International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., OF AMERICA 957 priate and desirable for the Board ordinarily to decide the issues raised by objections, thus laying down standards of conduct for future elections. 'Therefore the Board will normally resolve the issues raised by objections, even though more than a year may have elapsed since the date of the election. Accordingly, we shall deny the Employer's petition for reconsideration and motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Employer's petition for reconsidera- tion and motion to amend order directing hearing be, and they hereby are, denied. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS , HELPERS, DOCKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL No. 41, A. F. OF L. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO- --MOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 447, A. F. OF L. Case No. 17-CC-15. October 19,1951 Decision and Order On July 25, 1951, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that -the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take -certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy 'of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the =Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and support- ing briefs. 'The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. 'The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,-and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations except as modified herein. As found by the Trial Examiner, the charging union was certified by the Board on December 23, 1949, as the representative of certain employees of the Company. For a period of about 5 weeks in May .and June 1951,2 the Respondent, which was engaged in a campaign .at that time to organize employees of automobile dealers in the area, picketed the Company's premises. During that period employees of other employers, who approached the Company's premises for the ,purpose of making deliveries or performing services there, turned i Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection -with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston , Reynolds , and Styles]. 2 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that the picketing began in May 1950. 96 NLRB No. 145. 958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD back at the picket line. The Company's employees remained at work throughout this period, notwithstanding the picketing. The Trial Examiner found that by such picketing the -Respondent induced employees of employers other than the Company to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to transport or handle commodities or to perform any services for the Company. We do not rely on this finding, as it is not necessary for the determina- tion of this case. It is sufficient that the picketing, as we find, neces- sarily constituted an inducement and encouragement to the employ- ees of the Company to engage in a strike or other concerted refusal to perform services for their employer. Section 8 (b) (4) (C) for- bids the inducement or encouragement of employees of any employer to engage in the proscribed conduct, an object thereof being to force any employer to recognize or bargain with a union in the face of prior certification of another union. Accordingly, 'the inducement in this case of employees of the Company to engage in a primary strike to force the Company to bargain with the Respondent falls within the interdiction of Section 8 (b) (4) (C).3 It is, therefore, immaterial whether the picketing in this case exerted secondary, as well as pri- mary, pressures on the Company. It- is immaterial, moreover, that such inducement or encouragement was not successful 4 The Respondent contends, however, that its picketing of the Com- pany's premises did not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act be- cause it was not accompanied by any express demand that the Com- pany recognize the Respondent as the representative of its employees, and that the Board, therefore, may not find that the picketing had as an object requiring the Company to recognize the Respondent as such representative. However, upon the record as a whole, we agree with the Trial Examiner, for the reasons detailed in the Intermediate Report, that in this case a demand for recognition of the Respondent by the Com- pany was implicit in the Respondent's conduct in picketing the Company's premises, and that the picketing, therefore, had as an object requiring the Company to recognize the Respondent as the representative of employees of the Company. We find, therefore, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act by inducing and encouraging employees of the Com- pany to engage in a strike or other concerted refusal to perform services for the Company, an object thereof being to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with the Respondent as the representative of employees of the Company, where another labor organization had been certified as the representative of such employees. 3 Oppenhetm Collins & Co , Inc, 83 NLRB 355; Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 93 NLRB 1638. 4 Western, Inc, 93 NLRB 336; The Grauman Company, 87 NLRB 755, 759. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF'TEAMSTERS, ETC., OF AMERICA 959 Order Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L., and its officers, representa- tives, successors, assigns, and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist, during the effective period of the certification issued by a Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board on December 23, 1949, in Case No. 17-RC-521, or any other certifica- tion by the Board of a labor organization, other than International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dock- men and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L., from inducing and encouraging the employees of Union Chevrolet Company, or of any employer, to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on, any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require said Company to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the representative of any employees of said Company in the collective bar- gaining unit of employees covered by such certification. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places at its business office in Kansas City, Missouri, including all places where notices or communications to members are customarily posted, a copy of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix A.5 Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 6 This notice shall be amended by inserting in the caption thereof, in lieu of the words "the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ," the words "A Decision and Order." If this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order " the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." 960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by International Union, United Automobile Workers' 6f America, Local 447, A. F. Of L., herein called UAW' or the Charging Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively referred to as General Counsel and the. Board, by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region. (Kansas City, Missouri), issued a complaint dated June 21, 1951, against International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse. men and Helpers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L., herein called Teamsters or the Respondent, alleging that, the Respondent had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the com- plaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Charging Union, and copies of the charges upon the Respondent. With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended, alleges in substance that the Respondent has induced employees of the Union Chevrolet Company, herein called, the Company, and of other employers, to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to use, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials or commodities, or to perform services, an object thereof being to force or require the Company to recognize or bargain with the Respond- ent as the representative of employees in an appropriate unit for which the UAW had been certified as the exclusive bargaining representative. In its duly filed answer the Respondent denied the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Kansas City, Missouri, on July 2, 1951, before the undersigned duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing where full opportunity was af- forded them to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro: duce evidence bearing on the issues. No witnesses were called. At the opening of the hearing the parties, by agreement, introduced into evidence the evidential part of a record made by them on June 26, 1951, before Judge Albert A. Ridge,. United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, as the record in these proceedings. Ruling was reserved upon the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint; it is disposed of by the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations appearing below. Briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Union Chevrolet Company is a Missouri corporation having its principal office and place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. As an automobile dealer it holds a standard dealer's franchise from the Chevrolet Division of General Motors Corporation. During the year 1950, the Company purchased new cars and trucks assembled at the Chevrolet assembly plant at Leeds, Missouri, valued at approximately $1,000,000. The parts used in the assembly of new cars and trucks at the Leeds plant are shipped to that plant from other General Motors plants located in States other than the State of Missouri. Total purchases of the Company during 1950 amounted to more than $2,000,000 in value, of which INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,'ETC., OF AMERICA 961 about 10 percent represented payments for parts shipped directly to the Company -from sources outside the State.of Missouri. During the same year the 'Company received from sales about $2,300,000, of which amount about 5 percent was received from shipments to purchasers .outside the State of Missouri. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A F. of L.; International Union, United Auto- mobile Workers of America, Local 447, A. F. of L.; and International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 778, herein called Machinists, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. `THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The facts All material evidence points to the simple fact that the major issue in this proceeding stems from a bitter jurisdictional rivalry between two groups of A. F. of L. labor organizations. The employer involved is, according to a common expression, "caught in the middle." For some time Teamster-Machinist locals, on the one hand, and the UAW on the other, have been competing vigorously for representation of employees of automobile dealers in the Kansas City area.' Late in 1949, the Board con- ducted a number of representation elections among employees of many dealers. On December 23 of that year the UAW was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent for certain employees of the Company here involved. In June 1950, the UAW and the Company entered into a contract due to expire in June 1952. In an apparent effort to solve the rivalry problem, late in 1950 an A. F. of L. official held a meeting of representatives of the various locals. At this meet- ing O. B. Enloe, head of the Teamsters, openly told UAW representatives that wherever they organized the Teamsters would oppose them and declared that eventually the UAW "would wind up with no membership in Kansas City." 2 On May 20 or 21, 1950, there appeared in front of the Company's place of business a Teamsters' picket carrying a banner upon which was the following legend : Truck drivers, parts department, and lubrication employees of Union Chev- rolet are not members of Truck Drivers Local No. 41 A. F. of L. The employee classifications cited on this banner included, in general terms, those found by the Board to be within an appropriate unit and as exclusive representative of which the UAW had been certified. Picketing thereafter continued until June 26, 1951, when, upon petition of Regional Director Hugh E. Sperry, Judge Albert A. Ridge, United States District Court, granted a restrain- ing order temporarily enjoining the Respondent from picketing the Company's place of business. During the period from May 20 or 21 to June 26, several employees of employers other than Union Chevrolet were induced, by presence of the Teamsters' picket, 1 As a witness, Business Representative Frank McGuyre of the Teamsters admitted that his local and the UAW have "for some time been contesting for membership of employees, such as part of the employees at Union Chevrolet." He also testified that when such employees had been organized by the Teamsters and Machinists, these locals entered into a joint contract with the employer. 2 The quotation is from the testimony of Boyd Shinn, a representative of UAW, which Enloe did not dispute. 962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - to refrain from delivering to the Company new automobiles and other com- modities and from performing services for the Company. Among such em- -ployees were drivers employed by Puritan Compressed Gas Corporation, Jack Cooper Transport Company, Coca Cola Company, Bill Goodard Chevrolet Com- pany, and Byers Transportation. A driver for the Puritan Compressed Gas Corporation who, before the presence of the picket, had regu]arly made deliveries to the Company, asked the picket what he was doing, was told that he was organizing, and thereupon made no delivery. An employee of the Kansas City House & Window Cleaning Com- pany came to the Company's place of business on May 22 or 23 to wash its windows, in accordance with practice under a contract for such services. The picket ordered him to move on down the street, and following an argument the window-washer left without performing any services. A driver for Cooper Transport, delivering new cars to the Company, would not cross the picket line but left them a block away from the Company's place of business. Enloe admitted, upon questioning of the Respondent's counsel, that by picket- ing the Company he hoped to "channel business away from-this place and to other places that use" members of his local. B. The issues and conclusions The section of the Act invoked by these proceedings is as follows: It shall be an unfair labor 'practice for a labor organization or its agents . . . to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is : . . . forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the representa- tive of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees. . . . It is General Counsel's contention, opposed by the Respondent, that by the con- duct described in the above section the quoted portion of the Act has been violated. In his brief counsel for the Respondent states the question succinctly: "The sole issue is one of fact : Was the picketing really calculated to force the Employer to recognize or bargain with Respondent. . .. " He then points to the fact that "the record in this case is entirely barren of any factual evidence of a request or demand by the Respondent upon the Employer for recognition or bar- gaining rights." It appears to the Trial Examiner that counsel's question must be answered in the affirmative. By its picketing the Respondent created a situation from which the Company could reasonably extricate itself only by dealing, in some manner, with it-or by going out of business entirely. Under the circumstances the Respondent's defense that it made no oral or written demand for recognition upon the Company is as invalid, in the opinion of the undersigned, as would be that of a deaf-mute hold-up artist who, while admitting that he pointed a gun at his victim, blandly disclaims having had any intent to induce that individual to hand over his money. Furthermore, it is plain that Respondent has been engaged and is still en- gaged in a campaign to represent employees of all automobile dealers in the area, including those of the Company. Such representation would be without reasonable purpose if its ultimate goal were not to bargain collectively with the INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC., OF AMERICA 963 employers in this field, including the Company. Despite its abstention from making bargaining demands upon the Company simultaneously with the estab- lishment of a picket line, it is reasonably inferred, and is found, that the Re- spondent's ultimate object was to require the Company to recognize and bargain with it. The language of the Act does not limit "an object" with the qualification of immediacy. In reviewing congressional debates on amendments to the Act, the Trial Exam- iner fails to note any dissident opinion, even from labor's staunchest supporters, to that generally expressed, which is to the effect that secondary boycotts, of a nature above described, where another union has been certified by the Board, should be prohibited. =The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that: (1) The Respon- dent induced employees of other employers to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to transport or handle commodities or to perform any services for the Company; (2) an object thereof was to require the Company to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of its em- ployees; and (3) this conduct occurred at a time when the UAW was the certified representative of such employees. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade,, traffic, and commerce among the several states, and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record, the Trial Ex- aminer makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Union Chevrolet Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Over-the-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dock- men and Warehousemen, Local No. 41, A. F. of L.; International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 447, A. F. of L.; and International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 778, are, respectively, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Since December 1949, International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 447, A. F. of L., has been certified by the Board as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of employees of the Company in an appropriate unit, in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 4. From on or about May 20, 1951, to on or about June 26, 1951, the Respond- ent, by inducing employees of other employers to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise'handle commodities or to perform any services for the Company, an object thereof being to require 964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Company to recognize or bargain with it as the representative of its em- ployees in an appropriate unit, notwithstanding the fact that the UAW had been certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of said employees, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (C) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF UNION CHEVROLET COMPANY Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our members and employees of Union Chevrolet Company, that : During the operative and effective period of a certain certification of employee-representatives issued by the National Labor Relations Board on December 23, 1949, in Case No. 17-RC-521, or any other certification of a labor organization, other than INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS, HELPERS , D0cKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN LOCAL No. 41, A. F. of L., we will not induce or encourage the employees of Union Chevrolet Company, or of any employer, to engage in a'concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commod- ities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring Union Chevrolet Company to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of any employees of Union Chevrolet Company, in the col- lective bargaining unit of employees covered by such certification. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE- ROAD AND CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS, HELP- ERS, DOCKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL No. 41, A. F. OF L. By -------------------- ------------------ (Representative ) (Title) Dated ------------------------ MODERN MOTORS, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS' AND HELPERS LOCAL 460, A. F. OF L. Case No. 17-CA-269. October 19, 1951 Decision and Order On May 31, 1951, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and 96 NLRB No. 138.