Warehouse Employees Union Local 570, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 731 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 570, ETC. 731
WE WILL offer to Theodore Cruise, Clarence Gailes, Cleo Gibson, Elmer
Hardy, Otis Johnson , William Manners , Leon Mitchell , Walter Mosie, Sam
Parrott, and Kenneth Suber immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL bargain collectively , on request , with General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 968, as the exclusive representative of
employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment , or other terms or conditions of employ-
ment , and, if an understanding is reached , we will embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All truckdrivers , truckdrivers' helpers, warehousemen , fork-lift opera-
tors, and checker-receiving clerks, employed in the Houston branch, ex-
cluding office clericals salesmen , guards, watchmen , and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
All our employees are free to become , remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above -named or any other labor organization , except to
the extent that such a right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
THE LONE STAR COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-----------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 6617
Federal Office Building , 515 Rusk Avenue , Houston , Texas, Telephone No. Capitol
8-0611 , Extension 296, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 570 , International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America and Whitaker Paper Company
Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No . 355, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Whitaker Paper Company. Cases Nos. 5-CP-28
and 5-CP-29. November 13, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges separately filed on January 24, 1964, by Whitaker
Paper Company against Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 570,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, and against Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local No. 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, both herein referred to as
the "Unions" or "Respondents," the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Regions,
149 NLRB No. 68.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issued an order consolidating the two cases and a consolidated com-
plaint and notice of hearing. The complaint alleged that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charges, order consolidating the two cases,
complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondents.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that Respondents unlawfully picketed the premises of
the Charging Party without having filed a valid petition for an
election under Section 9 (c) of the Act within a reasonable period of
time from the commencement of such picketing, the object of the
picketing being to force or require Whitaker Paper Company to
recognize and bargain with the Respondents as the representatives
of its employees. The Respondents are not currently certified as the
representatives of such employees. In their answer, the Respondents
deny the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
On April 13, 1964, a hearing was held in this matter before Trial
Examiner Thomas S. Wilson. Subsequent to the hearing, but prior
to the issuance of a decision herein by the Trial Examiner, the parties
hereto, on May 18, 1964, jointly moved to transfer the proceedings
directly to the Board, waiving therein the issuance of a decision by
the Trial Examiner and agreeing therein that the entire record to be
filed with the Board shall consist of the official transcript of proceed-
ings before the Trial Examiner upon which the Board may make
findings of fact and conclusions of law and- enter its order pursuant
to the provisions of the Act.
On May 22, 1964, at the direction of the Board, an order was issued
granting this motion and transferring the cases to the Board. There-
after, the Respondents, jointly, and the General Counsel filed briefs
with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
Upon the basis of the parties' motion as granted by the Board,
the entire record in this case, and the briefs, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Whitaker Paper Company is, and at all times material herein has
been, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 570, ETC. 733
Ohio, with its office and place of business on East Saratoga Street,
Baltimore, Maryland.
During the course and conduct of its business operations , Whitaker
annually receives goods and materials from points outside the State
of Maryland which are valued in excess of $50,000 and annually
ships products to points outside the State of Maryland which are
valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondents do not deny, and we
find, that Whitaker is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 570, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 355, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Whitaker, a subsidiary of Nation-Wide Paper, which is wholly
owned by Champion Papers, Inc., distributes paper, paper products,
and building materials in the Baltimore, Maryland area. The Com-
pany had entered into a separate collective-bargaining agreement
with each of the two Respondents for a number of years, although
neither Union had been certified by the Board as a representative of
the Company's employees. The last agreements between the parties
ran from October 1, 1962, through September 30, 1963. Negotiations
for new agreements were begun in August of 1963. The parties were
not able to reach agreement with respect to wages and fringe benefits
by the expiration date of the then-current contracts; and, therefore,
on October 1, 1963, all of the Company's employees who were repre-
sented by the two Unions struck. The parties agree, and we find, that
the strike began as a result of their failure to reach agreements re-
garding certain economic issues.
On October 2, 1963, the Company began hiring permanent replace-
ments for the striking employees. By October 8, 1963, 100 percent
of the striking employees had been replaced.
The parties met again on October 16, 1963, with a Federal Media-
tor present. The Company informed the Respondents that there was
nothing further to be discussed inasmuch as 100 percent of the strikers
had been permanently replaced and, that, therefore, the Company
had a good-faith doubt that the Respondents represented majorities
of its employees in the appropriate units. The Federal mediator
was unable to bring about any meeting of the minds; negotiations
were then permanently terminated by the Company.
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. Immediately thereafter, the Unions filed charges with the Regional
Director alleging that the Company had refused to bargain in Viola-
tion of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. The Regional Director found no
evidence of a violation and dismissed the charges. The Unions then
filed an appeal with the General Counsel who, on January 21, 1964,
notified the Unions that he concurred in the Regional Director's
refusal to issue a complaint.
On January 24, 1964, with the picketing still in progress, the
Company filed charges against the Respondents, alleging the viola-
tions of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act, which are the subject hereof.
CONCLUSIONS
The issue presented here is whether or not picketing, lawfully com-
menced and maintained during a strike by a recognized incumbent
statutory representative in support of a collective-bargaining dispute
with respect to economic issues, was converted to picketing for a
recognitional objective within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C)•
merely because the picketed company replaced the striking employees.
The legislative history renders it apparent that a prime purpose
for the enactment of Section 8(b) (7) (C) was' to deal with so-called
"blackmail picketing."' The Board has found violations of this sec-
tion in situations involving attempts by unions to coerce employer
recognition by engaging in extended picketing rather than filing a
valid petition for an election under Section 9 (c) of the Act. The
matter here before us, however, does not present such a situation.
On August 11, 1959, Congressman Griffin, while speaking on the
floor of the House of Representatives regarding the various bills
before the House which dealt with the subject matter of Section
8(b) (7) (C), stated:
Blackmail organizational picketing is the weapon that is used
most often and effectively by those who are corrupt in the union
movement.
At the outset, it should be clear that there is no provision in
any of the bills which impairs or affects the right of organized
employees to go on strike for better wages and working condi-
tions-and to picket in connection with such a strike.2
In the instant case, the Respondents struck-in an attempt to better
the wages,and working conditions of their members who were em-
ployed by Whitaker. The picketing engaged in by members of Re-
spondents has at all times been in connection with this strike.
The Board has previously examined the intent of Congress in
enacting. Section 8(b) (7) (C). In Building and Construction Trades
1 See, e g., II Leg. Hist. 994, 1182, 1518, 1523 , 1567, 1615, and 1630.
211 Leg. Hlst . 1567 -
MARSHALL MAINTENANCE CORP. 735
Council of Santa Barbara County, AFL-CIO, et al. (Sullivan Elec-
tric Company),3 we said :
... Thus, by attributing a bargaining objective to the Respond-
ents' picketing and by resorting to a strictly literal construction
of the statute, it is arguable that the picketing falls within Sec-
tion 8(b) (7)'s prohibition against picketing to force an em-
ployer "to recognize or bargain with, a labor organization as
the representative of his employees." Nevertheless, after analyz-
ing the overall Congressional purpose behind the enactment of
this section,' we are convinced that the words "recognize or bar-
gain" were not intended to be read as encompassing two separate
and unrelated terms. Rather, we believe they were intended to
proscribe picketing having as its target forcing or requiring an
employer's initial acceptance of the union as the bargaining rep-
resentative of his employees. [Emphasis supplied]. When viewed
in this posture, it is clear that Sullivan had recognized and ex-
tended bargaining rights to the Respondents long before the dis-
puted picketing commenced here and that such picketing there-
fore was not designed to attain those statutory objectives... .
' International Hod Carriers , etc., Local 840, AFL-CIO (Charles A. Blinne, d/b/a
C. A. Blinne Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1153.
We are requested by the General Counsel to conclude that the Re-
spondents' strike-admitted by all parties to be economic-became
unlawful under Section 8(b) (7) (C) after the Company's replace-
ment of its striking employees because the Unions thereafter failed to
file a valid petition for an election in accordance with Section 9(c).
We cannot agree, and do not find, that the former section was in-
tended by Congress to encompass such a situation. Accordingly, we
find that the Respondents have not violated Section 8(b) (7) (C) of
the Act and shall order that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
3146 NLRB 1086.
Marshall Maintenance Corp . and Local 731, United Automobile,
Aircraft , and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 22-CA-1113. November 16, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On December 19, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding the Respondent had dis-
1145 NLRB 538.
149 NLRB No. 72.