International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,] ETC. 1007 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,'Warehouse- men and Helpers' of America ; International . Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 71; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 55; General Drivers, Warehousemen and ' Helpers, Local Union #509, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local Union No. 728 and Overnite Transportation Company. Case No. 11-CC-16. March 1; 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On October 8, 1959, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents named above, except Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters, had engaged in and were engaging in cer- tain 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. The Trial Ex- aminer 'further found that Respondent International Brotherhood of Teamsters had not engaged in any of the unfair labor practices al- leged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dis- missed with. respect to said Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent Local 728 and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Interme- diate Report and supporting briefs., Overnite, the Charging Party, filed a motion to withdraw its charge against Respondent Interna- . , tional. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds 'no prejudicial 'error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.2 The Board has considered. the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, and briefs, the motion to withdraw the charge,3 and the entire. record in the case, and hereby adopts the 1 The exceptions of the General Counsel are limited to matters affecting the recommended remedy and order. 9 we find without merit the exceptions of Local 728 , to the Trial Examiner's denial of its motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the General Counsel had split his cause of action by issuing a complaint in Case No. 10-CC-426 , involving the same parties. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters , et at. ( Overn4te Transportation Company ), 130 NLRB 1020. Because Member Fanning believes that the General Counsel proceeded improperly by failing to consolidate this case with Case No. 10-CC-426, he would, for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in 130 NLRB 1020, dismiss the complaint in that proceeding. S No meritorious appearing therefor, the motion to withdraw the charge against Re= spondent International is denied. 130 NLRB No. 108. 1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 'Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations 4 with the modifications in The Remedy and Order indicated below. THE REMEDY Having found, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, we shall order each of them to cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The General Counsel excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner to include in his recommended order a provision that the Respondents sign additional copies of the notice, for posting at the premises of the secondary employers involved, if these employers consent to such posting. In accord with our usual practice, we shall include such a provision in our Order. The General Counsel also contends that, because of the nature and extent of the violations involved, the Order herein should require the Respondents to notify their members and all employees repre- sented by them that the Respondents revoke any prior instruction, re- quest, or appeal to stop, or refrain from, handling or transporting the freight of Overnite, and that Respondents disclaim-any intent to im- pose reprisals, discipline, or penalties on any member or employee for handling such freight. The General Counsel contends that such noti- fication should be given, not only in the notice to be posted, but by notice to members and employees in addition to the posting. The picketing herein found unlawful was conducted at 18 separate locations in 2 cities, and, of course, involved directly the employees of 18 different employers who are members of or represented by the Respondents. It is apparent that the secondary boycott campaign against Overnight was well and deliberately planned by all four locals, and extensively carried out. Each of the Respondent Locals has a large membership, and each covers a large geographical juris- diction throughout 4 States in which the primary employer, Overnite, maintains 26 terminals. In these circumstances, we agree with the General Counsel that merely posting the usual notices at the Re- spondent's offices, at Overnite's places of business, and at the places of business of the secondary employers involved,. is not sufficient to negate the effects of the Respondent's boycott campaign.5 We shall therefore order Respondents to give to their members and to all em- ployees represented by them, the additional notice requested by the General Counsel. With respect to all Respondents, the Order which we issue herein is phrased in the existing language of the 'Act rather than in the 4 We adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner' s finding that the Respondent International did not violate the Act, because no exceptions were filed to this .'finding . by any of the parties. 5 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., Local No. 554, AFL-CIO (Clark Bros. Transfer Company ), 123 NLRB 1564. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, -ETC. 1009 language "existing at the-time the Trial Examiner issued. his- recom mended order.6 With respect to Respondents Locals No. 55, 71, and 509, we shall order them to cease and desist from all like or related conduct, i.e., we shall order them to cease and desist from secondary activity against any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce in order to force any such person to stop doing business with Overnite, or to force Overnite to recognize Respondents, or any of them, as representatives of Overnite's employees in the absence of Board certification. The Order against Respondent Local 728 will contain similar cease- and-desist provisions against like or related conduct, but, in addition, our Order against Local 728 will cover any future unlawful secondary boycott activity respecting any other primary person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce. A broad cease-and-desist order of this type against Local 728 appears necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, because of the extent to which Local 728 had demonstrated a proclivity to violate the Act by secondary boy- cott activity against persons with whom it develops disputes. In addi- tion to the instant case, involving as it does 18 secondary' employers, there have been in recent times four other contested secondary boy- cott cases in which it has been necessary for the Board to issue orders against Local 728, and in which 'Local 728 has been found to have engaged in deliberate and extensive unlawful secondary activity in aid -of its disputes.' Further there were three additional cases which were'-,settled .by settlement stipulations before final adjudication, but in which it was necessary for the General Counsel to secure Federal district court injunctions against Local 728, on the ground there was reasonable cause to believe that Local 728 was engaging in unlawful secondary activity.8 This record of persistent and repeated violations by Local 728 indicates the necessity of a broad order against it to pre- vent it from continuing, with impunity, to violate the secondary boy- 8 Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Warehousemen and Handlers, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, at at. (Republic Wire Corporation ), 129 NLRB 376. 4 Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc. v. N.L.R.B. (Genuine Parts Co.), 265 F. 2d 439 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 361 U.S. 917, enfg. 119 NLRB 399; Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union 728, etc. v. N.L.R.B. (Campbell Coal Co. ), 249 F. 2d 512 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 355 U.S. 958 , enfg. 116 NLRB 1020 ; N.L.R.B. v. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc.. (National Trucking Co.) (Ford Motor Co.), 228 F. 2d 791 (C.A. 5), enfg. 111 NLRB 483; Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc. (Empire State Empress, Inc.), 116 NLRB 615.. s aetreu, Regional Director .v. Truck Drivers and .Helpers Local Union No. 728, at at. (Harper-Motor Lines ), 38 LRRM •2545 (D.C. N. Ga.), 'Case No. 10-CC-253, Board Order, and 'consent decree -November 20, 1956., ( C.A. 5) ; Phillips, Regional Director v. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 728, etc. (Georgia Highway Empress ), 42 LRRM 21'04 (D.C. M. Ga.), Case No. 10-CC-375. and 376, Board Order and consent decree. September 9, 195'8 (C.A. 5) ; Phillips, Regional Director v. Truck Drivers and Helpers, Local Union No. 728, etc. ( Whitley Construction Co.), injunctive relief granted Septem- ber 16, 1957 (D.C. Ga.), 'Case No. 10-CC-342, Board Order and consent decree , April 2, 1958 (C.A. 5). 597254-61-vol. 130--65 1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cott sections of the Act, free from restraint of prior- orders more narrow in scope.° 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 : A. Respondents, Local Unions Nos. 55, 71, and - 509, , International, Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen. and Helpers of America, their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and as- .signs, shall : 1. Cease and desist. from engaging in, or inducing or .encouraging any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his 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 (1) to force or require any such person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Overnite Transporta- tion Company; or (2) to force or require Overnite Transportation Company to recognize or bargain with Locals Nos. 55, 71, or 509, individually or collectively, unless said labor organizations shall have been certified as the representative of the employees of Overnite Trans-. portation Company, under the provisions of Section 9 .of -the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondents' business offices,, meeting halls, and all places where notices .to their members are cus- tomarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Ap- pendix A.",10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), shall, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of the. Respondents, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days. thereafter. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered; by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies, of said. notice to the Regional Director -for the Eleventh Region for posting,; the employers willing, 0 Republic Wire Corp., supra ; N.L.R.B . v: Brewery and Beer Distributor Drivers, etc., Local 830 (Delaware Valley Beer Distributor Assn.), 281 F. 2d 319 ( C.A. 3), enfg, as mod. 125 NLRB 12; N.L.R:B. v. International Hod Carriers, etc., Local No. 1140 (Gilmore Construction Co.), 285 F. 2d 397 ( C.A. 8),'enfg. as mod. 127 NLRB 541.. . 10In 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." INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1011 at Overnite Transportation Company and at the premises of any other employer or person doing business with Overnite Transportation Com- pany who was involved in the activities of the Respondents herein. (c) Forthwith notify all their members and all employees repre- sented by them who are employed by persons engaged in commerce and in an industry affecting commerce, other than Overnite Trans- portation Company, that they are revoking any prior instruction, re- quest, or appeal to stop transporting or handling, in the course of their .employment, freight shipped to or by, or destined for shipment to or by, Overnite Transportation Company, and all such freight may be handled by their members and such other employees without reprisal or penalty. Such notification shall be by mail and shall be in addition to that conveyed by the postings of the notices specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what'steps they have taken to comply herewith. B. Respondent, Local Union No. 728, 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 inducing or encouraging any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in.an industry affecting commerce doing business with Overnite Transporta- tion Company or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an in- dustry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- modities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is (1) to force or require any such person engaged in commerce or in an, in- dustry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Overnite Transportation Company or with any other person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce; or (2) to force or require "Overnite Transportation Company or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce- to recognize or bar- gain with Respondent as the representative of their employees unless -Respondent shall have been:certified as the representative of such em- ployees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. - 2. Take the following affirmative action which the' Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post in conspicuous places in Respondent's business offices, meeting halls, and all places where notices to its members are cus- tomarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appen- 1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dig B.11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc- tor for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), shall, after being duly signed by authorized representatives of the Respond- ent, be posted. by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region for posting, the employers willing, at Overnite Transportation Company and at the premises of any other employer or person doing business with Overnite Transportation Company who was involved in the activities of the Respondent herein. (c) Forthwith notify all its members who are employed by persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce other than Overnite Transportation Company, and all employees of said persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce repre- sented by it, that it is revoking any prior instruction, request, or ap- peal to stop transporting or handling, in the course of their employ- ment, freight shipped to or by, or destined for shipment to or by, Overnite Transportation Company, and , all such freight may be handled without reprisal or penalty. Such notification shall be by mail and shall be in addition to that conveyed by the postings of the notices specified in paragraphs (a) and (b), above. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within 40 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. "See footnote 10, supra. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNIONS No. 55, 71, AND 509, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA; TO ALL INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; TO ALL INDIVIDUALS EM- PLOYED BY ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN AN INDUSTRY AFFECTING COMMERCE DOING BUSINESS WITH OVERNITE TRANSPOR- TATION COMPANY; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF, OTHER EMPLOYERS WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY US AS THEIR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE : 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, as amended, we hereby notify you that : INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1013. WE WILL NOT engage,in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce doing business with Overnite Transportation Company to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use; :manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, or commodities, or to per- form any service where an object thereof is (1) to force or re- quire any such person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with Overnite Trans- portation Company; or (2) to force or require Overnite Trans- portation Company to recognize or bargain with us, individually or collectively, unless we shall have been certified as the repre- sentative of the employees of Overnite Transportation Company, under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. WE HEREBY REVOKE any prior instruction, request or appeal to stop transporting or handling, in the course of your employment by any employer or person other-than Overnite Transportation Company, freight shipped to or by, or destined for shipment to or by Overnite Transportation Company, and all such freight may be handled by you without.reprisal or penalty by us. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP- ERS of AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 55, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By--------------------------------=---- (Representative ) ( Title) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP- ERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 71, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- .By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION #509, AFFILI- ATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD 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. 1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 728; To ALL INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY OvERNrrn TRANSPORTATION COMPANY; TO ALL INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN AN INDUSTRY AFFECTING COMMERCE DOING BUSINESS WITH OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COM- PANY; AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES or OTHER EMPLOYERS WHO ARE REP- RESENTED BY US As THEIR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE : 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, as amended, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce doing business with Overnite Transportation Company or by any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, trans- port; or otherwise handle or work on any goods; articles, mate- rials, or commodities, or to perform any services where an object thereof i`s (1) to force or,require any such person engaged in com- merce or ,in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing busi- ness with Overnite Transportation Company or with any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com- merce; or (2) to force or. require Overnite Transportation Com- pany, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to recognize or bargain with us as the repre- sentative of their employees unless-we shall have been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of See- tion 9 of the Act. WE HEREBY REVOKE any prior instruction, request, or-appeal to stop transporting or handling, in the course of your employment by'any employer or person other than Overnite Transportation Company, freight shipped to'or by, or destined for shipment to or by Overnite Transportation Company, and all such freight may be handled by you without reprisal or penalty by us. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 728, Labor Orgtznization. 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. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1015 INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 3; 1959, Overnite Transportation Company, Richmond, Virignia, filed a charge with the Board's Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, charging violation of Section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the National 'Labor Relations Act (61 Stat. 136) by the labor organizations named above, and 'herein referred to collectively as the Respondents. - On July 14, 1959, the General ,Counsel, by the Regional Director, issued a complaint, and on July 22, 1959, an amended complaint alleging violation by the Respondents of the aforesaid provisions -of the Act. In due course the Respondents filed their answers denying the com- mission of unfair labor practices. Upon due notice, a hearing was held at, Asheville, North Carolina, on August. 5, 1959. The General Counsel and the Respondents were represented by counsel and ,participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded opportunity to present and -to meet material evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue the :issues orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings. On September 9, 1958, Local 728 filed 'a brief, which has been considered. In its answer Local 728, and at the hearing all the Respondents, moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of multiplicity of suits or splitting of causes of action. The basis for the motion was that upon an identical charge (save for the date) filed =by 'Overnite with the Board's Atlanta Regional Office, the General Counsel, by the .Atlanta Regional Director, issued another complaint against the Respondents alleging ,the commission.of'violations of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) in the Atlanta Region, .arising out of the same basic dispute. These motions were denied on.the ground that they were premature until there was an actual hearing on the Atlanta complaint. Such a hearing was later held before this Trial Examiner, and the motions were there renewed. They will be disposed of in the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order in that case (Overnite Transportation Company, Case No. 10-CC-426, 130 NLRB 1020). Upon the basis of the entire record in the present case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF OVERNITE Overnite Transportation Company is a Virginia: corporation maintaining its prin- -cipal office in Richmond, Virginia. It has 26 terminals and places of business in the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and is engaged in the business of the transportation of freight by motor vehicle. During the past year, Overnite had gross revenue in excess of $4,000,000, derived mainly from direct inter- state transportation of freight under certificates issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission: It is admitted that Overnite is engaged in commerce within the --meaning of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED " It is admitted -that the Respondents are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act, . I . . .. - In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues (1) Whether. picketing at the premises of secondary employers in Asheville and ,Charlotte, North Carolina, and the Hanna incident at the Dance terminal, described 'hereinafter, constitute-violations of Section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Act. (2) Whether the evidence establishes that Local 728 participated in the action engaged in by other Respondents at Asheville and at Charlotte. (3) Whether the International Union is chargeable with responsibility for unlawful conduct of the locals. B. The controversy and the picketing ' Overnite operates over a large area in the southeastern United States-from Vir- ginia to Georgia. In the early part of 1959 various local unions of the Teamsters were engaged in a campaign to organize Overnite's employees. In early March repre- sentatives of some of these locals met in Atlanta to discuss the campaign. Later -two other meetings were held in Charlotte, North Carolina, at the office of Teamsters -Joint Council No. 9, on April 21 and May 4, respectively. At these meetings repre- 1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sentatives of the Joint Council and of various local unions exchanged information as to the progress of the campaign, and discussed courses of action. R. L. Young, secretary-treasurer of Local 61 of Hickory, North Carolina, and president of Joint Council No. 9 and R. C. Cook, president of Local 728, Atlanta, Georgia, were the leaders in the activity. At the April 21 meeting the following organizations were represented: Local 55 of Asheville, North Carolina, and Greenville, South Carolina; Local 61, Hickory, North Carolina; Local 71, Charlotte, North Carolina; Local 391, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Local 509, Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina; Local 592, Richmond, Virginia; Local 728, Atlanta, Georgia; Local 822, Norfolk, Virginia; and Joint Council 9. . The same organizations were represented at the May 4, 1959, meeting with the exception of Locals 509 and 822. Also two additional locals were represented at this meeting-No. 171 from Roanoke, Virginia, and No. 697 of Charleston, South Carolina.' On or about May 16, 1959, each of the four Respondent Local Unions, namely 55, 71, 509, and 728, sent telegrams to Overnite Transportation Company, reglxest- ing recognition 'as collective-bargaining representative of certain of Overnite's em- ployees in the particular local's jurisdictional area. On the following day, May 17, picketing commenced at the terminals of Overnite in Charlotte, Hickory, and Ashe- ville, North Carolina, and in Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina. At those 'locations Overnite regularly employs warehouse and city pickup employees, and its over-the-road drivers report there daily. About the same time picketing commenced 'at the premises and terminals in Asheville and Charlotte of various customers and carriers doing business with Overnite (referred to herein as secondaryemployers) when the trucks of Overnite made or attempted to make deliveries.to such locations. The picket signs carried in connection with the aforesaid picketing bore the fol- lowing legend: Overnite Transportation Co. ON STRIKE Unfair to Teamsters members of Local 728 Atlanta, Ga. Local 71 Charlotte, N.C. Local 55 Asheville, N.C.-Greenville, S.C. Local 509 Columbia and Charleston, S.C. Apart from the picketing, there is evidence of one specific incident of inducement of an employee by a.respondent in connection with the dispute. This occurrence involved Hugh Rutledge, secretary-treasurer of Local 55, and Lewis D. Hanna; a road driver for Dance Freight Lines, a truck carrier. About June 12, 1959, Rutledge approached Hanna at Dance's terminal in Asheville and sought to ascertain whether Hanna had any Overnite freight on his truck. In connection with these inquiries Rutledge suggested to Hanna that the driver not handle any Overnite' cargo. The object of the action engaged in by the local unions was to force and require Overnite to recognize and bargain with the appropriate Respondent Local within. its jurisdictional area. However; none of the Respondents has been certified under Section 9 of the Act as the collective-bargaining representative of any of Overnite's employees. The uncontradicted testimony is that the strike has not been sanctioned by the International Union. The costs' of the strike and strike benefits-if any-are being defrayed by the local unions, without expectation of reimbursement by the International. 1 A joint council is an organization composed of representatives of local unions within a particular geographical area. The area encompassed by Joint Council 9 appears to consist of a substantial portion of North Carolina and some of South Carolina. Its offices are in Charlotte. Locals 55 and 61 are members of the Joint Council ; Local 728 is not. Whether any of the other local unions represented at the Charlotte meetings were council members is not disclosed. The activities of the Joint Council are financed by local unions in its area. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1017 C. Conclusions as to inducement We turn first to the question as to whether the action taken by the unions was of such nature as to constitute violations of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. The respon- sibility of Local 728 and of the International Union is discussed later. The conduct of Secretary-Treasurer Rutledge of Local 55 in suggesting to driver 'Hanna of Dance Freight Lines that Hanna should not handle freight of Overnite constituted inducement of Hanna to refuse to handle Overnite's goods in the course of his employment, and in pursuance of the local union's objectives. As such, Rut- ledge's action was violative of Section 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Act. The picketing at the premises of secondary employers is also unlawful under the authority of Washington Coca Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 107 NLRB 299, 303, enfd. 220 F. 2d 380 (C.A.D.C.); Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc., 115 NLRB 981, 983- 984; W. H. Arthur Company, 115, NLRB 1137-1138; Associated 'General Contrac- tors Employers Association of Omaha, Nebraska, Inc., 116 NLRB 461; Ready Mixed Concrete Company, 117 NLRB 1266, and Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc., 124 NLRB 696. The holding of those decisions is that where the primary employer's business premises provide adequate opportunity to publicize, by picketing, the facts of a labor dispute between that employer and a labor organization, it is to be inferred, in the absence of countervailing evidence, that picketing by the union at the premises of other employers has for its purpose the inducing of employees of neutral employers to curtail work and thus to require termination of business relations between the primary and neutral employers. Such conduct is unlawful under Section 8(b)(4). It was so ruled by the Trial Examiner at the instant hearing, and upon motion by the General Counsel-the picketing action being conceded-judgment was granted on the pleadings as to the picketing at the premises of the secondary employers. In the -light of the foregoing authority, it is not a defense that this picketing was di- rected only at trucks of Overnite. The premises of Overnite provided adequate opportunity under the Board's principles to publicize the facts of the controversy. Under such circumstances the cases of Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547; Otis Massey Company, 225 F. 2d 205 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 350 U.S. 914; and Campbell Coal Co., 229 F. 2d 514 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 351 U.S. 972, must be held to be inapplicable. See Dallas County Association, Inc., supra, and cases there cited. It is consequently found that by picketing the premises and terminals at Asheville and Charlotte, North Carolina, of employers other than Overnite, and by Rutledge's suggestion to Hanna, heretofore related, with an object of requiring Overnite to recognize the locals as collective-bargaining representatives of Overnite employees, Respondent Local Unions 55, 71, and 509 violated Section 8(b) (4) (A)• and (B) of the Act. D. The responsibility of Local 728 We turn now to the question of whether Local • 728 is also responsible for the unlawful picketing. The evidence is that each local sought recognition only in its -jurisdictional area. Local- 728's jurisdiction is in the Atlanta area, where it is headquartered. On this evidence it is found that Local 728 did not desire recognition as collective-bargaining representative in Charlotte and Asheville, North Carolina, where the secondary picketing took place. Local 728's contention is that it did not engage in any conduct violative of the Act within the Winston-Salem Region of the Board. It has been noted, however, that the Respondent Locals were engaging in synchronized action designed to secure recognition from Overnite as bargaining representatives. They carried on simul- taneous organizing campaigns, and they held joint meetings to discuss the progress of the campaigns and to plan courses of action. They agreed to conduct and join in a strike against Overnite, and upon the time to begin it. The picket signs carried bore the names of each of the involved locals, including that of Local 728. Fairly viewed, the picket signs must be interpreted as indicating that the picketing was being sponsored and carried on by all the locals jointly. Presumably Local 728 was aware of the content of the signs, and approved and authorized them. If it did not, it could have produced testimony at the hearing denying that it had authorized or ratified the placing of its name on the signs. Since it did not produce such testimony, the con- clusion must be drawn that Local 728 authorized the picketing and the signs. Upon these, considerations it is found that the strike and the picketing constituted a joint and concerted action by all the Respondent Locals and a joint venture. 1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Crystal Palace Market, 116 NLRB 856, footnote 14. It is further found that Local 728 is responsible for the picketing. Local 728 therefore also violated Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B ) of the Act by picketing at the premises of secondary employers in Asheville and Charlotte. E. The responsibility of the International' The General Counsel also asserts that the International Union is responsible for the unfair labor practices, as a joint venturer with the locals. This contention is founded upon the following premises: (1) the concerted action of the locals required centralized direction and control, which by inference flowed from the International; (2) under the International constitution, article XII, approval of the International Union is required in connection with certain conduct of the locals, -including strikes; and (3) Local 55s affairs are under the direction of a trustee appointed by the president of the International Union. With respect to the first point, it has been found that the action of the locals was joint and concerted. This explains the "centralized direction and control" of which the General Counsel speaks. However, proof of concert of action by the locals is not proof of participation by the International Union, and does not tend to establish it. With respect to the General Counsel's second point, namely, the asserted require- ment for International approval of strike or boycott action' by a local, article XII; sec- tion 1 (c), of the International constitution states as follows: Prior to a Local Union becoming involved in a strike , boycott, lawsuit or any serious difficulty, such Local Union shall immediately notify the Joint Council of which it is a member of any contemplated action setting forth the action con- templated and nature of the difficulty . The Joint Council shall then take steps to approve or disapprove such contemplated action. The Joint Council shall notify the General President of the steps it has taken in respect to such con- templated action. The General President is authorized to approve , disapprove or modify the action of the Joint Council . Approval, disapproval or modifica- tion of the action of the Joint Council or the Local Union by the General Presi- dent shall not operate to impose any liability on the International Union or its officers or to make them parties to any such action . The International Union does not assume any liability of any nature to any person or persons simply by reason of such approval, disapproval or modification. Literally read, this provision seems to require approval by the general president of strike or boycott action by a local union . On the other hand the testimony of Ed Hargett, president of Local 71 , called as an adverse witness by the General Counsel, is that article XII, section 1(c), applies only where an agreement or bargain- ing relationship is in effect , and is inapplicable to strikes for recognition. However, whether that interpretation is correct need not be determined here, for the reason that there is no evidence that either-the general president or the International Union ever took any action with regard to the Overnite strike. The uncontradicted testi- mony is that the strike has not been sanctioned by the International. In these cir- cumstances the mere existence of the provisions of article XII, section 1(c), is not sufficient to establish International participation in the Overnite strike. Violation of the constitution-if it occurred-is not the equivalent of evidence of action by the International . In the face of the positive testimony to the effect that the Inter- national has not sanctioned the strike , a contrary inference is not warranted by the evidence . In these circumstances it is unnecessary to determine whether ap- proval by the general president of strike action by the locals would be sufficient to impute to the International Union responsibility for unlawful action of the locals in the conduct of the strike. Finally, we come to the matter of the trusteeship. On July 29, 1958, Richard C. Bell was appointed by the general president of the International Union as trustee of the affairs of Local 55. Bell is an assistant to Thomas E. Flynn, vice president of the International Union , normally stationed in Washington , D.C. The record- though not clear on the point-appears to indicate that Bell administers the trustee- ship from Washington and comes to Charlotte only infrequently. This evidence is to the effect that in large measure Local 55 continues to run its own affairs as. it did prior to the trusteeship. The members elect officers to carry on the business of the local, and these.are then designated by Bell. The appointment by the general president of trustees to take charge of the- affairs of local unions is authorized, under certain circumstances , by the Inter- national constitution , article VI, section 5. In sum, the trustee has authority there-- INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1019 under to remove and appoint officers of the . local, to take possession of the local's funds, books, and property, "and to take such other action as in his judgment is necessary for the preservation of the local union or other subordinate body and their interests." The constitution further provides that the trustee's acts shall be "subject to the supervision of the General President." However, the International Union is not responsible, under the constitution, for any action of a local under trusteeship unless the action is directed or authorized by the trustee. Thus, it is stated in article VI, section 5(a) of the-constitution: The International Union shall not be responsible for any actions or activities of a local union or other subordinate body under Trusteeship unless such actions or activities have been directed or authorized by the Trustee. In the instant case there is no evidence that Local 55's actions in picketing second- ary employers in Asheville and Charlotte in connection with the Overnite dispute were directed or authorized by Bell or by the International Union. Under such circumstances the International is not responsible for the actions of the Local. Franklin Electric Construction Company, et al., 121 NLRB 143. What the Board said in that case seems applicable here: "Whatever the ultimate supervisory constitu- tional powers of the International President with respect to the local there is no evi- dence -that they have been exercised." And see Axel Newman Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers (D.C. Minn., 37 LRRM 2038, October 21, 1955). It may be assumed that the International is responsible for the acts of Bell as trustee within the scope of the authority conferred upon him by the International. But it must be shown that Bell has performed acts within the scope of that authority. This has not been done. There is no evidence of any action whatever by Bell. There is no indication that the action of the locals is in furtherance of a policy of the International Union. Local 55 continues to operate under trusteeship in much the same autonomous man- ner as it did before the trusteeship. Under these circumstances the local is not a mere administrative arm of the International Union. It is found that the unlawful action of the local unions, found above, is not to be imputed to the international Union. - IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent Locals 55, 71, 509, and, 728, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Overnite described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and' substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Locals 55, 71, 509, and 728 have engaged in violations of Sec- tion 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. Upon the. basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Overnite Transportation Company is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondents , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, and Local Unions 55, 71, 509, and 728, affil- iated therewith, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. None of the Respondents has been certified, at any material time, as the col- lective-bargaining representative of employees of Overnite pursuant to Section 9 of the Act. 4. Since May 17, 1959, Respondent Local Unions 55, 71, 509, and 728 have in- duced and encouraged employees of employers doing business with Overnite Trans- portation Company in Asheville and Charlotte, North Carolina, to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to perform services for their employers, with an object of (a) forcing or requiring the said employers to cease doing business with Overnite; and (b) forcing -or requiring Overnite to recognize or bargain with Respondent Locals as the collective-bargaining representative of employees of Overnite. 1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.t 6. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen . and. Help- ers of America has not by any conduct herein engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) or (B) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America ; Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 71 ; International Brother- : hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 55; and General Drivers, Ware- housemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 509 and Overnite Trans- portation Company. Case No. 10-CC-426. March 1, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER ,On November 6, 1959, Trial Examiner Charles E. Schneider issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, recommend- ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions 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 rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has reviewed the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions, and the brief, and finds merit in the Gen- eral Counsel's exceptions. The complaint in this proceeding is one of two outstanding com- plaints processed concurrently, against the Respondents, in separate Regional Offices, involving alleged secondary boycott activities in both Regions in connection with a dispute between the Respondents and the Employer. On June 1, 1959, the Employer and Charging Party, Overnite Transportation Company, filed with the Regional Director of the Eleventh Region of the Board at Winston-Salem, North Carolina, unfair labor practice charges in Case No. 11-CC-16 (130 NLRB 1007), alleging that the Respondents had engaged in violations of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act within the Eleventh Region, at locations in the State of North Carolina. On June 3, 1959, Overnite filed with the Regional Director of the Tenth Region of the Board at Atlanta, Georgia, an unfair labor prac- tice charge in Case No. 10-CC--426, the instant case, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in violations of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and 130 NLRB No. 106.