Treamsters Local 843 (Anheuser-Busch, Inc.)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 912 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 843, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca (Anheuser-Busch, Inc.) and Fred Cosenza and
Melvin Baldwin. Cases 22-CB-3274 and 22-CB-
3314
September 30, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On July 1, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Claude
R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order as modified herein. 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Local 843, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order, as so modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph !(a):
"(a) Assessing fines against, suspending from
membership, or otherwise disciplining members for
not engaging in or participating in a work stoppage
during the existence of the no-strike agreement
between Respondent and the Employer, where said
work stoppage is in advancement of the demands of
any other union."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Rescind and expunge from their records the
fines and suspensions imposed on Fred Cosenza,
Joseph Calabrese, Melvin Baldwin, and James C.
Brown for having crossed the picket line of the
Brewery Workers Conference at the Anheuser-
Busch. Inc., plant in Newark, New Jersey, and
inform each of them, and the Regional Director for
Region 22, in writing, that it has taken said corrective
action. Additionally, refund to the above-named
232 NLRB No. 139
employees any portion of the fines that they may
have paid, together with interest thereon to be
computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977)."3
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In his recommended Order, the Adminnistrative Law Judge provided,
inter alia, that Respondent cease and desist from fining, suspending, or
otherwise disciplining its members for not participating in a work stoppage
during the existence of a no-strike agreement between Respondent and the
Employer "whether said work stoppage be in advancement of direct
demands of Respondent or its members or in advancement of the demands
of any other union." It is clear, however, that the no-strike agreement
involved herein solely prohibited work stoppages by Respondent or its
members in advancement of the demands of any other union. Accordingly,
we shall modify the recommended Order.
Additionally, we shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's recom-
mended Order to provide that Respondent, in refunding any portion of the
fines which the employees herein involved may have paid, include interest
thereon. In accordance with our decision in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977), we shall apply the current 7-percent rate for periods prior
to August 25, 1977, in which the "adjusted prime interest rate" as used by
the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments was at
least 7 percent.
J See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assess fines, suspend from
membership, or otherwise discipline our members
for not engaging in or participating in a work
stoppage in violation of the no-strike agreement
between us and Anheuser-Busch, Inc., where the
stoppage is in advancement of the demands of
any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL rescind and expunge from their
records the fines and suspensions imposed on
Fred Cosenza, Joseph Calabrese, Melvin Bal-
dwin, and James C. Brown for having crossed the
picket line of the Brewery Workers Conference at
the Anheuser-Busch, Inc., plant in Newark, New
Jersey, and WE WILL inform each of them, and the
Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, that
we have taken said corrective action.
WE WILL refund to the above-named employees
any portion of the fines that they may have paid,
together with interest thereon.
912
LOCAL 843, TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 843,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge: This
consolidated proceeding was heard before me on January
10 and 11, 1977, at Newark, New Jersey, pursuant to a
consolidated complaint issued on September 14, 1976, and
charges filed by Fred Cosenza and Melvin Baldwin,
individual employees, on July 8 and August 23, 1976,
respectively, alleging that Local 843, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called the Respondent, the
Union, or Local 843, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
by threatening employees of Anheuser-Busch, Inc., some-
times herein referred to as the Company or the Employer,
with bodily injury and other harm because these employees
reserved to honor a picket line at the Employer's Newark
plant; and by disciplining and fining company employees
Fred Cosenza, Joseph Calabrese, Melvin Baldwin, and
James C. Brown for crossing this picket line. The
Respondent filed a timely answer denying the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses as they testified, and after due consideration of
the posttrial briefs filed by the parties, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find
that the Employer is a Missouri corporation with various
plants in the States of Missouri, Virginia, and New
Hampshire, and a plant in Newark, New Jersey, herein
called the facility or the plant, where it manufactures, sells,
and distributes beer and related products; and that in the
12 months preceding issuance of the complaint herein, a
representative period, the Employer manufactured, sold,
and distributed products at the facility valued in excess of
$50,000, and shipped said products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from the facility to States of the United
States other than the State of New Jersey. I further find
that the Employer is now, and has been at all times
material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The facts set forth herein are based on a synthesis of the credited
aspects of the testimony of all witnesses, the exhibits, the pleadings,
stipulations of record. and careful consideration of the logical consistency
and inherent probability of the facts found. Although I may not, in the
course of this decision, advert to all of the record testimony or documentary
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that the Respondent, Local 843, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called Local 843, and the Brewery
Workers Joint Local Executive Board of New Jersey, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the
Joint Board, are, and have been at all times material
herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts and DiscussionI
Respondent Local 843 and Local 153 bargain jointly
with the Employer as the Joint Board for a unit of
essentially production employees including truckdrivers at
the Newark facility. The latest expired collective-bargain-
ing agreement between the Company and the Joint Board
on behalf of the Respondent and Local 153 was effective
from June 1, 1973, through February 29, 1976. Local 102,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, bargains individ-
ually with the Employer for employees at the Newark
facility not represented by Locals 843 and 153 and is not a
member of the Joint Board. The collective-bargaining
agreement between Local 102 and the Employer also
expired February 29, 1976. The St. Louis, Missouri,
facilities of the Company negotiate and contract indepen-
dently with the Teamsters. Employer negotiates with the
National Brewery Conference, which is composed of other
Teamster Local unions, regarding the wages, hours, and
working conditions of its employees at its remaining seven
facilities, including one at Merrimac, New Hampshire.
In June 1975, the National Brewery Conference request-
ed that all local unions, including the Respondent, who had
contracts with Anheuser-Busch, Inc., give it authority to
negotiate on their behalf on a national scale with the
Employer. Respondent's membership unanimously reject-
ed that proposal in September 1975. Respondent's presi-
dent, Frank Sullivan, who also served as secretary of the
Joint Board and the spokesman for it and its members,
Locals 843 and 153, in the negotiations for a new contract
commencing in 1975 and continuing until the contract was
signed on January 26, 1976, promptly notified the National
Brewery Conference of the membership's rejection of that
proposal. Thereafter, about the same time the Joint Board
commenced negotiations with the Company at Newark on
October 8, 1975, the National Brewery Conference advised
Sullivan that Locals 843 and 153 were free to negotiate on
their own. Shortly after October 8, the Conference
requested Sullivan to resubmit the rejected proposal to the
membership of Locals 843 and 153, but he responded that
evidence it has been carefully weighed and considered and, to the extent
that testimony or other evidence not mentioned herein might appear to
contradict the findings of fact, that evidence has not been disregarded but
has been rejected as incredible, lacking in probative worth, surplusage, or
irrelevant.
913
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiations had already commenced and did not resubmit
the proposal to the members.
At the first negotiation meeting between the Company
and the Joint Board on October 8, 1975, Sullivan told the
company representatives present that the Joint Board
would handle its own negotiations with the Company
concerning the Newark employees. It was agreed that
Frank Sullivan would be the spokesman for the Unions,
and Paul Charrier, manager of industrial relations, would
speak for the Company.
After 16 negotiation sessions, including 2 days at St.
Louis, in December 1975 the Employer and the Respon-
dent and St. Louis locals reached agreement on an
economic package with an additional agreement between
the Respondent and the Company as part of the negotiated
"package" between them. This additional agreement is set
forth in a letter, dated December 3, 1975, reading as
follows:
Mr. Frank Sullivan, Secretary
Joint Local Executive Board
446 Morris Avenue
Springfield, New Jersey 07081
1975-79 Labor Agreements between Joint Local
Executive Board and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,
Newark, New Jersey
Dear Frank:
On Tuesday, December 2, 1975, we came to an
understanding with respect to the terms and conditions
of the above referenced labor agreements. As part of
those negotiations it was agreed that Article 6.3 of the
contract covering the Laboratory Technicians and
Inspectors, and Article 6.2 and 6.3 of the contract
covering all other employees represented by the Joint
Local Executive Board would be amended as they
pertain to the company's 1975-76 brewery negotiations
by the addition of the following paragraphs:
Neither the Union nor any employee covered by
this agreement shall have the right to honor or
otherwise support any picket line the object of
which is to exert pressure on the Employer to
come to an agreement with respect to another
collective bargaining agreement applying to em-
ployees in classifications covered by this agree-
ment.
Any employee covered by this agreement who
honors or otherwise support[s] a picket line the
object of which is to exert pressure on the
Employer to come to an agreement with respect
to another collective bargaining agreement apply-
ing to employees in classifications covered by this
agreement shall subject himself to discipline.
Upon ratification of the terms and conditions agreed
upon in negotiations I would appreciate your signing a
copy of this letter in the space provided at the time of
execution of the labor contracts.
Sincerely yours,
Stuart F. Meyer
Director
Corporate Labor Relations
Approved:
Frank Sullivan
c.c. Mr. Paul Charrier
Both the formal collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Company and the Respondent effective January
12, 1976, through February 28, 1979, and the letter of
December 3 were brought before Respondent's member-
ship as the Employer's final proposal. The proposal was
rejected twice by the members,2 but then accepted by them
on January 25, 1976, after further negotiations. The
members were told by Sullivan, prior to their acceptance,
that the letter could not be separated from the final
package, and that they must either accept or reject the
entire package. The members then accepted the entire
proposal, including the letter. The following day, January
26, Sullivan signed both the collective-bargaining agree-
ment and the letter. It has not been the practice for the
Respondent to submit its negotiated agreements to its
parent Joint Council for the State of New Jersey for prior
approval, and it did not do so in the instant case.
The minutes of the meeting reflect that the subject matter
of the December 3 letter was first raised by Charrier at the
October 8 meeting when he announced that the Company
wanted to negotiate a contract as soon as possible, would
put increases in wages and other economic benefits into
effect immediately upon execution of a contract without
waiting for the expiration date of the existing contract, and
in the event the Company had to later grant higher rates at
other locations during negotiations it would increase the
benefits at Newark to meet those rates if the Respondent
had already signed a contract with lesser rates. Additional-
ly, Charrier stated that the Company would expect that
once an agreement was signed there would be no support
by the Joint Board for any picket line established at
Newark by unions from other locations, and went on to
state that an early agreement with economic increases
being paid would be of no value to the Employer without
the commitment not to support foreign picket lines.
Sullivan testified, in agreement with the October 8
minutes, that the Company said that once an economic
package was developed and accepted by the Newark locals
the Employer would expect a letter of commitment that the
Newark locals would not recognize any other picket line
from outside the vicinity. Sullivan further testified that
another extract from the October 8 minutes reads as
follows:
2 Sullivan concedes that the letter was not a factor in the failure to ratify.
914
LOCAL 843, TEAMSTERS
The Joint Board said that once it agreed to the
economic package, it would not support any brewery
which might be looking to increase such economic
package. However, if it agreed to a contract containing
the economic package, and a strike in one of Anheuser-
Busch's other Breweries developed over working
conditions, the facts would have to be cleared through
Teamsters Council No. 73 before any decision to
support a picket line would be made in Newark. The
Joint Board agreed that minus an early new agreement,
it is aware that the present contract expires February
28, 1976 and that the Council would have to take this
into consideration if pickets from another Anheuser-
Busch Brewery were sent into Newark prior to
February 28, 1976.
However, Sullivan claims that he also told Charrier at the
October 8 meeting that he felt it was beyond his authority
to commit his members to not recognize picket lines
because both the state Joint Council and the International
Union were both superior in jurisdiction to him. I note
that, notwithstanding this alleged statement, Sullivan
conferred with neither the Joint Council nor the Interna-
tional Union with respect to the December 3 letter which
he signed on January 26, 1976, and that this disclaimer of
authority does not appear in the minutes, entered into
evidence by the Respondent, which Sullivan claims reflects
what he said. I am persuaded that his testimony that he
told Charrier on October 8 that he felt he lacked authority
was a wishful afterthought prompted by later reaction by
his International Union to his signing the December 3
letter, and that he did not in fact state a lack of authority.
Futhermore, I do not believe that he ever felt he lacked
authority to sign the letter until after his much later
confrontation with the International Union, nor do I
believe that one who now insists that he had a continuing
acute consciousness of limitations placed on his authority
by superior bodies would have executed the December 3
letter without at least some brief word of consultation with
those superiors.
In this same connection, the dictates of reason compel
me to reject a conclusion that the parties would have
engaged in negotiations on the letter, changed its wording
and then accepted it at the St. Louis meeting, as hereafter
discussed, or that the Employer would then have put it in
final written form for signing if Sullivan had no authority
to sign the agreement arrived at or had even stated to the
Company, or his fellow union negotiators, that he had
none. Reasonable men do not engage in futile acts absent
some specific purpose not shown to be present here, and I
cannot and do not conclude that all the activity at St. Louis
over the letter of agreement was a charade. Neither do I
have any reason to believe from the evidence or my
personal observation of Sullivan that he is given to
3 The word concludes par. 3 of the December 3 letter later signed by
Sullivan.
4 I credit Charrier's testimony in this regard because he impressed me as
a credible, forthright witness being careful to recount what he actually
recalled. Furthermore, his testimony is at least partially supported by
Sullivan's grudging admissions that he remembers the word "discharge"
being there, that Lewis "could have" objected to it, and that the word
"discipline" "could have" been substituted for "discharge." On the whole. I
executing documents without authority to so do. Similarly,
it is obvious from the Company's insistence, which Sullivan
acknowledges, on the letter as part of the final agreement
that the Company would not have signed the agreement
had they been informed it was null and void ab initio due to
Su!livan's lack of authority.
The letter was discussed at the St. Louis meeting on or
about December 2, 1975. A Mr. Lewis who was acting as
chief spokesman on behalf of the Newark and St. Louis
unions objected to the wording of the paragraphs subse-
quently set forth in the letter of December 3, 1975, because
the initial draft provided for "discharge," which he
considered too severe. The Employer agreed to change the
word to "discipline." 3 With that change Lewis accepted the
letter on behalf of the St. Louis and Newark local unions. 4
Sullivan expressed no objection to Lewis' action which was
the result of negotiation by all parties present, and there is
no credible evidence that Sullivan thereafter mentioned
lack of authority to the Company.
The minutes of the December 4, 1975, negotiation
meeting between the Joint Board and the Company at
Newark, after the St. Louis meetings, refers to the
December 3 letter appended thereto as follows:
NO STRIKE CLAUSE IN EFFECT TILL ALL
BREWERIES SIGN WITH ANHEUSER-BUSCH
Attached hereto is a copy of letter to be signed by the
Company and the Union when Agreement is signed.
The December 5, 1975, minutes contain the following
section:
Letter Dated December 3, 1975 Re 1975-79 Labor
Agreements Between Joint Board and Anheuser-Busch,
New Jersey
Attached is a copy of letter
The Union said it accepts this letter provided the
Company gives it in writing a statement that the
contents of the letter will cease to exist when the last
Anheuser-Busch Agreement is signed.
The minutes of the December 11, 1975, negotiation
meeting sets forth the Company's final offer including,
inter alia, the following paragraph:
Increases in wages will be effective on December 8,
1975 provided that this settlement proposal is ratified
and an Agreement between the parties is signed before
the end of the business day December 16, 1975.
Otherwise such increases will become effective the date
the Agreement between the parties is signed. In
ratifying the settlement offer, the Union agrees to sign
the December 3, 1975 letter addressed to the Secretary
do not regard Sullivan as reliable a witness as Charrier becaise of his
selective memory which vaned in clanty and precision depending on
whether or not the incidents recalled were favorable to his position and
because he gave me the distinct impression throughout his testimony that he
was seeking to provide a protective layer of self-justification to insulate
himself from adverse action by his International Union which, as set forth in
this Decision, called upon him to explain his action in signing the December
3 letter.
915
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Joint Local Executive Board and the Company
agrees that any benefits above and beyond this offer
which are granted any other local union will automati-
cally be granted to the Anheuser-Busch employees
represented by the Joint Local Executive Board.
As set forth earlier hereinabove, this final offer was
rejected twice by the members and then accepted by them
on January 25, 1976, after some further negotiations not
fully set out in the record. It is conceded by Sullivan that
the December 3 letter was not a "pertinent factor" in these
further negotiations.
Sullivan went to Charrier's office on Janaury 26, 1976,
and then and there signed the basic 1976-79 contract and
the letter dated December 3. The collective-bargaining
agreement was made retroactive to January 12, 1976, and
contains the clauses relating to employees crossing picket
lines to which the December 3 letter refers. They read as
follows:
PICKET LINE
6.2 (NOT APPLICABLE 1TO RETAIL ROUTE DELIVERIES)
No employee shall be required to cross a picket line
or make any pickups from or deliveries to a struck
Company provided that such picketing or strike is legal
and has been duly sanctioned by the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Joint Council No. 73 and
provided further that Anheuser-Busch has received
twenty-four (24) hours notice in advance that the
Union intends to exercise its rights under this para-
graph.
6.3 (APPLICABLE TO RETAII ROUIE DEI.IVERIES)
It shall not be a violation of this Agreement nor
constitute just cause for disciplinary action for an
employee to refuse to cross a lawfully established picket
line.
Sullivan testified that when he signed the documents in
Charrier's office on January 26 he told Charrier that if a
picket line was established at the Newark facility, with
sanction by the Joint Council or the International Union,
then "we would be duty bound to respect it under the
constitution." Charrier recalls no such statement by
Sullivan concerning the Joint Council, and I conclude that
Sullivan did not make the statement he claims to have
made in view of Charrier's superior credibility in general,
Sullivan's tendency to engage in self-justification, and the,
to me, logical improbability that the Company would have
signed the contract and the letter in the face of a plain
statement of intent by Sullivan that the Respondent would
in fact honor a picket line at the facility in clear
contravention of the letter then being signed, which was an
absolute condition of the agreement as both parties well
knew.
I As I interpret his testimony which is "both the International Union and
the Council. were, in my opinion, null and void this letter as far as my
authority was concerned."
On February 2, 1976, Local 843 received the following
telegram from the general president of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters:
This office has received information to the effect that
your local union has executed a collective bargaining
agreement with Anheuser-Busch which includes a
provision which purports to waive the trade union right
of your individual members to respect a picket line of
other Teamster locals who may strike during the
current negotiations with Anheuser-Busch. I under-
stand further that your local union has specifically
agreed in writing that the company can discipline any
of your members who exercise their trade union right to
refuse to cross such a picket line.
Pursuant to Article XII, Section I I(D) of the Interna-
tional Constitution, you are hereby directed to advise
this office by return mail whether your local union has
executed such an agreement and submit a copy of any
such agreement, addenda and letters of understanding.
If you have taken the action described above, you are
further directed to provide an explanation for executing
an agreement with such a provision. Failure to comply
with these directives will result in appropriate action.
The telegram was directed to Frank Jackiewicz, secre-
tary-treasurer of Local 843. Sullivan states that he did not
respond to the wire, and isn't sure if Jackiewicz did.
Sometime in early February, the date is not fixed in the
record but I am persuaded it was probably February 6 in
view of the fact Charrier places the day as Friday, after he
had been summoned to meet with the New Jersey Joint
Council to explain why he had signed the December letter
and had been told by the Council and the International he
should not have signed it, which communication Sullivan
says S he interpreted as notification that any authority he
had vis-a-vis the letter had been superseded, Sullivan and
representatives of Locals 102 and 153 went to Charrier's
office and asked him to rescind the "no-strike agreement"
set out in the December 3 letter. Charrier referred the
matter to the Company's St. Louis office which responded
to him on the following Monday with a refusal to rescind
the letter. I credit Charrier's testimony that he advised each
of the three Newark locals of this refusal to rescind by
telephone.
On February 29, 1976, Local 102's contract with the
Company expired and it commenced picketing March 1.
This picketing continued until May 8 when the Employer
and Local 102 reached agreement on a contract. On May
10, Sullivan was informed by the Brewery Workers
Conference, which represents no employees at the Newark
facility, that it was going to establish a picket line at the
Newark facility. Subsequently, the Brewery Workers
Conference picketed the Newark plant from May 116 to
June 4. This picket line was staffed by employees from the
Company's Merrimac, New Hampshire, facility primarily,
with some pickets from other out-of-state facilities repre-
sented by the Brewery Workers Conference.
6 I conclude from Sullivan's testimony that this picketing commenced on
the first Tuesday after the Local 102 picketing ended.
916
LOCAL 843, TEAMSTERS
Numerous Newark employees called Respondent's office
when the Brewery Workers Conference started picketing,
and they were informed by Sullivan and other people in
Respondent's office "that the ... Brewery Workers
Conference, with the sanction of the International had
established a picket line and as such we expected them as
Union members to respect it." Similarly, Local 843 trustee
John Lackey testified that he was at the picket line on May
17 and other occasions to see what was happening, to
instruct employees regarding the International Union's
constitution to the effect the picket line was sanctioned,
and to see which Local 843 members were crossing the
picket line to work.
The parties stipulated and I find that Fred Cosenza,
Joseph Calabrese, Melvin Baldwin, and James C. Brown,
truckdrivers and warehousemen at the Newark facility, did
cross the picket line to work on a number of occasions after
May 14; that, subsequent to crossing the picket line, all
four of these employees were placed on probationary
membership by the Respondent; and that Cosenza,
Baldwin, and Brown were fined $500 and Calabrese was
fined $100 by the Respondent. To the date of the hearing
these fines had not been paid.
According to Fred Cosenza, he was slowly driving his
truck through the picket line on a day sometime in May,
but stopped before entering the highway due to the great
number of men in the area. When he stopped, Respon-
dent's trustee Lackey allegedly cursed him with a phrase
reflecting on Cosenza's parentage, and then told Cosenza,
"I will get you before this is over with," all from a distance
of 10 to 12 feet. Cosenza was sitting in the cab of his truck,
claims he remained so seated, and testifies that Lackey was
in front of the truck when he made the alleged comments,
and further says that he could not say anything to Lackey
from his position in the truck. Cosenza concedes Lackey
did not say specifically what he was going to do to
Cosenza.
Lackey claims that Cosenza got out of his truck, stood on
the running board, and used obscenities in response to
remarks being made to him by employees honoring the
picket line. Lackey avers that he crossed in front of the
truck around to where Cosenza was standing on the
running board, with the intent of persuading Cosenza not
to cross the picket line; that while he was crossing in front
of the truck Cosenza hurled obscenities at him and said, "I
will run you down"; and that he replied to Cosenza with
"There's always manana, " 7 and/or, "There's always
tomorrow."
On the whole, I observed Cosenza to be a much more
volatile witness than Lackey in that his answers were tinged
with emotion and delivered in a somewhat outraged tone.
Lackey was considerably more matter of fact and unemo-
tional in his testimony. I find it significant, as urged by the
Respondent, that Cosenza claims he could not be heard by
Lackey through the front window of the truck, but that he
could hear Lackey. Although this poses an interesting
problem in acoustics, which I shall not attempt to resolve, I
am persuaded that Lackey's version of the events is more
reasonable in the circumstances insofar as it establishes
their relative physical positions during the conversation. I
am further persuaded that the two did engage in a
somewhat heated exchange, helped along by the accompa-
nying cacophonous remarks of the other men in the area
and punctuated with curse words, but that Lackey's
version is the more credible, given Cosenza's tendency,
which I observed on the stand, to give vent to emotional
outbursts. Consequently, it appears to me that it is more
likely that Lackey said, "There's always tomorrow," with
or without the Spanish variation, rather than, "I will get
you before this is over with."
B. Discussions and Conclusions
The Respondent, in its posttrial brief, concedes "that on
its face the December 3, 1975, letter would prohibit the
Union from fining the employees who crossed the picket
line," but argues that the letter is invalid because neither
the Employer nor the four fined employees were entitled to
rely on Sullivan's signature thereon. In support of this line
of reasoning, the Respondent urges that Sullivan at all
times expressed his position that he had no authority to
sign the letter. For the reasons previously discussed in this
Decision, I find that Sullivan did not notify the Employer
that he had no authority to execute the letter. Sullivan well
knew that the letter was part and parcel of the agreement
finally arrived at, and that the Employer had agreed to
retroactive application of economic benefits as consider-
ation in exchange therefor. The entire "package" was
ratified by the membership and signed by Sullivan. He
sought no advice from anyone, so far as the record shows,
as to the scope of his authority. He did not even reply to
the inquiry of the International's president on February 2
as to whether or not and why he had signed the letter; and
throughout the negotiations conducted himself in such a
manner, including giving notice to the Company on
October 8 that the Respondent would handle its own
negotiations, as to clearly convey to the Company that he
possessed all authority necessary to negotiate an agree-
ment. The Respondent further argues that Charrier should
have been aware of Sullivan's limited authority when he
requested rescission of the agreement because Charrier
himself had to consult with his company headquarters to
obtain authorization to agree to such a rescission. Apart
from the fact that the scope of Charrier's authority does
not determine the scope of Sullivan's authority, I am
persuaded, as the Employer contends, that Sullivan's
request for rescission constituted a recognition of an
existing binding agreement. If Sullivan did not in fact have
the authority to execute the letter of agreement and had so
advised the Company (which authority I find he did have
and which advice I find he did not give) and did not
consider Respondent to be bound, then the request for
rescission would have been a frivolous gesture not logically
requiring the presence of Sullivan and representatives of
Local 102 and 153 in Charrier's office to perfect it. I reject
the Respondent's contention that the December 3 letter of
agreement is invalid because not ratified by Sullivan's
superiors, and conclude and find that it constitutes a valid
I Lackey places the incident on May 17.
917
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and binding agreement of the parties thereto and was in
full force and effect at all times material.8
I agree with the Respondent that the December 3, 1975,
letter signed on January 26, 1976, on its face prohibits the
Union from fining employees who crossed the picket line.
The letter of agreement is a commitment by the
Respondent not to strike in support of picket lines
established by other labor organizations to pressure the
Employer to agree to a contract covering employees at
other locations who work in classifications similar to those
occupied by the Newark employees represented by the
Respondent.
The picket line at Newark was established by the
Brewery Workers Conference, a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act, to further its contract demands at
its Merrimac location where it represents employees in
classifications like those at Newark.
By the action of Sullivan and other of its office
employees in informing employees at the Newark facility
of their duty to respect the picket line, resulting in a refusal
to cross the line by many of its employee members; and by
Respondent trustee Lackey's stationing himself at the
picket line to instruct employees that the line was
sanctioned and to observe which Local 843 members were
working across the picket line, the Respondent breached its
no-strike agreement with the Employer and encouraged a
work stoppage.
I further find and conclude that the fines and suspen-
sions imposed on Cosenza, Calabrese, Baldwin, and Brown
for crossing the picket line erected by Respondent's sister
labor organization were designed to compel employees to
violate the no-strike agreement set out in the December 3
letter signed by Sullivan on behalf of the Respondent, and
restrained and coerced Cosenza, Calabrese, Baldwin,
Brown, and other employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Such conduct by the
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and I so
find. 9
I am not, however, persuaded that the ambiguous
statement of Lackey to Cosenza that "There's always
tomorrow" is sufficient to support the allegation of the
complaint that Lackey "threatened to inflict bodily injury
and threatened to cause other harm" to employees who
crossed the picket line. Nor do I believe that Lackey's
statement is sufficient to warrant a finding of restraint and
coercion violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Respon-
dent, by its agent John Lackey, made threats violative of
Section 8(b)(1 )(A) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
based thereon, and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following:
m Respondent's suggestion that the parole evidence rule invalidates the
letter is without merit. The letter is an integral part of the final agreement of
the parties, and that it was on a piece of paper separate from the remainder
of the agreement does not alter its character.
9 Local 12419, International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of
America (National Grinding Wheel Cornpans, Inc.). 176 NLRB 628, 630-632
(1969).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Employer, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
3. The abstention from work on the part of Respon-
dent's members in deference to the sister union's picket line
was a work-stoppage in breach of the no-strike agreement
of Respondent with the Employer.
4. Respondent was responsible for that work stoppage
and Respondent thereby violated the no-strike agreement.
5. The fines and suspensions from membership im-
posed on Cosenza, Calabrese, Baldwin, and Brown for
crossing the picket line were penalties placed on them for
honoring Respondent's no-strike agreement with the
Company and refusing to participate in Respondent's
violation of said agreement.
6. By the conduct set forth in paragraph 5 above,
Respondent restrained and coerced these four members
and other members and employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights and violated Section 8(b1))(A) of the Act.
7. The unfair labor practices set forth above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not committed any other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
In order to remedy the unfair labor practices found
herein my recommended Order will require the Respon-
dent to cease and desist from further violations, to post an
appropriate notice to Members, and to rescind and
expunge from its records the fines and suspensions from
membership imposed on Fred Cosenza, Joseph Calabrese,
Melvin Baldwin, and James C. Brown. Respondent will
also be required to notify these four employees by letter,
with copies to the Director for Region 22, of said rescission
and clearing of their respective membership records.
Respondent will also be required to refund any portion of
said fines that it may have collected.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, 1 hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 10
The Respondent, Local 843, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Newark, New Jersey, its officers, representatives,
and agents, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assessing fines against, suspending from membership,
or otherwise disciplining members for not engaging in or
'0 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided by Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
918
LOCAL 843, TEAMSTERS
participating in a work stoppage during the existence of a
no-strike agreement between Respondent and the Employ-
er, whether said work stoppage be in advancement of direct
demands of Respondent or its members or in advancement
of demands of any other union.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind and expunge from their records the fines and
suspensions imposed on Fred Cosenza, Jospeh Calabrese,
Melvin Baldwin, and James C. Brown for having crossed
the picket line of a sister labor organization, and inform
each of them, and the Regional Director for Region 22 of
the Board, by letter that it has taken said corrective action,
and refund to them any portion of the fines that they may
have paid.
"I In the event that the Board's 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
(b) Post at its offices, in conspicuous places, and at all
other places where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix," " Copies of the said notice, on forms to be provided
by the Regional Director of Region 22, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent's authorized representatives, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other
material.
(c) Mail or deliver to the Regional Director of Region 22,
copies of the said Appendix for posting by Anheuser-
Busch, Inc., if said employer is willing, at all places where
notices to its employees are customarily posted.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
919