Service Trade Chauffeurs, Salesmen, and Helpers

SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 123 On these facts we find that, although the Union is presently claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer, neither it nor any other labor organization claims to represent the employees in the unit alleged as appropriate in the Employer's petition.' Under these cir- cumstances, we find that the petition does not raise a question con- cerning representation, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .4 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.r, Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 3 There are about 75 employees in the unit alleged in the petition , and about 35 in the group which the Union claims to represent. N Coeur d'Alene Gi ocers Association, 88 NLRB 44, Ny-Lint Tool C Mannfacturuul Co., 77 NLRB 642 5In view of our disposition of this proceeding, we find it unnecessary to consider the alternative grounds advanced by the Union in support of its motion to dismiss. SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS LOCAL 145, (Ai so KNOWN AS FOOD, BEVERAGE AND EXPRESS DRIVERS LOCAL UNION No. 145) AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and THE HOWLAND DRY GOODS COMPANY AND MEIGS ce, CO., INC. AND D. M. READ COMPANY. Cases Nos. '2-CC-64, 2-CCi--65, and 2-CC-66. November 07, 1951 Supplemental Decision On August 31, 1949, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in this case (85 NLRB 1037), in which it found that the Respondent Local 145 had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, and ordered the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial action. The Board thereafter petitioned the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Second Circuit to enforce its Order against the Respond- ent. On July 31, 1951, the court of appeals issued its decision (191 F. 2d 65), enforcing that portion of the Board's Order which was based on the finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in its picketing of the D. M. Read Company warehouse, Bridgeport, Connecticut, but remanding the balance of the case to the Board for 97 NLRB No. 24 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the purpose of receiving further material evidence, if available, and reconsidering the legality of the Respondent's picketing of the areas and stores involved in the proceeding (other than the area contiguous to the D. M. Read Company warehouse) in the light of the criteria established by the Board in Sailors' Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 NLRB 547. On October 12, 1951, the Board notified the parties that any'party which desired to introduce additional evidence pursuant to the court's remand should, on or before October 23, 1951, so advise the Board and submit contemplated offers of proof which would be adduced at a reopened hearing before a Trial Examiner. No response to the notice of October 12, 1951, has been received from any of the parties, and it accordingly appears that further evi- dence is not available to the Board. The Board has therefore re- viewed the existing record in this proceeding in the light of the principles stated in the Sailors' Union case and finds that the picket- ing in the case does not meet the tests of the Sailors' Union case. The Board consequently concludes that no change in the Board's Decision and Order of August 31, 1949, is required or supported by the Sailors' Union case. On September 16, 1948, the Respondent requested recognition as the bargaining agent for the employees of Bridgeport United De- livery, Inc., (herein called Delivery) which rents trucks to D. M. Read Company and the Howland Dry Goods Company, both retail department stores, and supplies these companies and Meigs & Co., Inc., with delivery service. The Respondent, which had not been certified as bargaining representative for Delivery's employees, began picketing Delivery on September 21. On September 23, or shortly thereafter, pickets appeared at the three stores. Drivers of other transportation companies with de- liveries to and from the Howland and Meigs stores refused to cross the picket lines. The testimony adduced at the hearing shows that at Read a picket was stationed at the top of a ramp to the entrance through which the store receives all of its supplies. At Meigs the pickets walked along the sidewalk curb from the corner on one street to the end of the building; on the other street, on which the store is located, they walked from the corner past the customer entrance to the delivery chute. According to the testimony the pickets "patrolled" the store and, although the picketing was not continuous, it was con- ducted for relatively long periods of time-according to one uncon- tradicted witness, every time he looked out the pickets were there. At Howland the pickets did not patrol the company's premises the entire day, but nevertheless on September 25 were seen at about 8:45, a couple of times later, and were gone by 3: 30 in the afternoon, and on DAVIS MOTOR COMPANY, INC. 125 September 28 were seen from about 10: 30 in the morning to 3 in the afternoon. At this store the picket line was out in front of the ship- ping entrance "a good 20 feet." Delivery, which normally makes pickups from the stores at regularly scheduled intervals, picked up some packages although its service was definitely curtailed during the period of the dispute. At Meigs the sign carried by the picket at first charged Meigs with having been unfair to the Respondent; about 1 hour later this sign was revised to conform to the placards borne at the other stores which indicated that Delivery Company was unfair . 'to the Respondent. In our opinion, the foregoing uncontroverted evidence in the record in this case reasonably leads to the inference, and we find, that the picketing at the three stores involved was not picketing of the primary employer under the criteria of the Sailors' Union case. The Board concludes that the picketing was not strictly limited to times when the trucks of Delivery were located on the store premises nor to times when the primary employer, Delivery, was engaged in its normal business at the stores. The picketing, although irregular, did occur for relatively long periods of time and was not related or limited to the arrival and departure of Delivery's trucks which ran on a defi- nitely curtailed schedule during the period of the dispute. Nor was the picketing limited to places reasonably close to the location of Delivery's trucks-the pickets patrolled along the sidewalk curb on two sides of one of the stores and at another were at least 20 feet out in front of the entrance. Furthermore, at least in one instance, the placard borne by a picket stated that the Respondent's dispute was with the secondary employer. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the Decision and Order of August 31, 1949, without modification. MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision. DAVIS MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL LODGE No. 778, AFL, AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY TRANSFER DRIVERS, HELPERS , DOCKMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN , LOCAL No. 41, AFL, JOINTLY, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1093. November 27, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Margaret L. Fassig, 97 NLRB No. 22.