Local 135, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 251 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

LOCAL 135, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC 251
It will also be recommended that the Respondent make its employees whole for
any sums of money lost by reason of the elimination of the yearend bonus and pay
for New Year's Day
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
2 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
3 By discriminating in regard to employment, thereby discouraging membership
in a labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the m eaning of Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication I
Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Aetna Plywood
& Veneer Company
Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America [Holland Motor Ex-
press, Inc.] and Aetna Plywood & Veneer Company Cases
Nos 35-CB-307 and 35-CC-59 January 20, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 18, 1959, Trial Examiner David London issued his
Intermediate 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 take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of
its exceptions
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board 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 Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in these cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations'
1Member Fanning dissents from the majority 's conclusion that the Respondent violated
Section 8(b) (1) (A) for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in Paint, Varnish &
Lacquer Makers Union, AFL-CIO, et at (Andrew Brown Company ), 120 NLRB 1425,
126 NLRB No 40
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 135, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, and its officers, representatives, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Restraining and coercing the employees of Aetna Plywood &
Veneer Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, by picketing that Company, or engaging in any other
conduct, for the purpose of forcing said Company to recognize or
bargain with the Respondent as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of its employees when the Respondent does not represent a ma-
jority of such employees in an appropriate unit.
(b) Inducing or encouraging the employees of Holland Motor Ex-
press , Inc., or any other employer (other than Aetna Plywood &
Veneer Company), to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the
course of their employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities, or to perform any services for their employer, where an
object thereof is (1) to force or require Holland Motor Express, Inc.,
or any other employer, to cease doing business with Aetna, or with
any other person; or (2) to force or require Aetna to recognize or
bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its employees
unless the Respondent is certified as the representative of such em-
ployees pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its business offices at Indianapolis, Indiana, and all
other places where notices to its members are customarily posted,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of
the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure
International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No 311 , AFL-CIO, et al (Ma-
chinery Ovei haul Company, Inc ), 121 NLRB 1176; Local 208, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , etc (Sierra Furniture Company), 125 NLRB 159; and for the reasons
stated by the US Courts of Appeal in Drivers , Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union
No. 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc (Curtis Brothers , Inc.) v
NLRB, 274 F 2d 551 (CA, D.C.) ; and N L.R.B. v International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , etc, Local Union No. 82 ( Ailing f Cory Co.), 272 F. 2d 85 (C.A 2).
2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
LOCAL 135, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC . 253
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region signed
copies of the said notice for posting at the premises of Aetna Plywood
& Veneer Company and Holland Motor Express, Inc., if willing, in
places where notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 135, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce the employees of Aetna Ply-
wood & Veneer Company, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, by picketing that Company, or engaging
in any other conduct, for the purpose of forcing said Company
to recognize or bargain with us as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees when we do not represent a majority
of such employees in an appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of Holland
Motor Express, Inc., or of any employer, other than Aetna Ply-
wood & Veneer Company, to engage in a strike or 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
for their employers where an object thereof is (1) to force or
require Holland Motor Express, Inc., or any employer, to cease
doing business with Aetna Plywood & Veneer Company, or with
any other person; or (2) to force or require Aetna Plywood &
Veneer Company to recognize or bargain with us as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees when we do not repre-
sent a majority of such employees in an appropriate unit.
LOCAL 135, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF 'TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings are brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, pursuant to two separate com-
plaints issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board against
Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called the Union. The complaint in Case No. 35-CB-
307 alleges, in substance, that the Union has, since December 18, 1958, violated
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act by picketing the premises of Aetna Plywood &
Veneer Company, hereinafter called Aetna, for the purpose and object of forcing
Aetna to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of Aetna's employees, though the Union has not been designated as such
exclusive bargaining representative since December 18, 1958.
The complaint in Case No. 35-CC-59 alleges that though the Union has not since
January 12, 1959, been certified as the collective-bargaining representative of any
of Aetna employees, it has on and after March 20, 1959, induced and encouraged
employees of Holland Motor Express, Inc., hereinafter called Holland, to engage in
strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to transport or
handle goods and commodities, or to perform services, for the object of forcing or
requiring Holland to cease handling and transporting shipments to and from Aetna,
and to force Aetna to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tives of Aetna's employees. This conduct is alleged to be violative of Section
8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Act. By its separate answer filed to each complaint,
the Union denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. On May 5, 1959,
the Board's Regional Director for the Ninth Region consolidated the above two
cases as provided in Section 102.3 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
The consolidated proceedings came on for a hearing before the duly designated
Trial Examiner at Indianapolis, Indiana, on June 9-10, 1959. All parties were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. At the close of the testimony
the General Counsel and Respondent presented oral argument. Since that time briefs
have been received from the General Counsel, the Union, and Aetna, all of which
have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Aetna is a Delaware corporation, having an office and place of business at In-
dianapolis, Indiana, where it is engaged in the wholesale distribution and storage of
plywood. During the calendar year 1958, which is a representative period, Aetna
purchased and shipped directly to its plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, from points
located outside the State of Indiana, goods of a value in excess of $50,000. I find
that Aetna is, and at all times material herein, has been engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On or about May 1, 1955, a collective-bargaining agreement became effective be-
tween Aetna and the Union, the term of which was to extend to and including April
30, 1961. The agreement contained "a provision for a wage reopener as of April
30, 1958. . . . if a written notice to such affect . was served on Aetna." On
or about January 30, 1958, the Union served such a notice upon Aetna advising
the latter that "said collective bargaining agreement was open for wages as of .. .
April 30, 1958." Pursuant to said notice, the parties met and negotiated with re-
spect to proposed monetary changes, but failed to reach agreement thereon
On July 23, 1958, after a strike vote, the employees of Aetna went on strike and
picketed Aetna's premises with a sign containing the following language:
LOCAL 135, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF, TEAMSTERS, ETC. 255
ON STRIKE
TRUCKDRIVERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN OF AETNA PLYWOOD AND
VENEER COMPANY
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 135
The picketing , with the legend on said sign unchanged , continued until on or about
April 3, 1959, at which time the picketing was terminated by the Union.
In the meantime, on August 7, 1958, a petition was filed with the Board in Case
No. 35-RD-88, pursuant to which an election was held by the Board on December
18, 1958, among the employees of Aetna to determine whether they desired to be
represented by the Union. As a result of that election, a certificate was issued by
the Board certifying that a majority of the valid votes had not been cast for the
Union, and that the Union was not the collective-bargaining representative of these
employees.
On the foregoing facts, stipulated by the parties at the hearing, I can only conclude
that Respondent's picketing on and after December 18, 1958, was violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Since the decision of the Board in the so-called
Curtis Bros. case i the Board has consistently held that picketing for recognition
by a union, when it does not represent a majority of the employees, is violative of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act?
The Union seeks to avoid the conclusion announced above on the ground that the
strike here was not for recognition as it was in the cases cited in footnotes 1 and 2,
supra. Here, the Union argues, "there was never at any time an issue as to the
`recognition' of the Union by Aetna." Instead, the Union contends, the employees
"went on strike in support of their monetary demands under the wage opener pro-
vided in the contract."
However, by its picketing in support of those demands after December 18, 1958,
when it was no longer the bargaining representative, the Union was attempting to
achieve objectives normally obtained as a result of collective bargaining by a duly
designated bargaining representative . Here, "it is clear that the [Union] was
seeking, by picketing to compel `Aetna' to bargain with it without regard to the
question of the [Union's] status as representative of the employees." J. C. Penney
Company, supra. From and after December 18, 1958, the strike and the picket
line, in the circumstances here present , cannot be considered to be anything less than
a continuing demand for recognition and bargaining by a union that did not repre-
sent the employees and therefore had no right to make such a demand.
I can see no distinction between this case and that of Machinery Overhaul Co,
Inc., supra. There, as here, the union, while it was the duly certified bargaining
representative, engaged in a strike over economic demands. During the pendency of
that strike, the union was decertified. The Board there held that the picketing after
the union was decertified was violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. See also
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America AFL-CIO and its
Local 511 (O'Sullivan Rubber Corporation), 121 NLRB 1439, enfd. 269 F. 2d 694
(CA 4).
Prior to the strike, Aetna received its merchandise through the services of com-
mon carriers who picked up the merchandise at the various freight terminals in
Indianapolis, including those of Holland Motor Express, Inc., and made delivery
thereof at the dock of Aetna's warehouse . However, after the picket line was im-
posed at Aetna, all these carriers stopped making deliveries at Aetna. Shortly after
the strike commenced, Aetna began to send its own trucks to the terminals to pick
up the materials consigned to it and normally delivered to Aetna by the common
carriers.
On March 20, 1959, Clifford Rauch, branch manager for Aetna, was notified by
Holland, all of whose dock employees were represented by, and were members of,
the Union , that it had a shipment on its docks consigned to Aetna. Donald Setty,
employed by Aetna for 9 years but as a truckdriver only since the strike began, was
dispatched to pick up that shipment. Setty drove to the Holland terminal, backed
his truck onto the dock, and asked Benjamin Reinhart, one of the Holland dock fore-
3 Drivers, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Local 639 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
etc, AFL-CIO (Curtis Brothers , Inc ), 119 NLRB 232.
2 Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1595, at at, AFL-CIO (J. C. Penney Company,
Store No. 309), 120 NLRB 1 535; International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge
No. 311, AFL-CIO, et at ( Machinery Overhaul Co.), 121 NLRB 1176.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men, if he had a shipment for Aetna. Reinhart pointed to four crates consigned to
Aetna, the shipment expected by Setty. Reinhart obtained the bills of lading, and
approached Fred Donelson, the Union's shop steward. Donelson told Reinhart he
was not going to handle the freight and told Setty that he could not get the Aetna
shipment and that if anybody took it "somebody [was] going to get hurt." Setty
called Rauch and reported the facts to him. Rauch told Setty that he would tele-
phone Mark Boeding, Holland's terminal manager, for assistance and would then
call him back.
At or about the same time Donelson called Richard Dininger, business representa-
tive of the Union, and told him that Holland was going to have supervisors work on
the dock and that "in his opinion they couldn't do it." Dininger replied that such
conduct would be in violation of Holland's contract with the Union which, he stated,
provided that only "Local 135 city cartage men were permitted to do any work in,
on, and about that dock."
In the meantime, Rauch called Boeding and informed him of the difficulty Setty
was having in getting Aetna's shipment. Boeding went to the dispatch office and
found Reinhart, who told him "what had transpired up to that time." Boeding took
the bills of lading from Reinhart and asked Donelson and two other employees,
Conners and Fox, to handle the freight in question and to load it for Aetna. As
each of the three men refused to do so, Donelson gave as his reason "that they
still had a picket out at Aetna." When Boeding asked Donelson whether he had
any objections to nonunion personnel loading the freight, Donelson replied, "that
would not be allowable." Boeding went to the other end of the dock and asked
employees Witt and Nepture if they would handle the Aetna freight. Both men
refused, with Witt stating that "whatever [Donelson] says, goes." Prior to this
refusal to handle the Aetna goods, Witt talked to Donelson about the shipment
following which Donelson called Dininger at the union hall. When Witt made
inquiry of Donelson concerning that call, Donelson told him that "Dininger had
said not to handle the freight and they were still picketing the place."
Later in the morning, Boeding received a telephone call from Dininger who
inquired whether it was true that nonunion personnel was handling the Aetna
freight. Boeding replied that his union dock employees refused to handle the
Aetna freight and inquired of Dininger as to why they had so refused. Instead of
answering directly, Dininger merely asked Boeding whether there was a picket line
at Aetna and Boeding replied that he heard that there was. Dininger then closed
the conversation with the statement that "all the people that work on the dock are
union, and they're the only ones that would handle it." 3
On March 23, Monte L. Coate, employed as an inside salesman by Aetna, drove
his own pickup truck to the Holland dock and asked Boeding for the bills of lading
so that Coate could pick up the shipment that Setty was unable to get on March 20.
Boeding handed the bills to Dock Foreman Wilson and the latter, together with
Coate, went onto the dock and located the four crates in question. When Wilson
stepped about 30 feet away and engaged dock employee Cash in conversation,
Coate overheard Cash tell Wilson that "nobody was going to get that material."
Wilson suggested to Coate that he go to the office and talk to Boeding, who in
turn suggested that Coate contact Rauch at Aetna. Rauch instructed Coate to get
Boeding's approval to load the material himself without any help from Holland's
dock hands. Coate received that approval and, with Wilson, proceeded to the dock
and again asked Cash if it was all right for Coate to individually load the material.
Cash replied that Coate could not load the shipment because if he did "somebody
was liable to get hurt . . that some of the boys there could probably lose their
jobs . and that nobody was going to touch that material." Coate returned to
his truck without the shipment. A few minutes later he again approached Cash
8 Boeding had two earlier conversations with Dininger, the first about 6 to 8 months
prior to March 20, the second on or about February 20. The testimony does not reveal
the nature of the first conversation other than that it concerned itself with Aetna
freight on Holland's dock and which Aetna was attempting to pick up During the con-
versation on or about February 20, Dininger asked Boeding to call the Holland employees
together "and tell them that Aetna was being picketed, and that the material was hot
cargo or unfair goods, . . . and they shouldn't handle it " During the same conversation,
Boeding talked to Dininger about a pickup that Holland was attempting to make at Aetna
and Dininger informed him that because of the picket line the Holland driver would not
cross it.
LOCAL 135, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC . 257
and once more asked him whether he could load the four crates himself and was
told "that nobody was going to move the material until the Union said it could
be moved."
On the entire record I am convinced and find that the Union, acting through and
by its business representative, Dininger, and its shop steward, Donelson, induced
and encouraged employees of Holland to engage in a concerted refusal in the
course of their employment to handle Aetna's goods in furtherance of the Union's
objective (a) to force Holland to cease handling and transporting shipments to and
from Aetna and to cease doing business with Aetna and (b) to force Aetna to
recognize the Union as collective-bargaining representative of Aetna's employees.
From the findings made above it is clear that a number of Holland's dock em-
ployees, all of them members of the Respondent Union, refused concertedly to
handle Aetna's goods because their Union was on strike against Aetna and was
maintaining a picket line at Aetna's premises in order to force Holland to cease
handling Aetna's freight. Indeed, the evidence shows conclusively that it was also
the objective of the Union to force Holland to cease doing business altogether
with Aetna. This it sought to accomplish by the threats of bodily and economic
harm which might result if Aetna's own employees sought to remove the freight
from the Holland dock.
The only problem on this phase of the case is to determine whether the re-
fusal under consideration was induced and encouraged by representatives and
agents of the Union. There is no probative, credible testimony that the refusal
was the voluntary and unsolicited act of these employees. On the contrary, the
record compels the conclusion that the refusal was not only induced and en-
couraged by agents of the Union but that it was, in fact, decreed and ordered by
them. No other conclusion can be reached in light of (a) Donelson's report to
employee Witt that Dininger had given him instructions "not to handle the
[Aetna] freight [because] they were still picketing" at Aetna's premises; (b)
Donelson's statement to Boeding, in the presence of employees Conners and Fox,
that the reason for his refusal to handle the Aetna shipment was "that they still
had a picket line out at Aetna"; (c) Witt's statement to Boeding in refusing to
handle the freight that "whatever [Donelson] says, goes"; and (d) Dimnger's
conversation with Boeding on or about February 20 in which he asked Boeding
to tell the Holland employees that Aetna was being picketed, that its freight was
hot cargo or unfair goods, and that the Holland employes should not handle it.
In its brief, the Union argues that the Act "was never intended to permit a strike-
bound plant, such as Aetna, to change its mode of operation completely [i.e., to
pick up its shipment at Holland, instead of having Holland perform that service as
it had in the past], in an effort to avoid a strike and picketing at its own premises
[thereby circumventing] a lawful strike and picketing, and thereby taking advantage
of the secondary boycott provisions of the Act." No authority in support of that
broad conclusion is cited and I am confident that none can be found. I find nothing
in the Act, or its legislative history, to indicate that Congress intended to place such
a restriction on the operations of a strike-bound plant. The argument has the addi-
tional weakness here where it has been found that the picketing which caused Aetna
to change its operation was conduct proscribed by, and found to be in violation of,
the Act.
There remains for consideration the Union's contention that "the General Counsel
has failed to prove by `substantial evidence' that Steward Donelson was an agent
of the Union." I disagree. In this connection it should first be noted that the
Union's answer admits, and the evidence is conclusive, that "Donelson is a steward
at Holland." The credible testimony also establishes that Donelson not only trans-
mitted the grievances of fellow members of the Union for action by Dininger, but
that on several occasions he discussed and adjusted such grievances with Boeding,
Holland's branch manager. It has also been found that on March 20 Donelson
served as a channel of communication from the Union to its membership at Holland
when Donelson told Witt that "Dininger had said not to handle the freight." On
the entire record I find that Donelson's activities on March 20 heretofore found were
within the scope of his authority as shop steward for and in behalf of the Union,
and that his conduct is binding upon that organization .4 Local 657, International
4 Dininger testified that "the duties of stewards at all of the various terminals around
the city," all of which terminals were under contract with the Union, "are substantially
the same." In this connection it should be noted that in another proceeding before this
554461-60-vol. 126-18
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc., (Southwestern Motor Transport Inc.), 115 NLRB
981; International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc., Local 182 (Lane Construction
Corporation), 111 NLRB 952, 953, enfd. 228 F. 2d 83 (C.A. 2).
In any event , and even if it be assumed , arguendo , that Donelson had no authority,
on his own responsibility , to induce Conners, Fox , Witt, and Nepture not to handle
the Aetna freight, the liability of the Union for that refusal remains unchanged.
This conclusion follows from the finding heretofore entered that Dininger, whose
authority and agency is unchallenged , instructed Donelson that Aetna's freight
was not to be handled because the Union was still picketing the Aetna premises.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III , above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Aetna described in section I, above, have a close , intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section
8(b)(4)(A) and (B ) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In determining the scope of the Recommended Order it is appropriate to note
that in four other cases within the recent past the Board found that the Union
here involved violated Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 135 et al. ( Irvin J. Cooper, et al.), 101
NLRB 1284; Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
135 et al. (Hoosier Petroleum Company, Inc.), 106 NLRB 629, enfd . 212 F. 2d
216 (C.A. 7); Chauffeurs, Teamsters , Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No.
135 et al. (Marsh Foodliners Inc.), 114 NLRB 639; Local 135 International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen , and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO
(Capital Paper Company, et al.), 117 NLRB 635. In view of the present record
and the foregoing background , I shall recommend a broad cease and desist order
herein.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Aetna Plywood & Veneer Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
3. By picketing Aetna for the purpose of maintaining its recognition as bargain-
ing representative after it lost its right to be so recognized , thereby restraining and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Holland to engage in a concerted
refusal in the course of their employment to handle the goods of Aetna in order to
force and require Holland to cease doing business with Aetna and to force the latter
to recognize and bargain with the Union, the Union has violated Section 8(b)'(4) (A)
and (B ) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Board, involving the same union and its activities at another terminal in the sane city,
Indianapolis , the Board found, with court approval, that the conduct of the shop stewards
was binding on the union Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen , and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO ( Capital Paper Company and Con-
solidated Sales, Inc .), 117 NLRB 635, enfd. 267 F. 2d 870 (C.A. 7).