Warehouse Employees Union Local 570, Etc.

WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 570, ETC. 731 WE WILL offer to Theodore Cruise, Clarence Gailes, Cleo Gibson, Elmer Hardy, Otis Johnson , William Manners, Leon Mitchell, Walter Mosie, Sam Parrott, and Kenneth Suber immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any losses they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. WE WILL bargain collectively, on request, with General Drivers, Ware- housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 968, as the exclusive representative of employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other terms or conditions of employ- ment, and, if an understanding is reached , we will embody such understand- ing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All truckdrivers , truckdrivers' helpers, warehousemen, fork-lift opera- tors, and checker-receiving clerks, employed in the Houston branch, ex- cluding office clericals salesmen , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined by the Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above -named or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such a right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. THE LONE STAR COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By----------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, Telephone No. Capitol 8-0611 , Extension 296, if they have any question concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions. Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 570, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Whitaker Paper Company Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No . 355, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Whitaker Paper Company. Cases Nos. 5-CP-28 and 5-CP-29. November 13, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges separately filed on January 24, 1964, by Whitaker Paper Company against Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 570, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and against Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, both herein referred to as the "Unions" or "Respondents," the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Regions, 149 NLRB No. 68. 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD issued an order consolidating the two cases and a consolidated com- plaint and notice of hearing. The complaint alleged that the Respond- ents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charges, order consolidating the two cases, complaint, and notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondents. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that Respondents unlawfully picketed the premises of the Charging Party without having filed a valid petition for an election under Section 9 (c) of the Act within a reasonable period of time from the commencement of such picketing, the object of the picketing being to force or require Whitaker Paper Company to recognize and bargain with the Respondents as the representatives of its employees. The Respondents are not currently certified as the representatives of such employees. In their answer, the Respondents deny the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. On April 13, 1964, a hearing was held in this matter before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson. Subsequent to the hearing, but prior to the issuance of a decision herein by the Trial Examiner, the parties hereto, on May 18, 1964, jointly moved to transfer the proceedings directly to the Board, waiving therein the issuance of a decision by the Trial Examiner and agreeing therein that the entire record to be filed with the Board shall consist of the official transcript of proceed- ings before the Trial Examiner upon which the Board may make findings of fact and conclusions of law and- enter its order pursuant to the provisions of the Act. On May 22, 1964, at the direction of the Board, an order was issued granting this motion and transferring the cases to the Board. There- after, the Respondents, jointly, and the General Counsel filed briefs with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. Upon the basis of the parties' motion as granted by the Board, the entire record in this case, and the briefs, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Whitaker Paper Company is, and at all times material herein has been, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 570, ETC. 733 Ohio, with its office and place of business on East Saratoga Street, Baltimore, Maryland. During the course and conduct of its business operations , Whitaker annually receives goods and materials from points outside the State of Maryland which are valued in excess of $50,000 and annually ships products to points outside the State of Maryland which are valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondents do not deny, and we find, that Whitaker is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Warehouse Employees Union Local No. 570, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 355, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Whitaker, a subsidiary of Nation-Wide Paper, which is wholly owned by Champion Papers, Inc., distributes paper, paper products, and building materials in the Baltimore, Maryland area. The Com- pany had entered into a separate collective-bargaining agreement with each of the two Respondents for a number of years, although neither Union had been certified by the Board as a representative of the Company's employees. The last agreements between the parties ran from October 1, 1962, through September 30, 1963. Negotiations for new agreements were begun in August of 1963. The parties were not able to reach agreement with respect to wages and fringe benefits by the expiration date of the then-current contracts; and, therefore, on October 1, 1963, all of the Company's employees who were repre- sented by the two Unions struck. The parties agree, and we find, that the strike began as a result of their failure to reach agreements re- garding certain economic issues. On October 2, 1963, the Company began hiring permanent replace- ments for the striking employees. By October 8, 1963, 100 percent of the striking employees had been replaced. The parties met again on October 16, 1963, with a Federal Media- tor present. The Company informed the Respondents that there was nothing further to be discussed inasmuch as 100 percent of the strikers had been permanently replaced and, that, therefore, the Company had a good-faith doubt that the Respondents represented majorities of its employees in the appropriate units. The Federal mediator was unable to bring about any meeting of the minds; negotiations were then permanently terminated by the Company. 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD . Immediately thereafter, the Unions filed charges with the Regional Director alleging that the Company had refused to bargain in Viola- tion of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. The Regional Director found no evidence of a violation and dismissed the charges. The Unions then filed an appeal with the General Counsel who, on January 21, 1964, notified the Unions that he concurred in the Regional Director's refusal to issue a complaint. On January 24, 1964, with the picketing still in progress, the Company filed charges against the Respondents, alleging the viola- tions of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act, which are the subject hereof. CONCLUSIONS The issue presented here is whether or not picketing, lawfully com- menced and maintained during a strike by a recognized incumbent statutory representative in support of a collective-bargaining dispute with respect to economic issues, was converted to picketing for a recognitional objective within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C)• merely because the picketed company replaced the striking employees. The legislative history renders it apparent that a prime purpose for the enactment of Section 8(b) (7) (C) was' to deal with so-called "blackmail picketing."' The Board has found violations of this sec- tion in situations involving attempts by unions to coerce employer recognition by engaging in extended picketing rather than filing a valid petition for an election under Section 9 (c) of the Act. The matter here before us, however, does not present such a situation. On August 11, 1959, Congressman Griffin, while speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives regarding the various bills before the House which dealt with the subject matter of Section 8(b) (7) (C), stated: Blackmail organizational picketing is the weapon that is used most often and effectively by those who are corrupt in the union movement. At the outset, it should be clear that there is no provision in any of the bills which impairs or affects the right of organized employees to go on strike for better wages and working condi- tions-and to picket in connection with such a strike.2 In the instant case, the Respondents struck-in an attempt to better the wages,and working conditions of their members who were em- ployed by Whitaker. The picketing engaged in by members of Re- spondents has at all times been in connection with this strike. The Board has previously examined the intent of Congress in enacting. Section 8(b) (7) (C). In Building and Construction Trades 1 See, e g., II Leg. Hist. 994, 1182, 1518, 1523 , 1567, 1615, and 1630. 211 Leg. Hlst . 1567 - MARSHALL MAINTENANCE CORP. 735 Council of Santa Barbara County, AFL-CIO, et al. (Sullivan Elec- tric Company),3 we said : ... Thus, by attributing a bargaining objective to the Respond- ents' picketing and by resorting to a strictly literal construction of the statute, it is arguable that the picketing falls within Sec- tion 8(b) (7)'s prohibition against picketing to force an em- ployer "to recognize or bargain with, a labor organization as the representative of his employees." Nevertheless, after analyz- ing the overall Congressional purpose behind the enactment of this section,' we are convinced that the words "recognize or bar- gain" were not intended to be read as encompassing two separate and unrelated terms. Rather, we believe they were intended to proscribe picketing having as its target forcing or requiring an employer's initial acceptance of the union as the bargaining rep- resentative of his employees. [Emphasis supplied]. When viewed in this posture, it is clear that Sullivan had recognized and ex- tended bargaining rights to the Respondents long before the dis- puted picketing commenced here and that such picketing there- fore was not designed to attain those statutory objectives... . ' International Hod Carriers , etc., Local 840, AFL-CIO (Charles A. Blinne, d/b/a C. A. Blinne Construction Company ), 135 NLRB 1153. We are requested by the General Counsel to conclude that the Re- spondents' strike-admitted by all parties to be economic-became unlawful under Section 8(b) (7) (C) after the Company's replace- ment of its striking employees because the Unions thereafter failed to file a valid petition for an election in accordance with Section 9(c). We cannot agree, and do not find, that the former section was in- tended by Congress to encompass such a situation. Accordingly, we find that the Respondents have not violated Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the Act and shall order that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. [The Board dismissed the complaint.] 3146 NLRB 1086. Marshall Maintenance Corp. and Local 731, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 22-CA-1113. November 16, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On December 19, 1963, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding the Respondent had dis- 1145 NLRB 538. 149 NLRB No. 72.