Warehouse Employees Union, Local 730, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Under these conditions, only a poor contract could result. For example, your
seniority now guaranteed by the I.A.M. contract would have to be negotiated. Your
Health Insurance could not be as good because no plan could be offered to cover
44 employees that could equal in value a plan to cover 3500 employees.
6. You are more apt to be laid off. If there is a slack in welding, we simply
could not let you do any of our work.
THINK-VOTE IN YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS
VOTE FOR THE I. A. M.
SOL A. WILLIAMS, Business Representative
District No. 50, 1. A. of M.
Special Called Meeting of All Welders-Saturday, October 14, 1961-
at 10:00 a.m.-At The Union Hall-590 Parkway-Chula Vista, California
Attachment 1
CIO-California Conference of Machinists
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
National Labor Relations Board
lrl MID C ET` F It CII
FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF
R AIRC.I',APT OWUATIOU
Do you wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by -
INTE t ATIORLL
tF,aON,
UNITED 5i LTh 3
(I1u ''Ea0L2(i)
IN=N taO]f5L I:&UCIATIt 1
OF MACHINISTS,
Sfl V RWtTZ DISTSICT LODcCR W. $0,
AERWAUTICAL t C'.`}AIIICS LODm uo.-!55,
AFL-MU
I
MARK AN " X" IN THE SQUARE OF YOUR CHOICE
I
DO NOT SIGN THIS BALLOT Fold 2nd drop in ballot bor
If you spoil this ballot return it to the Board Agent for a new one
Warehouse Employees Union , Local 730, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America and Raymond Sheaffer and Robert Sheaffer, Co-
Partners , trading as C. R. Sheaffer and Sons . Case No. 5-CC-
168. April 10, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by C. R. Scheafler and Sons, a partnership,
herein called Sheaffer or the Charging Party, the General Counsel of
136 NLRB No. 88.
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 730, ETC. 969
the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for
the Fifth Region issued a complaint dated August 21, 1961, against
Warehouse Employees Union, Local 730, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of
the Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of
hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the
Respondent.
Between September 25 and 28, 1961, the Respondent, Gen-
eral Counsel, and the Charging Party entered into a stipulation of
facts and jointly requested the transfer of this proceeding directly to
the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and for the issuance
of a Decision and Order based thereon. The parties have waived their
rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of an
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order.
On October 5, 1961, the Board granted the request of the parties
to transfer the case to the Board. Upon the basis of the stipulation of
facts' and the entire record in the case, including the brief of the
General Counsel, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE CHARGING PARTY
The Charging Party, a partnership, maintains its principal office
and place of business in Washington, D.C., where it is engaged in the
processing and wholesale distribution of fish. In the course of its
operations it shipped merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to points outside the District of Columbia during the last 12 months
and during this same period of time received shipments at its place
of business valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located
outside the District of Columbia.
We find that Sheaffer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Warehouse Employees Union, Local 730, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
1 The parties agreed that the entire record in this case would consist of the formal plead-
ings, the stipulation of facts, and the official transcript of proceedings before the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia in Pencllo, et at. v. Warehouse Em-
pioyeea Union Local 730, Civil Action No. 2786-61 dated August 25, 1961.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On May 25, 1961, Respondent was certified as the bargaining agent
for all employees of Sheaffer excluding office clerical employees,
watchmen, and supervisors. Following the certification, the parties
began negotiating the terms of a collective-bargaining contract. Fail-
ing to reach agreement, Respondent struck Sheaffer on July 25, 1961,
and began picketing its processing plant. Beginning on the same date,
officials of Respondent, accompanied by striking employees of
Sheaffer, began to follow Sheaffer delivery trucks. At several deliv-
ery stops, Respondent's officials and the strikers spoke to employees of
retail food markets requesting them not to handle the products being
distributed by the Charging Party. They also picketed at the prem-
ises of some of the markets and threatened to picket at one market if
it accepted deliveries from the Charging Party.'
The General Counsel contends that the picketing, oral inducements
of employees and the threat to picket, constitute violations of Section
8(b) (4) (i) or (ii) (B). The various incidents of alleged induce-
ments, threats, and coercion are set out below.
(1) On the afternoon of July 25, 1961, Butler, one of Respondent's
officials, and Cooper, a striker, followed a Sheaffer truck to the Silver
Hill Safeway store where Cooper commenced picketing the truck
while Butler spoke first to a clerk and then to the store manager, tell-
ing them that they had Sheaffer on strike and that they should not
receive the merchandise. Butler also told the manager that if he
received the goods, the store would be picketed. The manager refused
to accept the delivery. The following morning, July 26, the Sheaffer
driver returned to the Silver Hill store where his truck was again
picketed. The manager was approached by Hennessey, another official
of the Respondent. Except that he did not threaten to picket the
store if the goods were received, Hennessey made statements similar
to those of Butler's the previous day. The manager declined delivery
on the ground that he did not have a key to open the back door. Later
that day the driver returned. Cooper and Hennessey followed his
truck and Cooper commenced picketing the store. The manager ac-
cepted the Sheaffer delivery, explaining to Hennessey that his office
had told him to accept it.
(2) After the second attempt at the Silver Hill store, Sheaffer's
driver went to the Upper Marlboro Safeway. Upon arrival, the
striker began picketing the truck while Hennessey followed the driver
to the rear door. Hennessey told the butcher that they would picket
the store if he accepted the merchandise. When the manager saw the
picket he ordered him off the property. At Hennessey's direction,
2The markets involved here are operated by Safeway Stores, Incorporated ( Safeway),
American Stores Company ( Acme), How-El Fish ^Co, Inc ( How-El), and New York Live
Fish Market ( New York Market).
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 730, ETC. 971
the picket went to the road in front and began picketing at the en-
trance to the Safeway property until the truck left. The manager
accepted the fish when told by the driver that his office had been con-
tacted and approved.
(3) When Sheaffer's driver arrived at the rear of the Acme store
on Marlboro Pike on July 26, the striker commenced picketing at the
front of the store. Hennessey spoke to the butcher about the strike
and asked him not to receive the fish. The butcher referred Hennessey
to the acting manager. Hennessey repeated his statements about the
strike and asked that they not accept the delivery. The acting man-
ager, upon checking with his office, refused to receive the merchandise.
(4) Sheaffer's driver proceeded next to the Safeway on Marlboro
Pike where Cooper picketed in front of the store while Hennessey
went to the loading platform with the driver. Hennessey told the
produce clerk about the strike and asked him not to receive the mer-
chandise . The clerk referred Hennessey to the manager to whom
Hennessey repeated his statement . • The merchandise was accepted by
the manager only after he checked with his district office.
(5) The driver then went to the Coral Hills Safeway store where
Cooper again picketed the store while Hennessey went in and told the
manager not to receive the merchandise. The manager checked with
his office and then accepted delivery.
(6) A driver took a truck out on July 25, 1961, to the Glebe Road
Safeway store . Upon arrival he put the fish in the store cooler.
Butler went to the meat manager and told him about the strike and
asked him not to receive the fish. The meat manager referred him to
the assistant store manager whom Butler asked to call his office to see
if they would not order the delivery refused. The driver left the fish
in the cooler but had to come back later to get his receipt book signed.
(7) A driver, on July 25, 1961, delivered a load of fish to the New
York Live Fish Market. When he arrived, Horton, a striking em-
ployee, picketed around the truck. The manager refused to accept the
fish because it did not look right. The driver did not see Hennessey
talk to anyone. Upon rejection of the fish, the driver took the load
back to the warehouse.
(8) On July 28, 1961, a driver delivered a load consigned to How-El
Fish Co. Upon his arrival, striking employees Cooper and Noble
drove up and Cooper went inside to talk to the manager. The driver
did not overhear the conversation but did see Cooper show the man-
ager a card. There was no picketing at this location.
(9) Subsequent to the Respondent 's following of Sheaffer 's trucks,
Butler called Frank J. Sheehan , Safeway's manager of labor relations
for the east coast, to inform him of the Sheaffer strike and to se-
cure Safeway 's cooperation in refraining from doing business with
Sheaffer. Butler mentioned that the strikers were following Sheaffer's
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
delivery trucks but Sheehan testified that Butler did not in any way
threaten to induce or attempt to cause any type of a slow-down or
strike by Respondent's members employed by Safeway at their ware-
house,3 nor did he threaten to do anything to the Safeway stores in
the area. Sheehan passed this information on to J. A. Anderson,
Safeway's division manager, who testified that he decided to cease
doing business with Sheaffer because of the possibility of an illegal
picket line at their warehouse and the resultant loss pending the
securing of a court order. Anderson also testified that, although no
agent of the Respondent threatened or intimated that a work stop-
p4ge at the warehouse would occur, his decision to stop dealing with
Sheaffer was made after he learned of the picketing at the individual
stores.
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act provides that:
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its
agents-(i) . . . to induce or encourage any individual employed
by any person engaged in commerce .. . to engage in, a strike
or a refusal in the course of his employment to use . . . or other-
wise handle or work on any goods . . . or to perform any serv-
ices; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged
in commerce . . . where in either case an object thereof is:
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using . . . or
otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, . . . or
to cease doing business with any other person . .. .
We are satisfied that the requests not to handle Sheaffer products
made by agents of the Respondent to, or in the presence of, employees
at Silver Hill Safeway, Upper Marlboro Safeway, Marlboro Pike
Acme, Marlboro Pike Safeway, and Glebe Road Safeway, constitute
inducement or encouragement of individuals to engage in a refusal to
handle Sheaffer's products within the meaning of clause (i) of Sec-
tion 8(b) (4).1 (Incidents 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.)
Whether picketing at the markets involved herein constitutes in-
ducement or encouragement of individuals employed by the markets
not to handle Sheaffer's products is to be resolved in the light of all
the evidence. The record before us indicates that part of the legend
appearing on the picket signs was that Sheaffer employees were on
strike. The signs also contained additional wording which is not
disclosed.. However, the record shows that picketing did occur at en-
trances used by the store employees. Furthermore, in several in-
stances, the picketing took place in full view of the employees to
whom the oral appeals not to handle Sheaffer products had been
S Respondent represents the employees at Safeway ' s warehouse which services the
Safeway markets involved here
*International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc (Overnite Transportation Co ), 130 NLRB
1007, 1017 ( inducement of Hanna)
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 730, ETC. 973
directed. In view of these oral appeals, the market employees would
undoubtedly consider the picket signs, regardless of their exact word-
ing, as an additional inducement to cease handling Sheaffer's prod-
ucts. Clearly, this was what Respondent intended to accomplish by
combining picketing with oral appeals. We find that Respondent
violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) by picketing at the same time and
place when market employees were being induced by Respondent's
oral appeals not to handle Sheaffer products 5 (Incidents 1, 2, 3
and 4.)
Clause (ii) of Section 8 (b) (4) makes it unlawful for a labor or-
ganization to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in com-
merce, for a proscribed object. The Board has interpreted this clause
as meaning that the threats or coercion must be directed at persons
allied with or part of management, as distinguished from employees
or low level supervisors whose interests are closely associated with
those of the employees with whom they come into contact during the
course of their employment .6
Respondent's agent, Butler, threatened the manager of the Silver
Hill Safeway that the store would be picketed if he accepted Sheaf-
fer's merchandise. A similar threat was also made in the presence
of the Upper Marlboro Safeway manager. Such statements are in
violation of clause (ii) if the store managers involved are "persons"
within the meaning of that clause. On the basis of the record, we
are satisfied that the Safeway store managers fall within this cate-
gory. They are the top supervisors at the stores and have complete
control over the stores' day-to-day-operations. They have the author-
ity to refuse deliveries and, to a limited extent, can make purchases
from local suppliers. The Safeway employee relations manager tes-
tified that the store managers were covered by the "company hos-
pital plan" as distinguished from the plan negotiated by the Union
which covers department managers and the assistant store manager.
He testified that the Company considered the store managers as exe-
cutives and on the management level. In these circumstances, we
find the Safeway store managers to be high level supervisors and
therefore "persons" within the meaning of clause (ii)? Accordingly,
as the Respondent threatened to call strikes at two Safeway stores,
we find that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (b) (4) (ii) (B).
(Incidents 1 and 2.)
e Cf Upholsterers Frame and Bedding Workers ( Minneapolis House Furnishing Co ),
132 NLRB 40 See Local 4 59, International Union of Electrical Workers [Friden, Inc ],
134 NLRB 598, and Lafayette Building and Consti uction Trades Council [Southern
Construction Company], 132 NLRB 673.
6 Local 505 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc (Carolina Lumber Company),
130 NLRB 1438.
'Wholesale Delivery Drivers and Salesmen's Union , Local No . 848 (Servette Inc.),
133 NLRB 1501
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We also find a violation of the same clause through Respondent's
picketing at Safeway and Acme markets. The Board has held that
picketing for an object proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) constitutes
coercion and restraint of secondary employers.' It is beyond dispute
that Respondent's objects in picketing the markets was to force Safe-
way and Acme to cease handling Sheaffer's products and to cease do-
ing business with it. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent co-
erced and restrained Safeway and Acme by its picketing, in viola-
tion of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. (Incidents, 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 ).
We find no violations either of clause (i) or (ii) at New York
Market or How-El. (Incidents 7 and 8.) The only picketing which
took place in the vicinity of New York Market was directed at the
Sheaffer truck, while no picketing at all occurred at How-El. Nor
is there any evidence that any employee of either of these secondary
employers was induced to handle Sheaffer products, or that the em-
ployers themselves were threatened, coerced, or restrained.9
As for Butler's conversation with Sheehan, Safeway's labor rela-
tions manager, in which he requested Safeway's cooperation in re-
fraining from doing business with Sheaffer, Sheehan testified that
Butler did not threaten to picket, strike, or call a slowdown. (Inci-
dent 9.) Anderson, Safeway's division manager, who made the de-
cision to cease doing business with Sheaffer, may have been influenced
by the picketing at some of the stores and by a fear that the ware-
house might also be affected. However, we do not find it necessary
to decide whether Butler's mere request of a Safeway top manage-
ment official for cooperation constitutes a threat, coercion, or restraint
in the context of the picketing and threats to strike which had al-
ready occurred, since our Order will in any event require Respondent
to cease from such conduct.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Companies herein
involved, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States and within the District
of Columbia, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow thereof.
8 Upholsterers Frame and. Bedding Workers ( Minneapolis House Fannishing Company),
supra; Blueprint Photostat & Photo Employees Union, Local 249, etc (East Photo Lab),
135 NLRB 1090.
6 Member Leedom would find that tho Respondent violated Section 8(b) (4) (1) and
(ii) (B) based on incident 7, Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc, 107 NLRB 299.
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 730, ETC.
V. THE REMEDY
975
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (b) (4) (i)
and (ii) (B) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. C. R. Sheaffer and Sons, a partnership composed of Raymond
Sheaffer and Robert Sheaffer, is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Safeway and Acme
to engage in strikes or refusals in the course of their employment to
perform services, and by threatening, coercing, or restraining Safe-
way and Acme, in each case, with an object of forcing or requiring
these employers to cease doing business with Sheaffer, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, Warehouse Employees Union, Local 730, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Safeway
Stores, Incorporated, and American Stores Company, or by any other
employer or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, other than C. R. Sheaffer and Sons, to engage in a strike or
a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process,
transport, or otherwise handle, or work on any goods, articles, ma-
terials, or commodities, or to perform any services; or threatening,
coercing, or restraining any of the aforesaid employers or any other
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce; where in either case an object thereof is to force or require
any of the said employers or any other employer or person to cease
doing business with C. R. Shaeffer and Sons.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's business offices,
meeting halls, and all places where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." s
Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notices to the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region for posting, the employers herein being
willing, at all locations where notices to their respective employees are
customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.
MEMBERS RODGERS and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
U In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL
730, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby inform our members that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individual employed by
Safeway Stores, Incorporated, or American Stores Company, or
by any other employer or person engaged in commerce or in an
industry affecting commerce, other than C. R. Sheaffer and Sons,
to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment,
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle, or
work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to per-
form any services, with an object of forcing or requiring any of
OHIO VALLEY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 977
the said employers or any other employer or person to cease doing
business with C. R. Sheaffer and Sons.
WE WILL NoT threaten, coerce, or restrain Safeway Stores, In-
corporated, or American Stores Company or any other employer
or person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, with an object of forcing or requiring such employers or
any other employer or person to cease doing business with C. R.
Sheaffer and Sons.
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 730,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 707 North Calvert St., Sixth Floor, Baltimore, Maryland, Tele-
phone Number Plaza 2-8460, Extension 2100, if they have any ques-
tion concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, and Russell
White and George Osterkamp , its agents and Cardinal Indus-
tries, Inc.
Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and Cardinal
Industries , Inc. and Willard E. Hankins and Joseph L. Hankins,
Co-Partners doing business as Hankins & Hankins Construc-
tion Company, Party to the Contract
Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and Cardinal
Industries, Inc. and The Jewel & Honor Joint Venture, Party
to the Contract . Cases Nos. 9-CC-^088, 9-CE-6-1, and 9-CE-6-2.
April 11, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 4, 1961, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
,136 NLRB No. 89.