Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 123 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 123
On these facts we find that, although the Union is presently claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer, neither it nor any
other labor organization claims to represent the employees in the unit
alleged as appropriate in the Employer's petition.' Under these cir-
cumstances, we find that the petition does not raise a question con-
cerning representation, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .4 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.r,
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
3 There are about 75 employees in the unit alleged in the petition , and about 35 in the
group which the Union claims to represent.
N Coeur d'Alene Gi ocers Association, 88 NLRB 44, Ny-Lint Tool C Mannfacturuul Co.,
77 NLRB 642
5In view of our disposition of this proceeding, we find it unnecessary to consider the
alternative grounds advanced by the Union in support of its motion to dismiss.
SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS LOCAL 145, (Ai so
KNOWN AS FOOD, BEVERAGE AND EXPRESS DRIVERS LOCAL UNION
No. 145) AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL and THE HOWLAND DRY GOODS COMPANY AND MEIGS ce, CO.,
INC. AND D. M. READ COMPANY. Cases Nos. '2-CC-64, 2-CCi--65,
and 2-CC-66. November 07, 1951
Supplemental Decision
On August 31, 1949, the National Labor Relations Board issued its
Decision and Order in this case (85 NLRB 1037), in which it found
that the Respondent Local 145 had engaged in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, and ordered the Respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial action.
The Board thereafter petitioned the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Second Circuit to enforce its Order against the Respond-
ent. On July 31, 1951, the court of appeals issued its decision (191
F. 2d 65), enforcing that portion of the Board's Order which was
based on the finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
in its picketing of the D. M. Read Company warehouse, Bridgeport,
Connecticut, but remanding the balance of the case to the Board for
97 NLRB No. 24
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the purpose of receiving further material evidence, if available, and
reconsidering the legality of the Respondent's picketing of the areas
and stores involved in the proceeding (other than the area contiguous
to the D. M. Read Company warehouse) in the light of the criteria
established by the Board in Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry
Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547.
On October 12, 1951, the Board notified the parties that any'party
which desired to introduce additional evidence pursuant to the court's
remand should, on or before October 23, 1951, so advise the Board
and submit contemplated offers of proof which would be adduced at
a reopened hearing before a Trial Examiner.
No response to the notice of October 12, 1951, has been received
from any of the parties, and it accordingly appears that further evi-
dence is not available to the Board. The Board has therefore re-
viewed the existing record in this proceeding in the light of the
principles stated in the Sailors' Union case and finds that the picket-
ing in the case does not meet the tests of the Sailors' Union case. The
Board consequently concludes that no change in the Board's Decision
and Order of August 31, 1949, is required or supported by the Sailors'
Union case.
On September 16, 1948, the Respondent requested recognition as
the bargaining agent for the employees of Bridgeport United De-
livery, Inc., (herein called Delivery) which rents trucks to D. M.
Read Company and the Howland Dry Goods Company, both retail
department stores, and supplies these companies and Meigs & Co.,
Inc., with delivery service. The Respondent, which had not been
certified as bargaining representative for Delivery's employees, began
picketing Delivery on September 21.
On September 23, or shortly thereafter, pickets appeared at the
three stores. Drivers of other transportation companies with de-
liveries to and from the Howland and Meigs stores refused to cross
the picket lines. The testimony adduced at the hearing shows that
at Read a picket was stationed at the top of a ramp to the entrance
through which the store receives all of its supplies. At Meigs the
pickets walked along the sidewalk curb from the corner on one street
to the end of the building; on the other street, on which the store is
located, they walked from the corner past the customer entrance to
the delivery chute. According to the testimony the pickets "patrolled"
the store and, although the picketing was not continuous, it was con-
ducted for relatively long periods of time-according to one uncon-
tradicted witness, every time he looked out the pickets were there. At
Howland the pickets did not patrol the company's premises the entire
day, but nevertheless on September 25 were seen at about 8:45, a
couple of times later, and were gone by 3: 30 in the afternoon, and on
DAVIS MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 125
September 28 were seen from about 10: 30 in the morning to 3 in the
afternoon. At this store the picket line was out in front of the ship-
ping entrance "a good 20 feet." Delivery, which normally makes
pickups from the stores at regularly scheduled intervals, picked up
some packages although its service was definitely curtailed during
the period of the dispute. At Meigs the sign carried by the picket at
first charged Meigs with having been unfair to the Respondent; about
1 hour later this sign was revised to conform to the placards borne
at the other stores which indicated that Delivery Company was unfair .
'to the Respondent.
In our opinion, the foregoing uncontroverted evidence in the record
in this case reasonably leads to the inference, and we find, that the
picketing at the three stores involved was not picketing of the primary
employer under the criteria of the Sailors' Union case. The Board
concludes that the picketing was not strictly limited to times when
the trucks of Delivery were located on the store premises nor to times
when the primary employer, Delivery, was engaged in its normal
business at the stores. The picketing, although irregular, did occur
for relatively long periods of time and was not related or limited to
the arrival and departure of Delivery's trucks which ran on a defi-
nitely curtailed schedule during the period of the dispute. Nor was
the picketing limited to places reasonably close to the location of
Delivery's trucks-the pickets patrolled along the sidewalk curb on
two sides of one of the stores and at another were at least 20 feet out
in front of the entrance. Furthermore, at least in one instance, the
placard borne by a picket stated that the Respondent's dispute was
with the secondary employer.
Accordingly, we hereby affirm the Decision and Order of August
31, 1949, without modification.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision.
DAVIS MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS , LOCAL LODGE No. 778, AFL, AND INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS,
HELPERS , DOCKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN , LOCAL No. 41, AFL,
JOINTLY, PETITIONER . Case No. 17-RC-1093. November 27, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Margaret L. Fassig,
97 NLRB No. 22.