International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC 411 Storekeeper The storekeeper maintains the storeroom in the en- gineering department and is responsible for receiving, storing, issuing, and maintaining records of all materials used in the department Approximately 40 percent of his working time is devoted to making and maintaining records We find that the storekeeper is a plant clerical employee and, therefore, excluded from the unit 9 On the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in the case, we find that a unit of all technicians and model shop employees of the ` engineering department of the Employer's Vandaha, Ohio, plant, but excluding all production and maintenance employees, pro- fessional employees, plant and office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ] 9 Barrett Division, AUsed Chemseal & Dye Corp , 116 NLRB 1645, 1651 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 71 and General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 509, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America and The New Dixie Lines, Inc: Case No 11-CC 17. February 3, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On November 3, 1959, Trial Examiner A Norman Somers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Respond- ents filed a reply to the exceptions The Board 2 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 considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions, the reply, and the entire record 3 The New Dixie Lines, Inc , and Jocie Motor Lines, Inc, a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary, are operated as a single employer and are commonly identified by the com- posite name Jocie New Dixie 2Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkinsl 1,26 NLRB No 54 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner.3 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 Respondent Unions, their officers, representatives, and agents, shall : 1. Cease and desist from engaging in or inducing and encouraging employees of employers other than The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and/or Jocie Motor Lines, Inc., to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise handle goods or to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring such other employers or any other persons to cease doing business with The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and/or Jocie Motors Lines, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at their business offices copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of the Respondent Locals, be posted by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent Locals to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director copies of the said notices for posting by The New Dixie Lines, Inc., Jocie Motor Lines, Inc., and by all employers in the area of Charlotte, North Carolina, whose premises are visited in the normal course of business by trucks and equipment of The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and Jocie Motor Lines, Inc., if those employers are willing, likewise for 60 days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di- rector, shall, after being duly signed by Respondents, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting, subject to the consent of said employers, as indicated. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 8 There were no exceptions to the Trial Examiner 's substantive findings of 8(b) (4) (A) violations Contrary to the Charging Party 's exceptions , we find that the Order herein adequately effectuates the policies of the Act. 4In 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 a United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. APPENDIX 413 NOTICE TO ALL OUR MEMBERS AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF EMPLOYERS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE NEW DIXIE LINES, INC., AND/OR JOCIE MOTOR LINES, INC. 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 notify you that : WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage employees of employers other than 'The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and/or Jocie Motor Lines, Inc., to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise handle goods, or to perform services, with an object of forcing or requir- ing such other employers or any other persons to cease doing business with The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and/or Jocie Motor Lines, Inc. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS , LOCAL UNION No. 71, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP- ERS LOCAL UNION No. 509, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case was heard before the duly designated Trial Examiner in Charlotte, North Carolina, on October 6, 1959. The issue presented by the pleadings was whether Respondent Unions engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act The parties, all represented by counsel , waived oral argu- ment, and the General Counsel has filed a brief . Upon the entire record ( as cor- rected on notice to the parties), and from my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and Jocie Motor Lines, Inc, its wholly owned and controlled subsidiary , operate, as a single integrated enterprise and as a single em- 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer, a motor freight carrier business . It has its main office in Richmond, Vir- ginia, and terminal facilities in various cities, including Charleston , South Carolina, and Charlotte, North Carolina, where it interlines freight with other interstate car- riers. The annual revenue of the business is in excess of $50,000, and the Board's jurisdiction over the proceeding is undisputed. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Respondents , Locals 509 and 71 of the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, are labor organizations within .the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The events, apart from the inferences warranted by them, are undisputed. In large part they were stipulated, and in remaining part were established by un- contradicted testimony. In May 1959, Local 509 called a strike among the truckdrivers of Jocie New Dixie (the composite name by which the two companies are identified ) at Charleston, South Carolina . On and after June 18, it placed pickets at Jocie New Dixie 's prem- ises in Charleston and in Charlotte , North Carolina. At Charlotte, Local 509 had the assistance of Local 71. No claim of illegality is made in respect to the picketing at the premises or terminals of Jocie New Dixie. The subject of this proceeding is the activity in support of the strike conducted by the Respondent Unions at the premises of stranger employers in the general vicinity of Charlotte, who have busi- ness dealings with Jocie New Dixie. It is not disputed that the truckdrivers of Jocie New Dixie regularly report at Jocie New Dixie's own terminal in Charlotte and that it is possible to establish and Respondents did establish and conduct a picket line at the entrance to these prem- ises, where they publicized the strike with Jocie New Dixie. It is not disputed also that on and after June 18, 1959, and until an injunction is- sued from a district court under Section 10(1) of the Act, members of Locals 509 and 71 did not confine their picketing to the plants or terminal facilities of Jocie New Dixie, but picketed also at premises of other employers doing business with Jocie New Dixie, where employees of employers other than Jocie New Dixie load freight to be carried by Jocie New Dixie trucks, unload freight delivered by the latter, or pick up or deliver freight handled by Jocie New Dixie. Since the character of the activity at each of these premises is substantially the same, there is no need to detail the separate incidents at the respective premises of these employers . It is sufficient to note that the picketing at these premises took place when the trucks or equipment of Jocie New Dixie appeared at the docks or the loading platforms of these companies and continued for the duration of Jocie New Dixie's sojourn at those premises.' The picketing was done on the curb at the approach to the premises and as near thereto as it was possible to be without actually entering upon them. It is not disputed that the signs carried at least this legend: Jocie New Dixie Lines ON STRIKE Unfair to Teamsters Local 509 It is not disputed , also, that some of the signs had additionally written and others printed on them "Local 71." Respondents dispute that the reference to Local 71 was inserted with the knowledge or authorization of any one in authority for Local 71. This phase of the case, whatever its bearing on the issues of in any private dis- pute between the litigants in another forum, is not an issue in this proceeding. We are concerned only with whether Respondent Unions extended the activity in sup- port of a dispute with Jocie New Dixie, whether it be Local 509's dispute or that of Locals 509 and 71, to a neutral domain in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act Of course, if Local 71 authorized the insertion of its name on the signs, it would be an evidentiary item showing that both locals engaged in the same type of activity at the neutral premises. Tnat, however, is not disputed . Locals 71 and 509 1 The roster of companies where this occurred , include General Metal Service Co : Clorox Chemical Co ; General Electric Co , Patent Scaffolding Co , Caroline Freight Carrier , Lowe's Hardware Co ; Johnson Trucking , Reichold Chemicals Co ; Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company ; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co , and Southern Biscuit Company INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 415 did engage in the same kind of activity on the neutral premises in support of the dispute with Jocie New Dixie. It was fully admitted that the picketing activity car- ried on near the premises of the neutrals was with the consent of Local 509. The pro forma denial that Local 71 authorized such activity by its own members van- ished in the face of the undisputed evidence that Local 71 did authorize it. In charge of the picketing activity of members of Local 71 at these neutrals' premises were J. C. Norwood and Jack Goodman. They were the acknowledged stewards of Local 71 at Jocie New Dixie in Charlotte. Local 71 suggested, a bit faintly, that the stewardship of these persons terminated with Jocie New Dixie's election to declare the contract terminated because of Local 71's strike activity in support of Local 509. On the other hand, Local 71 has stoutly asserted that the contract has continued in effect, with the result that its own position estops it from asserting the termination of the stewardship it established for Norwood and Goodman under the contract. Independently of this, the record establishes that these two were exercising leader- ship on the picket line, and that Norwood reimbursed members of Local 71 with the latter's funds and with its authority, for working time lost in engaging in picketing activity. Also, according to uncontradicted testimony, the president and the two business agents of Local 71 entered and left the premises of Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, one of the stranger employers (supra, footnote 1), at a time when members of Local 71 were displaying these picket signs at or near its premises. The conceded picketing activity occurring at or about the premises of the neutral employers in question falls within the language of the prohibition of Section 8(b) (4) (A). It would seem too late in the day to argue that a sign such as the one admittedly used here is not an inherent inducement and encouragement to other employees to refrain from transporting or handling freight with which the employer named on the picket sign is involved. Nor do I see any pertinency in Respondents' explanation that the purpose of the picketing was to inform the "public" of the dispute, with Jocie New Dixie. Such a point is meaningless in a context in which the "public" to which these signs are addressed includes employees on whose work depends the capacity of the neutral employers to use Jocie New Dixie's services. I do not see that the sting is softened by the fact, which Respond- ents seem to underscore, that the picketers were instructed not to talk to employees of stranger employers or to solicit their assistance in honoring the picket lines. Marion C. Whitehead, president of Local 509, described that instruction as one in which the picketers were to "let the picket signs speak for themselves." It is too well recognized to require documentation that a picket sign with the simple legend "strike" or "unfair," speaks with an eloquence which requires no words from the bearer of the sign. Such a sign carries with it by implication the message of soli- darity evolved out of a long tradition in the labor movement. The ordinary worker seeing the picket sign does not need to have spelled out for him the message to desist from performing his regular services on goods or merchandise handled by the employer named in the sign. The fact that the picket signs would thus have made oral appeal superfluous does not mean that word of mouth appeals were entirely excluded, as the contrary evidence recited below would indicate they were not.2 Respondents thus do not raise even a colorable issue as to whether their activity, in point of fact, fell within the plain language of the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4)(A). Their defense, in essence, is that the picketing at the neutrals' premi- ses, confined as it was only to those occasions when the trucks and equipment of Jocie New Dixie appeared there, was specially privileged, despite the language of Section 8(b) (4) (A ), as an incidental phase of primary strike activity. This is on the theory that the situs of the dispute with Jocie New Dixie was not only at the ' Union President Whitehead testified that the picketers could break their silence when asked questions. According to the undisputed testimony of J. W. Barefoot, president of Jocie New Dixie, truckers employed by various freight carriers, on seeing the picket sign near the premises of Clorox Chemical Company, stopped, and after being spoken to by Union Stewards Norwood and Goodman, and one L Y Kinley, a member of Local 71, refrained from entering the premises At the premises of Lowe's Hardware, Homer Bullock, one of Local 71's pickets, told George Sims, Jr, the shipping clerk in Lowe's warehouse, that he could not unload merchandise from incoming trucks of Jocie New Dixie, and that if he did, Lowe's premises would be picketed as long as the truck was there 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD latter's premises but wherever its trucks and equipment made their appearance. Such a defense was once available, with certain conditions, under the doctrine of Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, but it has in the past 6 years been dras- tically limited. The "common situs" or "ambulatory situs" defense in respect to pick- eting at neutral employers' premises is no longer available where, as here, the primary employer has a fixed site or premises of its own, where it is possible to conduct a picket line and effectively publicize the dispute. This limitation was laid down in the Washington Coca Cola case,3 and has been followed and applied in an unbroken line of cases involving, in largest part, some local of the International with which the Respondents are affiliated.4 It is concluded that Respondents' conduct factually falls within the prohibitory language of Section 8(b)(4),(A) and also comes within the scope of its legal pro- hibition.5 It is accordingly found and concluded that on and after June 18, 1959, Respondents, in violation of Section 8(b) (4)-(A) of the Act, induced and encouraged employees of employers other than Jocie New Dixie to engage in a concerted refusal, in the course of their employment, to transport or otherwise handle goods, articles, materials, and commodities, and to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring such other employers, or other persons, to cease doing business with Jocie New Dixie. IV. THE REMEDY It having found that Locals 509 and 71 engaged in violations of Section 8(a) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the recommendation will be to cease and desist from engaging in the proscribed conduct with respect to the employees of any employer having dealings with Jocie New Dixie, it will not be necessary to include specifically within the notice or the recommended order the names of the stranger employers to whose premises Respondents extended their conflict with Jocie New Dixie. The activity in question was a pervasive one plainly beamed at all neutral premises in the Char- lotte area, where Jocie New Dixie trucks or equipment appeared in the regular course of business. It will accordingly be recommended that the customary notices be posted, if those employers are willing, also at the premises of every employer in the Charlotte area, where trucks and equipment of Jocie New Dixie appear in the normal course and conduct of business. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By inducing and encouraging employees of employers other than The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and Jocie Motor Lines, Inc., to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to transport or otherwise handle goods and to perform services, with an object of forcing or requiring such other employers, or other persons, to cease doing business with The New Dixie Lines, Inc., and Jocie Motor Lines, Inc., Respondents have engaged and are engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act. 2. The said unfair labor practice affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 3 Brewery d Beverage Drivers and Workers, Local No 67 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters ( Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc), 107 NLRB 299, enforced 220 F 2d 380 (C A, D C ) 4 E g . Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc , 115 NLRB 981, 983-984 , W H Arthur Company , 115 NLRB 1137, 1138 ; Euclid Foods, Inc, 118 NLRB 130, 131, The Light Co , Inc, 121 NLRB 221, 227 ; K-C Refrigeration Transport Company, lite, 124 NLRB 124.5 5 Respondents also endeavored to raise the defense of immunity under a "hot cargo" provision in its contract Asked how this squares with the Supreme Court's decisions that this is no defense in a case such as this, where the appeal for strike support is not confined to the stranger employer but is made directly to the employees (Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, etc., AFL, at at. ( Sand Door d Plywood Co ), 357 U S 93), the explanation given was that Respondents "rely upon the possibility of reinter- pretation " This logic, carried to its ultimate , is that even the plain command of a statute can be disregarded by relying upon the possibility of a repeal of the statute