDA landfill which was physically separated from the
main gate and reserved for the exclusive use of BFI
trucks. The gate was marked by a 4-foot by 8-foot sign
bearing BFI's logo. The main gate was marked by a 2-
foot-square sign pointing out the BFI entrance. The Re-
spondent Union was notified of the existence of this "re-
served gate," and that all BFI trucks would be required
to use it. Moreover, only BFI trucks would use this gate.
The notification to the Union was made by letter dated
April 4. ELDA utilized the services of a private security
firm for the purpose of supervising the gates. No evi-
dence was adduced at the hearing that the gates were
improperly policed.
On April 5, and continuing until April 14, all BFI
trucks used the reserved gate. During the same period,
ELDA's customers, with the exception of BFI, used
only the neutral gate to the landfill. Between April 5 and
14, when Respondent picketed the landfill while BFI
trucks were on the premises, it picketed both the re-
served gate, used exclusively by BFI trucks, and the neu-
tral gate, used exclusively by all of ELDA's other cus-
tomers.
On March 31, a picket, Henry Rucker, in the presence
of the Respondent Union's steward, Robert Sellmeyer,
directed the following comment to John Bossman, a
King driver. Rucker stated, "Here comes a cry baby. He
is going to try to cry his way into the gate." On April 2,
when Bossman arrived at the landfill, Sellmeyer picked
up a large rock and told him, "You think you are going
to get through this picket line, this will stop you." Boss-
man entered the landfill and, on his way out, Sellmeyer
approached him stating, "If you come through the picket
line again, I'm going to take your license number, and
I'm going to turn it into the Union, and you will be
thrown out of the Union, and you can be fined up to
$2500."
Conclusion and Analysis
Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547 (1950), con-
tinues to be one of the leading cases applicable in an am-
bulatory picketing situation. Also important from the
standpoint of the reserved gate doctrine are Local 761,
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO [General Electrical Company] v.
N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667 (1961), and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO [Carrier Corporation] v. N.L.R.B.,
376 U.S. 492 (1964).
Moore Dry Dock set forth the following tests: (a) the
picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of the
dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises;
(b) the primary employer is engaged in the normal busi-
ness at the situs; (c) the picketing is limited to places rea-
sonably close to the location of the situs; and (d) the
picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the
primary employer. In this case BFI is the primary em-
ployer and ELDA is the secondary employer.
Thus, the facts of this case demonstrate that Respond-
ent was engaged in secondary picketing proscribed by
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. Although Respondent may
have met the first, second, and fourth criteria of Moore
Dry Dock, clearly the third standard was not met. Re-
spondent did not confine its picketing to a place reason-
1202
TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS & HELPERS LOCAL NO. 100, TEAMSTERS
ably close to the location of the situs after ELDA estab-
lished a reserved gate for BFI trucks. Respondent con-
tinued to picket ELDA's main gate which had been lim-
ited to use by neutral employers. Therefore it is clear
that Respondent sought to enmesh neutral employers in
its dispute with BFI.
Respondent's counsel seems to argue that the tests of
related work, set forth in the General Electric case, is a
viable defense. In my opinion this argument fails because
there was no relation between the work of BFI employ-
ees and the affected secondary employers, King and Jen-
nings. I agree with the General Counsel that BFI can be
thought of as a competitor with King and Jennings be-
cause they are all engaged in similar operations and uti-
lized ELDA's facilities to dump refuse. I therefore con-
clude that, by picketing the main gate and by picket
Rucker's comments in the presence of Respondent's ste-
ward, Respondent violated Section 8(b)4)(i) and (ii)(B)
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. BFI, King, ELDA, and Jennings are employers
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local No.
100, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing the main gate and by threatening, in-
ducing, and encouraging a King employee to engage in a
refusal to perform services for King, Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action of the type
conventionally ordered in these cases as provided in my
recommended Order, which I find necessary to remedy
and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices
and effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 2
The Respondent, Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers
Local No. 100, an affiliate of the International Brother-
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Cincinnati, Ohio, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees who cross the picket line
and refuse to engage in a strike.
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining King, Jen-
nings, ELDA, BFI, or any other employer or person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
where an object thereof is to force or require said em-
ployers, their employees, or any other persons to cease
doing business with BFI.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing its members in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(b) Mail signed copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for Region 9 for posting at facilities of King,
ELDA, Jennings, or BFI, provided said companies
choose to post such notices.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
I In the event thai 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
1203