Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 542 International Brotherhood of Tea

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 17, 2019

21-CB-233544 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 17, 2019)

JD(SF)-22-19
San Diego, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISON OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL
UNION NO. 542, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
(UNITED PARCEL SERVICE)
and Case 21-CB-233544
DEREK CORREIA, AN INDIVIDUAL
Robert MacKay, Esq. and Winkfield F. Twyman, Jr., Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Fern M. Steiner (Smith, Steiner, Vanderpool, APC),
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD M. ETCHINGHAM, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. This case was tried in San
Diego, California, on May 13, 2019. The complaint, based on timely filed charges by Derek
Correia (Charging Party or Correia), alleges that Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union No. 542, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union or Respondent)
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)1 on December 14,
2018,2 when an agent of the Union, Paul Samson (Samson), threatened the Charging Party with
loss of employment with the Charging Party’s employer United Parcel Services, Inc. (Employer
or UPS) as a result of the Charging Party engaging in protected activities for the Union.
The Respondent denies these allegations and argues that in any event a threat from
Samson does not violate the Act because Samson could not affect the Charging Party’s
employment in any way.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent on June 17, 2019, I
make the following

1 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.
2 All dates are in 2018 unless otherwise specified.
JD(SF)-22-19
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
5
The parties stipulate, and I find, that the Employer is an Ohio corporation with a facility
in San Diego, California, that during the year ending on December 31, the Employer derived
gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the transportation of freight from the State of California
to points directly outside the State of California, and that at all material times, the Employer has
been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the 10
Act. (Jt. Exh. 1.)3 The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and that Samson is an agent of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES15
This case turns on the disputed testimony by four witnesses about the December 14 threat
that Samson, a union official, gave to the Charging Party, an employee of the Employer and a
union member. I summarize below my credibility determinations of the witnesses and the
resolution of the conflicting testimony.20
A. Removal Petition and Samson’s Reaction
Although the conversation at the center of this case occurred on December 14, the story
here begins with the Charging Party’s December 2017 handbilling and a subsequent petition to 25
remove Samson as the business agent the following summer. Samson operates as a business
agent for the Union at the Employer’s San Diego and Chula Vista facilities. (Tr. 23, 96.)
Section 2 of the National Master United Parcel Service Agreement describes the composition of
this Union:
30
Section 2. Employees Covered
Employees covered by this Agreement shall be construed to mean, where already
recognized, feeder drivers, package drivers, sorters, loaders, unloaders, porters, office
clerical, clerks, mechanics, maintenance personnel (building maintenance), car washers,
United Parcel Service employees in the Employer's air operation, and to the extent 35
allowed by law, employees in the export and import operations performing load and
unload duties, and other employees of the Employer for whom a signatory Local Union is
or may become the bargaining representative. Employees of CSI and UPS Latin America,
Inc. are also covered by this Agreement as specified in the P&D Supplement and the
Challenge Air Cargo Supplement, respectively.40

3 Abbreviations are used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for the transcript; “GC Exh.” for the General
Counsel’s Exhibit; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief; “R. Exh.” for the Respondent’s exhibit; “R. Br.” for
the Respondent’s brief; and “Jt. Exh.” for the joint exhibits of the parties. On June 5, 2019, the General Counsel
filed an unopposed motion to correct transcript errors at ten citations for Mr. Vivanco’s testimony. I grant the
unopposed motion as my notes from hearing are the same as the proposed corrections. Although I have included
several citations to the record to highlight particular testimony or exhibits, my findings and conclusions are based
not solely on the evidence specifically cited, but rather on my review and consideration of the entire record.
JD(SF)-22-19
3
In addition, effective August 1, 1987, the Employer recognized as bargaining unit
members clerks who are assigned to package center operations, hub center operations,
and/or air hub operations whose assignment involves the handling and progressing of
merchandise, after it has been tendered to United Parcel Service to effectuate delivery.
These jobs cover: package return clerks, bad address clerks, post card room clerks, 5
damage clerks, rewrap clerks, and hub and air hub return clerks. This Agreement also
governs the classifications covered in Article 39 - Trailer Repair Shop. Effective no later
than February 1, 2003 the Employer recognizes as bargaining unit members FDC/ODC
clerks, international auditors, "smart label" clerks and revenue auditors who work in the
operations facilities.10
(Jt. Exh. 2.) Samson’s responsibilities include policing the Union’s collective bargaining
agreements (“CBA”) with Employer, directing work to union members based on seniority,
answering questions, representing members in meetings, processing grievances, making
telephone calls on behalf of the members, and performing site visits. (Tr. 98.) While Samson 15
had no involvement in the hiring or firing the Charging Party or any other witness employee of
the Employer, Samson in his role as union business representative was involved under the union
contract in allocating work amongst union members. (Tr. 121.) Samson is also responsible for
monitoring the Union’s CBA with Employer to raise issues with UPS involving employees’
terms and conditions of employment so if UPS insists that its Union employees work more hours20
than safe under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations or the terms of the
CBA, Samson is the Union’s business representative whose duties include pointing out to UPS
any divergence by UPS from the terms and conditions of the CBA or DOT regulations.
A number of union members became dissatisfied with Samson and did not believe he was 25
representing them adequately from December 2017 through the summer of 2018. (Tr. 46, 65–66;
R. Exhs. 8 and 9.) During the first half of 2018, over 400 union members at the Chula Vista and
San Diego facilities signed a petition to remove Samson as the business agent (the “petition”).
(Tr. 113; R. Exh. 8, 9.)
30
At a June 2 union meeting also discussing the union contract, Samson addressed his
feelings about the petition. He told his side of the story and said that the writer of the petition
was unethical. (Tr. 120–121, 126.) According to Samson’s account, the creator of the petition
circulated it because the creator was unhappy that Samson followed the union contract in
allocating work. (Tr. 121.) Samson also said that the creator circulated the petition for personal 35
gain and that “we need to get rid of people like” the creator.4 (Tr. 131.) Samson then said that
his children knew about the petition and pointed out his wife, who sat at the back of the meeting.
(Tr. 132, 133.) He also called up the various shop stewards and said, “When you take a shot at
me, you take a shot at them,” while gesturing to the shop stewards. (Tr. 132.)
40
Despite Samson’s own and Rhett Dillard’s account of Samson’s emotional display,
Samson repeatedly insisted that he did not take the filing of the petition against him personally
and that the filing of the petition did not bother or upset him. (Tr. 114, 115, 122.) I observed
Samson’s testimony at hearing regarding his alleged indifference to the filing of the petition as

4 This statement comes from the testimony of union member Rhett Dillard, who attended the June 2 meeting. No
other witness contradicted this testimony, and I find Dillard’s testimony regarding this statement to be credible.
JD(SF)-22-19
4
being completely unbelievable. Even though Samson testified about his own emotional
statements and Dillard corroborated that testimony, Samson contradicted his own testimony.
This diminishes his credibility, and to the extent that Samson’s testimony disagrees with that of
others, Samson’s willingness to lie on the stand calls his pronouncements on other issues into
doubt.5
B. Correia’s December 14 Handbilling
Starting around 7 a.m. on December 14, the Charging Party came to the San Diego
facility while not scheduled to work to hand out flyers informing the Employer’s drivers of their 10
rights. (Tr. 30.) The Charging Party did so because he heard many reports of people being
scheduled to work shifts up to six days and seventy hours a week. (Tr. 26–27, 29.)
Samson’s response was that the employees can call into work and take a sick day, if
necessary. (Tr. 26–27, 102.) Fellow union members, John Tunnell and Samuel Vivanco, joined 15
the Charging Party to hand out flyers that morning. (Tr. 30, 61, 72–73, 85, 105.) Vivanco joined
“because he [Vivanco] said the Union would never respond to any telephone calls or questions
because they are never around.” (Tr. 30–31.) Tunnell, who corroborated these events, left
before Samson arrived at the facility and conversed with the Charging Party. (Tr. 73.)
20
The flyer the Charging Party handed out in December 2018 is almost identical to one he
handed out the prior December 2017 and has the following text:
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!!
25
 DOT Regulations—11 on road hours and 14 total is the DOT limit. The 14 hours
per day are on duty time which includes lunches, but does not mean 14 total hours
worked.
 Western Regional Supplemental Agreement—Article 20 sec. 2(a)
Regular scheduled work week shall consist of (5) consecutive (8) hour days 30
Monday through Friday or Tuesday through Saturday.
(b) No employee with a seniority date prior to 2011 will be forced on to a
Tuesday through Saturday unless mutually agreed to or unless the employee bid
such work week in accordance with the bidding procedures.
(c) Start times shall be posted on the Friday of the week for which the starting 35
times shall be effective.
 Article 23—MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS—The employer agrees that all
conditions of employment in his individual operation relating to wages,
guaranteed hours of work, overtime differentials and general working conditions
shall be maintained at not less than the highest standards.40
 Southwest Package Rider—Section 10 (subsection 2)—Same rules as Article 20
sec. 2 in the Western Region Supplemental.
 Western Region Supplemental Agreement—Preamble—Any lesser conditions
contained in any rider or Addendum shall be superseded by the conditions created
in this Agreement.45
JD(SF)-22-19
5
 National Master Agreement—Article 18—Under no circumstances will an
employee be required or assigned to engage in any activity involving dangerous
conditions of work or danger to a person or property in violation of a government
regulation relating to safety.
5
(Tr. 24–34; GC Exh. 2.) This flyer quotes language from Department of Transportation
regulations and language from the Union CBA with Employer. (Tr. 24–34, 41–43.)
Correia gave this same flyer to workers in December 2017. (Tr. 26.) Correia and other
union members passed this flyer out after receiving complaints and phone calls from employees 10
stating that management at the Respondent was requiring them “to work six days a week and up
to seventy hours a week.” (Tr. 26.) This conduct violated the collective-bargaining agreement
and, more importantly, Department of Transportation regulations. (Tr. 24–34; GC Exh. 2.)
Samson passed out the same flyer because the Respondent repeated this conduct in both the 2017
and 2018 winter shipping seasons. (Tr. 29.)15
On December 14, Samson arrived at the San Diego facility near 9 a.m. after a
conversation between the Charging Party and the San Diego facility shop steward Rob Moreno
(Moreno). (Tr. 105.) Evidently this conversation was heated, given that the Charging Party later
texted coworkers that “[Rob Moreno] and I are no longer friends.” (GC Exh. 3.) The account of 20
what happened once Samson arrived at UPS on December 14 is heavily disputed. I recount the
four versions of the events below.
C. Correia’s Version of the Conversation
25
Correia is a package driver at the UPS facility in San Diego and is a Union member. (Tr.
22.) Correia also engages in significant union activity, including handing out flyers to the
members, educating and informing them about contractual issues, attending monthly meetings,
speaking to members on a daily basis, and reading up on by-laws. (Tr. 24.) Even though Correia
was out on disability leave from November 20, 2016, to September 28, he engaged in union 30
activities, including handbilling, throughout. (Tr. 25–28.)
When Samson arrived between 8:15 and 9 a.m., Correia said that Samson “got right in
[Correia’s] face.” (Tr. 31–32, 43.) The following exchange happened:
35
Samson: Give me that flyer.
Correia: Absolutely not.
Samson: Well let me look at it.
Correia: No.
Samson: What are you doing here?40
Correia: I’m doing my due diligence.
Samson: Due diligence, huh? You know what your problem is? You have no
integrity.
Correia: Integrity? You have no integrity. You never inform the [union] members.
Samson: You don’t know shit anyway. You’ve been out so long with your injury, 45
you don’t know what’s going on.
JD(SF)-22-19
6
Correia: That’s why we’re out here. We’re informing and educating the members,
because you never come here.
Samson: (After walking away then turning around)
You know what, man? Your days at this company are numbered. You’re
done. You’re finished.5
Correia: Yeah, you’re finished too.
Samson: Do me that favor.
(Tr. 32–33.) Correia said he did not give Samson the flyer because Samson often took credit for
Correia’s suggestions and solutions to problems in the past. (Tr. 33, 43.)10
After the altercation, Correia texted several coworkers a description of the events at 9:06
a.m. (Tr. 53–54.) The text is reproduced below:
I just finished up handing out flyers at the UPS SD bldg. I was approached by their shop 15
steward Rob Moreno and needless to say he and I are no longer friends He ran
and called Samson who then arrived at the bldg. shortly afterward. Samson asked me for
a flyer and I refused to give him one. Needless to say, it ended in a shouting match in
front of all the drivers coming in at the guard shack. He told me that he’ll make sure I’m
out of UPS and I also promised him the same fate. He said I don’t know shit cus [siq.] I 20
was away for too long with my injury. Poor bastard doesn’t realize I was hitting all the
bldgs while I was out injured.
(GC Exh. 3.) This description of the events mirrors Correia’s testimony.
25
D. Vivanco’s Version of the Conversation
Samuel Vivanco is also a package driver at the UPS facility in San Diego and is a
member of the Union. (Tr. 59.) He testified that on December 14, Samson approached around
8:20 a.m. (Tr. 62.) Samson apparently got “approximately [Vivanco’s] arm length” away from 30
Correia before the conversation happened. (Tr. 63.) During this whole time, Vivanco was next
to Correia on his left side. (Tr. 63.) Vivanco testified to the following conversation:
Samson: Can I have one of those?
Correia: No, you cannot.35
Samson: Why not?
Correia: Because we did this for our members and you didn’t.
Samson: What are you doing here?
Correia: I’m here doing my due diligence because it will help the members with
any information.40
Samson: You have no authority.
(Tr. 63 (verbal filler eliminated).)
After walking about ten feet away from Correia, Vivanco testified that Samson turned 45
around, told Correia that he had no integrity, and told Correia that he was no longer with the
JD(SF)-22-19
7
company and that he was done. (Tr. 63–64.) Correia replied that Samson’s days were over. (Tr.
64.)
E. Samson’s Version of the Conversation
5
Samson testified that he went to the San Diego facility on December 14 after receiving a
call from Moreno regarding an argument he had with people passing out flyers. (Tr. 105.)
Samson said he approached Correia and had the following conversation after arriving:
Samson: Can I have a copy?10
Correia: No.
Samson: Why not?
Correia: Because you don’t do shit for the [union] members.
Samson: How do you know when you haven’t been around for a year and a half?
Correia: You’ve seen me out here. I’ve been passing out.15
Samson: Where’s your integrity?
Correia: (As Samson was walking away)
You’re not going to be here very long.
Samson: You going to do me a favor?
20
(Tr. 106.) Samson said Chris Turner was going through security at the guard shack as Samson
walked up to the guard shack. (Tr. 106.)
F. Chris Turner’s Version of the Conversation
25
Chris Turner is another package driver at the Chula Vista facility for the Employer and he
is also a Union member. (Tr. 83.) He worked at the San Diego building on December 14 and
thus saw people handing out flyers there. (Tr. 84–85.) Turner stated that after he got out of a car
and followed Samson in from about two to three feet behind him, Turner heard someone yelling
aggressively at Samson. (Tr. 86.) I observed Turner testify in an uncomfortable and fidgety 30
manner that Samson did not engage with the person and acted professionally the entire time. (Tr.
86–87.) Turner said that Samson maintained this demeanor even after the person told Samson
that his days were numbered. (Tr. 87).
Turner provided a subsequent statement on January 24, 2019. (Tr. 92–94.) It is 35
reproduced below:
On the 14th of December I witnessed a guy passing out flyers being aggressive toward
Paul Samson. The guy was telling Paul that his (Paul’s) days were numbered. In my
opinion Paul did nothing wrong and was completely professional about the whole 40
situation.
/s/ Chris Turner
(R. Exh. 7.) Turner did not sign this statement under the penalty of perjury. Id. 45
JD(SF)-22-19
8
G. My Findings of the Conversation
As a preliminary matter, I reject Chris Turner’s testimony regarding the December 14
events. He testified that no conversations took place, but that directly conflicts with all other
testimony about the conversation. Even Samson testified about the contents of his conversation5
with Correia that happened. Accordingly, I find that Samson had a conversation with Correia
upon arriving to the San Diego facility.
Neither Correia nor Vivanco nor Samson dispute that Samson asked Correia for a flyer
and Correia declined to give him one. What happened next is murkier. Samson clearly told 10
Correia that he did not know anything about the facilities due to Correia’s absence, and Samson
clearly told Correia that he had no integrity. There are two disputed facts. First, whether
Samson told Correia that he “doesn’t know shit” or the other way around. Second, whether
Samson threatened Correia with a loss of employment.
15
Correia and Vivanco testify to remarkably similar statements of the events. Samson
contradicts them on this matter. Samson, however, did not testify that he did not make a threat.
In his recollection of the conversation, he jumped from asking whether Correia has any integrity
to Correia saying that Samson was going to be gone from the Union. There is thus no actual
conflict between the testimonies of Samson, Correia, and Vivanco regarding whether the threat 20
was made.
To the extent that there is any conflict, however, Samson’s willingness to lie regarding
his being bothered or upset about the petition to remove him makes his other testimony less
credible. Since I observed that Correia and Vivanco confidently recalled the events on 25
December 14 at hearing without pause, I find there are no credibility issues for Correia and
Vivanco, I credit their testimony over Samson’s and find: first, that Samson told Correia that
Correia “doesn’t know shit”; and second, that Samson threatened Correia with a loss of
employment.
30
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The General Counsel alleges that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
way of its agent, Samson, threatening the Charging Party with loss of employment for engaging
in the protected activity of handbilling. The Respondent denies these allegations and avers that 35
the threat does not constitute a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) because Samson did not have any
authority to carry out the threat.
Section 8(b)(1)(A) states that “it shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
or its agents . . . to restrain or coerce . . . employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed” in 40
Section 7 of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A). Handbilling is a protected activity so long as it
does not encourage employees to refuse to engage in their employment. See NLRB v. Servette,
Inc., 377 U.S. 46, 48 (1964). Neither party alleges that the Charging Party attempted to
encourage employees not to participate in their employment. Instead, the Charging Party simply
informed other employees of their rights under Department of Transportation regulations and 45
JD(SF)-22-19
9
under the applicable collective bargaining agreements. (GC Exh. 2.) Thus, I find that Correia’s
handbilling on December 14 is protected activity.
A union agent commits an unfair labor practice when he threatens an employee with loss
of employment. See Carpenters Union Local 180, 328 NLRB 947, 948 (1999) (finding a 5
violation when a union agent told a unit member that he was “going to lose all of [his
employment] benefits” for leaving the union but staying with the company). The fact “[t]hat the
actual loss or diminution of benefits results from actions taken by third parties [here the
Employer] is not an exculpatory factor under these circumstances.” Id. at 950. See also Bay
Cities Metal Trade Council, 306 NLRB 983, 985–986 (1992), enfd. 15 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 1993) 10
(same)5. The test for whether this threat is an unfair labor practice is whether the threat would
reasonably coerce the unit member into preventing him from exercising his protected activities.
Longshoremen ILA Local 333 (ITO Corp.), 267 NLRB 1320, 1321 (1983).
Here, I find that the threat Samson made would reasonably coerce Correia from 15
exercising his protected right of handbilling. By making the threat, Samson clearly intended to
stop Correia from actively participating in the Union. Thus, under the reasoning in Carpenters
Union Local 180, Samson’s December 14 threat to Correia constitutes a Section 8(b)(1)(A)
violation.
20
The Respondent cites several cases arguing that Samson could not violate Section
8(b)(1)(A) because he had no power to exercise his threats. Each case the Respondent cites is
distinguishable on the facts. The first case, International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 28
(Ceres Gulf, Inc.), 367 NLRB No. 128, slip op. 2–11 (2019), involved allegations of violating the
duty of fair representation and discriminatory treatment within the union. Id. There, the General 25
Counsel failed to prove that the union acted with animus toward the alleged discriminatee on the
basis of sex or engaging in protected activity. Id. Moreover, unlike here, in International
Longshoremen’s Association, the alleged discriminatee engaged in no protected activities. Id.
Even further, the judge in International Longshoremen’s Association found that no one from the
union made a threat to the alleged discriminatee. Id. Thus, although the Respondent seeks to use 30
this case to argue that Samson had to have the power to carry out his threat to violate Section
8(b)(1)(A), the fact that this case involved no protected activity and thus no retaliation means it
is totally inapposite to the analysis here.
The second case, Wenner Ford Tractor Rentals, Inc., 315 NLRB 964 (1994), involved a 35
situation where the union agent caused the employer to remove the employee engaging in
protected activities. Ibid. There, the union caused the employer to replace the discriminatee as
the master mechanic. Id. at 965. Nothing in this opinion, however, disputes the reasoning in
Carpenters Union Local 180. Although the Respondent cites to the Wenner Ford Tractor
Rentals, Inc. case for the proposition that Samson had to have the power to carry out the threat to 40
violate Section 8(b)(1)(A), Wenner Ford contains no such proposition. It merely holds that a
union causing an employer to fire a discriminatee due to the discriminatee’s protected activities

5 “I have considered that the threatened loss of employment benefits involved conduct which Respondent attributed
to a third party, the Employer. Nonetheless, I am persuaded the threat is ‘coercive’ within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A), inasmuch as it is a threat of the loss of existing employment benefits which was expressed to the
employees by the labor organization.”
JD(SF)-22-19
10
violates the Act—nothing more. Ibid. Thus, the Respondent finds no support for its contention
in this case, either.
The third case is Motion Picture Studio Mechanics, Local 52 (Michael Levee
Productions, Ltd.), 238 NLRB 9 (1978), where the union acted to prevent an employer from 5
hiring a non-union employee. Ibid. There, the union refused to allow the employer to hire an
otherwise qualified sound-mixer due to him not having membership in the union. Id. at 20.
Here, unlike in Motion Picture Studio Mechanics, Local 52, Samson threatened Correia with loss
of employment rather than preventing Correia from gaining employment in the first place.
Furthermore, Samson threatened Correia because of Correia’s union activities and active union 10
participation; Motion Picture Studio Mechanics, Local 52 presents the exact opposite scenario.
Thus, the Respondent’s citation to this case provides it no recourse.
The Respondent cites no case that allows it to overcome the controlling holding in
Carpenters Union Local 180.6 Accordingly, I find that the Union, through Paul Samson’s threat, 15
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Parcel Service, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), 20
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No.
542 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Paul Samson is an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act.25
4. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening Derek Correia with
a loss of employment for engaging in the protected activity of handbilling.
REMEDY
30
The appropriate remedy for the 8(b)(1)(A) violation that I have found is an Order
requiring the Respondent to cease and desist from such conduct and take certain affirmative
actions consistent with the policies and purposes of the Act.

6 The Respondent cites a fourth case, Local 594, International Union, United Auto, etc. v. NLRB, 776 F.2d 1310
(6th Cir. 1985). This case involves a union forcing discriminatees to withdraw an unfair labor practice charge and
causing employees not to receive payment for the nonunion work they did. Id. at 1311. Moreover, the holding here
agrees with the Board’s later statement in Carpenters Union Local 180. Id. at 1314 (The Union violates Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act . . . by attempting to cause an employer to discriminate in terms and conditions of
employment against an employee in order to retaliate against that employee for protesting the Union's policies,
questioning the official conduct of Union agents, or incurring the personal hostility of a Union official.). Thus, this
case does not even support the Respondent’s proposition. Even if it did, I would have to disregard it, as I must
follow and apply Board precedent, notwithstanding contrary decisions by courts of appeal, unless and until the
Board precedent is overruled by the Supreme Court or the Board itself. See NLRB Division of Judges Bench Book
(Wedekind 2019ed.) at Section 13–100 citing Western Cab Co., 365 NLRB No. 78, slip op. at 1 fn. 4 (2017); and
Pathmark Stores, Inc., 342 NLRB 378 fn. 1 (2004).
JD(SF)-22-19
11
Specifically, to the extent that the Respondent has not already done so, the Respondent
shall cease and desist from threatening or in any manner retaliating against Correia or any other
employee for handbilling.
The Respondent shall also cease and desist, in any other manner, from interfering with, 5
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondent shall post an appropriate informational notice, as described in the
attached appendix. This notice shall be posted at the Respondent’s business office or wherever
the notices to members or registrants of the hall are regularly posted for 60 days without 10
anything covering it up or defacing its contents. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its
members and registrants by such means. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these 15
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current members and registrants and former members or registrants of the Union. When the
notice is issued to the Respondent, it shall sign it or otherwise notify the Region 21 Regional
Director what action it will take with respect to this decision.
20
Accordingly, based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended7
ORDER
25
That Respondent, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 542,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with a loss of employment because they engaged in
union and protected concerted activities.30
(b) In any like or related matter restraining or coercing employee in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its offices and meeting
halls copies of appropriate Notice to Employers and Members. Copies of the 35
Notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed 40
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its

7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all
objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)-22-19
12
members by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for
posting by United Parcel Service, Inc. at its facility located at 7925 Ronson Road,
San Diego, California, if the Employer is willing, at all places where notices to 5
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the Administrative Law Judge’s Order, what steps have been taken to
comply with the order.
10
Dated: San Francisco, California, July 17, 2019
Gerald Michael Etchingham
Administrative Law Judge15
JD(SF)-22-19
APPENDIX
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO:
 Form, join, or assist a union
 Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
 Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
 Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify employees that:
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising the above rights.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment because they engaged in union
and protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to you by Section 7 of the Act.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local 542, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov
U.S. Courthouse-Spring Street, 312 N. Spring Street, Suite 10150, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-5200, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CB-233544 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
JD(SF)-22-19
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER (213) 634-6502.