Teamsters Local 860

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 860
Teamsters Local 860, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America and Delta Lines, Inc. Case 20-CC-
1809
May 26, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
On December 27, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and'the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and General Counsel filed a brief in support
of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
only to the extent consistent herewith.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that
the alleged picketing misconduct occurred in the
manner set forth in her Decision. We cannot,
however, agree with her conclusion that the Union
bears responsibility for that misconduct.
The facts are for the most part not in dispute. On
June 7 or 8, Teamsters Local 860, the Respondent
Union, set up a picket line at V.W.R. Scientific's
facility following the breakdown of collective-bar-
gaining negotiations. The picketing continued on a
24-hour-a-day basis for 3 to 4 weeks. Dale West,
Respondent's shop steward at V.W.R., was appoint-
ed picket captain and was given responsibility for
setting up a picket line and for instructing the
pickets. West distributed written instructions to the
pickets which read as follows:
INSTRUCTIONS TO PICKETS
This [sic] instructions are issued to persons
performing picket duty with respect to Van
Waters and Rogers. They are to be followed to
the letter. Any deviation from these rules may
result in serious legal consequences for the Union.
1. You are to picket only with signs supplied
by the Union.
Although West's oral instruction would seem to clash with written
instruction #:3. West explained that VW.R. had no vehicles of its own and
229 NLRB No. 145
2. You may picket at the premises of Van
Waters and Rogers.
3. You may follow any trucks driven by
employees or management personnel employed
by Van Waters and Rogers. When the truck
arrives at its destination you should picket only at
the entrance of those premises and should not
enter on private property. You must remove your
picket sign as soon as the truck leaves those
premises.
4. If you are asked any questions concerning
picketing you should state only that you have a
dispute with Van Waters and Rogers and refer any
questions to the business agent for the Local
Union.
DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.
At a meeting attended by about 80 percent of the
V.W.R. employees, West told the employees that
they were not to follow any trucks leaving V.W.R.'s
facility.' West divided the picketing into 4-hour
shifts, and he, himself, picketed about twice a week
at either the 2-to-6 a.m. shift or the 4-to-8 a.m. shift.
West usually visited the picket line for brief periods
three or four times a day. When West was not at the
picket line, no one was in charge. He left his phone
numbers with the pickets so that he could be reached
if they had any questions. In addition, he left his
phone numbers with the local police department.
On June 10, about 2:30 p.m., three pickets left the
V.W.R. picket line, and followed a truck owed by
Delta Lines, Inc., a neutral employer, after the truck
had completed a delivery at V.W.R. The pickets
overtook the Delta truck and pointed a gun at the
occupants. The truck then took evasive action to get
away from the pickets. Later that afternoon, about
4:30 p.m., persons identified as having been on the
V.W.R. picket line picketed Delta's facility. About
5:30 p.m., a V.W.R. picket spoke with Delta
management personnel and threatened to picket
Delta the following day.
Union representatives did not learn of the above
three incidents until after the charge in the present
case was filed on June I1. No other allegedly
unlawful incidents occurred during the course of the
picketing by Respondent Local 860.
It is clear that the three picketing incidents on June
10 constitute a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) only if the Respondent can be held responsible
for them. We find, however, that General Counsel
has not sustained his burden of proving that
Respondent, either directly or indirectly, authorized
or ratified the above picketing misconduct.
that therefore instruction #3 was really inoperative as far as picketing at
V.W.R. was concerned.
993
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In determining whether a union is responsible for
the misconduct of persons engaged in picketing, the
Board applies the "ordinary law of agency." 2 The
Board will, in applying these agency principles,
impute the conduct of the union's pickets to the
union only where it is shown that the union, either
actually or impliedly, authorized the picket's conduct
beforehand or ratified the conduct after it occurred.
For example, where an authorized union representa-
tive such as a union official or picket captain
participates in picketing misconduct or is present at
the time the misconduct occurs, the Board will not
hesitate to find that the union is responsible. 3
Similarly, where the union has knowledge of its
pickets' misconduct, but fails to take steps "reason-
ably calculated" to control that misconduct, the
Board readily imputes responsibility for the miscon-
duct to the union.4 Where, however, pickets engage
in misconduct which has been specifically forbidden
by the union, and this misconduct is not brought to
the union's attention, or is of an isolated or
nonrecurring nature (so that the union has no
opportunity to prevent it from recurring), the union
will not be held responsible for that misconduct.5
The present case fits within this last category. For,
here, despite Respondent's responsible attempts to
avoid picket line problems, pickets engaged in
prohibited conduct without Respondent's knowl-
edge, and in disregard of Respondent's specific
instructions. Respondent had issued strict written
instructions to its authorized pickets which prohibit-
ed them from engaging in the complained-of activity
of June 10. It had also orally instructed the pickets
not to follow trucks leaving V.W.R.'s premises. In
addition, Respondent's steward, Dale West, visited
the picket line three to four times a day to make sure
that there would be no trouble.
In our judgment Respondent did all that it
reasonably could do to prevent the type of miscon-
duct which occurred on June 10. Moreover, while the
2 See International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C.I.O., et
al. (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487 (1948); Lithographers
and Phoroengravers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Memphis
Local 223, Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC (Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc.), 193 NLRB 11, 19
(1971).
: Teamsters Local #115, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent (E. J. Lavino &
CompanO), 157 NLRB 1637, 1642-43 (1966).
4 Teamsters Local 783, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs. Warehousemen and Helpers ofAmerica (Coca-Cola Bottling Company of
Louisville), 160 NLRB 1776(1966).
' See International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local 182, Utica, New York and Vicinity, AFL (Jay-
K Independent Lumber Corp.), 108 NLRB 1323, 1325 (1954), and Coca-Cola
Bottling Comparny of Louisville, supra.
6 The cases cited by our colleague in support of a contrary conclusion are
patently distinguishable on their facts. In each of those cases, the union
knew about the pickets' misconduct and did nothing to prevent its
recurrence. Indeed, in Teamsters. Chauffeurs,. Helpers & Taxicab Drivers
misconduct of the pickets was serious and is not to
be condoned, it was isolated and nonrecurring. Thus,
after June 10, the picketing continued for another 3
to 4 weeks without further incident. In these
circumstances, we cannot find that Respondent was
responsible for the pickets' misconduct. 6 According-
ly, we shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
MEMBER WALTHER, dissenting:
I cannot agree with my colleagues' conclusion that
Respondent Union bears no responsibility for the
picketing misconduct which occurred on June 10.
Accordingly, I dissent.
It is well established under Board law that a union
is responsible for the acts of its designated pickets,
even where those acts are expressly forbidden by the
union. The only exception to this is where the
conduct of the authorized pickets is so unforeseeable
as to be beyond the scope of the pickets' general
authority to engage in picketing activities. These
principles, first set forth in Sunset Line and Twine
Company, 7 were restated in Coca-Cola Bottling
Works of Nashville8 as follows:
Under the law and the cases, a union's
responsibility for acts, such as those which have
been found, is judged in accordance with the
"ordinary law of agency," and it is liable for the
acts of an agent "within the scope of the agent's
general authority, or the 'scope of his employ-
ment' . . . even though the (union) has not
specifically authorized or indeed may have
specifically forbidden the act in question." It is
enough if the principal actually empowered the
agent to represent him in the general area within
Local Union 327, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Coca-Cola Bottling Works
of Nashville), 184 NLRB 84 (1970), and in Holiday Press, supra. the pickets'
misconduct occurred in the presence of responsible union agents who did
nothing to repudiate it and thereby implicitly condoned it. Also unlike the
facts here, the strikers' misconduct in the cases relied on by the dissent
occurred repeatedly over a period of time with union knowledge and
without any attempt to halt such conduct. By contrast, in this case the
Respondent did everything possible to prevent picket line misconduct; such
misconduct occurred on I day outside the presence of Respondent's agents;
Respondent was not apprised of the misconduct until after the instant unfair
labor practice charge was filed; and, finally, the conduct did not recur. In
these circumstances, the misconduct was clearly isolated and we cannot
infer that Respondent condoned it or find that it is responsible for it.
? International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C.I.O. (Sunset
Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487 (1948).
n Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America (Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville), 184
NLRB 84 (1970).
994
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 860
which the agent acted. The Act itself provides in
Section 2(13) that "the question of whether the
specific acts performed were [either] actually
authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be
controlling," and the Board has held that "autho-
rization or ratification may be manifested by
conduct, sometimes even passive acquiescence as
well as by words."9
The Board has further held that:
[A] union which calls a strike and authorizes
picketing must retain control over the pickets in
whatever manner it deems necessary, in order to
insure that they do not act improperly. If a union
is unwilling, or unable, to take the necessary steps
to control its pickets, it must then bear the
responsibility for their misconduct.10
As the Board said in Henry Wurst, Inc., I a case
which closely resembles this one:
The Respondent contends that it should not be
held responsible for such behavior because it took
all possible steps to repudiate the unlawful
conduct which occurred. These steps consisted
generally of oral and written instructions to
strikers not to commit acts of violence. Such
instructions are not sufficient to absolve a labor
organization of responsibility for acts of violence
committed by pickets on the picket line and other
agents of the union during the course of an
authorized strike.
The union's responsibility extends to all acts which
are reasonably to be expected to occur during the
course of picketing activity and to all acts which
constitute extensions of that picketing activity. This
includes conduct away from the picket line. In Coca-
Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, supra, the Board
stated, in language that is obviously applicable here:
It appears, therefore, that following trucks,
picketing at the customers' premises, and appeals
to them were union ventures and, legally and in
fact, an extension of the Union's primary picket
line. It is well known that in authorized strikes
unions are normally responsible for the acts of
authorized pickets. Threats and the employment
of force on a picket line, even though forbidden,
are reasonably to be expected, and so "within the
scope of employment of pickets for which the
labor organization is responsible."
. . . [Dlamage to trucks, and harrassment of
nonstriking drivers by roving pickets were also
reasonably to be expected and within the scope of
employment of the pickets. This would be so even
if the Union had made some effort to prevent it
12
On the basis of the above, I reject my colleagues'
assertion that Respondent is not responsible for the
acts of its authorized pickets away from the picket
line. The picketing misconduct which occurred on
June 10 fell well within the general authority
delegated to the pickets by the Union. This is
especially true in light of the fact that Respondent's
written instructions to the pickets expressly indicated
that they could follow trucks leaving V.W.R.'s
facilities and picket at the place of destination. Picket
Captain Dale West's purported statements to the
contrary were not sufficient to erase the general
authority conveyed by these written instructions to
picket at other premises. At best, West's statements
created uncertainty in the minds of the pickets as to
what their instructions were. Activity resulting from
following vehicles away from the picket line was
certainly foreseeable by the Union, and the Union
was under a responsibility to prevent it.13 The fact
that the activity may have been nonrecurring in
nature is of no consequence. This, after all, is no
more than the ordinary meaning of the principle of
respondeat superior.
I cannot join in this abdication of the Board's
responsibility to regulate and control improper union
activities related to a picket line. Accordingly, I
would adopt the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion and find the violation.
9 Id at 94. (See also Lithographers and Photoengravers International
Union. AFL-CIO. CLC (Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns, Inc.), 193
NLRB 11 (1971).)
io Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Cannery. Dairy
Employees and Helpers Union Local 695, IBT (Ton) Pellitteri Trucking
Service, Inc.), 174 NLRB 753. 758 (1969).
" Local No. 235, Lirhographers and Photoengravers International Union
(Henry Wurst, Inc.). 187 NLRB 490 (1970).
12 184 NLRB at 94. See also International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Iron Ship Builders. Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers. Local 696 (The Kargard
Companv), 196 NLRB 645 (1972).
1' I note, in passing, that Respondent, though informed of the picketing
misconduct shortly after it occurred, took no steps to disavow that conduct
or to discipline the responsible persons.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V. S. ROBBINs, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in San Francisco, Califor-
nia, on November 2, 1976. The charge was filed by Delta
Lines, Inc., herein called Delta, on June 11, 1976, and
served on Respondent on June 14, 1976. The complaint
which issued on June 30, 1976, alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor
Relations Act. Posttrial briefs were filed by the parties on
December 6, 1976.
The basic issue herein is whether Respondent is liable for
the conduct alleged in the complaint.
995
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Delta, a California corporation, is engaged in hauling
materials in interstate commerce from approximately 27
terminals located in the States of California, Oregon,
Washington, and Nevada, including a terminal facility
located in San Francisco, California. During the past
calendar or fiscal year, Delta hauled freight in interstate
commerce from its San Francisco, California, terminal
facilities valued in excess of $50,000 and, at all times
material herein, Delta has hauled freight from its San
Francisco, California, terminal for V.W.R. Scientific,
herein called V.W.R., a chemical supply company located
in Brisbane, California.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that, at all times material herein, Delta and V.W.R. each
has been an employer or person engaged in commerce or in
operations affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 2(1), (2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The facts herein are undisputed. Respondent is affiliated
with Teamsters Joint Council 7 and with the Western
Conference of Teamsters. Approximately 15 or 20 of the
Teamsters Locals affiliated with Joint Council 7, including
Respondent, and Local 6, International Longshoremen
and Warehousemen Union, herein called ILWU, and
collectively called the Unions, were parties to a master
collective-bargaining agreement covering a multiemployer
unit consisting of members of an employers' council.
Approximately 30 to 40 employers, including V.W.R., are
members of that council. More than 2,400 independent
employers were also signatory to this agreement. In June
1976,1 following unsuccessful negotiation for a new
collective-bargaining agreement, the Unions participated
in a strike against members of the employers council.2
Respondent represents employees of a number of the
struck employers, including V.W.R., and established and
maintained picket lines at the facilities of these employers.
Respondent established a picket line at V.W.R. on or
about June 7 or 8 which continued on a 24-hour-a-day
basis for 3 to 4 weeks. Dale West, Respondent's shop
steward at V.W.R., was appointed by Respondent as picket
captain at V.W.R. and was delegated the responsibility for
I All dates herein will be 1976 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Most of the independents signed interim agreements.
:1 West assigned three persons to a shift. There are approximately 80
V.W.R. employees in the unit.
I West admits that at night he would go for 6 to 7 hours without
appearing at the picket line.
establishing the picket line and instructing the pickets.
Respondent furnished West and picket captains at other
employers with picket signs and written instructions for
picketers. Each picket captain was to fill in the name of his
company on the picket signs and in the blank spaces on the
instruction sheets. West wrote Van Waters & Rogers on the
picket signs and in the blanks on the instruction sheets.
The picket signs used at the V.W.R. facility read:
IBTU Local 860 on Strike
Van Waters and Rogers
West distributed written instruction to V.W.R. strikers
which read:
INSTRUCTIONS TO PICKETS
This [sic] instructions are issued to persons performing
picket duty with respect to Van Waters and Rogers.
They are to be followed to the letter. Any deviation
from these rules may result in serious legal consequenc-
es for the Union.
1. You are to picket only with signs supplied by the
Union.
2. You may picket at the premises of Van Waters
and Rogers.
3. You may follow any trucks driven by employees
or management personnel employed by Van Water and
Rogers. When the truck arrives at its destination you
should picket only at the entrance of those premises
and should not enter on private property. You must
remove your picket sign as soon as the truck leaves
those premises.
4. If you are asked any questions concerning
picketing you should state only that you have a dispute
with Van Waters and Rogers and refer any questions to
the business agent for the Local Union.
DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE.
West picketed for a 4-hour shift3 about twice a week at
either 2 to 6 a.m. or 4 to 8 a.m. He received the same strike
benefits as other strikers with no additional compensation
for performing as picket captain or as shop steward. Strike
benefits were not contingent upon performing picketing
duties. West usually visited the picket line for brief periods
three or four times a day usually at the change of the 4-
hour shifts during the morning and afternoon. 4 Otherwise
he was not present at the picket line except for his own
shift. He placed his telephone numbers on the picket signs
and notified the picketers that he could be reached at one
of those numbers at anytime.5 There were no shift captains
and, according to West, no one was designated as being in
charge of a particular shift. Respondent's business agents
visited the V.W.R. picket line infrequently but were
available by phone if a problem or question arose.6
5 These telephone numbers were also given to the police department.
6 Business Agent Bob Paterson testified he visited the V.W.R. picket line
about four times. Much of their time was spent in negotiations. Generally
996
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 860
Delta provides a daily pickup and delivery service to
V.W.R. and continued to do so during the strike utilizing
management personnel.7
On June 10, Delta made a pickup at V.W.R. The pickup
was made by Lee Stanfel, Delta's area safety supervisor,
and John Yandell, Delta's San Francisco operations
manager.s When they arrived at the V.W.R. facility there
were about four picketers on duty. When they left about
2:30 p.m., there were 8 to 10 persons at the picket line. As
they left, some of the persons ran from the picket line and
followed the Delta truck in a blue and white Chevrolet
Blazer. When the Blazer overtook the Delta truck, it pulled
alongside the Delta truck, one of the three occupants of the
Blazer opened the rear window and aimed a long-barreled
weapon, either a rifle or a shotgun, at the occupants of the
Delta truck. Stanfel took evasive action to get away from
the Blazer, including two illegal left turns. The second such
turn was observed by a highway patrolman who stopped
Stanfel, and, after hearing an account of the Blazer
incident, escorted Stanfel to the Delta terminal. Neither
Stanfel nor Yandell recognized the occupants of the Blazer
nor did they obtain the license number of the Blazer.
During the strike, V.W.R. maintained an observation of
the picket line located on a hill about 50 to 60 feet from the
picket line, manned by various supervisory and manage-
ment personnel. These observers could identify picketers
and see activity on the picket line but could not hear
conversations. On June 10, the observer on the 2-to-4 p.m.
shift was Dave Cooper, district credit manager for V.W.R.
Cooper observed two V.W.R. picketers, whom he later
identified as Tony Meza and Benny Camacho. get into a
blue and white G.M.C. Blazer driven by a V.W.R. picketer
whom he later identified as Larry Gardner. Cooper took a
photograph of the Blazer and made an entry in his
logbook: "6/10- 2:30 p.m. Delta truck left. Two pickets in
blue and white GMC pickup, picture number 4." At the
time a policeman stationed near the observation post made
a notation of the license number of the Blazer and spoke to
someone on his car radio. About 5 to 10 minutes later, the
policeman told Cooper that the car was registered to Larry
Gardner.
Later that afternoon when the Blazer returned to the
picket line, the policeman requested the identification for
the driver and another of the occupants of the Blazer. A
few minutes later he told Cooper the driver was Larry
Gardner and the other person was Tony Meza. Shortly
prior to the hearing herein, Gerald Oldani, division
personnel director for Delta, requested Cooper to walk
through the warehouse with him and point out the
occupants of the Blazer. Cooper pointed out the person
that he observed as the driver of the Blazer and whom the
policeman had identified as Larry Gardner. Oldani knew
this person to be Gardner.9
On June 10 about 4:30 p.m., a Delta employee, Al
Ribotta,' 0 radioed Stanfel that picketers were at the Delta
only Paterson and Business Agent Suvaco were available to handle
Respondent's routine business and to oversee picket lines at a number of
employers involving approximately 500 employees.
I Delta dnvers are represented by Teamsters Local 85.
Both have authority to hire and discharge employees.
Meza is no longer in the employ of V.W R. The record does not reveal
any thing as to Camacho.
terminal. Stanfel immediately went to the main gate of the
terminal. Two persons were picketing with signs reading:
On Strike IBTU Local 860
Van Waters & Rogers
One of the picketers Stanfel recognized as having been on
the V.W.R. picket line that morning when he arrived at the
V.W.R. facility, the same person who, at that time, took a
photograph of Stanfel and Yandel. Stanfel's conversation
was with this person.
Stanfel identified himself and inquired why they were
picketing at the Delta facilities. The picketer said they were
picketing the Delta terminal because Delta was doing
business with V.W.R. during a labor dispute. Stanfel
explained that Delta drivers were honoring the V.W.R.
picket line but that Delta had a legal responsibility to
provide its normal service to V.W.R. and that Delta
management personnel were going into the V.W.R. facility
to perform the normal service that they provided V.W.R.
prior to the strike. The picketer said they were there just
because of that, that Delta had been doing business with
V.W.R. during a strike situation and the picketers were at
the Delta terminal to stop Delta from doing any further
business until Delta agreed to cease doing business with
V.W.R. The picketer then told Ribotta to stop moving
equipment. Stanfel instructed Ribotta to continue with his
normal duties and he did. The picketing continued for
approximately 45 minutes.
At or about 5:30 p.m., an individual driving a blue
Datsun sportscar drove in front of the Delta terminal
several times at 3- or 4-minute intervals and finally stopped
in front of the terminal and the driver got out of the car.
Stanfel and Michael McCammon," Delta's office manag-
er, were there. Stanfel asked if he could help him. The
driver of the Datsun, Jerry Villanueva,'2 said he was a
representative of Respondent, that he had been in touch
with officials of Local 85 and that they would be picketing
Delta on Friday'3 because Delta was doing business with
V.W.R. Stanfel said Delta had a legal responsibility to
continue to provide its normal service to V.W.R. Villanue-
va said, "I don't give a shit. Anybody that continues to go
down to Van Waters & Rogers had better think twice or
else the union could get them."
On June II about 8:10 a.m. two cars containing
approximately seven persons arrived at the Delta terminal
and parked to the side of the main gate. Stanfel saw picket
signs lying in the back seat of one of the cars. The only
legend he could see on the signs was "IBTU, Local 860."
He could not see whether Van Waters and Rogers was
crayoned in on the signs. The cars remained at Delta for
only a few minutes. No one got out of the cars. No one
carried a picket sign and there was no attempt to block
traffic through the gate.
'O Ribotta is a rank-and-file employee who moves equipment in and out
of the Delta terminal.
i' McCammon has authority to hire and fire employees.
12 Villanueva was in the heanng room during McCammon's testimony.
McCammon pointed him out as the driver.
13 June 10 was a Thursday.
997
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find the evidence sufficient to establish that Gardner
and Meza were occupants of the vehicle from which a gun
was brandished at Stanfel and Yandell and that Villanueva
was the person who identified himself to Stanfel as a
representative of Respondent on June 10. I further find
that one of the unidentified picketers at the Delta terminal
on June 10 was the same person observed by Stanfel and
Yandell picketing at V.W.R. earlier in the day. 14 Accord-
ingly, I find that V.W.R. picketers were involved in each of
the three June 10 incidents. The crucial question is whether
such conduct can be attributed to Respondent.
Respondent argues that the persons involved in the
incidents herein were not agents of Respondent, that it had
no knowledge of the incidents involved herein, and that the
alleged conduct was in violation of Respondent's instruc-
tions. Specifically Respondent contends that it instructed
picketers, (I) orally, to refrain from violence; (2) in writing,
to follow only trucks driven by employees or management
personnel employed by V.W.R.; (3) verbally, by Dale
West, not to follow trucks leaving V.W.R.'s premises; (4) in
writing, that they should picket only at V.W.R. premises;
and (5) in writing, that if they were asked any questions
regarding picketing they should state only that they have a
dispute with V.W.R. and any questions should be referred
to Respondent's business agent. Respondent further argues
that when it received reports of picketing problems
involving picketers from the other unions 15 it took steps to
check out each incident and its business agents, and while
not discussing the particular incidents with the responsible
union,' 6 it did indicate to this union that Respondent
would do its own picketing and solve its own problems.
I find that the evidence does not support some of
Respondent's argument. One, the record does not reveal
any written instructions that picketing should be only at
V.W.R. premises. As to West's alleged oral instructions, he
testified that he instructed V.W.R. employees at a mass
meeting attended by about 80 percent of the employees
that they were not to follow any trucks leaving V.W.R.
These instructions, however, are contrary to those in the
written instructions and those given by Respondent's
secretary-treasurer, Mark O'Reilly, that pickets could
follow any trucks driven by employees or management
personnel employed by V.W.R. In the circumstances, even
crediting West, I find that Respondent did not effectively
instruct pickets to picket only at V.W.R. premises and to
refrain from following any trucks leaving said premises.
As to Respondent's remaining arguments, Section 2(13)
of the Act provides:
In determining whether any person is acting as an
"agent of another person so as to make such other
person responsible for his acts, the question of whether
the specific acts performed were actually authorized or
subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.
14 In reaching this conclusion, I have considered that Stanfel's identifica-
tion appears to rest more on the garments worn by the individual than on
any recognition of physical feature. However. Yandell creditably testified
that he recognized the picketer at the Delta facility as being the same person
who picketed earlier at V.W.R.
Is Respondent contends that it had no complaints concerning its own
V.W.R. and other pickets.
tI This is from the testimony of Paterson and Respondent's president.
Furthermore, Board law is well established that persons
who picket at the behest of a union are agents of the union
establishing the picket line and the union is responsible for
their conduct within the scope of such picketing: Service
Employees International Union, Local 254, AFL-CIO
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology), 218 NLRB 1399
(1975), enfd. as modified 535 F.2d 1335 (C.A. 1, 1976). This
may be true even in the absence of any union official; Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union Local 1-
591, AFL-CIO (Snelson, Incorporated), 208 NLRB 296
(1974); General Drivers and Dairy Employees Local Union
563 (Northern Contractors Supply, Inc.), 183 NLRB 1023
(1970); and even though the pickets engage in acts
specifically forbidden by the principal. Drivers, Salesmen,
Warehousemen, etc., Local 695, IBT (Tony Pellitteri Truck-
ing), 174 NLRB 753 (1969). Lithographers and Photoengrav-
ers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and Memphis
Local 223, etc. (Holiday Press, a Division of Holiday Inns,
Inc.), 193 NLRB 11 (1971). The responsibility of a union
for the conduct of its pickets is summed up in Tony
Pellitteri Trucking, supra, thusly:
a union which calls a strike and authorizes
picketing must retain control over the pickets in
whatever manner it deems necessary, in order to insure
that they do not act improperly. If a union is unwilling,
or unable, to take the necessary steps to control its
pickets, it must then bear the responsibility for their
misconduct.
Not only does this apply to conduct on a picket line at
the premises of the struck employer, it also applies to
picketing which can reasonably be considered as an
extension thereof. International Brotherhood of Boilermak-
ers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
Local 696 (The Kargard Company), 196 NLRB 645 (1972). 1
find that by its written instructions and O'Reilly's oral
instructions, Respondent sanctioned picketing away from
the premises of the struck Employer and that it should
reasonably have expected, and provided adequate control
to ensure the proper conduct of, such an extended picket
line. Here Respondent's effort at control was rather lax.
Most of the picketing was done without anyone in
charge.17 There was no procedure for policing primary
picketing at the premises of the struck Employer or at the
premises of neutrals and even the business agent and picket
captain professed an understanding of the instructions for
primary picketing at the premises of neutrals which is
plainly contrary to the written instructions. Thus, accord-
ing to the written instructions, the propriety of following a
truck depended upon the personnel in the truck whereas
West and Paterson testified that it was their understanding
that it depended also upon whether the truck was owned
by the struck Employer.
Henry Aguirre. Aguirre specifically testified that ILWU and Teamsters
Local 12 had roving pickets and Respondent on occasion received reports
that these roving pickets were causing some problems at facilities where
Respondent represented the employees.
17 I have considered and reject General Counsel's argument that the
evidence establishes that Meza and Gardner were in charge of the picket
line.
998
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 860
In the circumstances, I find that the participants in the
incidents involved herein were acting within the scope of
their authority as pickets and that Respondent is responsi-
ble for the conduct alleged herein.
I further find that such conduct is violative of Section
8(b)(4)(B) of the Act. That section provides, in relevant
part, that it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor
organization:
(i) To engage in or to induce or encourage any
individual employed by any person . . . to engage in a
strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to
. perform any services; or
(ii) To threaten, coerce, or restrain any person . . .
where in either case an object thereof is ...
* :I
(B) forcing or requiring any person . . . to cease
doing business with any other person ....
Here there is no doubt as to the object. During both the
Villanueva incident and the picketing incident, the pickets
flatly stated their object to be to force Delta to cease doing
business with V.W.R. Also, the brandishing of a weapon at
the Delta truck which the pickets followed from V.W.R.
premises was clearly aimed at forcing Delta to cease its
daily pickup and delivery service to V.W.R.
Further, the conduct alleged for the object found is
clearly proscribed by the Act. I therefore find by the
brandishing of a weapon at the occupants of the Delta
truck, the picketing at the Delta premises, and the threat to
picket by Villanueva, Respondent has threatened, re-
strained, and coerced Delta in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act; and that by picketing at Delta and
by instructing Ribotta to cease work, Respondent had
induced and encouraged employees of Delta to refuse in
the course of their employment to perform services for
Delta in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act. Local
810, Steel, Metals, Alloys & Hardware Fabricators &
Warehousemen, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Scales Air
Compressor Corp.), 200 NLRB 575 (1972). As to the June Il
incident, I find the evidence insufficient to establish a
violation. Several persons sat in two cars near the Delta
entrance for a few minutes. They engaged in no other
conduct.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Delta Lines, Inc., and V.W.R. Scientific, each is an
employer or person engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Sections 2(l), (2), (6), and (7) and 8(b)(4)(B) of
the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed
by Delta Lines, Inc., to engage in a strike or a refusal in the
course of their employment to perform services for their
employer, and by threatening, coercing, and restraining
Delta Lines, Inc., with an object in either case of forcing
Delta Lines, Inc., to cease doing business with V.W.R.
Scientific, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practic-
es within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and
(ii)(B) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
999