Freight, Construction, Etc., Local 287

398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union , Local 287, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Grinnell Company of the Pacific. Case 20-CB-2056 June 16, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On January 13, 1970, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action , as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, the General Counsel filed a limited exception and a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision , and the Charging Party filed a brief, in effect, supporting the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 Trial Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, its officers, agents, and represen- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. ' Like the Trial Examiner we reject Respondent's contention that there was no violation of Section 8(b)( 1)(B) of the Act because Supervisor Downing did not possess authority to adjust grievances relating to con- tested work that he was performing , as the record establishes that he did make adjustments as to such work However , even assuming , arguendo, that he did not have specific authority as to his work , it is clear that he had the authority generally to represent the Employer in the adjustment of grievances, and that the Union's conduct in fining a supervisor who represents the Employer for purposes of bargaining or handling grievances restrains and coerces the Employer in its selection of a bargaining representative and violates Section 8 ( b)( I )(B) of the Act See Toledo Lo- cals Nos 15-P and 272 of the Lithographers and Photoengravers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO (The Toledo Blade Company , Inc ), 175 NLRB 1072 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE K. KENNEDY , Trial Examiner: This matter was heard in San Jose, California, on Oc- tober 21, 1969, based on a charge filed on July 10, 1969, and a complaint issued on August 22, 1969. The issue litigated was whether Respondent Union's conduct in disciplining a supervisor-union member for an alleged breach of his obligation to the Union because of a dispute growing out of the manner he performed his work on behalf of his Em- ployer violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein the Act.' Upon the entire record2 and my observation of the witnesses, and consideration of briefs filed by all parties, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER AND JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD The Employer and Charging Party is Grinnell Company of the Pacific, herein Grinnell, a Califor- nia corporation with an office and warehouse located in San Jose, California . Its business is wholesaling and distribution of metal pipes and fittings. During the past calendar year in the course of its business operations, Grinnell purchased and received at its warehouses in the State of California goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. Grinnell is, and at all times material has been, an Employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. ' In relevant part Section 8(b)( I )(B) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a union "to restrain or coerce an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjust- ment of grievances - Y The unopposed motion of the General Counsel to correct the transcript is granted and is attached hereto as Appendix A [omitted from publica- tion ] 183 NLRB No. 49 FREIGHT, CONSTRUCTION, ETC., LOCAL 287 399 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 287, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein Respondent Union or Respondent, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Events and Background The Respondent Union, since 1953, has been the representative of the warehouse employees and truckdrivers of Grinnell in its warehouse located in San Jose, California. The current collective-bar- gaining agreements covering the warehousemen and truckdrivers between Respondent Union and Grinnell contain union-security provisions requiring that the employees covered by the contract become members of the Union within 30 days following em- ployment. John Martin, a warehouseman, was union steward for both warehousemen and truckdrivers at all times material to the events giv- ing rise to this litigation. Thomas Downing, the individual about whom this dispute revolves, has a job classification of class A shipping clerk (in complete charge of warehouse). Downing has been a member of the Respondent Union since 1959 when he commenced working for Grinnell. Downing supervises about nine warehousemen and three truckdrivers. He has authority to hire and fire employees and transfer them from driving trucks to the warehouse. He spends approximately 70 percent of his time doing office work, 15 per- cent of the time directing the truckdrivers and warehousemen, and the balance working in the warehouse. come from McGuire. Presumably this would occur if the Union's representative insisted on a position contrary to the instructions Downing had received from McGuire. However, there was at least one occasion where Downing did make a decision to operate such equipment without consultation with McGuire. After the meeting of union members and employees on May 12 which will be alluded to below, Downing on his own initiative continued to operate certain equipment contrary to instructions from the union steward during such time as McGuire was ab- sent on vacation. Downing's position as the person in charge of the warehouse employees and truckdrivers was such that he operated as the employees' first contact with a representative of management in connection with problems concerning which the Union or the employees as individuals requested correction by management. For example, if there was a pay problem, Downing referred the employee to the ac- counting clerk; if there was a question of hours worked, Downing would go over the timecard with the employee. In the event Downing did not have the authority to alter Grinnell's position relative to a grievance he transmitted the grievance to Mc- Guire including such matters as requests for im- proved heating for the warehouse. At the initial stage, as a general proposition, Downing did not have independent authority to make concessions to the Union with respect to im- plementing the Union's position regarding the question of whether an employee was performing work properly belonging in a job classification. However, it is a fair inference that Downing had the authority to discuss such a type of grievance with a union representative and the grievance would end with Downing rather than going to McGuire if management's position reflected by Downing prevailed at this stage. Downing's Authority Relative to Grievances Central to the problem of resolving this matter is the question of Downing's authority to handle grievances. In his testimony Downing stated, "Any minor grievance, I handle myself. If I can't make a decision, then I go to Mr. McGuire." This in a general sense presents a fair picture of his authority to adjust grievances. Robert McGuire is Downing's supervisor. His title is branch manager. A further il- lustration of the nature and scope of Downing's authority to adjust grievances is found in his testimony where, in response to interrogation by Respondent's counsel, Downing claimed that he had authority to operate a lift truck. On further in- terrogation Downing conceded that he did not have the final authority to decide on the correctness of his contention and that the decision would have to The Nature of the Dispute The dispute in this matter was precipitated by the election of John Martin as union steward in April 1969.3 In the week after he became shop steward, Martin told Downing "we were going to make a union warehouse out of Grinnell Company." Mar- tin also arranged to have a meeting of the warehouse employees and truckdrivers of Grinnell together with Union Representative Cy Spottswood on May 12. All present were union members. Mar- tin was the principal spokesman. The purpose in calling the meeting, in addition to introducing him- self as a shop steward, was to acquaint the em- ployees with certain grievances to be presented for Grinnell's consideration. These were read at the meeting by Martin and subsequently were reduced to writing and were distributed to the various em- 3 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are 1969 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees. These proposals also were presented to McGuire and his labor relations consultant, Alex von Haften, at a subsequent meeting on May 28. An examination of the grievances reflects that a sig- nificant portion of the Union's concern was directed to Downing's performance of work outside his job classification.' After the grievances were read by Martin at the meeting of May 12, Downing stated he was under a direct order from his superior, Branch Manager McGuire, not to make any changes in the operation of the warehouse until McGuire returned from his vacation. According to Downing at this point, Union Busi- ness Representative Spottswood told him if he didn't put the proposals into effect he could be cited by the executive board of the Union. Downing reiterated he was under direct orders from Mc- Guire not to make any changes until McGuire returned from vacation. It seems probable that Downing was mistaken in believing Spottswood was pressing for Downing's immediate implementation of all the proposals made by Martin, since Martin at this same meeting ° These proposals are set forth in full in Appendix B attached hereto ° On May 27 Martin had told Downing he would be cited before the union executive board if he didn 't quit driving a forklift and other work the Union claimed he should not do Martin's charges against Downing are in- cluded in the following letter Mr Thomas Downing 16534 Shady View Lane Los Gatos, Calif 95030 Dear Sir and Brother Charges have been filed against you by Brother John F Martin, Shop Steward at Grinnell Company, for the following reasons- On May 12th, 1969, a meeting was called at the Grinnell Warehouse for all employees Cy Spottswood was also present At this time , Tom Downing was told by Cy and myself, to stop per- forming certain duties outside of his classification as a shipping clerk and working foreman He was told I Not to operate a lift truck 2 Not to work orders 3 Not to put stock away, etc Since this warning, Tom Downing has completely disregarded the Union 's wishes and has continued to perform such duties He has also allowed his Secretary to continue making out bills of lading and logging the U P S records This is his job as a shipping clerk and working foreman , not management's This man has made a mockery of the authorization of the Union . As a result of this, the employees have the impression that management can do anything they want to and that the Union can do nothing about it Tom Downing has been anti-union since his appointment to foreman five years ago During this period , he has been warned repeatedly by the Union to straighten out, but to no avail He continues day after day to mock the Union and what it represents His meager excuse is, that Mr McQuire , Manager, is paying him, not the Union. (s) Shop Steward John F Martin Grinnell Co Local #287 May 28th, 1969 A hearing date of Thursday , July 17th , 1969, has been set for you to appear before the Executive Board , at 8 00 P M , at the Teamsters explained to Downing he was only expected not to get on the truck or operate the crane until McGuire returned. After the meeting of May 12 the only changes made by Downing were with respect to his own work. He reduced the amount of time he spent in operating the equipment which the Union con- tended should be operated by employees with a dif- ferent job classification. Downing's compliance with the request of the union representatives was apparently insufficient from their standpoint. He was informed of charges filed against him by Martin in a letter dated May 28, 1969, with an attached page from Fred Hofmann, the secretary-treasurer of the Union, setting the date of July 17 for his hearing.' Downing received a second letter from Hofmann dated May 29 advising him the hearing had been rescheduled for June 12 because of the serious na- ture of the charges filed against him. The decision of the executive board in finding Downing guilty reflects that the dispute between Grinnell and the Union on one hand and Downing and the Union on the other centered on Downing's performing work outside his job classification.6 Hall, 1452 No 4th St., San Jose , California, on the above mentioned charges Article 27, Secs. IA,B,C,D, and E-"Charges and Trials" are covered under your Local Union By-Laws. Therefore, the Executive, Board requests that you appear on said charges on the date specified above Fraternally yours. /s/ Fred Hofmann Fred Hofmann Secretary-Treasurer ° The decision of the executive board is as follows. EXECUTIVE BOARD DECISION REGARDING THE CASE OF THOMAS DOWNING The case of Brother Thomas Downing, who appeared before the Ex- ecutive Board on June 12th , 1969 at 8 00 P.M , regarding charges filed against him by Shop Steward, John F Martin for violation of Union principles and doing work outside of his classification , where he was warned by the Shop Steward not to perform such duties-the Ex- ecutive Board heard this case , and notified the accused , the accusor and the witnesses present, that the Board would go thoroughly into the minutes and study this case At the Executive Board meeting held on Thursday , June 26th, 1969, after the Board studied these minutes of what was said between the ac- cused and the accusor [sic] and witnesses , where at no time did the ac- cused notify the officials of this Local Union or the Business Agent what his rights were under the contract , and that as far as he was con- cerned , that he was going to take Mr McGuire , the Manager's advice, and not the Union 's-the Executive Board finds Thomas Downing guilty of said specific charges as filed by Shop Steward , John F Mar- tin, and fine him the sum of $50 00 Said fine to be donatedd to some charitable organization EXECUTIVE BOARD TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL NO 287 TO-John F Martin Thomas Downing Cy Spottswood - B/A FREIGHT , CONSTRUCTION, ETC., LOCAL 287 When McGuire returned from his vacation he was requested by the Union to participate in a meeting with union representatives . On May 28 this meeting was held with McGuire and Grinnell's labor consultant, Alex von Haften, attending on be- half of Grinnell. Martin, Spottswood, and Union Business Agent Cancilla attended on behalf of the Union. At this meeting the proposals read by Mar- tin at the May 12 meeting were submitted as grievances to Grinnell's representatives . Most of the topics were taken under submission by Grinnell for further consideration. On July 9 Martin was warned by letter by Mc- Guire to cease interfering with Downing, and on July 10 Grinnell filed the unfair labor practice charge initiating this litigation. The charge claimed that the Union restrained and coerced Grinnell in its selection of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining and the adjustment of grievances. There was a grievance procedure available to either party to resolve the dispute over the scope of work to be performed by an employee in a given job classification. Discussion and Concluding Findings It is acknowledged by Respondent Union, in its brief, that the substance of the charges filed by Martin against Downing is that he had been per- forming work outside his classification . Respondent contends that the General Counsel's case would fail if Downing did not possess authority to adjust grievances relating to his performance of the con- tested work. This dispute can be considered on two bases: (1) Downing did not have authority to adjust grievances relating to his performance of the con- tested work. The question then posed would be whether a supervisor-union member with power to adjust grievances but not in relation to the matter in dispute between the union and the employer is a representative of the employer for the purpose of adjusting grievances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B). And, (2) Downing had discretion, if limited , to adjust grievances relating to the con- tested work. Here the question posed would be whether a supervisor-union member 's authority to adjust grievances of a minor nature relating to the matter in dispute between the union and the em- ployer makes him a representative of the employer for the purposes of adjusting grievances within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(B). The cases deciding this general question have made no distinction between (1) and (2). The prin- ciples derived from these cases which are set out below negate any contention that a factual situation fitting (1) is to be regarded any differently than a situation fitting(2). In any event, since Downing could make limited supervisory decisions relating to his job classifica- 401 tion (the subject of the dispute between Grinnell and the Union) both (1) and (2) are applicable to the case at hand. At this point it should be noted there are areas where it is manifest a union can discipline a super- visor-member without running afoul of Section 8(b)(1)(B). Situations falling within this area would be conduct by the supervisor-union member violating union rules where his conduct is not con- nected with his work on behalf of his employer. Ex- amples would be discipline for such matters as boisterous conduct at union meetings , disclosing confidential union matters not related to his work, and indeed any conduct inimical to the union and not necessary to advance the interests of his em- ployer in the course of his work. The Board recently has had several occasions to consider the general problem presented here. These cases provide principles whereby to judge whether the conduct of Respondent is proscribed by Section 8(b)(1)(B): San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, International Typographical Union (Northwest Publications, Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 252; Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P and 272, Lithographers (Toledo Blade Co.), 175 NLRB 1072; New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica (A. S. Horner, Inc.), 176 NLRB 795; New Mex- ico District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (A. S. Horner, Inc.), 177 NLRB 500; and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 49 (General Metal Products, Inc.), 178 NLRB 139. These cases are all addressed to the question of whether union discipline of a supervisor-union member for work-related activity coerces the em- ployer in his choice of a representative for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. The cited cases stand for the following propositions relating to the described question. 1. A respondent union cannot successfully de- fend an alleged violation of 8(b )( 1)(B) by claiming the applicability of the proviso in Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act which provides that the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of mem- bership shall not be impaired. San Francisco- Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, supra; Toledo Lo- cals Nos. 15-P & 272, supra; New Mexico District Council, 176 NLRB No. 105. 2. Exertion of pressure on an employer by disciplining a supervisor-union member for work- related activity is unlawful coercion of an employer in choosing his representatives for collective bar- gaining or adjustment of grievances. San Francisco- Oakland Mailers Union No. 18 , supra; Toledo Locals Nos. 15-P & 272, supra; New Mexico District Coun- cil, 177 NLRB 500. 3. A supervisor-union member need not have ex- plicit authority to adjust grievances if circum- stances of his work make him a logical or potential candidate for this activity. Toledo Locals 15-P & 272, supra. 402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. If the primary relationship affected is the one between the union involved and the employer, the conduct violates 8(b)(1)(B) even if the supervisor- union member is in violation of union regulations or rules with respect to his work-related activity. A dispute growing out of an interpretation of a union contract relating to scope of work to be performed by an employee in a given job classification is an example where the primary relationship affected is between the union and the employer rather than the union and the disciplined supervisor-union member. San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, supra; Toledo Locals 15-P & 272, supra. 5. The employer is entitled to have as his representative for the purpose of collective bargain- ing and the adjustment of grievances a supervisor- union member entirely free from threat of union discipline in connection with his activities on behalf of his employer. San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No. 18, supra; Toledo Locals 15-P & 272, supra. 6. It is sufficient to bring conduct of a union within the prohibitions of 8(b)(1)(B) if the authori- ty of the supervisor-union member to adjust grievances extends only to personal grievances of employees and not to grievances arising under a collective-bargaining agreement. Toledo Locals 15- P & 272, supra. 7. Execution of a collective-bargaining agree- ment, including supervisory job classifications and a requirement for union membership of such super- visors, does not constitute a waiver by the employer so as to preclude him from asserting a claim to be free from coercion in selecting a union member-su- pervisor as his representative within the meaning of 8(b)(1)(B). Toledo Locals 15-P & 272, supra: 8. In the context of a dispute between a union and an employer over the scope of a job classifica- tion the decision of a supervisor-union member to assign disputed work to himself is a supervisory act, and the discipline meted out by a union for such a decision is directed against the individual in the role of supervisor rather than the role of workman. Sheet Metal Workers, Local 49, supra. Application of the principles set forth to the case at hand produces the following findings. The Union cannot defend its disciplining Downing' by relying on the provision in Section 8(b)( I) (B) of the Act which provides that the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of mem- bership shall not be impaired. Respondent Union's disciplining of Downing because of a dispute over the question of whether he should operate certain equipment is unlawful coercion against Grinnell in that it prevents Grin- nell from being unfettered in the selection of its representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining or the adjustment of grievances. Downing's position as the supervisor in complete charge of the warehouse would be sufficient to qualify him as Grinnell's representative within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) even if he had not been given explicit authority to adjust grievances. Although Downing was fined by the Union, the primary dispute was between the Union and Grin- nell over the type of work to be performed by an individual in Downing's job classification. Grinnell is entitled to have as an employee in Downing's position a representative who is entirely free from coercion by the Union with respect to his activities and decisions made on behalf of Grinnell. Even though the grievances Downing adjusted or had authority to adjust were only personal grievances rather than those arising under the col- lective-bargaining agreement , Downing is still a representative of Grinnell for the purpose of adjust- ing grievances within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B). Grinnell did not waive the right to have Downing act as its uncoerced representative by executing a contract with the Union requiring Downing to be a union member. When Downing decided to operate and did in fact operate the forklift and crane after he was told not to do so by union representatives he was acting in a supervisory capacity on behalf of Grinnell and took action; i.e., "adjusted" a union grievance by restricting the type of work the Union claimed he should not perform. It may be added that whether Downing, in fact, was performing work outside of the scope of the job classification is not relevant in this proceeding nor is the question of whether, in fact, Downing was guilty as charged as he was found by the union executive board. What is relevant is that Respond- ent by its internal disciplinary procedure avoided the contractural procedures for settlement between the parties of a grievance. This not only con- travenes the Act but in a case such as this it eliminates at the initial, and perhaps critical stage, an unfettered management representative for the purpose of adjusting grievances. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent Union set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Grinnell described in section I, above, have a close relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. ' The fact that Downing had not paid the fine of $50 at the time of the hearing is of no significance here The element of coercion with respect to Downing's future decision in similar circumstances is obvious FREIGHT, CONSTRUCTION, ETC., LOCAL 287 403 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and Grinnell is an employer and Thomas Downing is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. 2. Grinnell is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By restraining and coercing Grinnell in the selection of its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances, Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated Sec- tion 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act it will be recommended that it cease and desist from restraining or coercing Grinnell in the manner charged herein. Addi- tionally it is found that the coercive effect herein can be removed only if Respondent Union is required to rescind its action in imposing the fine on Downing and to take the other action set forth herein .8 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Respond- ent, Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 287, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its of- ficers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from in any manner restrain- ing or coercing Grinnell Company of the Pacific in the selection of representatives chosen for the pur- poses of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Expunge all records or other evidence in their files of Respondent Union's proceedings in which Thomas Downing was fined by Respondent Union. (b) Advise said Thomas Downing in writing that the aforesaid action has been taken in connection with paragraph 2(a), above, and that the Respond- ent Union will cease and desist from the acts for- bidden in paragraph 1 of this Recommended Order: (c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix C."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by representatives of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upoh receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members and employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 20 signed copies of said notice for posting by Grinnell, if willing, in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being signed by the Respondent, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. to ° Grinnell requested a remedy including a requirement that Respondent mail copies of the notice to be posted to all employees in the "unit" at Grinnell 's warehouse The relatively small complement of warehouse em- ployees and the ability of Grinnell to post a notice in the warehouses makes the mailing of notices to individual employees superfluous and unnecessa- ry ° In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX B TEAMSTER LOCAL 287 CY SPOTTSWOOD JOHN F. MARTIN BUSINESS AGENT SHOP STEWARD PROPOSALS AND CHANGES PERTAINING TO GRINNELL COMPANY OF THE PACIFIC WAREHOUSE AND ITS EMPLOYEES. SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF A WORKING FOREMAN: (1) HE IS IN COMPLETE CHARGE OF THE WAREHOUSE. (2) HE IS A SHIPPING CLERK AND WILL FUNCTION AS ONE. (3) HE WILL NOT PERFORM JOBS OUTSIDE OF THIS CLASSIFICATION. (4) (A) HE WILL NOT OPERATE A LIFT TRUCK. ( 4) (B) HE WILL NOT OPERATE THE CRANE. 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 27 404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (4) (C) HE WILL NOT UNLOAD BOX CARS. ( 4) (D) HE WILL NOT WORK ORDERS. (4) (E) HE WILL NOT PUT STOCK AWAY. (4) (F) HE MAY ON OCCASION SERVE AT THE COUNTER. (4) (G) HE MAY CHECK AND PACK ORDERS FOR SHIPMENT. THE WAREHOUSE IS EQUIPPED WITH A BELL SYSTEM . EACH MAN HAS A SIGNAL OF RINGS TO ANSWER TO. WHEN THE FOREMAN WISHES TO ASSIGN A MAN TO A JOB, OR ISSUE ORDERS TO AN INDIVIDUAL, HE WILL SUMMON THAT MAN , BY RINGING HIS BELL. THE TRUCK DRIVERS WILL NOT OPERATE A LIFT TRUCK IN THE WAREHOUSE. THE TRUCK DRIVERS WILL BE PAID THEIR REGULAR WAGES WHEN THEY ARE WORKING IN THE WAREHOUSE. FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS SANDY LAWRENCE HAS PERFORMED HIS JOB AS A CRANE OPERATOR AND HAS ALSO WORKED IN THE WAREHOUSE PUTTING UP ORDERS AND DRIVING THE LIFT TRUCK. HE SHOULD BY THIS TIME BE ENTITLED TO A 10 CENT INCREASE PER HOUR FOR OPERATING A LIFT TRUCK. THE UNION WOULD APPRECIATE MANAGEMENT LOOKING INTO THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. STAN MORRIS HAS A CLASSIFICATION OF A HEAD COUNTERMAN AND THEREBY WILL NOT BE CALLED UPON TO WORK IN A BOX CAR. IF HE IS WORKING ON AN OVERTIME BASIS, THE FOREMAN MAY THEN ASSIGN HIM TO WORKING A BOX CAR. THERE ARE TWO ROLLING LADDER STANDS IN THE WAREHOUSE. THESE STANDS ARE OBSOLETE, AND DANGEROUS TO THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYEES. THE UNION RECOMMENDS THAT THESE STANDS BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS WAREHOUSE WOULD APPRECIATE IT, IF THE MANAGEMENT WOULD CONSIDER INSTALLING BETTER LIGHTING FACILITIES AND A SCATTERED HEATING SYSTEM IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE WAREHOUSE. STAN MORRIS, HEAD COUNTERMAN AND AL PETERSON, RECEIVING CLERK WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE A LIFT TRUCK UNLESS THEY RECEIVE COMPENSATION OF 10 CENTS PER HOUR ABOVE THEIR REGULAR WAGES. WHEN THE TRUCKS ARE LOADING OR UNLOADING ON AN OVERTIME SCHEDULE, A LIFT TRUCK OPERATOR WILL BE PRESENT. IF PIPE IS BEING LOADED OR UNLOADED A CRANE OPERATOR WILL BE PRESENT. MANAGEMENT HAS APPOINTED AL PETERSON TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE WAREHOUSE, WHEN THE FOREMAN IS NOT PRESENT. WHEN THE FOREMAN LEAVES THE WAREHOUSE FOR ANY REASON, HE WILL NOTIFY AL PETERSON, THAT HE IS LEAVING. WHEN THIS HAPPENS, AL PETERSON WILL BE PAID FOREMAN WAGES FOR THAT DAY. THE COMPANY MAY TRANSFER CLASS "A" STOCK OR ORDER CLERKS FROM DEPARTMENT TO DEPARTMENT. THE COMPANY WILL NOT TRANSFER MEN WITH SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS, SUCH AS, HEAD COUNTERMAN, RECEIVING CLERK, OR THE CRANE OPERATOR. APPENDIX C NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT fine or otherwise discipline Thomas Downing who has a classification of class A shipping clerk (in complete charge of the warehouse), or any other supervisor of Grinnell Company of the Pacific as a member of our Unions, for the conduct of any such member in the performance of his work in the employ of Grinnell Company of the Pacific while such member is selected by Grinnell Company of the Pacific as its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. WE WILL expunge all records or other evidence in our files of the proceedings in which Thomas Downing was fined by Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. FREIGHT, CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 287, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Gol- den Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-3197.