General Drivers, Warehousemen, Etc., Local No. 21

GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL NO. 21 553 Flooring Contractors and Fuller Paint & Glass Company's own employees who are not members of the Respondent. 2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Respondent shall notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in writing whether or not it accepts the Board's determination of this dispute, and whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring G & J Flooring Contractors and Fuller Paint & Glass Company by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) to as- sign the disputed work to its members rather than to employees assigned to that work by G & J Flooring Contractors and Fuller Paint & Glass Company who are not members of the Respondent. IT IS Y RTHER ORDERED that the notice of hearing in Case No. 19-CD- 37 be, and it hereby is, quashed. MEMBERS RODGERS and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Determination of Dispute, and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America; Local 581, United Associa- tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL- CIO; Local 424, Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Local 607, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, AFL-CIO and Leo W. Riney. Cases Nos. 14-CC143, 14-CC-144, 14-CC-145, and 14-CC-146. May 4, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On March 1, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re- spondent 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 Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 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 considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this 127 NLRB No. 80. 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations 1 of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the basis of 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, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or by any means, including orders, instructions, directions, requests, appeals, or by any like or related acts or conduct, or by permitting any such to remain in ex- istence or effect, inducing or encouraging the employees of Martin Construction Company, Wallace Smashey Construction Company, Parsons Construction Company, Homer Shetlar Contractor and Builder, and Mills Modular Construction Company, 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 to force or require Martin Construction Company, Wallace Smashey Construction Company, Parsons Con- struction Company, Homer Shetlar Contractor and Builder, and Mills Modular Construction Company, to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Leo W. Riney or to cease doing business with Leo W. Riney Company. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuata the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Hannibal, Missouri, and all other places where notices to its members are cus- tomarily posted, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate .'The only exception filed by the Respondent is addressed to paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's recommended order, which directs Respondent to cause a copy of the notice attached to the report to be published daily during the posting period in a news- paper of general circulation in Hannibal, Missouri. As the scope and range of Respond- ent's unlawful activities are not extensive (cf. The Allheng & Cory Company, 121 NLRB 315), we find that such publication is not necessary in this case in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. In lieu thereof, however, we shall order that Respondent mail signed copies of the notice to the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region for posting at the premises of Martin Construction Company, Wallace Smashey Construction Company, Parsons Construction Company, Homer Shetlar Contractor and Builder, and Mills Modular Homes, Inc., said secondary employers willing. The Trial Examiner also recommended that no violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act be found with respect to the induce- ment of employees of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad by Respondent on the ground that railroads are not "employers" within the meaning of the Act. Although Members Rodgers and Jenkins, for the reasons set forth in Paper Makers Importing Co., Inc. and Hammill & Gillespie, Inc, 116 NLRB 267, and American Coal Shipping, Inc., et al., 124 NLRB 1079, respectively, disagree with this recommendation, they nevertheless adopt it pro forma because of the absence of exceptions thereto. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL NO. 21 555 Report marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), shall, after being duly signed by official representatives of the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and main- tained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, St. Louis, Missouri, signed copies of the notice attached to the Intermedi- ate Report marked "Appendix" for posting at the premises of Leo W. Riney Company, Martin Construction Company, Wallace Smashey Construction Company, Parsons Construction Company, Homer Shetlar Contractor and Builder, and Mills Modular Construction Company, the said employers willing, in such places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what steps were taken to comply herewith. 2 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" 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, ON STIPULATED RECORD STATEMENT OF THE CASE It having been charged on October 7, 1959, by Leo W. Riney (Charging Party or Riney) that General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Local No. 21 Teamsters); Local 581, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (Plumbers); Local 424, Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO (Laborers); and Local 607, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners, AFL-CIO (Carpenters), have been engaging in and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce as set forth and defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136 (Act), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (Board), on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri) on October 30, 1959, issued a complaint and notice of hearing pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act and Section 102.15 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 7, as amended, alleging that' Local No. 21 Teamsters, Plumbers, Laborers, and Carpenters, had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A) 1 and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served on the Respondent and the Charging Party. i Section 8(b) reads as follows: It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- E 4 C * s i k (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, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, 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 organization or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged: Since on or about September 21, 1959, Respondent Teamsters has been: engaged in a dispute with Riney over the terms of a collective bargaining agree- ment covering Riney's employees, and since that date has continuously picketed' the Riney plant In furtherance of Respondent Teamsters' dispute with Riney as set forth above, Respondent Teamsters, Respondent Plumbers, Respondent Laborers, and Respondent Carpenters (herein collectively called Respondents) since on or about September 21, 1959, have ordered, directed, instructed and appealed to the employees of Martin Construction Company (herein called Martin), Wallace Smashey Construction Company (herein called Smashey), Parsons Construction Company (herein called Parsons), Homer Shetlar Contractor and Builder (herein called Shetlar), Mills Modular Homes, Inc. (herein called Mills), and of other employers, to refuse to perform services for their respective employers. Thereafter before an answer was filed,2 and pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act, the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division praying a temporary injunction of all matters set forth as unfair labor practices in the charges filed and docketed as Cases Nos. 14-CC-143, 144, 145, and 146. The petition came for hearing before the Honorable Randolph H. Weber, United States District Judge, at St. Louis, Missouri, on November 5, 1959, who on November 12, 1959, granted a temporary injunction prohibiting Local 21 Teamsters from engaging in any of the alleged unfair labor practices as charged pending a final disposition of the same by the Board.3 Following the granting of the temporary injunction, a stipulation (signed by the General Counsel on November 19, 1959, L. W. Riney on November 21, and Local No. 21 Teamsters on November 23, 1959), was entered into 4 wherein it was agreed that "in lieu of a formal hearing" a record specified in the stipulation should be submitted to a Trial Examiner who should issue an Intermediate Report on such record. The General Counsel and Local No. 21 Teamsters entered into an additional stipulation to the effect that certain facts not presented before Judge Randolph H. Weber in the hearing for injunctive relief would be considered and treated by the Trial Examiner to whom the instant matter would be referred.5 On December 11, 1959, the Regional Director issued an order severing Cases Nos. 14-CC-144, 145, and 146 from Case No. 14-CC-143, thus leaving Local No. 21 Teamsters as the only party charged with engaging in unfair labor practices in the complaint, a new complaint not being issued. On December 15. 1959, the matter was assigned by the Associate Chief Trial Examiner, to Trial Examiner Plost "for purpose of writing an intermediate report " 6 The Associate Chief Trial Examiner also set January 15, 1960, as the date for filing of briefs. No briefs have been received. The official transcript of the hearing held November 5, 1959, before the Honorable Randolph H. Weber and furnished to the Trial Examiner in accordance with the stipulation attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1 (referred to therein as B. Exhibit 5), does not contain the exhibits (or copies thereof) which were received in the November 5 hearing before Judge Weber The exhibits referred to are identified in the transcript as: Exhibit No. 2___________ Plat (a plat of Riney's premises). Exhibit No. 3(a)(b)(c)__ Photographs (photographs of pickets taken by Riney). Exhibit No. 11__________ Settlement agreement. Documents purporting to be copies were furnished by the Region with the transcript. They are not certified to by the official reporter, but as obviously they can have no handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other pro- ducer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person. O Answer was filed November 9. See Exhibit No. 1, Article II. 4A copy of said stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1. 5 A copy of said stipulation, marked "Exhibit No. 2," is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 6 On December 15, 1959, the Trial Examiner was on annual leave which ended December 23. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL NO. 21 557 bearing on the Board's decision in the instant matter, the Trial Examiner will raise no issue as to the omission of the officially received copies. The Trial Examiner did not conduct a hearing and except as otherwise indicated makes all his findings from the transcript record in the hearing held November 5, 1959, before Judge Weber, in which Local No 21 Teamsters called no witnesses and all evidence adduced by the General Counsel at the hearing remains uncontradicted. The record in Salvatore Consenting, Regional Director of the Fourteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner v. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Local 581. United Association of Journeymen and Appren- tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 424, Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Local 697, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, AFL-CIO, Respondents, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division, No. N 59 C 20, opened with a statement by Harold Gruenberg, attorney for Local 424 Laborers, that his client had signed a settlement agreement with the General Counsel and therefore moved the court to dismiss the case as to Local 424 Laborers. The General Counsel then stated to the court that the Govern- ment would consent to severance but desired the case continued on the court's docket pending compliance. Laborers being in agreement, the court ordered that the case against Local 424 Laborers be severed and "passed for compliance with the settlement agreement." The attorney for Local 607 Carpenters (William B. Spaun), next informed the court that a similar agreement to that entered into by Local 424 Laborers would be entered into by Local 607 Carpenters and the General Counsel and therefore he moved a similar ruling. The General Counsel being in agreement the court granted severance as to Local 607 Carpenters and passed the case for compliance. The General Counsel and Norman W. Armbruster, attorney for Local 581 Plumbers, next joined in a request for severance as to Local 581 Plumbers for the reason that a settlement agreement was agreed upon. The court granted severance as to Local 581 and passed the case for compliance. This left only the case against Local No. 21 Teamsters before the court. Local No. 21 Teamsters was represented by Norman W. Armbruster. The Gen- eral Counsel was represented by James T. Youngblood and D. Tyner Brown. The Trial Examiner has not been informed who represents the parties in the instant matter, but assumes that the same individuals continue. Upon the stipulated record as reflected in Exhibit No. 1, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE CHARGING PARTY The complaint alleges, and the answer admits: At all times material herein Leo W. Riney has been engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling ready-mix concrete, concrete blocks, and other building materials, and has its principal office and place of business at 323 Maple Avenue, Hannibal, Missouri. During the calendar year 1958, Riney sold goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 to enterprises who annually ship goods and materials and perform services valued in excess of $50,000 directly outside the State in which the enterprise is located. II. THE RESPONDENT The Respondent General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES As hereinbefore found none of the testimony was contradicted. On August 24, 1959, Local No. 21 Teamsters was certified by the Board as col- lective-bargaining representative of certain of Riney's employees. On October 14, 1959, Local No. 21 Teamsters filed a charge with the Fourteenth Regional Office of the Board alleging that Riney had refused to bargain in good faith with Local No. 21 Teamsters in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. On October 27 the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region formally refused to issue a complaint on the aforesaid charges. 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On November 5 Local No. 21 Teamsters requested review of the refusal by the General Counsel in Washington, said request being made a part hereof as Exhibit No. 3? On September 21, 1959, Local No. 21 Teamsters struck Riney and picketed the Riney plant in Hannibal, Missouri. All entrances to the plant including the siding entrance of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad spur track into Riney's premises. The record under consideration discloses that prior to the order granting tem- porary injunction, issued by Judge Weber, the Railroad cut service to Riney to once each 3 days and that the Railroad's regular crew would not cross the picket line of Local 21 Teamsters, but left the engine which was taken over by railroad officials who performed the necessary services.8 The complaint as issued and dated October 30, 1959, alleges that: Respondent Teamsters has since on or about September 21, 1959, picketed the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad at points removed from the Riney plant. This conduct was included in the alleged violations of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act. It was not until January 8, 1960, that the Board in Lumber & Sawmill Workers Local Union 2409, et al. (Great Northern Railway Company), 126 NLRB 57, in conformance with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals that a railroad is an "employer" and its employees are "employees" within meaning of the sec- ondary boycott provision of the Act, found that a union violated the Act by picketing railroad property, since the union thereby induced employees of the railroad to cease handling the struck employer's freight. However as stated by the Board: "In accepting the court's remand in this case, Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning, with due respect for the opinion of that court, do not adopt its view that Section 8(b) (4) (A) prior to November 4, 1959, included railroads as "employers" within the meaning of that section of the Act." Again quoting from the Board's opinion: "Since that date, however, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 has amended Section 8(b)(4)(A) to proscribe secondary boycotts directed at railroads and their em- ployees. The issue is, therefore, prospectively without significance." The Trial Examiner will not make any recommendations as to the railroad- picketing aspect of the instant matter as in all propriety he should feel himself bound by the Board's interpretation of the Act at the time the alleged unfair labor practice occurred. (a) Homer Shetlar On September 21, 1959, Riney was furnishing concrete to Contractor Homer Shetlar at a construction job in Hannibal, Missouri, known as the "Kroger job." During the morning of September 21, the Kroger job was visited by Luther Burge, business agent of Carpenters; Pete Harris, business agent of Local No. 21 Teamsters; Sam Latta, representative of Plumbers; and McGee, president of Local No. 21 Teamsters. Business Agent Harris approached James Todd, a cement mason em- ployed by Homer Shetlar, who at the time was working with cement furnished by Riney for the Kroger job. Harris asked Todd if he was a union member, and then said that Riney was being picketed. William Matlock, secretary-treasurer of Local 424 Laborers, who was also em- ployed on the Kroger job, told Todd that a picket line had been established at Riney's plant and that "no one was going to work that day, that they had quit." Thereafter all the laborers on the Kroger job left the job saying "they were sick and going home." 9 Matlock also approached Charles Drummond, a cement mason employed by Shetlar on the Kroger job, and told Drummond that he "would be in trouble" and could be fined for working on the job. Drummond argued that the Kroger job was not picketed and unless it was picketed his local union would require that he work the cement already delivered. Drummond worked until noon.1e William Matlock testified that: He is secretary-treasurer of Local 424, Laborers; on September 21 he was employed by Shetlar on the Kroger job; before work began Whitehead, the business representative of Local 424 Laborers, came to the Kroger 7 Exhibit No. 3, made a part hereof. See, also, Exhibit No. 2. 8 Testimony of L. W Riney. 9 Testimony of James P. Todd. 10 Testimony of Charles Drummond. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL NO. 21 559 job; he spoke to Whitehead and asked if it were "all right for us to work." He testified: Q. And what did he say? A. He says well, you can be sick or go home. I'm not telling you to work and I'm not telling you not to work. Q. Did you go home A. Yes, sir. We all went home that day. Matlock further testified: Q. Did you all agree to walk off? A. Yes, sir. (b) Mills Modular Homes, Inc. James P. Todd, whose testimony is referred to above in connection with the Kroger job, further testified that. After leaving the Kroger job as herein found he went to a job known as the Dr. Walter Scheid Building which was being re- modeled by Mills Modular, to work as a cement finisher; a load of concrete came from Riney; Sam Latta, the business representative, also arrived 11 on the scene and spoke to him asking "if my business agent knew about the strike", he told Latta he had no business agent; Latta "mentioned" that Todd should not pour Riney's cement, and thereupon he (Todd) "left the job." Joseph Vuch, foreman for Mills Modular on the Dr. Walter Scheid Building, testified that: Todd and Russell Hawkins had been hired to work on the concrete; after Latta came on the job and spoke to both men Hawkins left together with Todd; before he left, Hawkins "just walked up to me and he said lie was sick and he had to leave." (c) Martin Construction Company Earl Chandler testified that: He is a trustee of Local 424 Laborers; on September 21, 1959, he was employed by Martin Construction Company on a construction job being performed for Bell Telephone Company in Hannibal, Missouri, by Martin Construction; Whitehead, the business representative of Local 424 Laborers, came to the Bell Telephone job that morning and told him "that they poured concrete at Kroger's and they got sick that morning He couldn't tell me what to do." The record discloses that prior to September 21, Riney was furnishing the concrete for the Bell Telephone job. Chandler further testified that on October 5 he heard Sam Latta, representative of the Plumbers, tell a group of "different crafts" employed on the Bell Telephone job "that if Riney material came on the job that his men would leave." Also on September 21 Laborers Business Agent Whitehead, a member of Local 424, asked a Laborers member, who was employed as a truckdriver by Martin Construction Company on a job in Hannibal known as the Goodrich job, if the Martin employee "knew they were on strike down at Riney's" and upon receiving an affirmative answer said to the employee "you know we can't use any of their material," upon which Whitehead was asked what the Martin employees "were sup- posed to do if they brought Riney materials on the job." Whitehead answered "the boys would have to get sick and go home." 12 (d) Wallace Smashey Construction Company Jack Coulter, a member of Local 607 Carpenters, testified that on September 22, 1959, he was employed as a carpenter by Wallace Smashey Construction Company on a job at the Hannibal Junior High School; that Luther Burge, the business agent for Local 607 Carpenters, came to the job while concrete was being poured and spoke to him at his work.13 Coulter testified: n There is testimony that Latta arrived before unloading of the Riney truck started. 12 Testimony of Joseph Campbell. 23 After speaking to Coulter, Business Agent Burge spoke to Wallace Smashey, owner of the Smashey Construction Company, who was present, pointing out that Riney's truck had crossed the picket line. According to Smashey's testimony : Q. Did you ask him anything about what difference it had made if the man had crossed the picket line? A. Yes, I did. I asked him what was that our affair if they had crossed the picket line and he said well, they had an agreement to work together trying to help the Teamsters on that particular project. Of course the business agent was not exerting illegal pressure on employees by his con- versation with Employer Smashey but considering all the circumstances herein the Trial 0 560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He just walked up to me and told me that-we wasn't supposed to-we wasn't going to handle Riney concrete and for me to just tell my boss I had a headache and go on home. Q. Did you ask him why? A. I walked a little ways and asked him and he said we are going along with the Teamsters they are on strike down there, sympathy more or less. Q. Did you subsequently repeat that conversation to Mr. Smashey? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did he tell-what did you tell Mr. Smashey? A. I just told him I was going home. Business Agent Whitehead of the Laborers also visited Smashey's Hannibal Junior High School job where he spoke to Wellington Robert Burford, the president of Local 424 Laborers, who was working on the Smashey job as an employee of Riney. Whitehead's visit coincided with that of Burge. After the carpenters had spoken with Burge they left their work and according to Burford he then asked Whitehead, "What am I supposed to do? Get sick and go home?" Whitehead answered, "I can't tell you what to do " Burford then told Smashey he would help finish the load already there, and would work on no more of Riney's concrete.14 (e) Parsons Construction Company George Carstarphen testified that he was working as a carpenter for Parsons Construction Company on a culvert job on September 21, 1959; Sam Latta, business agent of the Plumbers, and Pete Hams, business agent for Local 21 Teamsters, came to the job. Latta asked Carstarphen if he knew Riney had been picketed and asked if we were pouring Riney's cement. Carstarphen answered that they were pouring Riney's cement, and further testified: Q. You don't recall him saying anything more? A. Well, I think he did say, now George, I just wanted to tell you this picket line was down there. He said I am not your business agent, I can't advise you what to do one way or another. I just want to tell you that there is a picket there. Q. Did you leave the project? A. Yes. CONCLUSION The record is clear that Plumbers, Laborers, and Carpenters had no dispute with Riney and it is equally clear that Local No. 21 Teamsters, which was engaged in a labor dispute with Riney, enlisted the aid of Plumbers, Laborers, and Carpenters in its behalf. This aid took the form of inducement of their members and other em- ployees of employers other than Riney who were doing business with Riney, to refuse to perform services for their respective employers and engage in concerted refusals to do so in order to require their respective employers to cease doing business with Riney and thus further the cause of Local No. 21 Teamsters. The employers affected were Martin, Smashey, Parsons, Shetlar, and Mills Modular. There can be no doubt that all the unlawful conduct was chargeable to Local No. 21 Teamsters, both by reason of the acts in its behalf as well as its own acts, all as herein found. The said conduct as found herein is violative of the Act, more particularly Section 8(b) (4) (A) thereof. Concluding Finding Upon the entire record considered as a whole, the Trial Examiner finds that in order to support its dispute with Riney, the Respondent, Local No. 21 Teamsters, ordered, directed, induced, and instructed the employees of Martin, Smashey, Parsons, Shetlar, and Mills Modular with whom it had no dispute to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, materials, articles, or commodities or to perform services. An object of the Respondent's conduct has been and is to force or require said employers to cease doing business with Riney. The Trial Examiner finds that by such conduct the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act. 4 Examiner reports It without further comment on finding other than that the testimony is wholly undenied. 14 Testimony of Wauace Smashey. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL NO. 21 561 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent as set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Charging Party (Riney), have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Charging Party, Leo W. Riney, is engaged in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By means of orders, directions, instructions, requests, appeals, and by like or related acts or conduct, by its representatives and by the conduct of Local 581, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Indus- try of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO; Local 424, Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO; and Local 607, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Jo,ners, AFL-CIO, all as herein found to have been acting on behalf of the Respondent (Local No. 21 Teamsters), in connection with the employees of Martin Construction Company, Wallace Smashey Construction Company, Parsons Construction Company, Homer Shetlar Contractor and Builder, and Mills Modular Homes, Inc., caused said employees to refuse to perform services for their respective employers. By inducing or encouraging the employees of said employers to engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ- ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods or to perform any services where an object thereof is to force or require their respec- tive employers to cease doing business with Leo W. Riney, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] EXHIBIT NO. 1 STIPULATION 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between Counsel for the General Counsel, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 21, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America ( herein referred to as Teamsters ) and L. W. Riney (herein referred to as Charging Party ), that in lieu of a formal hearing before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board the record hereinafter specified shall be submitted to William R. Ringer, Chief Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, Washington , D.C. for referral to a Trial Examiner for the issuance of an Inter- mediate Report and Recommended Order. ' i. The record in this case shall consist of this Stipulation and (a) the formal docu- ments (G. C. Exhs. Ia. through lh.) and (b) certain other documents (G. C. Exhs. Cases Nos. 14-CC-143, 14-CC-144, 14-CC-145, and 14-CC-146. 560940--61-vol. 127-37 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 through 5), all of which are a part of this proceeding, attached hereto and in- corporated by reference: A. Formal documents: Exhibit la.-Charge in 14-CC-143, filed October 7, 1959 and signed by Leo W. Riney. Exhibit l b.-Affidavit of Service of charge in 14-CC-143 showing mailing date October 7, 1959, with signed registered postal receipt attached. Exhibit lc.-Complaint and Notice of Hearing in 14-CC-143, et al., dated October 30, 1959. Exhibit I d.-Affidavit of Service of Complaint and Notice of Hearing, showing mailing date October 30, 1959, with signed registered postal receipts attached Exhibit I e.-Order Postponing Hearing Indefinitely. Exhibit l f.-Affidavit of Service of Order postponing hearing indefinitely, showing mailing date November 6, 1959, with signed registered postal receipts attached. Exhibit 1g.-Answer of Respondent Teamsters, Local 21, in 14-CC-143 Exhibit 1h.-Order of Severance of Cases Nos. 14-CC-144, 14-CC-145 and 14-CC-146. B. Other documents: Exhibit 2.-Affidavit of Branham Rendlen dated October 19, 1959. Exhibit 3.-Affidavit of H. E. (Pete) Harris dated October 19, 1959 Exhibit 4.-A separate "Stipulation" of certain facts, signed by Norman Arm- bruster for Teamsters, Local 21, and D. Tyner Brown, Counsel for the General Counsel. Exhibit 5.-Transcript of the hearing held November 5, 1959 before Judge Weber (N 59 C 20), being the 10(1) proceeding. II. On November 12, 1959 Judge Weber, in and for the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division, granted a temporary injunction against Local 21 Teamsters. Ill. The parties hereto waive the taking of testimony or the submission of evidence before a Trial Examiner in a formal hearing, and agree that the Trial Examiner to whom this matter may be referred, may issue an Intermediate Report upon the record herein, which Intermediate Report shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing and the presentation of evidence. IV. The parties , in accordance with Rule 102.42 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, shall have 35 days from the date of the execution of this Stipulation, or such further time as the Chief Trial Examiner shall provide , to file briefs with the Chief Trial Examiner, William R. Ringer, National Labor Relations Board, Wash- ington 25, D C. V. It is further stipulated and agreed that this Stipulation embodies the entire agree- ment between the parties and that there is no oral agreement of any kind which varies, alters or changes this Stipulation in any respect. If for any reason this Stipulation shall not be signed by all the parties hereto or should fail to be fully effective according to its terms , this Stipulation shall be null and void for all pur- poses and shall not be offered or received in evidence in any proceeding. ( S) D. Tyner Brown, November 19, 1959. D. TYNER BROWN, (Date) Counsel for the General Counsel. L. W. RINEY, November 21, 1959. By (S) Branham Rendlen, Attorney, ( Date) BRANHAM RENDLEN , Attorney LocAL UNION No. 21 , TEAMSTERS , 11/23/59. By (S) Norman Armbruster, (Date) NORMAN ARMBRUSTER , Attorney. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, ETC., LOCAL NO. 21 563 EXHIBIT NO. 2 STIPULATION 1 It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties that in addition to other evidence which will be presented in this case that there shall also be introduced into evidence the fact that on the 14th day of October, 1959, Teamsters' Local Union No. 21, Respondent herein, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the L. W. Riney Company alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, charging that the L. W. Riney Company, the employer, has refused to bargain collectively in good faith with Local 21, as the representative of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for which said Local No. 21 was certified by the Board on August 24, 1959, said charges being filed in Case No. 14-CA-2208, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked Respondent's Exhibit "A"; that on the 27th day of October, 1959, the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region issued an order under which he refused to issue a complaint on said charges, a copy of said order being attached hereto and marked Respondent's Exhibit "B"; that on Novem- ber 6th, 1959, Respondent mailed to the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board a request for review of said Regional Director's order, a copy of said request for review being attached hereto and marked Respondent's Exhibit "C." (S) NORMAN ARMBRUSTER, Attorney For Local Union No. 21. (S) D. TYNER BROWN, Attorney For L. W. Riney Company, Charging Party ----- -------------------------- Attorney For L. W. Riney Company, Charging Party i Case No. 14-CC-143 EXHIBIT NO. 3 CERTIFIED-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 5, 1959. Re: L. W. Riney Company, Inc. Case No. 14-CA-2208 GENERAL COUNSEL National Labor Relations Board Washington 25, D.C. REQUEST FOR REVIEW DEAR Sm: Pursuant to Section 102.19 of the Rules and Regulations of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the charging party in the above case, Local 21, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, affiliated with the Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, we hereby file this Request for Review of the action of the Regional Director, Fourteenth Region, National Labor Relations Board, in refusing to issue a complaint in the above styles matter, such action having been taken on October 27th, 1959. The charge filed in this case alleged a refusal on the part of the employer, L. W. Riney Company, Inc., to bargain in good faith with Local 21. Local 21 was certi- fied by the National Labor Relations Board as the bargaining representative of Riney's employees on August 24, 1959. On September 1, 1959, the union mailed the employer a proposed agreement for study and consideration and asked him to meet with them at any time or place it desired. No answer was received to this letter so on September 8, 1959, the union again wrote the company and proposed a meeting to be held on Friday, September 11, 1959, at the Mark-Twain Hotel in Hannibal for the purpose of discussing the proposed collective bargaining agree- ment. At that point the attorney for the company contacted Local 21 and stated that because of prior commitments he could not meet with them on September 11th 564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD but a meeting was set for September 15th. While the company did meet with the union on September 15th and again on September 17th, the meetings amounted to nothing more than complete rejections by the company of the union proposals. The company did agree on a grievance procedure which, of course, is meaningless without agreement on basic issues in collective bargaining . On those basic issues of wages, hours and working conditions the company has completely rejected every proposal put forth by the union without submitting any counter-proposals of any nature. On wages, for instance, Riney's scale is 60¢ below the scale paid by its competitors, yet no increase of any kind has been offered. The charging party submits that this action by the company constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith with the union within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and requests that the action of the Regional Director in dismissing these charges and refusing to issue a complaint be set aside and that he be directed to issue a complaint in this matter. Respectfully submitted: NWAilr cc: By WILEY, CRAIG, ARMBRUSTER & WILBURN, ------------ Attorneys for charging party. L. W. Riney Company 323 South Maple Hannibal, Missouri Brannan Rendlen Attorney at Law Rendlen Building Hannibal, Missouri Salvatore Cosentino Director, 14th Region National Labor Relations Board 508 North Grand Boulevard St. Louis 3, Missouri APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No 21, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of Martin Construction Company, Wallace Smashey Construction Company, Parsons Construction Company, Homer Shetiar Contractor and Builder, Mills Modular Homes, Inc., 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 to force or require their respective employers to cease doing business with Leo W. Riney. GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 21, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN 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.