International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers

LOCAL NO 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 161 LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS, GASOLINE & OIL DRIVERS, chartered by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; HIGHWAY CHAUFFEURS & PLATFORM WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 632, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.; THOMAS E. FLYNN,, as Trustee of said Local No. 600 and Local Union No. 632; WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 688, af- filiated with the international Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.; and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. and OSCEOLAFOODS, INC. LOCAL NO. 600 TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS, GASOLINE & OIL DRIVERS, chartered by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; HIGHWAY CHAUFFEURS & PLATFORM WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 632, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.; THOMAS E. FLYNN, as Trustee of said Local No. 600 and Local Union No. 632; WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 688, af- filiated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.; and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. and THE ATKINS PICKLE SALES COMPANY. Cases Nos. 14-CC-44 and 14-CC-45. November 25, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On July 9, 1953, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the-Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom- mending that the Respondents cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the Intermediate 107 NLRB No. 63. 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' At the hearing, and in their exceptions and brief, the Re- spondents urged that the activities giving rise to this proceeding involved a primary dispute between Local 688 and the local grocery and drayage companies in St. Louis, the secondary employers herein, concerning the furnishing of helpers to perform pallet and fork-lift work at the warehouses and un- loading docks of these companies, and that such activities did not constitute a secondary boycott in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that this dispute was resolved on March 18, 1953, by an agreement between the secondary employers and Local 688, which provided that these employers would thereafter provide a Local 688 employee to unload trucks when pallets and similar devices were utilized., Like the Trial Examiner, we find that this agreement did not effect any change in the Respondents' conduct at the premises of the secondary em- ployers in requiring that a Local 600 man should also be hired by over-the-road truckdrivers, who are employees of the primary employers or consignors herein, making city de- liveries, or in refusing to unload over-the-road trucks unless the drivers belonged to a union. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth more fully in the Intermediate Report attached hereto, we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re- spondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by inducing and encouraging the employees of the secondary employers to lIn reaching our decision, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the statement of Glidwell to Glenn Moller, counsel for the Charging Parties, that instructions had been received from Rudy Palada, business agent for Local 688, not to unload nonunion drivers, in and of itself constituted a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. However, we do find that such statement affords additional evidence that the Respondents induced and encouraged employees of General Grocer Company to engage in a concerted refusal to unload goods delivered by Great Western Foods Company to the premises of General Grocer, an object of which was to force General Grocer to cease handling the products of Great Western unless Great Western employed union truckdrivers. Moreover, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act at the El-Be Grocery Company by Scaturro's statement to Moller about what Borsos had told Scaturro, and by Borsos' statement to Moller that only nonunion over-the-road drivers had to obtain a Local 600 man to help unload. Like the Trial Examiner, however, we do find that the Respondents unlawfully induced the employees of El-Be to refuse to handle Atkins' goods unless Atkins' drivers employed a Local 600 man 2 The Respondents contended that certain testimony of Drury, an official of the B & L Drayage and Warehouse Company, Inc., indicated that a dispute was pending at all times material herein between the Respondents and the Team and Truck Owners Association, of which B & L was a party, concerning the use of Local 600 men in unloading over-the-road trucks deliver- ing goods to B & L. The Trial Examiner, after considering the totality of Drury's testimony, as well as the testimony of other witnesses, found that no dispute existed between these parties because of the March 18, 1953, agreement. We concur in this finding moreover, even if such a dispute did exist, the incidents which the Trial Examiner found to have occurred at B & L establish that the Respondents induced or encouraged the employees of B & L concertedly to cease handling goods of an out-of-State trucking concern with the object of forcing B & L to cease doing business with such concern LOCAL NO 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 163 engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employ- ment to handle material and perform services at the premises of those employers, an object of which was to force or require those employers to cease doing business with the primary employers herein. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re- spondents, Local No. 600, Truck Drivers and Helpers, Gasoline & Oil Drivers, chartered by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; Thomas E. Flynn, as Trustee of said Local No. 600 and Local Union No. 632; 3 Warehouse and Distribution Workers' Union, Local 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L.; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., their officers, representatives, and agents , shall: 1. Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the employees of the employers listed in appendix A of the Inter- mediate Report, or of any other 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 goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or perform any services, where an object thereof is to require any such em- ployer or person to cease using , selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of or to cease doing business with Osceola Foods, Inc., Atkins Pickle Sales Company, great Western Food Company, or any employer or person, except insofar as any such action is permitted under Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at the business offices of Locals 600 and 688 in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the notice attached to the Inter- 3 Like the Trial Examiner, we shall not enter an order against Respondent, Local Union No. 632, as it appears that at the time of the hearing Local 632 had merged with Local 600 and had been completely dissolved 4In its exceptions, the Respondents contended that any notices which the Board might require them to post contain a provision that "Nothing in this Notice shall be construed to prohibit any member of Local 600 or of Local 688 from refusing to handle any goods brought to the warehouse at which such member may be employed by an over- the- road truck which does not have a Local 600 man on said truck to help unload it, if such refusal is the good faith individual choice of such member in upholding his Union principles and beliefs." In view of the language of our order, and the related notice provision, proscribing only action in concert which is violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), we find no merit in this contention 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mediate Report marked "Appendix B." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, after being duly signed by official representatives of the Respondents , shall be posted by the Respondents immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, inconspicuous places , including all places where notice to members of the Respondents are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The Re- spondents shall also sign copies of the notice which the Regional Director shall submit for posting at the St. Louis premises of the employers listed in appendix A of the Intermediate Report. (b) Notify all members of Locals 600 and 688, through their respective stewards, business agents , or officials, that the Respondents withdraw all instructions, requests, or appeals that employees of the employers listed in appendix A of the Inter- mediate Report or of any other employer: (1) Refrain from re- ceiving or otherwise handling merchandise of all over-the-road shippers unless a member of Local 600 is hired by those ship- pers to help unload trucks; and (Z) refrain from receiving or otherwise handling merchandise delivered by nonunion truck- drivers. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to complyherewith. 5 This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para- graph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order," 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." Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by Osceola Foods, Inc., and The Atkins Pickle Sales Company, respec- tively, against the above-named unions, herein referred to either by local union designations or jointly as the Respondents, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, i by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), on May 5, 1953, issued an order consolidating both cases for the purpose of hearing and also issued a com- plaint against the Respondents alleging that they had engaged in conduct violating Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing were served upon all the parties. With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance, that since on or about March 6, 1953, the Respondents have engaged in and by orders, instructions, directions, and appeals, have induced and encouraged the employees of certain named companies and of other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employ- ment, to use, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials, iThe General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the hearing are referred to as the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board. LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 165 or commodities, or to perform services, an object thereof being to force or require those employers and other employers or persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Osceola Foods, Inc., herein referred to as Osceola, and The Atkins Pickle Sales Company, herein referred to as Atkins, and other employers and persons. The Respondents in a joint answer admit certain jurisdictional allegations , deny the com- mission of any unfair labor practices, and further allege that the only activities engaged in by them "have been those which they are legitimately and legally entitled to in the enforce- ment of the terms and conditions of their collective- bargaining agreements and in the preser- vation of customs and practices in the trucking industry in the St. Louis area and in the preservation of their established wages, hours and working conditions." Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at St Louis, Missouri, between June 1 and 3, 1953, before the undersigned Trial Examiner All the parties were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses was afforded all parties. Prior to the commencement of this proceeding the General Counsel applied to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of Missouri, Eastern District, for in- junctive relief pending the final adjudication of this case by the Board. 2 Testimony, exhibits, and argument in that proceeding were presented on May 7, 1953. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondents. 3 In the present proceeding, the parties stipulated that the transcript in the injunction proceeding, as well as the exhibits and briefs submitted, should be made a part of the record in this proceeding and should be used for all purposes so far as material and relevant to the issues In addition to this record the parties presented further testimony of witnesses and oral argument At the conclusion of the hearing , the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof as to formal matters This motion was granted as to all pleadings without objection. An opportunity was also afforded for the filing of briefs and/or proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law or both None were submitted. Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT L THE BUSINESS OF OSCEOLA AND ATKINS Atkins is an Arkansas corporation with its principal office and place of business in Atkins, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the production and sale of pickles. Its yearly shipment of materials or commodities out of the State of Arkansas is valued in excess of $ 500,000. The parties stipulated that Atkins is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and the undersigned so finds. Osceola is an Arkansas corporation with its principal office and place of business at Osceola, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. It annually ships from its Osceola plant to points outside the State of Arkansas,_ merchandise valued in excess of $1,000,000. The parties stipulated that Osceola is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and the undersigned so finds The parties further stipulated that certain wholesale grocery companies and drayage com- panies mentioned in this proceeding, with principal offices and places of business in St. Louis, Missouri, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and the undersigned so finds. IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED All the Local Unions involved in this proceeding are affiliated with the International Brother- hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , which in turn is af- filiated with the American Federation of Labor The International admits to membership em- ployees of Osceola and Atkins . The International Brotherhood and the Locals here involved are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act Local 600 has jurisdiction over city truckdrivers within the City of St. Louis. Local 632 had jurisdiction of certain over -the-road drivers and platform workers in St. Louis. Prior 2 McMahon v, Local No. 600, et al. Civil No. 9176 (3). 30n June 24, 1953, an order granting a temporary injunction was issued by Hon Roy W. Harper, District judge 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to this proceeding, both Locals were placed under a trusteeship by orders of the general president of the international Local 632 prior to this proceeding had been totally dissolved and disbanded and its members and contractual obligations transferred to Local 600 Local 688 has jurisdiction over warehousemen, dockmen, and platform men employed by the whole- sale grocery concerns involved in this case. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The city-driver policy It is undisputed that at all times here relevant there was a union policy that long distance or over-the-road truckdrivers should not be permitted the make local deliveries in St. Louis, such deliveries were to be made by members-of Local 600, the city drivers In the event that an over-the-road truck was not unloaded at a central dock, then it would be necessary for the over-the-road driver to hire a member of Local 600 to assist him as a helper. Harold J. Gibbons is secretary-treasurer of Local 688, its top administrative officer. He also assists Thomas E. Flynn, the trustee of Local 600 In this capacity he has engaged in negotiations on the interpretation of a Local 600 contract. His summary of the policy is as follows: I said I will continue to enforce the policy that over-the-road trucks, when they hit the City of St Louis, do one of two things: Either they go to their home terminals, dump their freight and let the city men deliver it, or as soon as they hit the city limits they call the union and ask for a city driver to go with them It has nothing to do with the union membership. It is an entirely different matter, and that policy will continue. Additional extracts of his testimony on the city-driver policy are as follows: Q Incidentally, if I may go back just fora moment, Mr Gibbons, when union over-the- road drivers bring their equipment in to a local dock or local terminal, are those union drivers permitted to unload their equipment? A. They are not. Q. Is that by reason of the provisions of the over-the-road contract'? A. That is by reasons of the provisions of the over-the-road contract clearly spelled out, and they are also by provisions of the Team and Truck Owners contracts. Q. So that your union members would refuse to unload a truck driven by a union driver over the road and hitting a city dock or terminal, is that right? A. That is correct Q. How are those trucks unloaded A. They are under instructions to either go to their home terminal and unload there and let a city delivery man make the delivery, or, secondly, if they have no home terminal, as soon as he hits the city limits to call the union office and to get a city man to go out with them on there and do the unloading. Q. That is a matter of contract between management and-- A. Matter of contract and a matter of daily practice, every instance that a truck hits the city Q. And, of course, you have instructed your union members and members of other unions to enforce the ter*lis of their contract A. Without even any instructions our members know this fact, our members are good members and they want to see to it that the union rules are lived up to. .. We will, however, attempt to live within the agreements which our employers have already con- tracted with us, and where the contract provides that a city man shall handle it, we will stop any over-the-road man from handling it, but that has nothing to do with his union membership or lack of union membership A. I propose to continue until such time as my attorneys advise me that it is illegal to do so, I shall continue to enforce the terms and conditions arrived at in concert with the employers with whom we have contracts One of those provisions currently specifies that no over-the-road truck shall be unloaded in the City of St Louis excepting by a city deliveryman and we shall enforce that policy until such time as it is pointed out to us that it is an illegal policy LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 167 Oliver Wetterau , an employer representative in the administration of a contract by an employer-association with Local 688, testified that Gibbons in a meeting with the employer group in mid-March affirmed his objection to over-the-road drivers making local deliveries stating that since motor freight carriers would, pursuant to contract, unload at a local dock with subsequent deliveries being made by Local 600 drivers it was only fair that Local 600 drivers be used by over-the- road companies making direct deliveries locally This was not a matter relating to the contract with Local 688 and was not discussed further at that meeting Testimony was presented illustrating how this policy was applied against the Charging Parties. These concerns had no contract with the International or any of the Locals involved herein, nor were their drivers members of these union organizations These instances are as follows: 1. El-Be Grocery Company David Phillips is a truckdriver employed by Atkins. On March 6, 1953,4 Phillips drove to the El-Be Grocery Company in St. Louis to make a delivery. When he presented his bill of lading to the receiving clerk, Nado Scaturro, a member of Local 688, Scaturro told him he should tell his boss that in the future a union man would be needed on the truck for all unload- ing An El-Be driver gave him the telephone number of Local 600 About a week later, Phillips returned to El-Be with another load and told Scaturro in response to the latter's question that he had told his boss of the requirement to obtain a union man for unloading, but that his boss was unwilling to make such an arrangement. At that point Scaturro said he would let the Drivers Union take care of that since that was not his union The driver who had given Phillips the telephone number of Local 600 on the last occasion told him that he could unload. While he was so engaged three men came up and inquired whether he was a member of the Union and when he said no they told the platform man helping him not to unload him in the future if "they" did not get in the Union. Phillips continued to make deliveries to El-Be without any further incident. The undersigned credits the testimony of Glenn L. Moller, of council to the Charging Parties, that on March 27 he interviewed Scaturro and that Scaturro told him that about 2 weeks before that date Rudy Palada, a staff member of Local 688, had spoken with Pete Borsos, the Local 688 steward at El-Be, and that Borsos after this conversation told Scaturro that instructions had been received from the Union that there was to be no unloading of non- union drivers, they were to be told to unload at a local drayage dock Local 600 drivers would then deliver the merchandise to concerns such as El-Be where Local 688 men would unload the merchanidse Moller further testified that Borsos told him that instructions were received from the union not to unload nonunion drivers and that all over-the- road drivers had to get a Local 600 helper to help them unload 5 2 Allen Foods, Inc In the latter part of April, Phillips attempted to make a delivery at Allen Foods, Inc., in St Louis The receiving clerk asked him whether he had a union card and when Phillips said he did not the clerk said he doubted whether he could unload him. The clerk went away and returned with an employee whom the clerk identified as the shop steward. The shop steward said that he would not unload him and that Phillips could not unload his truck unless he could reach from his truck to 6 feet on the dock. Finally, one of the owners intervened and told Phillips where to unload his truck but the shop steward told him "You'd better not come back up here any more unless you have got a union card." Phillips has made deliveries at other grocery warehouses in St. Louis without incident except that occasionally he has been told that he probably would not be allowed to unload if he did not have a union card but this threat was not implemented J. D. Peters, a driver for Atkins, attempted to make a delivery at Allen Foods on or about April 16 While he was unloading the receiving clerk, Del Ray, asked whether he belonged to the Union When Peters replied that he was not a union member Ray stated that he did not think he would be allowed to unload any more. Peters and Ray talked to John Stack, who was introduced to Peters as the shop steward Stack told Peters that he would have to get a Local 600 man to help him. Instead Peters called Moller When Moller appeared on the scene Peters 4A11 dates hereafter mentioned are in 1953 unless the contrary is indicated, 5 Borsos did not testify Scaturro testified in the injunction proceeding but had only a vague recollection as to the incidents testified to by Phillips and Moller. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was allowed to unload without further incident, and in fact he was helped by the steward him- self He was unloaded at other grocery warehouses without incident 3 Dumont Cartage Co The Dumont Cartage Co is engaged in long-distance hauling as well as local delivery service in St. Louis The company is a party to the Central States Area Over-The-Road Motor Freight Agreement with the Central States Drivers Council affiliated with the Inter- national Union This agreement provides that over-the-road drivers of an employer are not to make city deliveries and it further provides for a union shop On April 30 tworepre- sentatives of Local 600, Lane and Schuman, questioned Raymond Culli, terminal manager of the company, as to whether a company driver, Hamner, was going to make local de- liveries When Culli replied that he was, they objected that the materials on the truck according to the agreement could not be delivered except by a city driver Also when they learned that Hamner was not a union member they said that the freight could not be delivered However, an agreement was worked out whereby Hamner was permitted to unload his freight the next day 4. B & L Drayage and Warehouse Company, Inc. This company makes local deliveries of out-of-State shipments. It employs between 4 and 6 warehousemen who are members of Local 688 Roby Griffin is their steward. On March 25, a trailer arrived with a shipment from California. There was a delay in unloading. John Drury, vice president of the company, the president of the company, the driver of the truck involved, and Griffin, then had a discussion. When no progress was made Drury telephoned Local 600 and 3 of their representatives came to the company premises in response to this telephone call. These 3 were James Clift, Francis Bayer, and Walter Schuman. Clift stated that in order to get the truck unloaded the driver would have to obtain a Local 600 member to unload it, Griffin then found a rank-and-file employee who belonged to Local 600. Clift objected to the use of the Local 600 man in the company's employ and stated that the driver would have to get a helper directly from the Local 600 union hall and pay him. The driver did this and the truck was then unloaded without further incident. On April 22 there was a similar occurrence and these incidents have been repeated since that time 6 5. General Grocer Company General Grocer Company employs 191 warehouse employees who are all members of Local 688 Robert Glidwell is chief shop steward and Herman Kleb who was employed as a receiving clerk also acts as a temporary steward for the Union. After Kleb's appointment as temporary steward Arthur Palmer, warehouse superintendent for the company, asked him "what the idea was of stopping drivers 9 " Kleb replied that he had been informed by the Union to ask all drivers whether they were union men or not and, if not, to tell them to get a helper from Local 600 to unload. The driver was not to touch any of the merchandise. Palmer, who was a witness at the injunction hearing on May 7, testified that practice was continuing up to that time Palmer further testified on cross-examination that he had first heard approximately a week before the hearing that stewards had been instructed that the helper requirement from Local 600 was to be applied whether the over-the-road driver was a union member or not. This practice was applied in the case of Sterling P. Allen, a truckdriver for Great Western Foods Company, Ft Worth, Texas, a company engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Allen tried to unload a shipment on March 23 While he was in the process of unload- 6The above findings are based upon an evaluation of the testimony of both Drury and Griffin While their testimony differed in certain details they were agreed as to the instruc- tions from the union representatives that a Local 600 man would have to be obtained to unload out- of- town trucks. Griffin testified that it was his understanding that this requirement was only to be imposed when the driver of the truck was nova union member and that he so en- forced the requirement. Griffin also testified that these instructions were given him in the presence of the four other members of his union employed by the company. LOCAL NO. 600 , TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 169 ing an unidentified employee told him that he could not unload because he was not a union member When Glidwell, the chief shop steward, was informed of the stituation he stated that he would call Local 600 to have a man sent over to unload the truck. He placed the call but no helper appeared. Allen then called Local 632 to which Glidwell had been referred by Local 600. Allen was told to come to the Local 632 office and he did so. He spoke with Charles Grogan, a temporary officer of that union under appointment of the trustee Grogan told him that he would not give hun a release to unload unless he joined the Union. Allen was unable to get clearance to unload and finally drove back to Ft . Worth. Since that time he testified he has had no trouble but hires a union man to unload the truck paying him a standard daily rate for this service regardless of the time involved Glenn Moller, of counsel to theCharging Parties herein, testified that he spoke with Glidwell on or about March 24 and that Glidwell told him that instructions had been received from Rudy Palada , business agent for Local 688, not to unload nonunion drivers 6 A. C. L. Haase Company On April 27, J. D. Peters, a truckdriver for Atkins, started to unload a shipment at the Haase Company When the salesclerk found out that he was not a member of the Union he stated that he did not think the steward would let Peters unload. The clerk brought the union steward who told Peters to stop unloading because no one would move the merchandise. After Peters called the attorney for his company, Peters was permitted to unload and has been unloading at the Haase Company and other grocery warehouses without incident 7 Associated Grocers Company Employees of Osceola have been required to obtain helpers from Local 600 before being able to unload their trucks at Associated Grocers Company T. E. Wardlow arrived with a load of oleomargarine on or about April 15 On that occasion Joseph Thoenes, a Local 688 steward, told him that he would have to hire a union man to unload his truck. When Wardlow asked how much that would be, Thoenes replied that it would be $15.20 Thoenes finally agreed to let Wardlow unload his truck on that occasion but told him to pass that information on to his boss for the next time. Wardlow next arrived with a load for Associated Grocers on May 15. On that occasion Rex Rethoven came up to Wardlow and told him that he was from the Union and was there to unload his truck He told Wardlow that his wage would be $15.20. Wardlow protested the price but finally had Rethoven unload his truck. Thoenes checked this helper's union book. He also told Wardlow to have the helper go with him to other stops that Wardlow had and to have this helper unload at these different stops. Wardlow did so. Thoenes, who testified in the proceeding, declared that it was his practice to check the union membership of drivers and helpers and also to have drivers call Local 600 for helpers W. W. Smith, another driver for Osceola, had a similar experience on May 18. On this occasion both Thoenes and Leon Vaughn, another steward for Local 688, told him that he needed a helper to unload. Vaughn got the helper for him Smith used this helper at his other stops and paid him. On May 29 Thoenes again told Smith that he had to have a helper to unload . When counsel for Osceola intervened , Smith was allowed to unload. Gibbons, in addition to his testimony as to the union policy on the use of city drivers to unload over-the-road trucks , denied that there was any policy or instructions issued to refuse to unload trucks because the driver was not a member of the Union. He also testified that when a Board representative told him of charges that there was a refusal to unload trucks because of the nonmembership of the drivers he told the repre- sentative that he would correct any such instances brought to his attention Further he instructed the director of negotiations for Local 688, Richard Kavener, to send a staff member to all loading platforms to stop any such practice and to instruct union members that was not to be done John Wiley, Jr , of counsel to the Respondents, testified that he learned in March of the pending charges against the Respondents and that he then contacted the Board and counsel for the Charging Parties and told them that the Union did not have a policy to refuse to unload nonunion drivers and that Gibbons would correct any condition brought to his attention where there was a purported violation of this position 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The union contracts involved in the proceeding Several contracts were referred to in the course of this proceeding . They are as follows: a Central States area over -the-road motor freight agreement This a standard agreement covering drivers employed by private, common, and contract carriers in 12 Midwestern States. Certain employers are parties to this agreement which is also entered into by Central States Drivers Council and various local unions, all affiliated with the International Union Members of Local 632 who have now been transferred to Local 600 and who do over-the- road driving are covered by this contract. Neither Osceola, Atkins, nor Great Western are parties to this agreement . Nor are the wholesale grocery companies in St. Louis who have so far been mentioned parties to this agreement. This agreement con- tains a protection-of-rights clause (article IX) which states in substance that it shall not be a violation of the contract or cause for discharge if an employee or employees refuse to go through the picket line of a union or refuse to handle unfair goods. The agreement contains union-shop provisions The agreements also contains pickup and delivery limitations (article XXIII). b Wage agreement between Motor Carriers' Council of St Louis, Missouri, and Local 600 Motor Carriers ' Council is an employer -association made up of over -the-road carriers. Neither the Charging Parties, nor the grocery companies, nor the drayage companies men- tioned are parties to this contract The agreement provides that city chauffeurs and helpers shall perform all pickup and delivery services within a 25-air-mile radius of St. Louis (article XI). c Wage agreement between Motor Carriers' Council of St Louis and Local 600 This agreement covers employees in a bargaining unit consisting of platform workers, checkers , stackers , and power-unit operators employed on motor-transportation docks in the St . Louis area None of the employer concerns mentioned in this proceeding are parties to this agreement d. Agreement between Missouri-Illinois Food Distributors, Inc , and Local 688 The grocery warehouses mentioned in this proceeding were parties to this agreement with Local 688. This agreement covers terms and conditions of employment of warehouse workers and dockworkers. Counsel agreed that it was unnecessary to the issues in this proceeding to have the contract itself in evidence. However, testimony was received with reference to a dispute between the employer group and Local 688 as to whether the agreement required the employers to furnish a Local 688 helper to unload trucks when a hand truck or other similar device was used The Union's position is summarized as follows in a bulletin received in evidence: The union states their jurisdictional' policy to be as follows: If a palette or skid or hand truck or other similar device is used at the point of delivery, the truck driver will not be permitted to place the articles on such device. However, if no such device is used, the driver will, as heretofore, deposit the delivered articles on your platform or on the tail-gate of the truck. As stated above, however, if such device is employed, it will be necessary to have a member of Local 688 assist in the unloading of the truck and in such event, he and the driver will work together. On March 18 a committee representing the employers met with Harold Gibbons, as repre- sentative of Local 688, and agreed to this policy e. Agreement between Ben Gutman Truck Service, Inc., and Local 600 This is a local-drayage contract with an employer not a party to this proceeding and is similar to the standard agreement mentioned in (b) LOCAL NO 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 17 1 Contentions of the Parties. Conclusions The General Counsel and the Charging Parties contend that the admitted union policy of refusing to unload long-distance or over-the-road trucks making local city deliveries in St. Louis unless a helper were first obtained from Local 600 was implemented by the refusal of Local 688 members under inducement or encouragement of the Unions involved to refuse to unload these trucks either until a helper from Local 600 were obtained or in some cases because the driver of the truck was a nonunion employee. In either situation it is contended there was a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. This section is as follows: (b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents-- (4) 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, manufac- ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organiza- tion or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products or any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person; . It is contended that this section commonly referred to as the secondary boycott provision was violated in that there was an inducement or encouragement of employees of the grocery com- panies and the drayage companies, referred to in this report, to refuse to handle the mer- chandise of over-the-road truck companies with an object to force their immediate employers to cease dealing in the products of, or ceasing to do business with, consignors involved in this proceeding The Respondents have contended in their answer that their activities "have been those which they are legitimately and legally entitled to in the enforcement of the terms and condi- tions of their collective bargaining agreements and in the preservation of customs and practices in the trucking industry in the St. Louis area and in the preservation of their established wages, hours, and working conditions " The Respondents point to the master over-the-road contract which reserves city delivery work to city drivers and agreements to the same effect with the Motor Carriers' Council of St. Louis to the same effect. On this point it is argued: when it is considered that that is an industry and area custom or practice, and when we realize that those contractual provisions and that custom and practice is in force against union members, we cannot conceive how it can be wrong or illegal for the very preservation of the gains of the union to enforce that against anyone who comes into the dock, whether he be union or whether he not be union. Obviously, the purpose and the objection of the union in so doing is to preserve their collective bargaining gains and to preserve their conditions That object and that purpose is an entirely different thing from any refusal to work for the purpose of forcing a secondary employer to cease doing business with a primary employer If a uniform rule were not applied , it is contended , there would be a breaking down of condi- tions obtained through collective bargaining and a weakening of the bargaining power of the Unions involved here The Respondents argue that the policy did not have for its objective breaking the business relationship between nonunion over -the-road consignors and consignees, that their trucks were unloaded when a helper was obtained from Local 600 regardless of whether the driver was a member of any of the Unions involved or not . Finally it is contended that in essence that is a primary dispute between the local grocery and drayage companies mentioned at the hearing and Local 688 over the furnishing of helpers to unload over -the-road trucks The undersigned cannot agree with the contention that this case involves a primary dispute between the local grocery and drayage concerns and Local 688 rather than a secondary boy- cott in violation of 8 (b ) (4) (A). There was a dispute between the grocery concerns and Local 688 as to the obligation of the grocery concerns , not their consignors , to furnish help 17 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD when goods were unloaded from trucks onto pallets or similar devices. This was resolved on March 18 by the agreement of these grocery companies through their association that thereafter these concerns would furnish a Local 688 employee to unload trucks when pallets were used This agreement did not result in any change in the Union's policy that a Local 600 man should also be on every over-the-road truck making city deliveries. The undersigned concludes that the primary dispute in this case was with out-of-town consignors such as Osceola, Atkins, and Great Western. The Respondents contend that they were merely trying to establish uniform city-delivery practices in the City of St Louis, where they had entered into contracts providing for ad- herence to the city-driver policy They could require employers who are parties to those contracts to live up to those agreements That was involved in the incident at Dumont Cartage Co , set forth in a previous section of this report. Furthermore , union pressure could have been applied directly against the primary employers in this proceeding , the consignors, in order to obtain adherence to the city-job policy However, when pressure was applied by the refusal of Local 688 members on instructions from their stewards and by the stewards them- selves to refuse to handle for their employers, who had no dispute with the Unions over the city-driver policy, goods of out-of-State concerns unless those concerns employed Local 600 helpers, there was a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. The Board has held that the inducement and encouragement of employees of a neutral employer to refuse to handle goods of a delivering company in aid of a demand by members of a sister local that the delivering company use city drivers is violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 7 The Board has recognized that in some instances a union may have a contract with a neutral employer permitting it to take action otherwise proscribed by the Act. 8 While the secondary employers in this proceeding have a contract with Local 688, no evidence was presented of any agreement containing provisions similar to those involved in the cases last cited. The contention of the Respondents that the city-job policy was not motivated by a desire to cause a complete rupture in the business relationships between the primary and secondary employers in this case but only to maintain union standards does not constitute a valid defense. The question of whether certain types of secondary boycotts should be permitted was extensively discussed during the debate on the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Proposals to so limit the boycott section were voted down and no such exception is contained in the Act. The undersigned concludes that the city-driver policy was implemented by the inducement or encouragement of employees of secondary employers to engage in concerted refusal in the course of their employment to handle the goods of primary employers (the consignors here) with an object of forcing their respective employers to cease dealing in the products of the primary employers unless helpers from Local 600 were first hired by the primary employers The testimony establishes that as of the time of the hearing there had not been a uniform application of procedures intended to implement this policy. In some cases drivers of the primary employers were allowed to unload without incident in some instances there were temporary delays but the drivers were permitted to unload . Temporary secondary boycotts are violative of the Act 9 In another group of cases drivers were not permitted to unload until they obtained a helper from Local 600 and paid him. This conauct was violative of the Act. In some instances stewards of Local 688 and members of that Local and also an official of Local 632 refused to permit the unloading of a truck because of the nonmembership of the driver Although Gibbons testified that there was no policy against the unloading of a nonunion driver, these activities of staff members and shop stewards are binding on their unions since this action was within the scope of their general authority. 10 The undersigned finds that the following activity, more specifically detailed in section III, A of this report, was violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 7Roy Stone Transfer Corporation, 100 NLRB 856; see also N. L. R. B. v. Wine, Liquor and Distillery Workers Union, et al., 178 F. 2d 584; Irvin J. Cooper, et al., 101 NLRB 1284; Western Express Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 340. 8Conway's Express, 87 NLRB 972, affirmed 195 F 2d 906 (C. A. 2); Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 105 NLRB 740. 9Western Express Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 340, 341. ii Howland Dry Goods Company, 85 NLRB 1037. The bylaws of Local 688 provide that shop stewards "shall be the highest ranking union officer in their crew. All Union members must accept their word as union law during working hours." (Article XI, section 4.) LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 173 (1) El-Be Grocery Company: The statement by Pete Borsos, steward for Local 688, to Nado Scaturro , a receiving clerk for El-Be and a member of Local 688, that instructions had been received from the Union that there was to be no unloading of nonunion drivers Union instructions to Borsos that nonunion drivers were not to be unloaded and that all over-the-road drivers had to obtain a Local 600 helper to help them unload. (2) Allen Foods, Inc.. The statement by the shop steward at this company to David Phillips, a driver for Atkins, that he had better not come back unless he had a union card. The statement by steward John Stack to J. D. Peters, a driver for Atkins, that he would have to get a Local 600 man to help him. Both these statements were made in the presence of a rank -and-file employee. (4) B & L Drayage and Warehouse Company, Inc : The statement by James Clift, a Local 600 representative, in the presence of Roby Griffin, a Local 688 shop steward, that a driver of a truck would have to obtain and pay for a Local 600 member to unload it. (5) General Grocer Company The statement by Herman Kleb, shop steward for Local 688, that instructions had been received from the Union to require all nonunion drivers to obtain a helper from Local 600 to unload their trucks. Enforcement of the above policy by Chief Shop Steward Glidwell when he attempted to assist Sterling Allen, a driver for Great Western Foods Company, to obtain a Local 600 helper. The statement by Charles Grogan, an officer of Local 632, that Allen would not be given a release permitting him to unload unless he joined the Union. The statement by Glidwell to Glenn Moller , of counsel to the Charging Parties herein, that instructions had been received from Rudy Palada , business agent for Local 688, not to unload nonunion drivers. (6) A. C. L. Haase Company: The statement of the steward to J. D. Peters, a truckdriver for Atkins, that no employee would move his merchandise because he was not a member of the Union. (7) Associated Grocers Company: The statement by Joseph Thoenes, a Local 688 steward, to T. E. Wardlow, a driver for Osceola , that he would have to hire a union man to unload his truck. Statements by Thoenes and Leon Vaughn, another steward for Local 688, to W. W. Smith, a driver for Osceola, that he would have to have a union helper to unload. The evidence establishes that the International Union, Local 600, and Local 688 joined in a common program to implement the city-driver policy. Secondary pressure was exerted chiefly by Local 688 through its officials and shop stewards . In addition , in at least one instance, Local 600 representatives came to the premises of a secondary employer, B & L Drayage and Warehouse , Inc., restated the policy and dictated how it would be carried out. They were responsible to Thomas E. Flynn, an International representative , who has been appointed trustee of Local 600 and 632 by the general president of the parent organization of these unions According to the constitution of the International Brotherhood the trustee takes full charge of the affairs of the Local Union, he reports to the general president, and is subject to the supervision of the general president who may remove trustees at any time and appoint successor trustees In view of this direct control over the policies and operations of Local 600 the undersigned concludes that the International Brotherhood shares responsibility with Local 600 and 688 for the course of conduct found violative of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of Osceola, Atkins, Great Western, and their consignees , have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to burden and obstruct commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action which it is found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: 337593 0 - 55 - 13 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Locals 600 and 688 and the International Brotherhood are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 11 2. By inducing and encouraging employees of General Grocer Company, El-Be Grocery Company, and other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in a course of their employment, to handle shipments to those employers by Osceola, Atkins, and Great Western with an object to force or require General Grocer Company, El-Be Grocery Com- pany, and other employers or persons toceasedoing business with Osceola, Atkins, and Great Western, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] ilSince Local 632, as of the time of the hearing herein, had been completely merged with Local 600 and had been completely dissolved, it will not be recommended that any order be entered against it. APPENDIX A A. C. L. Haase Company Allen Foods, Inc. Associated Grocers Company B & L Drayage and Warehouse Company, Inc. El-Be Grocery Company General Grocer Company APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS, GASOLINE & OIL DRIVERS; WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 688, both affili- ated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER- ICA; AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER- ICA, A. F. of L. 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 give notice that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of General Grocer Company, El-Be Grocery Company, or of any other employer to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods or to perform any services where an object thereof is to require General Grocer Company, El-Be Grocery Company, or any employer to cease using, handling, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Osceola Foods, Inc., Atkins Pickle Sales Company, Great Western Food Company, or with any other employer or person, except insofar as such action is permitted under Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. WE WILL withdraw any instruction, request, or appeal to employees of General Grocer Company,. El-Be Grocery Company, or of any employer to (1) refrain from receiving or otherwise handling merchandise of all over-the-road shippers unless a member of Local GRAFF MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY 175 600 is hired by those shippers to help unload trucks; and (2) refrain from receiving or otherwise handling merchandise delivered by nonunion truckdrivers. LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS, GASOLINE & OIL DRIVERS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, .A. F.of L., Labor Organization. Dated ................ By.............................................................................................. (Title of Officer) Dated ................ By.............................................................................................. Trustee, Local No. 600 WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 688, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD 0 F TEAMSTERS. CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,A. F.ofL., Labor Organization. Dated ................ By.............................................................................................. (Title of Officer) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A.F.of L., Labor Organization. Dated ................ By.............................................................................................. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. GRAFF MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY and LOCAL 687, INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. Case No. 18-CA-470. November 25, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On June 19, 1953, Trial Examiner Dent D. Dalby issued his Intermediate 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 take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has 107 NLRB No. 52.