Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No.386

780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No. 386, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Valley Employers Asso- ciation, Floden-Button Co., Oakdale Poultry Company, San Joaquin Valley Turkey Growers Association, and E . S. Chris- toffersen, d/b/a Christoffersen Poultry, Egg & Feed Market and California Association of Employers. Case No. 2O-CE-18. May 24, 1965 PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER 1 On February 4, 1964, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order 2 in the above-entitled proceeding adopting, with two minor modifications, the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. By that Decision, the Board held that by entering into collective-bargaining contracts containing provisions banned by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, Respondent Teamsters, Respondent Valley Employers Association, and Respond- ent Employers (Floden-Button Co.; Oakdale Poultry Company; San Joaquin Valley Turkey Growers Association; and E. S. Christoffersen, d/b/a Christoffersen Poultry, Egg & Feed Market) had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act. One provision involved was section III of the contract, entitled "Sympathetic Strikes," which reads as follows: No employee covered by this agreement shall be subject to dis- ciplinary action by the Employer for refusing to cross a picket line established and approved by the Union. Nor shall employees be disciplined for refusal to receive and handle unfair goods after the Employer shall have been given forty-eight (48) hours notice by the Union of the character of the goods. The Union agrees that it will not approve a picket line unless such has been duly sanctioned by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Joint Council No. 38 or the Western Conference of Teamsters. As to that section, it was concluded that to the extent that the first and third sentences thereof "fail to limit their application to the pro- tected activities guaranteed in Section 13 or the proviso to Section 8 (b)," they were violative of Section 8 (e) of the Act. 'Any party may, within 20 days from the date hereof, file with the Board in Wash- ington, D C., seven copies of a statement setting forth exceptions to this Proposed Supplemental Decision and Order , together with seven copies of a brief in support of said exceptions and, immediately upon such filing, serve copies thereof on each of the other parties . Should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made, in writing, to the Board simultaneously with the state- ment of any exceptions filed, with proof of service on all other parties furnished with such request. 2145 NLRB 1475 152 NLRB No. 83. AMCO ELECTRIC 781 Acting on our own motion, the Board 3 has reexamined its Decision and Order herein, as well as the entire record. While we adhere to our finding that section III of the contract is proscribed by Section 8 (e) of the Act, we have decided to modify the basis for this finding. Since our Decision and Order in the instant matter, we have issued several decisions 4 involving contract clauses similar to section III herein. We held in those cases that insofar as a contract provides that no employee need cross any union authorized picket line, such clauses are violative of Section 8 (e) because their "broad scope can be read as applying to unlawful secondary picketing." 5 Upon reconsideration, we deem it appropriate to conform our holding in the present case with these decisions. Accordingly, we now find section III herein to be an illegal clause to the extent that it applies to unlawful secondary activity. In view of the foregoing, we shall modify the Decision previously issued herein to conform to this Supplemental Decision. In all other respects, the Board's Decision and Order shall remain unchanged. In determining that the Board's Decision shall be modified as set forth herein, we have considered whether or not the Respondent has been prejudiced. Because the Order previously issued herein remains unchanged, we have concluded that no prejudice has resulted. [The Board modified its Decision and Order issued on February 4, 1964.] 3 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 4 See, for example, Cement Masons Local Union No. 97, AFL-CIO (Interstate Em- ployers, Inc.), 149 NLRB 1127; Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council, at al. (Portofino Marina), 150 NLRB 1590; Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council (Couch Electric Company, Inc.), 151 NLRB 413. 5 Ibid. Amco Electric and Donald L. Crowe. Case No. 21-CA-6024. May 24,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On January 19, 1965, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the Respondent filed a brief in opposition to General Counsel's exceptions. 152 NLRB No. 86.