Teamster Local No.524

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 908 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters Local No. 524, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America and Yakima County Beverage Company,
Inc. and Chaney Beverage Company. Cases 19-
CB-2170, 19-CB-2171
August 16, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
PENELLO
the parties.
On March 28, 1974, the Board approved the stipu-
lation of facts and ordered the proceedings transfer-
red to the Board. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Respondent filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record herein
and the briefs and makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon a charge duly filed on January 24, 1974, in
Case 19-CB-2170 by Yakima County Beverage Com-
pany, Inc., hereinafter called Yakima, against Team-
sters Local No. 524, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, hereinafter called Respondent, and upon
a charge duly filed on January 24, 1974, in Case 19-
CB-2171 by Chaney Beverage Company, hereinafter
called Chaney, against the Respondent, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by its
Regional Director for Region 19, issued and duly
served on the parties an Order Consolidating Cases,
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing dated
February 15, 1974.
The consolidated complaint alleged that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, by imposing a $350 fine on union members
Cedric Clark and Andrew L. Folk, Jr., who are also
supervisors of Yakima, and Ralph M. Smith, who is
also a supervisor of Chaney, for violating the
Respondent's bylaws and its International constitu-
tion by performing services for a mutual customer
allegedly in violation of the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Respondent and Allied Em-
ployers, Inc., of which Yakima and Chaney are mem-
bers.
On February 26, 1974, the Respondent filed an an-
swer denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices. On March 15, 18, and 20, 1974, all parties
to this proceeding executed a Stipulation of Facts for
Submission to the Board by which they waived a hear-
ing before an Administrative Law Judge, the making
of findings of fact and conclusions of law by an Ad-
ministrative Law Judge, and the issuance of an Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision. The parties agreed
to submit the case to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and an Order with the charge,
complaint, formal papers, stipulation of facts, and
exhibits constituting the entire record, and agreed that
no oral testimony was necessary or desired by any of
I JURISDICTION
Yakima and Chaney are State of Washington cor-
porations engaged in the wholesale distribution of
beer and wine products in the Yakima, Washington,
area. During the past year, a representative period,
Yakima and Chaney each purchased goods and mate-
rials from sources outside of the State of Washington
valued in excess of $50,000.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Yakima
and Chaney are, and at all times material herein have
been, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act who are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Teamsters
Local No. 524, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is, and at all times material herein has been,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Yakima and Chaney (hereinafter also referred to as
the Employers) service retail establishments in the
Yakima, Washington, area by distributing beer and
wine products to them as well as stocking and arrang-
ing displays for their particular products. Both Yaki-
ma and Chaney are members of Allied Employers,
Inc., a multiemployer bargaining association, which
executed a contract with the Respondent Union cov-
ering the period May 1, 1971, to May 1, 1974.
The complaint's unfair labor practice allegations
involve fines imposed by Respondent, in the circum-
stances related below, on Cedrick Clark, part-owner,
president, and general manager of Yakima; Andrew
212 NLRB No. 133
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 524
L. Folk, Jr., the manager of Yakima; and Ralph M.
Smith, part-owner and general manager of Chaney.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Clark, Folk,
and Smith are supervisors and representatives within
the meaning of Sections 2(11) and 8(b)(1)(13) of the
Act, respectively.
In late August 1973,' the Employers were informed
by the manager of the Mayfair Market in Yakima that
their displays were going to be relocated within the
store as soon as necessary shelving was procured.
Mayfair employees removed bottles from the existing
displays and temporarily stored them in some 12 to 15
grocery carts and placed about 100 bottles on the
floor. The existing displays were disassembled in anti-
cipation of the arrival of new shelving which did not
come in as scheduled.
On the afternoon of August 29, Mayfair's store
manager called Clark and Smith to inform them that
the shelving had finally arrived and that they were
expected to arrange their new displays at 7:30 that
evening. They were informed that the matter was of
considerable urgency because sales had been affected
by the disarray of bottles and furthermore that this
had created a safety hazard which required immediate
attention.
At approximately 7:30 that evening Clark, Folk,
and Smith began to arrange their respective displays.
About 8 p.m. Fred Wehde, secretary-treasurer of the
Respondent, entered the store and noticed Clark,
Folk, and Smith, all members of Respondent,' work-
ing on the displays. Wehde informed them that they
were working in violation of the contract and that
they should expect action to be taken by the Respon-
dent.
On November 15, Wehde filed charges against
them with the Respondent alleging that they had vio-
lated the Respondent's bylaws and its International
constitution by breaching article IX, section 9.02, of
the collective-bargaining agreement by performing
work after the regular quitting time without prior
union agreement. This section provides:
The regular working day shall not commence be-
fore 7:00 a.m. and shall not continue after 6:00
p.m., except by mutual agreement between the
Employer and Local Union involved. Any time
before the regular starting time or after the regu-
lar quitting time shall be considered overtime
i All dates hereinafter are 1973 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Art. III, sec 3 02, of the collective-bargaining agreement provides
Supervisors shall not perform any work covered by this Agreement or
accrue any benefits under this Agreement unless they are members of
the appropriate Local Union. Except as specifically provided in this
Section, no person who is not a member of the bargaining unit shall
perform any work covered by this Agreement.
11
909
and shall be paid, therefore, at the rate of time
and one-half.
After holding a hearing, which neither Clark, Folk,
nor Smith attended , the Union's executive board
fined each of them $350 on January 4, 1974.
B. Discussion
We have previously addressed ourselves to union
attempts to discipline supervisor/members for the
manner in which a collective-bargaining agreement's
provisions are interpreted and applied. In San Fran-
cisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International Ty-
pographical Union (Northwest Publications, Inc.), 172
NLRB 2173 (1968),3 we held that a union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(B) by imposing fines and other disci-
pline upon foremen/members for allegedly violating
the contract between their employer and the union
with respect to work assignments. In finding the
union's disciplinary action violative of Section
8(b)(1)(B) we observed:
[T]he relationship primarily affected is the one
between the Union and the Employer, since the
underlying question was the interpretation of the
collective-bargaining agreement between the
parties. The relationship between the Union and
its members appears to have been of only second-
ary importance, used as a convenient and, it
would seem, powerful tool to affect the employ-
er-union relationship; i.e., to compel the
Employer's foremen to take prounion positions
in interpreting the collective-bargaining agree-
ment . The purpose and effect of Respondent's
conduct literally and directly contravened the
statutory policy of allowing the Employer an un-
impeded choice of representative for collective
bargaining and settlement of grievances. In our
view it fell outside the legitimate internal inter-
ests of the Union. . . . [172 NLRB at 2174.]
We have consistently applied these principles in find-
ing union disciplinary actions against supervisors un-
lawful where they were rooted in disputes between
employers and unions over the interpretation of their
collective-bargaining agreement.4 Our concern in
3 In Florida Power & Light Co v. International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 641 et al, 417 U.S 790 (1974), the Supreme Court majority
opinion assumed , without deciding, that our decision in San Francisco-Oak-
land Mailers fell within the outer limits of Sec 8(b)(1)(B); accordingly, we
shall adhere to our decision in that case
4 See Detroit Newspaper Printing Pressmen 's Union No. 13 (The Detroit Free
Press), 192 NLRB 106 (1971); Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Ware-
housemen and Helpers Union, Local 287 (Grinnell Company of the Pacific), 183
NLRB 398 (1970), Houston Typographical Union No 87 (Houston Shopping
Continued
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
each of these cases rested upon the union's use of
unlawful means to impose its interpretations directly
or indirectly upon an employer's representative
which, in turn, infringed upon the employer's right to
unencumbered control of that representative.
In the instant case, the underlying dispute revolved
solely around the Employers' decision to arrange their
displays after 6 in the evening, which the Union con-
tends constituted a breach of article IX, section 9.02,
of their agreement. The Respondent chose to use its
internal disciplinary machinery to interpose Clark,
Folk, and Smith into its controversy with Yakima and
Chaney. The Respondent, in its brief, admits that the
purpose of instituting the discipline against Clark,
Folk, and Smith was "to force the supervisors to fol-
low the terms of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment." In these circumstances, we find that the
Respondent restrained and coerced Yakima and Cha-
ney in their selection of representatives for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances in violation of Section 8(b)(I)(B), by fining
supervisor/members in an attempt to impose the
Respondent's interpretation of the collective-bargain-
ing contract 5 on them and thus to impede the Em-
ployers' control over them. San Francisco-Oakland
Mailers' Union No. 18, supra.6
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B) of the Act by fining Cedric Clark, Andrew
L. Folk, Jr., and Ralph M. Smith, we shall order that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
News Company), 182 NLRB 592 (1970), Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association, Local Union 49, AFL-CIO (General Metal Products, Inc)' 178
NLRB 139 (1969), enfd 430 F 2d 1348 (C A 10, 1970), Toledo Locals Nos
15-p and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers International Union,
AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc), 175 NLRB 1072 (1969), enfd
437 F 2d 55 (C A. 6, 1971), cf Local 423, Laborers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO (Mansfield Flooring Co., Inc), 195 NLRB 241
(1972)
5 The same results would be warranted in our view even if arranging the
Employers ' displays at 7.30 that evening were ultimately determined in a
proper forum to constitute a violation of the contract See , e g , Mansfield
Flooring Co, Inc, supra, The Detroit Free Press, supra
6 We note that Florida Power & Light Co, supra, involved union fines
against supervisor/members for allegedly performing rank -and-file work
, during a strike Here the fines were imposed in a nonstrike setting, arguably
for exercising supervisory or management functions, in an effort to impose
the Respondent 's interpretation of the collective -bargaining contract upon
representatives of the Employer We do not read the Supreme Court's opin-
ion in Florida Power & Light, supra, to say that a union, consonant with
Section 8(b)(l)(B), is free to discipline supervisor/members under the cir-
cumstances of the present case
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Yakima County Beverage Company, Inc., and
Chaney Beverage Company are, and at all times ma-
terial herein have been, employers within the meaning
of Sections 2(2) and 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
2. Yakima County Beverage Company, Inc., and
Chaney Beverage Company are, and at all times ma-
terial herein have been, employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
3. Respondent Teamsters Local No. 524, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, is, and at all times
material herein has been, a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. Cedric Clark and Andrew L. Folk, Jr., are, and
at all times material herein have been, supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and
representatives of Yakima County Beverage Compa-
ny, Inc., within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act.
5. Ralph M. Smith is, and at all times material
herein has been, a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act and a representative of Cha-
ney Beverage Company within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
6. By imposing fines against Cedric Clark and An-
drew L. Folk, Jr., because they allegedly violated the
collective-bargaining agreement between the Respon-
dent and Allied Employers, Inc., of which Yakima
County Beverage Company, Inc., is a member, the
Respondent has restrained and coerced Yakima
County Beverage Company, Inc., in the selection and
retention of its representatives for collective bargain-
ing or the adjustment of grievances and has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
7. By imposing a fine against Ralph M. Smith be-
cause he allegedly violated the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Respondent and Allied Em-
ployers, Inc., of which Chaney Beverage Company is
a member, the Respondent has restrained and
coerced Chaney Beverage Company in the selection
and retention of its representatives for collective bar-
gaining or the adjustment of grievances and has en-
gaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(B).
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
11
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 524 911
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Teamsters Local No. 524, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Yakima, Washington, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Fining or otherwise disciplining Cedric Clark,
Andrew L. Folk, Jr., or any other supervisor or repre-
sentative of Yakima County Beverage Company, Inc.,
for allegedly violating the provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement between Teamsters Local No.
524, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and
Allied Employers, Inc., of which Yakima County Bev-
erage Company, Inc., is a member.
(b) Fining or otherwise disciplining Ralph M.
Smith, or any other supervisor or representative of
Chaney Beverage Company, for allegedly violating
the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement
between Teamsters Local No. 524, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, and Allied Employers,
Inc., of which Chaney Beverage Company is a mem-
ber.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing
Yakima County Beverage Company, Inc., or Chaney
Beverage Company, in the selection and retention of
their representatives for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or the adjustment of grievances.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the fines levied against Cedric Clark,
Andrew L. Folk, Jr., and Ralph M. Smith and excise
all records of their imposition from its files.
(b) Notify Cedric Clark, Andrew L. Folk, Jr., and
Ralph M. Smith, in writing, that it has taken the ac-
tion set forth in paragraph 2(a) above, and that it will
cease and desist from taking like action in the future.
(c) Post at its offices and meeting halls, and other
places where notices to its members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respon-
dent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt there-
of, and be maintained by it for 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 that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 19
signed copies of such notice for posting by Yakima
County Beverage Company, Inc., and Chaney Bever-
age Company, if willing, in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
7 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fine or otherwise discipline Cedric
Clark, Andrew L. Folk, Jr., or any other supervi-
sor or representative of Yakima County Beverage
Company, Inc., for allegedly violating the provi-
sions of the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Teamsters Local No. 524, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, and Allied
Employers, Inc., of which Yakima County Bever-
age Company, Inc., is a member.
WE WILL NOT fine or otherwise discipline Ralph
M. Smith, or any other supervisor or representa-
tive of Chaney Beverage Company, for allegedly
violating the provisions of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement between Teamsters Local No. 524,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
and Allied Employers, Inc., of which Chaney
Beverage Company is a member.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce Yakima County Beverage Company, Inc.,
or Chaney Beverage Company, in the selection
and retention of their representatives for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of
grievances.
WE WILL notify Cedric Clark, Andrew L. Folk,
Jr., and Ralph M. Smith that we have excised all
records of the aforesaid fines from our files and
that WE WILL NOT take such action against them
in the future.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 524,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- This is an official notice and must not be defaced
MEN AND HELPERS OF by anyone.
AMERICA This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
(Labor Organization) days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Dated By Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
(Representative) (Title) ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 10th Floor-Republic Building, 1511
Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone
206-442-4532.