Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 297 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

LOCAL UNION 522, LUMBER DRIVERS, ETC. 297
The foregoing rationale also requires rejection of Respondent 's affirmative defense
that because of the lapse of time this proceeding has become moot or barred by
lathes. "Respondent cannot take advantage of the Board 's delay in order to relieve
itself of making amends for its unfair practices ." N.L.R.B. v. Andrew Jergens
Company, 175 F. 2d 130 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 338 U.S. 827.
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. Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Tech,
nical Engineers , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. All technical engineering employees of Respondent's engineering department
in its New York operation including estimators , technical clerks, designers , drafts-
men, listers, schedulers, hardware coordinators, methods and/or process engineers,
and other technical engineering employees doing similar work regardless of assigned
classifications employed at its plant, excluding all other employees, specifically office
clerical employees, production employees, salesmen, mechanics, teamsters, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. On and since July 5, 1956, the Union was, and presently is, the majority repre-
sentative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.
4. By failing to perform its obligation to bargain in good faith with the Union in
October 1956, and thereafter, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
5. By unilaterally granting merit increases in October 1956 and in January 1957,
by unilaterally changing its sick-leave policy on or about March 11, 1957, and by uni-
laterally granting wage increases in April 1957, Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Warehousemen & Handlers,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Ware-
houseracu & Helpers of America and Mach Lumber Company.
Case No. 22-CC--61. January 26, 1960
DECISION AND ORDEL
On October 23, 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 supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins.]
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
126 NLRB No. 41.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent Union, its officers,
representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in a strike or inducing and
encouraging employees of Dreifus Lumber Company, Lehigh Lumber
Terminal Corporation, Ira Garbutt, Atlantic Terminals, Inc., North
Atlantic Warehouse Company, or any other employer, other than
Mach Lumber Company, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on goods, materials, or commodities;
or to perform services, when an object thereof is (a) to force or require
,any employer or person to cease doing business with Mach Lumber
'Company; or (b) to force or require Mach Lumber Company to
recognize or bargain with Respondent Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of its employees unless said Union has been
certified as the representative of such employees under 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) Forthwith notify all its members who are employed by employ-
ers other than Mach Lumber Company, and all employees of said
employers who are represented by it, that it is revoking any prior
instruction, request, or appeal to stop transporting, handling, or
otherwise servicing, in the course of their eiaployment, lumber or other
commodities destined for, to, or from, Mach Lumber Company, and
that it will not visit any reprisals, or impose penalties, upon such
members or employees for transporting, servicing, or handling such
freight. Such notice shall be in addition to that conveyed by the post-
ing of the notices specified in paragraph (b), below.
(b) Post at its business offices and meeting place or places, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Board's Regional Director for the
'The Trial Examiner's concluding finding that Respondent Union picketed a Mach
truck at North Atlantic is supported by the record which shows such an incident occurring
on July 2, 1959, which incident was witnessed by North Atlantic employees.
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 UNION 522, LUMBER DRIVERS, ETC. 299
Twenty-second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the official
representative of Respondent Union, be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of 60 days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
union members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. Respondent's official repre-
sentative shall also sign copies of the said notice which the Regional
Director shall submit for posting, the employers willing, at the prem-
ises of Dreifus Lumber Company, Lehigh Lumber Terminal Corpora-
tion, Gowanus Lumber Exchange, Atlantic Terminals, Inc., and North
Atlantic Warehouse Company.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 522, LUMBER DRIVERS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HANDLERS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & 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 engage in a strike, or induce or encourage the
employees of Dreifus Lumber Company, Lehigh Lumber Ter-
minal Corporation, Ira Garbutt, Atlantic Terminals, Inc., North
Atlantic Warehouse Company, or any other employer other than
Mach Lumber 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 goods, materials, or
commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof
is (a) to force or require any employer or person to cease doing
business with Mach Lumber Company, or (b) to force or require
Mach Lumber Company to recognize or bargain with us, unless
we have been certified as the representative of its employees
under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE hereby revoke any instruction, request, or appeal that
employees of any employer other than Mach Lumber Company
stop transporting or handling, in the course of their employ-
ment, lumber or other commodities destined for, or from, Mach
Lumber Company; we will not visit any reprisals or impose any
penalties for transporting or handling such lumber or other com-
modities; and we will give specific notice to that effect to all our
300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members who are employed by any such employer and to all other
employees of such employer who are represented by us.
LOCAL UNION 522, LUMBER DRIVERS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HANDLERS , INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP-
ERS 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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Mach Lumber Company, herein called Mach, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued his amended com-
plaint against Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Warehousemen & Handlers, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers of America, herein called
the Union or Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(A) and (B), and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, the
complaint and amended complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the amended complaint alleged, in
substance, that since on or about February 3, 1959, Respondent, by picketing, re-
quests, appeals, orders, directions, instructions, and other means, induced or en-
couraged the employees of Dreyfus Lumber Company (herein called Dreifus), Lehigh
Lumber Terminal Corporation (herein called Lehigh), Ira Garbutt (herein called
Garbutt), Atlantic Terminals, Inc. (herein called Atlantic), and North Atlantic
Warehouse Company (herein called North), to engage in strikes or concerted
refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to per-
form services for their respective employers in order to (a) force or require Dreifus,
Lehigh, Garbutt, Atlantic, and North to cease doing business with Mach, and (b) to
force or require Mach to recognize or bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representatives of its employees, although the Union has not
been certified as the representative of such employees in accordance with the pro-
visions of Section 9 of the Act. By its answer the Union denied the commission
of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held August 5-11, 1959, at Newark, New
Jersey, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel and the
Union presented brief oral argument. Briefs from the General Counsel and Respond-
ent were received on October 2, 1959, and 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
1. THE BUSINESS OF MACH LUMBER COMPANY
During all times relevant herein, Arthur Mach, Yetta Mach, Beverly Geller, Sam
Geller, and Rhoda Solomon were associated as a copartnership, doing business under
the trade name and style of Mach Lumber Company, herein called Mach. At all
times material, Mach has maintained its office and place of business in the city of
Higbtstown, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the retail and wholesale sale of
LOCAL UNION 522, LUMBER DRIVERS, ETC. 301
lumber, general building supplies, and related products. During the fiscal year
ending July 31, 1958, Mach, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
caused to be manufactured, sold, and distributed at said Hightstown, New Jersey,
place of business, products valued in excess of $1,700,000 of which, products valued
in excess of $300,000 were shipped from said place of business in interstate com-
merce directly to States of the United States other than the State of New Jersey.
During the same period aforementioned, Mach caused to be purchased, transferred,
and delivered to its Hightstown, New Jersey, place of business, lumber and building
supplies and other goods and materials, valued in excess of $1,430,000, of which,
goods and materials valued in excess of $572,000 were transported to said place of
business in interstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than
the State of New Jersey. I find that Mach was and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Warehousemen & Handlers, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A previous collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and Mach having
expired on January 31, 1958, Joseph Danzo, an organizer for the Union, came to
Mach's premises on or about March 9, 1959, and told Arthur Mach "that he had
come down that morning to sign a contract with [Mach]." Arthur Mach replied
that he would need time to discuss the matter and was told that "the next few days
would be alright " Danzo returned on the following day, accompanied by a num-
ber of Mach's employees and Richard Brown, president of the Union. Brown asked
Mach why he had laid off Oliver Spady and Mach replied that it was for personal
reasons. Brown then stated that he had "a majority of the cards of [Mach's] men"
and that he wanted to negotiate a contract with him. When Mach replied that he
would not recognize the Union, Brown stated that, in that event, the Union would
commence picketing and left the premises . Three pickets immediately began picket-
ing Mach's premises carrying signs indicating that the Union was on strike. At the
time of the hearing, picketing, on a smaller scale, was still being carried on.
At a meeting of the Union's shop stewards held in March or April 1959, Brown
told the assembled gathering "that they had a strike at Mach Lumber . for
more money," that he could not tell them what to do, but that they belonged to a
union long enough to know that they "are not supposed to break a picket line."
In the course and conduct of its business operations, Mach purchases goods and
materials from various suppliers, including Dreifus, Weyerhauser Sales Company
(herein called Weyerhauser), and Blanchard Lumber Company (herein called
Blanchard). Mach also purchases goods and materials from sources out of the
State of New Jersey, some of which goods and materials are shipped to various
lumber terminals, including Lehigh at Port Newark, New Jersey, and Gowanus
Lumber Exchange ( herein called Gowanus) at Brooklyn, New York, where such
goods and materials are subsequently, picked up by Mach with its own trucks
,,and employees. Ira Garbutt is engaged in the business of furnishing clerical, tally-
ing, and checking service to various consignees of goods and materials at Gowanus,
including Mach. In connection with such business , Garbutt's employees issue
delivery orders, check their execution, and post the delivery of goods and materials
when made. Atlantic is engaged in the operation of a public terminal at Port
Newark, New Jersey, where it receives, stores, and loads lumber for various com-
panies, including Weyerhauser. In connection with such business, Atlantic loads
lumber on Mach trucks which Mach has purchased from Weyerhauser.1
On March 19, 1959, Steve Kingston, a business representative of the Union,2
appeared at the Garbutt office of Gowanus in Brooklyn and told John Cunneen,
the chief delivery clerk, not to load any Mach trucks.
On March 20,3 Robert Krick and John Brown, employed as truckdrivers by
Mach, separately drove two Mach trucks to Gowanus in Brooklyn to pick up some
lumber for Mach. The two men arrived there about 7:30 a.m. and were told that
1 All of the employers mentioned in this paragraph, other than Mach, are sometimes
referred to hereafter as secondary employers.
2 At the time of the hearing Kingston was a union trustee.
3 Unless otherwise specified, all reference to dates herein are to the year 1959.
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a union representative had appeared at Gowanus the day before and informed
them that Mach was on strike and that Gowanus, for that reason, could not load
them. When the Mach drivers denied they were on strike, Ira Garbutt, who also
serves as lumber terminal manager for Gowanus, called the Union, following which
he told Krick that there would be someone from the Union there shortly and that
Krick was to wait for the arrival of that representative. About an hour later
Kingston appeared and went to the terminal office where he engaged Garbutt in con-
versation for about 20 minutes. Brown and Krick were then summoned to the
office where Kingston told them, in the presence of three of four terminal employees,
that as long as he was [there] he would see that [they] wouldn't get loaded, and
if he wasn't [there], he would see that someone else was." Mach obtained no
lumber at Gowanus that day.
On April 17, Krick drove to the Dreifus Lumber Company, all of whose yard
employees were also represented by the Union, to make a pickup of lumber from
Mach. Though Krick obtained a ticket identifying the lumber he was to obtain,
Ludwig Dreifus, the yard foreman, told him that he doubted if he would get loaded.4
When Krick asked why, Dreifus answered that he would have to see the union stew-
ard. Krick awaited his turn to be loaded and when it arrived, James Whitner, a
member of the Union and the shop steward at Dreifus, informed him that he would
not be loaded. Krick asked him for an explanation and was told that it was because
Mach employees were on strike When Krick denied this, Whitner stated that he
would have to call the union hall and "find out about it." Whitner returned in 10
minutes and told Krick that he had ascertained that the Mach employees were still on
strike, that the Mach premises were being picketed, and that he had "orders from
522, the Union, not to load" any of the Mach trucks.
On May 27, a Mach truck, driven by Charles Donnell, appeared at the premises of
the Lehigh Lumber Terminal at Port Newark to pick up a load of lumber for
Mach. Donnel obtained a delivery ticket from Paul Maikranz, the delivery clerk,
and turned it over to a Lehigh checker. The checker went out to the yard to prepare
the load but returned a minute or two later and stated that he could not load the
truck. Sam Williamson, the shop steward, was summoned to the office and informed
Maikranz that the Mach truck could not be loaded because "they were on strike
down there." Frank Jadach, Lehigh superintendent of operations, was advised of
the situation by telephone and proceeded to the lumber yard where he found
Williamson and Richard Brown. Jadach instructed Williamson to load the truck
or check out. Williamson told Jadach that he had orders from Brown not to load
the Mach truck. Brown, in Williamson's presence, stated "that there was a strike
on with Mach Lumber and the [Lehigh] men belonged to the same union . that
under the constitution and charter they have, they have the right to load or refuse to
load the trucks, . . . and under them conditions they wouldn't load the truck."
The Mach truck was not loaded.
On or about July 1, Alfred Reger, secretary-treasurer of the Union, called on
Arthur Mach and endeavored to induce him to sign a collective-bargaining agree-
ment. In the course of the conversation, Reger told Mach that if he did not sign
such an agreement Mach "would not be able to load any lumber at Port Newark,"
because he, Reger, would personally station pickets at the lumber terminals "to
make certain [that Mach] trucks did not get loaded."
On July 1, Thomas Washington was hired for picket duty by the Union. He droves
his car to Port Newark and was joined there by Richard Brown, Reger, and Danzo.
Brown took Washington to several lumberyards in that area and told him that "the
Mach trucks would be coming there" and that Washington was to picket those
trucks as they came into the yards. While there, Brown engaged some of the
employees in conversation and told them that Washington "was with the Union."
On the same day, July 1, John Brown drove his Mach truck to the Atlantic Termi-
nal, the contract loader for Weyerhauser, to pick up lumber from Mach. After
making the necessary office arrangements, Brown pulled his truck onto the loading
platform. When he arrived there, he saw Washington picketing in front of the
Mach truck carrying a sign containing the following legend:
Drivers, Warehousemen, Handlers On Strike
Mach Lumber
Local 522 Teamsters Affiliated with I. B. T.
4 Dreifus testified that in March be "was called on from Local 522 not to load Mach
trucks."
LOCAL UNION 522, LUMBER DRIVERS, ETC. 303
After Brown was unable to get his truck loaded, Joseph Rankl, the general manager
of Atlantic, called his shop steward, Monahan, into his office. Monahan told Rankl
that there was a picket in front of the loading shed and that was the reason he
refused to load the truck. Monahan also told Rankl that if the picket were with-
drawn, he would load the truck.
Sergeant Cook of the Port Authority Police arrived on the scene and asked
Washington who had sent him there. Washington replied that it was Reger, secretary-
treasurer of the Union. When Cook tried to reach Reger by telephone and was
unable to do so, he instructed Washington to get someone there who could give the
sergeant the information he needed to make a report he was required to make.
It was only after the picket left that the Mach truck was loaded.
Sergeant Cook returned to the Atlantic Terminal about 4 p.m. and found Wash-
ington there together with Danzo. Danzo identified himself as being "from 522,"
the Union, and that he was there "to see that the picket did his job, to picket Mach
Lumber" at Atlantic, and that it was that objective that brought Danzo and the
picket to the Port Newark area.5
On July 1, John Brown also drove to the Dreifus yard to pick up a load of lumber.
He went to the office to obtain a delivery slip and was told that he would have to,
contact the shop steward to find out if he could be loaded. Brown did as requested
and was told by Shop Steward Whitner, in the presence of the lift-truck driver and
another Dreifus employee, that he had been given notice by the Union "not to load
Mach Lumber." Though the Mach driver got in line to be loaded, none of the
Dreifus loaders, all of them represented by the Union, rendered that service and the
truck departed emptyhanded. Brown made another attempt to pick up lumber
for Mach at Dreifus on the following day. After getting in line to be loaded, he
observed the same picket in front of his truck that he had seen at Atlantic, and was-
again told by Whitner that he would not be loaded.
Following his experience at Dreifus on July 1 as detailed above, John Brown
drove immediately to the North Atlantic warehouse, a contract loader for the
Blanchard Lumber Comapny, to pick up lumber purchased by Mach from Blanchard.
Brown went to the office, got a delivery ticket, and proceeded to the yard to be loaded.
He encountered Shop Steward Scott who told him, in the presence of another em-
ployee, that he, Brown, could not be loaded there or anywhere in the Port, and that
all the lumber handlers in the Port "were in the same local," the Respondent Union.
Brown left without the lumber Mach was entitled to receive.
Concluding Findings
On the entire record I find and conclude that the Union induced and encouraged
the employees of Garbutt, Dreifus, Lehigh, Atlantic, and North Atlantic to engage
in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle or work on lum-
ber destined for Mach during the strike at Mach. I further find that the foregoing
refusal was engaged in for the purpose of (1) forcing or requiring Garbutt, Dreifus,
Lehigh, Atlantic, and North Atlantic to cease handling or working on lumber
destined for Mach, or to cease doing business with Mach during the strike, and (2)
to force or require Mach to recognize or bargain with the Union although the latter
had not been certified as the representative of Mach's employees in accordance with
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. By that conduct the Union violated Section,
8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
Though the Union contends that the refusal to handle Mach's lumber by the em-
ployees of the several secondary employers was their voluntary act, the record com-
pels the conclusion that the refusal was induced and encouraged by the Union.
That such was the role of the Union is established by (a) Business Representative
Kingston's statement on March 19 to Cunneen, the Garbutt chief delivery clerk at
Gowanus, not to load any of Mach's trucks; (b) Kingston's statement on March 20 to
John Brown and Krick, in the presence of 3 or 4 Gowanus employees represented
by a sister local of the Union, that he would see to it that the Mach trucks were not
loaded; 6 (c) Shop Steward Whittier's statement to Krick on April 17 that he had
orders from the Union not to load the Mach trucks; (d) Shop Steward Williamson's
statement at Lehigh that he had similar orders from Richard Brown, the Union's
president; (e) similar statements made by Shop Steward Whitner at Dreifus
on July 1 to John Brown in the presence of two Dreifus employees; (f) Shop Steward'
Williamson's admission to Jadach at Lehigh on May 27 that he had orders from
Richard Brown not to load Mach's trucks; (g) Richard Brown's statement to Jadach
5 The Mach yard and office were located in Hightstown, New Jersey.
Viner Bros Inc., 124 NLRB 1057.
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the same day, in Williamson 's presence , that the reason that the Mach truck was
not being loaded was because of the strike at Mach, ( h) Reeer's statement to
Arthur Mach that unless he signed an agreement with the Union Reger would make
certain that Mach 's trucks would not be loaded anywhere at Port Newark.
I also find without merit the contention of the Union that the conduct of Shop
Stewards Whitner at Dreifus and Williamson at Lehigh, heretofore detailed in (c),
(d), and ( e) immediately above, may not be attributed to the Union. In support
of that contention , the Union places great reliance on the fact that the testimony
"shows that the alleged shop stewards were never elected nor appointed by the Union
but only by their co-employees ." On the record made here , however, I find that
factor to have no militating effect against my ultimate conclusion that the Union is
responsible for their conduct herein.
The testimony shows conclusively that prior to January 1959 both Dreifus and
Lehigh had collective -bargaining agreements with the Union 's sister Local 1205 of
the Teamsters but that these agreements were "taken over" by the Respondent
Union in that month . Richard Brown testified that when the Union took over the
Local 1205 contract at Lehigh , Williamson was the shop steward for Local 1205
and "was told by [the Union] he was a shop steward," and that he, Brown, has
"been dealing with him as a shop steward" since that time. Williamson has attended
the meeting of stewards conducted by the Union and, according to Brown , it is Wil-
liamson's duty to enforce the Local 1205 contract taken over by the Respondent
Union
Whitner testified that he was appointed shop steward at Dreifus by Local 1205
when that Local represented the Dreifus employees and continued in that capacity
when the Respondent Union took over in January 1959. He received notices of, and
attended , shop stewards meetings conducted by the Respondent Union. As such
shop steward , Richard Brown testified , it was Whitner's duty to "enforce the con-
tract" the Union has with Dreifus.
It being the duty of both Williamson and Whitner to enforce the Union 's contract
with Lehigh and Dreifus , and being invited to attend the Union's shop steward meet-
ings, it may reasonably be inferred that the Union relied on these men to serve as a
channel of communication between that organization and the union members em-
ployed by Lehigh and Dreifus . They were in fact so recognized by their employers.
On the entire record I find that the inducement of the employees of Lehigh and
Dreifus by these shop stewards not to handle Mach 's lumber was the act of the
Union, and part and parcel of its campaign to force their employers not to do busi-
ness with Mach. Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc., 115 NLRB 981; Booher
Lumber Co ., Inc., 117 NLRB 1739; Genuine Parts Company , 119 NLRB 399.
I further find that the Union violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act by its
picketing of Mach trucks on the premises of Atlantic , North Atlantic , and Dreifus.
Ever since the Board 's decision in Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works , Inc., 107
NLRB 299, enfd 220 F . 2d 380 (C.A., D C.), it has consistently held that "where a
primary employer has a permanent place of business at which a union can ade-
quately publicize its labor dispute . the fact that picketing is conducted at the
premises of a secondary employer plainly reveals that it was designed , at least in
part, to induce and encourage the employees of the secondary employer to engage in
a concerted refusal , in the course of their employment , to handle goods for the
primary employer , with an object of forcing the secondary employer to discontinue
doing business with the primary employer, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (4) (A)
of the Act." California Association of Employers , 120 NLRB 1161.
Here , it was undisputed that Mach 's truckdrivers made two or three trips daily
from its premises in Hightstown , thus giving the Union ample opportunity to pub-
licize its dispute with Mach at the latter 's premises, an opportunity of which the
Union availed itself by establishing and maintaining a picket line at those premises.
It can only be concluded , therefore , that by following Mach's trucks to Port Newark
and picketing at the premises of the secondary employers , the Union 's purpose was,
in part, if not in toto , to induce and encourage employees of Atlantic , North Atlantic,
and Dreifus to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to
handle Mach 's goods. Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc., supra , South-
western Motor Transport, Inc, supra; Ready Mixed Concrete Company, 117 NLRB
1266.
No doubt is left by the record as to the Union 's ultimate objective in carrying on
its unlawful activities at the premises of the secondary employers as heretofore de-
tailed. No claim is made that the Union had any dispute with any of these secondary
employers . Indeed , the Union , in its brief , concedes that "the strike was called be-
cause of failure of [Mach ] to recognize [ the] Union" as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees . The testimony having established that all of the Union's
activities at the premises of the secondary employers were in support of that strike,
PREMIER PANELS, INC. 305
and the Union not having been certified as such representative under the provisions
of Section 9 of the Act, it must be , and is, concluded that those activities were also
violative of Section 8(b) (4) (B ) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent Union, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Mach 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in violations of Section
8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action which I find to be necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record on
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Mach Lumber Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Warehousemen & Handlers, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union has not been certified, at any material time herein, as the
collective-bargaining representative of employees of Mach Lumber Company pursu-
ant to Section 9 of the Act
4. Since on or about March 20, 1959, Respondent Union has induced and en-
couiaged employees of employers doing business with Mach Lumber Company in
Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, Now York, to engage in strikes or con-
certed refusals in the course of their employment to perform services for their em-
ployers, with an object of (a) forcing or requiring the said employers to cease doing
business with Mach Lumber Company; and (b) forcing or requiring Mach Lumber
Company to recognize or bargain with Respondent Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of employees of the said Mach Lumber Company.
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.]
Premier Panels, Inc. and Local 2022, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Case No.
14-CA-2035. January 26, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 27, 1959, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions and brief to the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
126 NLRB No. 45.
554461-60-vol. 126-21