International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 957 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., OF AMERICA 957
priate and desirable for the Board ordinarily to decide the issues
raised by objections, thus laying down standards of conduct for future
elections. 'Therefore the Board will normally resolve the issues raised
by objections, even though more than a year may have elapsed since
the date of the election. Accordingly, we shall deny the Employer's
petition for reconsideration and motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Employer's petition for reconsidera-
tion and motion to amend order directing hearing be, and they hereby
are, denied.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY
TRANSFER DRIVERS , HELPERS, DOCKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN,
LOCAL No. 41, A. F. OF L. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
--MOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 447, A. F. OF L. Case No.
17-CC-15. October 19,1951
Decision and Order
On July 25, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
-the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the
Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
-certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy 'of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
=Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and support-
ing briefs.
'The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
'The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case,-and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations except as modified herein.
As found by the Trial Examiner, the charging union was certified
by the Board on December 23, 1949, as the representative of certain
employees of the Company. For a period of about 5 weeks in May
.and June 1951,2 the Respondent, which was engaged in a campaign
.at that time to organize employees of automobile dealers in the area,
picketed the Company's premises. During that period employees of
other employers, who approached the Company's premises for the
,purpose of making deliveries or performing services there, turned
i Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection
-with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston , Reynolds , and Styles].
2 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that the picketing began in May 1950.
96 NLRB No. 145.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
back at the picket line. The Company's employees remained at work
throughout this period, notwithstanding the picketing.
The Trial Examiner found that by such picketing the -Respondent
induced employees of employers other than the Company to engage
in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to transport
or handle commodities or to perform any services for the Company.
We do not rely on this finding, as it is not necessary for the determina-
tion of this case. It is sufficient that the picketing, as we find, neces-
sarily constituted an inducement and encouragement to the employ-
ees of the Company to engage in a strike or other concerted refusal
to perform services for their employer. Section 8 (b) (4) (C) for-
bids the inducement or encouragement of employees of any employer
to engage in the proscribed conduct, an object thereof being to force
any employer to recognize or bargain with a union in the face of
prior certification of another union. Accordingly, 'the inducement
in this case of employees of the Company to engage in a primary strike
to force the Company to bargain with the Respondent falls within the
interdiction of Section 8 (b) (4) (C).3 It is, therefore, immaterial
whether the picketing in this case exerted secondary, as well as pri-
mary, pressures on the Company. It- is immaterial , moreover, that
such inducement or encouragement was not successful 4
The Respondent contends, however, that its picketing of the Com-
pany's premises did not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act be-
cause it was not accompanied by any express demand that the Com-
pany recognize the Respondent as the representative of its employees,
and that the Board, therefore, may not find that the picketing had as
an object requiring the Company to recognize the Respondent as such
representative.
However, upon the record as a whole, we agree with the Trial
Examiner, for the reasons detailed in the Intermediate Report, that
in this case a demand for recognition of the Respondent by the Com-
pany was implicit in the Respondent's conduct in picketing the
Company's premises, and that the picketing, therefore, had as an
object requiring the Company to recognize the Respondent as the
representative of employees of the Company.
We find, therefore, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4)
(C) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees of the Com-
pany to engage in a strike or other concerted refusal to perform
services for the Company, an object thereof being to force or require
the Company to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the
representative of employees of the Company, where another labor
organization had been certified as the representative of such employees.
3 Oppenhetm Collins & Co , Inc, 83 NLRB 355; Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 93 NLRB 1638.
4 Western, Inc, 93 NLRB 336; The Grauman Company, 87 NLRB 755, 759.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF'TEAMSTERS, ETC., OF AMERICA 959
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen and
Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L., and its officers, representa-
tives, successors, assigns, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist, during the effective period of the certification
issued by a Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board
on December 23, 1949, in Case No. 17-RC-521, or any other certifica-
tion by the Board of a labor organization, other than International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dock-
men and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L., from inducing
and encouraging the employees of Union Chevrolet Company, or of
any employer, to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on, any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or
to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require
said Company to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the
representative of any employees of said Company in the collective bar-
gaining unit of employees covered by such certification.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office in Kansas City,
Missouri, including all places where notices or communications to
members are customarily posted, a copy of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report as Appendix A.5 Copies of the notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
6 This notice shall be amended by inserting in the caption thereof, in lieu of the words
"the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ," the words "A Decision and Order." If
this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be
inserted before the words "A Decision and Order " the words "A Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automobile Workers'
6f America, Local 447, A. F. Of L., herein called UAW' or the Charging Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively
referred to as General Counsel and the. Board, by the Regional Director for the
Seventeenth Region. (Kansas City, Missouri), issued a complaint dated June 21,
1951, against International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse.
men and Helpers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers,
Dockmen and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L., herein called Teamsters
or the Respondent, alleging that, the Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (4) (C) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the com-
plaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the
Charging Union, and copies of the charges upon the Respondent.
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended, alleges in
substance that the Respondent has induced employees of the Union Chevrolet
Company, herein called, the Company, and of other employers, to engage in a
strike or concerted refusal to use, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform services, an object thereof
being to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with the Respond-
ent as the representative of employees in an appropriate unit for which the
UAW had been certified as the exclusive bargaining representative.
In its duly filed answer the Respondent denied the commission of the unfair
labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Kansas City, Missouri, on July 2,
1951, before the undersigned duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were
represented at and participated in the hearing where full opportunity was af-
forded them to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro:
duce evidence bearing on the issues. No witnesses were called. At the opening
of the hearing the parties, by agreement, introduced into evidence the evidential
part of a record made by them on June 26, 1951, before Judge Albert A. Ridge,.
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, as the record
in these proceedings. Ruling was reserved upon the Respondent's motion to
dismiss the complaint; it is disposed of by the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations appearing below.
Briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Union Chevrolet Company is a Missouri corporation having its principal office
and place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. As an automobile dealer it
holds a standard dealer's franchise from the Chevrolet Division of General
Motors Corporation. During the year 1950, the Company purchased new cars
and trucks assembled at the Chevrolet assembly plant at Leeds, Missouri, valued
at approximately $1,000,000. The parts used in the assembly of new cars and
trucks at the Leeds plant are shipped to that plant from other General Motors
plants located in States other than the State of Missouri. Total purchases of
the Company during 1950 amounted to more than $2,000,000 in value, of which
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,'ETC., OF AMERICA 961
about 10 percent represented payments for parts shipped directly to the Company
-from sources outside the State.of Missouri. During the same year the 'Company
received from sales about $2,300,000, of which amount about 5 percent was
received from shipments to purchasers .outside the State of Missouri.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen
and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A F. of L.; International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, Local 447, A. F. of L.; and International Association
of Machinists, Lodge No. 778, herein called Machinists, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. `THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
All material evidence points to the simple fact that the major issue in this
proceeding stems from a bitter jurisdictional rivalry between two groups of
A. F. of L. labor organizations. The employer involved is, according to a common
expression, "caught in the middle."
For some time Teamster-Machinist locals, on the one hand, and the UAW on
the other, have been competing vigorously for representation of employees of
automobile dealers in the Kansas City area.' Late in 1949, the Board con-
ducted a number of representation elections among employees of many dealers.
On December 23 of that year the UAW was certified as the exclusive bargaining
agent for certain employees of the Company here involved. In June 1950, the
UAW and the Company entered into a contract due to expire in June 1952.
In an apparent effort to solve the rivalry problem, late in 1950 an A. F. of L.
official held a meeting of representatives of the various locals. At this meet-
ing O. B. Enloe, head of the Teamsters, openly told UAW representatives that
wherever they organized the Teamsters would oppose them and declared that
eventually the UAW "would wind up with no membership in Kansas City." 2
On May 20 or 21, 1950, there appeared in front of the Company's place of
business a Teamsters' picket carrying a banner upon which was the following
legend :
Truck drivers, parts department, and lubrication employees of Union Chev-
rolet are not members of Truck Drivers Local No. 41 A. F. of L.
The employee classifications cited on this banner included, in general terms,
those found by the Board to be within an appropriate unit and as exclusive
representative of which the UAW had been certified. Picketing thereafter
continued until June 26, 1951, when, upon petition of Regional Director Hugh E.
Sperry, Judge Albert A. Ridge, United States District Court, granted a restrain-
ing order temporarily enjoining the Respondent from picketing the Company's
place of business.
During the period from May 20 or 21 to June 26, several employees of employers
other than Union Chevrolet were induced, by presence of the Teamsters' picket,
1 As a witness, Business Representative Frank McGuyre of the Teamsters admitted that
his local and the UAW have "for some time been contesting for membership of employees,
such as part of the employees at Union Chevrolet." He also testified that when such
employees had been organized by the Teamsters and Machinists, these locals entered into
a joint contract with the employer.
2 The quotation is from the testimony of Boyd Shinn, a representative of UAW, which
Enloe did not dispute.
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
to refrain from delivering to the Company new automobiles and other com-
modities and from performing services for the Company. Among such em-
-ployees were drivers employed by Puritan Compressed Gas Corporation, Jack
Cooper Transport Company, Coca Cola Company, Bill Goodard Chevrolet Com-
pany, and Byers Transportation.
A driver for the Puritan Compressed Gas Corporation who, before the
presence of the picket, had regu]arly made deliveries to the Company, asked the
picket what he was doing, was told that he was organizing, and thereupon made
no delivery. An employee of the Kansas City House & Window Cleaning Com-
pany came to the Company's place of business on May 22 or 23 to wash its
windows, in accordance with practice under a contract for such services. The
picket ordered him to move on down the street, and following an argument
the window-washer left without performing any services. A driver for Cooper
Transport, delivering new cars to the Company, would not cross the picket line
but left them a block away from the Company's place of business.
Enloe admitted, upon questioning of the Respondent's counsel, that by picket-
ing the Company he hoped to "channel business away from-this place and to
other places that use" members of his local.
B. The issues and conclusions
The section of the Act invoked by these proceedings is as follows:
It shall be an unfair labor 'practice for a labor organization or its
agents . . . to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any
employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any
services, where an object thereof is : . . . forcing or requiring any employer to
recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the representa-
tive of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the
representative of such employees. . . .
It is General Counsel's contention, opposed by the Respondent, that by the con-
duct described in the above section the quoted portion of the Act has been
violated.
In his brief counsel for the Respondent states the question succinctly: "The
sole issue is one of fact : Was the picketing really calculated to force the
Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent. . .. " He then points to the
fact that "the record in this case is entirely barren of any factual evidence of a
request or demand by the Respondent upon the Employer for recognition or bar-
gaining rights."
It appears to the Trial Examiner that counsel's question must be answered
in the affirmative. By its picketing the Respondent created a situation from
which the Company could reasonably extricate itself only by dealing, in some
manner, with it-or by going out of business entirely. Under the circumstances
the Respondent's defense that it made no oral or written demand for recognition
upon the Company is as invalid, in the opinion of the undersigned, as would be
that of a deaf-mute hold-up artist who, while admitting that he pointed a gun at
his victim, blandly disclaims having had any intent to induce that individual to
hand over his money.
Furthermore, it is plain that Respondent has been engaged and is still en-
gaged in a campaign to represent employees of all automobile dealers in the
area, including those of the Company. Such representation would be without
reasonable purpose if its ultimate goal were not to bargain collectively with the
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., OF AMERICA 963
employers in this field, including the Company. Despite its abstention from
making bargaining demands upon the Company simultaneously with the estab-
lishment of a picket line, it is reasonably inferred, and is found, that the Re-
spondent's ultimate object was to require the Company to recognize and bargain
with it. The language of the Act does not limit "an object" with the qualification
of immediacy.
In reviewing congressional debates on amendments to the Act, the Trial Exam-
iner fails to note any dissident opinion, even from labor's staunchest supporters,
to that generally expressed, which is to the effect that secondary boycotts, of a
nature above described, where another union has been certified by the Board,
should be prohibited.
=The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that: (1) The Respon-
dent induced employees of other employers to engage in a concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to transport or handle commodities or to
perform any services for the Company; (2) an object thereof was to require
the Company to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of its em-
ployees; and (3) this conduct occurred at a time when the UAW was the
certified representative of such employees.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section 1,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,, traffic, and
commerce among the several states, and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices,
the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record, the Trial Ex-
aminer makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Union Chevrolet Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dock-
men and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L.; International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local 447, A. F. of L.; and International
Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 778, are, respectively, labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Since December 1949, International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, Local 447, A. F. of L., has been certified by the Board as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of employees of the Company in an appropriate
unit, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
4. From on or about May 20, 1951, to on or about June 26, 1951, the Respond-
ent, by inducing employees of other employers to engage in a concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise'handle commodities
or to perform any services for the Company, an object thereof being to require
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of its em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, notwithstanding the fact that the UAW had
been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of said employees,
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C)
of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF UNION CHEVROLET COMPANY
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our members and employees of Union Chevrolet
Company, that :
During the operative and effective period of a certain certification of
employee-representatives issued by the National Labor Relations Board on
December 23, 1949, in Case No. 17-RC-521, or any other certification of a
labor organization, other than INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE-ROAD AND
CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS, HELPERS , D0cKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN LOCAL No.
41, A. F. of L., we will not induce or encourage the employees of Union
Chevrolet Company, or of any employer, to engage in a'concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commod-
ities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is forcing or
requiring Union Chevrolet Company to recognize or bargain with us as the
representative of any employees of Union Chevrolet Company, in the col-
lective bargaining unit of employees covered by such certification.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN,
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , OVER-THE-
ROAD AND CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS, HELP-
ERS, DOCKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN,
LOCAL No. 41, A. F. OF L.
By -------------------- ------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
MODERN MOTORS, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
GENERAL TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS' AND HELPERS LOCAL 460,
A. F. OF L. Case No. 17-CA-269. October 19, 1951
Decision and Order
On May 31, 1951, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
96 NLRB No. 138.