Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines

328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. L. Washum , an Individual Proprietorship d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines and Svensson Freight Lines, Inc. and Teamsters Local 104 and Teamsters Local 208, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America and Teamsters Local 104, Teamsters Local 208, and Teamsters Local 357, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 28-CA-1168 and 28-CA-1228 June 26, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On April 5, 1967, Trial Examiner Howard Meyers 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 Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision, and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief. 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 and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner except to the extent modified herein. 1. H. L. Washum, an Individual Proprietorship, d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines (LA-Yuma) and Svensson Freight Lines, Inc. (Svensson), are ' Respondents' exceptions are in large measure directed to the Trial Ex- aminer's credibility findings and general conduct of the hearing As a clear preponderance of the relevant evidence does not persuade us that the Trial Examiner's resolution of credibility issues was incorrect , we find insuffi- cient basis for disturbing his credibility findings, and other rulings, and his ultimate conclusion that Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3) ' The Trial Examiner inadvertently erred in dating Los Angeles-Yuma trucking companies owned by members of the Washum family. Both have their principal offices and share a terminal in Yuma, Arizona. LA-Yuma also maintains an independent facility in Los An- geles, California, and Svensson an independent ter- minal in Phoenix, Arizona. The parties stipulated, "for unit purposes" only, that LA-Yuma and Svensson constitute a single integrated business en- terprise within the meaning of the Act. In addition, there is substantial evidence that ownership, management, and control, including control of labor relations policy, are highly integrated. We agree with the Trial Examiner that for the purpose of this proceeding LA-Yuma and Svensson are a single employer within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Washum brothers acquired LA-Yuma in 1956, from Jim M. Clint. At that time LA-Yuma was a member of the Motor Truck Association of California (MTA), a nonprofit corporation com- posed of employers engaged in the trucking indus- try having terminals located within the State of California. MTA was incorporated for the purpose, among others, of representing its members in negotiating and administering collective-bargaining agreements with labor organizations representing the employees of those members who had executed powers of attorney appointing MTA to act as bar- gaining representative in their behalf. LA-Yuma had been a member of MTA since at least March 1949. Shortly after the acquisition, on September 26, 1956,2 LA-Yuma executed, through H. L. Washum, a power of attorney designating MTA to represent it for the purpose of bargaining collectively with Teamsters Locals 208 and 898. In 1956 MTA changed its corporate name to California Trucking Association (CTA). On October 21, 1963, LA- Yuma executed a power of attorney designating CTA to represent it for the purpose of bargaining collectively with Teamsters Local 224.3 From 1956 to February 1964, CTA, holding LA- Yuma's effective powers of attorney, acted as LA- Yuma's bargaining agent in all its labor contract negotiations . In 1961 eight employer associations, including CTA, entered into three collective-bar- gaining agreements with the Western Master Freight Division of the Western Conference of Freight Lines' original power of attorney to MTA as September 26, 1965, instead of September 26, 1956, the correct date. 3 Locals 208, 224, 357, and 898 represented certain of LA-Yuma's Los Angeles-based employees . Until January I, 1964, Local 898 also represented certain of LA-Yuma's and Svensson 's Yuma-based employees. Local 104 at all times here pertinent represented certain of Svensson's Phoenix-based employees After January 1, 1964, Local 104 represented certain LA-Yuma 's and Svensson 's Yuma-based employees 172 NLRB No. 40 LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 329 Teamsters covering the period July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964.4 The agreements were sub- ordinate to the Western State Master Agreement which contained the following provisions with re- gard to future negotiations: Article 26. National Agreements The parties to this Agreement accept the prin- ciple of a National Over-The-Road Agreement and a National Pickup and Delivery and City Cartage Agreement. Accordingly, the Em- ployers and the Unions which are the parties to this agreement shall, on written notice from the Union at least ninety (90) days before the termination date of this Agreement, enter into negotiations for the purpose of negotiating such National Agreements. However, nothing herein contained shall be construed as requir- ing any party hereto to be committed to a pol- icy of complete uniformity in all matters which are covered by such National Agreements. Article 27. Multi-Employer Unit The Employer, signatory hereto, agrees to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the attached Agreement, and also agrees to be bound by the interpretations and enforcement of the Agreement. The Employer further agrees to participate in joint negotiations of any modification or renewal of the Agreement and to become a part of the multi-employer unit set forth in the Agreement. In 1957 Donald Washum, the son of H. L. Washum , and two cousins, purchased all the capital stock of Svensson. In 1962 Donald Washum purchased his cousins ' shares and became president of the corporation . Svensson has never been a member of any multiemployer group and at all times has dealt directly with unions exercising ju- risdiction over its employees. In 1958 it concluded agreements with Locals 898 and 104 and on or about December 21, 1961, it signed the three agreements noted above. Those agreements were also subordinate to the master agreement contain- ing nationwide bargaining provisions. Machinery to implement the nationwide bargain- ing clause was set into motion by both sides in early 1963. Informal meetings were held between representatives of employer-associations and in- dividual employers and between the employers and union representatives. On June 12, 1963, Trucking Employers, Inc. (TEI), was incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri as the industry's vehi- cle for the imminent negotiations.5 On August 28, 1963, union representatives meeting in Washing- ton, D.C., adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of committees to conduct negotiations on an industrywide basis. On September 25, 1963, the Western Master Freight Division of the Western Conference of Teamsters notified the some 2,931 employer signatories to the 1961-64 bargaining agreements, including LA-Yuma and Svensson, of its desire to negotiate changes or revisions in the master agreement and all supplements and riders. Thereafter, TEI, through its member-employer as- sociations, and the Union, through its regional con- ferences, began the process of obtaining powers of attorney from the individual employers and local unions. On December 2, 1963, LA-Yuma, through H. L. Washum, executed two "Company Authorization to Represent" forms. The instru- ments, prepared by TEI, and adopted by CTA, em- powered CTA "and/or any other trucking employer groups or committee designated by the California Trucking Association to represent the undersigned in collective-bargaining negotiations incident to the provision of the above-named contracts and pur- suant to the reopening notices given under Article 26, 27 and 36 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement." Previously, on November 26, 1963, CTA had forwarded to TEI an "Association Authority to Represent" empowering TEI to represent it in the negotiations.6 Following several preliminary meetings, actual across-the-board negotiations commenced on December 10, 1963, in Chicago, Illinois, and con- tinued daily until December 18, when the sessions were recessed for the Christmas holidays. Negotia- tions were reconvened on January 2, 1964, and continued on until early in the morning of January 16, at which time the parties, in the presence of the two negotiating committees, signed a three-page Memorandum of Agreement embodying, subject to ratification by the TEI Executive Policy Commit- ' The agreements are entitled "Western States Master Freight Agree- ment," "Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab," and "Western States Area Pick-Up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers." At the time of the actual negotiations , TEI represented 27 employer as- sociations. 6 CTA kept its members informed of labor developments through its weekly publication of Caltrux . H L Washum acknowledged receiving the newsletter. 330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tee, the respective employer associations, the Unions' policy committee , and the local unions. The Memorandum of Agreement stated, among other things, that the parties agreed to all the terms and provisions of three written documents entitled: (1) "National Master Agreement covering Over- the-Road and Local Cartage Employees of Private, Common, Contract and Local Cartage Carriers for the period of February 1, 1964 to March 31, 1967," (2) "Memorandum Agreement of Amend- ment to Road Supplement for the period 1964-67," and (3) "Memorandum of Agreement of Amend- ments of Local Cartage Supplements for the period 1964-67." Each of these documents provided that "the parties shall have the right to correct errors, omissions , and ambiguities to make grammatical changes, and to rearrange articles and sections prior to final printing of the National Master Agree- ment and all supplements thereto." The Union's policy committee voted approval of the Memorandum of Agreement on the morning of January 16. TEI's policy committee approved it that afternoon. On January 24, 1964, representa- tives of all locals affiliated with the Western Con- ference met in San Francisco and voted approval of the Chicago agreements. Thereafter, the member- ship of the various locals in the Western Con- ference voted to accept the agreements. On April 30, 1964, the Union notified TEI officials that the National Freight Agreement had been ratified. On May 11, 1964, TEI acknowledged receipt of the ratification and informed the Union that the agree- ment had already been ratified by the TEI Execu- tive Committee.7 3. On September 23, 1963, the Teamsters Inter- national Union granted permission to effect a transfer of jurisdiction over certain members based in Yuma, Arizona, from Joint Council 42 to Joint Council 7 1. The transfer was to be effective Janua- ry 1, 1964. Of particular concern herein is the transfer of affected members of Local 898 to Local 104. By January 1, 1964, a majority of LA-Yuma and Svensson employees working out of Yuma had signed applications for transfers to, or for member- ship in, Local 104, and paid the required fees. At the same time, the Washums were notified of the transfer and informed that all future dealings would be handled by Local 104. In January 1964, and continuing through at least February 1964, Respon- dents (1) established a single seniority board for Yuma-based drivers, which included both LA- ' On March 16, 1964, the two negotiating teams and their respective ad- visory committees met again and accepted the verbiage prepared by the parties' respective legal counsel, who were instructed at the Chicago January 15-16 bargaining session to put certain agreed clauses into ac- ceptable legal language Yuma and Svensson drivers; (2) paid into the pen- sion and health and welfare trust funds the monthly payments called for under the 1961-64 contracts indicating that said payments were to be credited to the account of Local 104; and (3) forwarded said remittances to the Phoenix, Arizona, headquarters of the agency handling said payments for Local 104. During this period Respondents also deducted from wages of the employee-members of Local 104 dues owing Local 104 and forwarded the dues to the Local; complained to Local 104 over the misconduct of certain of its employees and sought Union Representative Jones' help in that regard; discussed with Jones the alleged unwarranted layoff of Bennie Fernandez; discussed with Jones grievances regarding the pay problems of certain employees; discussed with Jones an employee's va- cation grievance; and complained to Jones about A. J. Fletcher's misconduct and sought Jones' help with regard thereto. In January 1964, LA Yuma discharged employees Wayne Camp and A. J. Fletcher and laid off Bennie Fernandez. Notice that a grievance had been filed with regard to Camp was received by LA-Yuma on or about February 1. On February 2, Donald Washum wrote CTA requesting advice as to the validity of Local 104's jurisdiction over its Yuma- based drivers. On February 12, H. L. Washum met with William Dinnie, Jr., then a CTA labor rela- tions employee . Dinnie advised Washum that it was not necessary to deal with Local 104.11 Washum then requested that papers be drawn up to cancel his powers of attorney with Locals 898 and 224. Dinnie prepared the document , Washum signed it, and the same day CTA informed the locals of the cancellation . On April 23, 1964, LA-Yuma notified CTA of its cancellation of existing powers of attor- ney to deal with Locals 208 and 357 effective mid- night June 30, 1964. Neither the February nor the April cancellations were directed to LA-Yuma's December 2, 1963, powers of attorney authorizing CTA to enter into nationwide bargaining on its be- half. On February 17, 1964, representatives of Local 104 conferred with the Washums about the discharge of Camp and Fletcher and the layoff of Fernandez. The Washums informed them that CTA had advised them they need not recognize and deal with Local 104 and that LA-Yuma would not go through the grievance procedure with regard to the grievances the local had previously filed, or was " Shortly thereafter CTA informed LA-Yuma that Dinnie 's advice was erroneous and retracted it LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 331 about to file, on behalf of the above-named three men (although as noted above , Respondents up until that time had effectively recognized and bar- gained with that local ). On February 18, Local 104 wrote LA-Yuma and demanded that it recognize and bargain with it. Thereafter, Local 104 filed grievances on behalf of the discharged and/or laid- off employees, and also with regard to the refusal to recognize and bargain . On March 2, 1964, a hear- ing was held before the Area Joint Labor-Manage- ment Committee . The Committee sustained the Union 's contentions that the employees were dis- criminatorily discharged and/or laid off and directed LA-Yuma to recognize and deal with the Union. LA-Yuma refused to abide by the awards. The picket line at Yuma which was instituted on April 28, 1964, was withdrawn on May 12, 1965. On that date Local 104's attorney sent a telegram making an unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of all the Yuma-based strikers. The offer was refused on May 17. Subsequent to June 8, 1964 , strike settlement discussions between representatives of the Respon- dents and the Union were held in mid -June 1964 in San Francisco, in late June 1964 in Phoenix, in late August 1964 in Los Angeles, on October 26, 1964, in Yuma, and on November 7, 1964, in Van Nuys, California. None of the meetings produced results. The November 7 meeting was arranged as a result of a telephone conversation between Labor Con- sultant Pavone and Union Representative Gold- berger during which strike settlement terms were agreed upon . The meeting was then called to put the settlement in writing. By the credited testimony of Charles Hackler, attorney for the Union, the set- tlement collapsed almost immediately when Pavone refused to go through with terms arranged over the telephone and suggested they negotiate separate contracts for Respondent. 4. We agree with the Trial Examiner that LA- Yuma's attempted withdrawal from the multiem- ployer bargaining unit was untimely and ineffective. LA-Yuma's powers of attorney to CTA or its designee to conduct national negotiations on its be- half were executed on December 2, 1963. There is no question that H. L. Washum signed them with knowledge of their scope and import. Negotiations commenced on December 10, 1963, and concluded on January 16, 1964, with the signing of a final Memorandum of Agreement, an agreement within the definition of the Appalachian Shale case.9 The revocations of February 12, 1964, and April 23, 1964, were clearly untimely.1° Accordingly, we find that LA-Yuma, by virtue of its duly executed powers of attorney to CTA, and its failure to avail itself of the reopening and termination provisions of the 1961-64 agreements to which it was a party, was at all times material herein a party to, and bound by , the applicable 1964-67 bargaining agreements in question. We further find that Svensson, by virtue of the integration of its manage- ment control over operations , including labor rela- tions policy, with that of LA-Yuma and its failure to avail itself of the reopening and termination provisions of the applicable 1961-64 agreements to which it was a party, was also a party to , and bound by, the same 1964-67 bargaining agreements. 5. We also find that Respondents by (1) refusing to recognize or deal with the Teamsters Interna- tional, Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, as the collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees here involved on or after June 8, 1964; (2) repudiating and refusing to abide by the terms and conditions of the applicable 1961-64 collective- bargaining agreements in question on or after June 8, 1964 ; ( 3) refusing to process , pursuant to the ap- plicable 1961-64 and 1964-67 bargaining agree- ments, the grievances filed in behalf of certain discharged and/or laid-off employees after June 8, 1964; (4) refusing to abide by the awards made by the duly constituted grievance panels with respect to the aforesaid grievants ; ( 5) refusing to recognize and repudiating the applicable 1964-67 collective- bargaining agreements here in question ; and (6) refusing to recognize on and after June 8, 1964, the transfer of jurisdiction from Joint Council 42 to Joint Council 71, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In making such findings we are modifying the Trial Examiner 's findings by recognizing as viola- tions only that conduct occurring on or after June 8, 1964 , the applicable 10(b) date. In particular, we rely on the failure to process the June 16, 1964, grievances relating to the reinstatement of the Phoenix strikers , the failure to process the late June or early July 1964 grievances concerning the rein- statement of the Los Angeles strikers , and the November 7, 1964, settlement meeting which we find constituted an effective denial of Respondents' obligation to execute and abide by the 1964-67 contracts. 6. The Trial Examiner found that all strikers were entitled to reinstatement and all replacements subject to discharge , if necessary, to provide such reinstatement. With regard to the Phoenix strikers we are in agreement. The strike , an unfair labor 0 Appalachian Shale Products Co , 121 NLRB 1 160 10 Retail Associates , Inc., 120 NLRB 288, Sheridan Creations , Inc., 148 NLRB 1503, enfd . 357 F .2d 245 (C.A. 2) 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practice strike, commenced on June 8, 1964, and the strikers appear to have applied for reinstate- ment before they were replaced. Respondents con- tend, however, that the Los Angeles strikers were replaced by May 28, 1964 (prior to the 10(b) cu- toff date), and were notified on that date of their termination because of their refusal to report to work." Similarly, the situation with respect to the Yuma strikers is uncertain as it is unclear whether they were replaced, and, if so, when. As the record as it stands is unclear on these points, we shall leave the question of individual reinstatement rights for resolution at the compliance proceedings.12 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 as modified below and hereby orders that H. L. Washum, and Individual Proprietorship d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines and Svensson Freight Lines, Inc., Yuma and Phoenix, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California, shall take action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Paragraph 2(c) of the Recommended Order is amended to read as follows: "(c) Upon request of the Teamsters Interna- tional, the Western Conference of Teamsters and their affiliated locals including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, process grievances filed on or after June 8, 1964, and abide by arbitration awards heretofore or hereafter entered arising therefrom, under the collective -bargaining agreements in ef- fect from June 30, 1961, through March 31, 1967, in the units described above in paragraphs 1(a) and (c) . 91 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d) of the Recommended Order: "(d) Reinstate all strikers entitled to reinstate- ment under the Decision of the Board upon their unconditional offer to return to work with full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights, benefits, or privileges." 3. Delete paragraph 2(e) of the Recommended Order and reletter all succeeding paragraphs. 4. Paragraph 2(e) of the Recommended Order as relettered, is amended by the insertion of the fol- lowing before the word "make." "(e) Consistent with the Decision of the Board," 5. In the fifth indented paragraph of the notice delete following "WE WILL" the words "reinstate the strikers named below in the manner and to the degree set forth in the Section of the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision entitled, `The Remedy,' to their former or substantially equivalent positions," and insert therefor the words "in accordance with the Decision of the Board and subject to any supple- mentary proceedings that may be had in this case, reinstate the strikers named below to their former or substantially equivalent positions ...." " See Greenville Cotton Oil Company, 92 NLRB 1033. In connection with the strikers' reinstatement rights, see also The Laidlaw Corporation, 171 NLRB No 175 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HOWARD MYERS, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge jointly filed on December 8, 1964 (Case 28-CA-1168), by Teamsters Local 104 (herein called Local 104), and Teamsters Local 208 (herein called Local 208), each being affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica (herein called the Teamsters), and upon a charge jointly filed (Case 28-CA-1228) on May 13, 1965, by Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357 (herein called Local 357), affiliated with the Team- sters,' the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel' and the Board, through the Re- gional Director for Region 28 (Albuquerque, New Mexico), issued a second amended consolidated complaint," dated December 21, 1965, against H. L. Washum,4 an Individual Proprietorship d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines (herein called LA- Yuma) and Svensson Freight Lines, Inc. (herein called Svensson), _ alleging that LA-Yuma and Svensson have engaged in, and are engaging in, un- fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, the second amended con- solidated complaint, the amended order of con- solidation, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon LA-Yuma and Svensson and copies of ' Jointly, Locals 104, 208, 357, and the Teamsters are herein called the Unions. ' This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appear- ing at the hearing ' On December 21, 1965 , by authority of Sec 102 .33(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended , the aforementioned Regional Director issued an amended order consolidating the above-captioned cases. ' On the 14th day of the hearing , Mr. Tom Pavone withdrew his ap- pearance as Respondent 's representative. On the 16th day of the hearing, Charles S. Pizzo, Esq., entered his appearance as cocounsel for Respon- dent LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 333 the second amended consolidated complaint, amended order of consolidation , and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357.1 On January 4, 1966, LA-Yuma and Svensson each duly filed an answer denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged . In addition, the answer of LA-Yuma averred seven separate af- firmative defenses and Svensson 's answer averred eight separate affirmative defenses. Pursuant to due notice , a hearing was held on 35 days between January 5 and April 22, 1966, at Phoenix, Arizona, and at Los Angeles, California, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel who par- ticipated in the hearing . Full and complete opportu- nity was afforded the parties to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally on the record at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, and to file briefs on or before May 27, 1966.6 Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and from Respondent's counsel which have been carefully considered.7 Upon the basis of the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF LA-YUMA AND SVENSSON H. L. Washum, an Individual Proprietorship, d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines, with his principal offices and place of business in Yuma, Arizona, is, and during all times material was, en- gaged as a common carrier of freight to, between, and through various States of the United States. LA-Yuma besides its Yuma, Arizona, facilities operates various other terminals , warehouses, and places of business in Los Angeles, California, and elsewhere . During the 12-month period immediate- ly preceding the issuance of the second amended complaint herein , LA-Yuma derived gross revenue in excess of $50,000 from its interstate freight busi- ness . LA Yuma operates pursuant to an Interstate Commerce Commission permit and it is classified by that Commission as a class II carrier. Svensson Freight Lines , Inc., an Arizona corpora- tion , has its principal offices and place of business at Yuma, Arizona, where it is engaged as a com- mon carrier of freight and as a linkage of transpor- tation of freight to, between, and through various States of the United States. Svensson, besides its Yuma facilities, also operates a terminal, warehouse , and a place of business at Phoenix, Arizona. During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the second amended complaint herein, Svensson derived revenue in ex- cess of $50,000 from said operations, which were performed pursuant to contracts or arrangements with , and as agent for, various interstate common carriers. Svensson is an interstate carrier operating between Yuma and Phoenix, Arizona. Although it possesses no Interstate Commerce Commission per- mit it is, nevertheless , classified by that Commission as a class II carrier. At the hearing herein , the parties stipulated, "for unit purposes" only that LA-Yuma and Svensson now constitute, and during all times material con- stituted , a single intergrated business enterprise within the meaning of the Act. Based upon the entire record, including the above-mentioned all-party stipulation as well as the credited evidence, as more fully set forth infra, con- cerning the integration of control, management, labor relations policies, and the business operations of LA-Yuma and Svensson, the Trial Examiner finds that LA-Yuma and Svensson now constitute, and during all times material constituted , a single integrated business enterprise and, as such , it is, for the purpose of this proceeding, a single employer within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. California Trucking Association, herein called CTA, was at all times material, and still is, a non- profit California corporation composed of em- ployer-members in the trucking industry having freight terminals located within the State of Califor- nia. Since about 1956, CTA, whose membership con- sists of large and small trucking concerns engaged in interstate and intrastate operations, which do a combined annual business amounting to upwards of $1 million," has bargained collectively for those of its members who executed labor powers of attorney designating CTA as their collective-bargaining representative in all dealings with the bargaining representatives of the employees of those members, and has negotiated and entered into master collec- tive-bargaining agreements with the Teamsters In- ternational and its affiliated locals on behalf of ° Copies of the complaint in Case 28-CA- 1 168 were duly served on LA- Yuma, Svensson , Local 104, and Local 208 on January 29, 1965. The an- swers of LA-Yuma and Svensson were duly filed on March 30 , 1965. Cop- ies of the amended complaint in Cases 28-CA-1268 and 28-CA-1228 were duly served upon LA Yuma, Svensson , Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357 on October 8, 1965 s At request of counsel the time to file briefs was extended to August 8, 1966 Appended to the General Counsel 's brief were proposed Remedy, proposed Conclusions of Law, and proposed Recommended Order, and proposed notice These proposals are disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations hereinafter set forth r On July 28, 1966, the General Counsel filed a motion, together with a certificate attesting to the service of copies thereof upon counsel for Respondent and for the Unions , to correct certain inaccuracies appearing in the stenographic report of the hearing . The motion is hereby granted and the motion papers are received in evidence as Trial Examiner 's Exhibit 3 8 The record discloses that at least one CTA member's (Pacific Inter- mountain Express') annual business grosses more than $ 1 million In addi- tion, a good many of the members of CTA are interstate haulers 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD those employees for whom it acts as bargaining representative. At all times material LA-Yuma was a CTA member. On June 12, 1963, Trucking Employers, Inc., herein called TEI, was incorporated as a nonprofit organization under the laws of the State of Missou- ri. TEI came into being as a result of certain provi- sions contained in the 1961-64 area Over-The- Road Master Freight Agreement and the Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Agreements between the Teamsters International and certain of its affiliated locals, including Locals 104, 208, and 357, and certain employer-associa- tions and individual employers which provisions, among other things, provided for possible future bargaining negotiations on a national basis. One of the purposes of TEI, according to its arti- cles of incorporation, was to negotiate, enter into, and administer collective-bargaining agreements and to process any grievance arising thereunder, on behalf of its employer-association members and its individual members from whom it received powers of attorney to act on their behalf with the Team- sters International and its affiliated locals represent- ing the employees of the individual members and the employees of the members of the employer-as- sociation.9 Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, it is found, in line with established Board authority, that Respondent,"' TEI, and CTA are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and are en- gaged in, and during all times material were en- gaged in, businesses affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that their respective business operations meet the standards fixed by the Board for the assertion of ju- risdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called the Teamsters International ) and its affiliated Locals 104, 208, and 357 are labor or- ' The combined gross annual income of the members of TEI runs into many millions of dollars This finding is based on the fact that at least six TEI members have a gross annual income of more than $I million each Furthermore , most of TEI 's members are interstate haulers 10 Jointly , LA-Yuma and Svensson are herein called Respondent " Certain evidence was adduced at the hearing relating to events occur- ring more than 6 months before the filing and the service of the charge filed by Locals 104 and 208 Said evidence was received, not as a basis for any finding of unfair labor practices as such, but solely for such effect it might have in elucidating, evaluating, and explaining the character and quality of Respondent's alleged illegal conduct after the cutoff date (June 8, 1964). It is well settled that Section 10(b) of the Act allows consideration of related acts transpiring poor to the statutory limitation date for the purpose of throwing light on the specific conduct within the period in issue Local Lodge No 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO (Bryan Manufacturing Co ) v N LRB , 362 U S 41 1, N.L.R B v Sharples Chemi- cals, Inc , 209 F 2d 645 (C A 6), N L R B . v Clausen , Frednca, d/b/a Lu- zerne Hide & Tallow , 188 F 2d 439 (C A 3), N L. R.B v General Shoe Cor- ganizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act admitting to membership employees of Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion ; Refusal To Recognize and Honor Certain Signed Collective- Bargaining Agreements; and Refusal To Bargain Collectively" 1. Prefactory statement In 1956, H. L. Washum and his brother, Jim, purchased LA-Yuma from Jim M. Clint. By said purchase H. L. Washum and his brother acquired LA-Yuma's entire business operations and suc- ceeded to Clint's Interstate Commerce Commission permits. Thereafter and until Jim Washum died in 1961 or 1962, LA-Yuma was operated as a partner- ship composed of the two Washum brothers. Since Jim Washum's death, LA-Yuma has been con- ducted by H. L. Washum as sole proprietor. At the time of the acquisition of LA-Yuma by the Washum brothers, LA-Yuma was a member of the Motor Truck Association of California (herein called MTA), a nonprofit corporation composed of employers engaged in the trucking industry having terminals located within the State of California. MTA existed, in part, for the purpose of represent- ing its members in negotiating and administering collective-bargaining agreements with labor or- ganizations representing the employees of those members who had executed powers of attorney ap- pointing MTA to act as bargaining representative in their behalf. 12 The Washum brothers, at the time they acquired LA-Yuma, recognized and thereafter ratified and adopted the outstanding designations of MTA as the collective-bargaining representative of LA- Yuma in all dealings with Locals 898, 208, and 224. About 1956, MTA changed its corporate name to California Trucking Association (herein called CTA) and CTA, since the name change, has acted poration , 192 F 2d 504 (C A 6), Superior Engraving Company v N L R B., 183 F 2d (C A 7), N L R B. v White Construction and Engineering Co , Inc , 204 F .2d 950 (C.A 5), N.L R B v. Brown and Root, Inc., et al , [d/b/a Ozark Dam Constructors and Flippin Materials Co ], 203 F 2d 139 (C A 8), Banner Die Fixture Company, 109 NLRB 1401, Florida Telephone Corpora- tion , 88 NLRB 1429, Sun Oil Company, 89 NLRB 833 It is also well settled that to prove Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices it must be shown that the acts and conduct relied upon occurred within the permissi- ble 6-month period or extended into said period Joanna Cotton Mills Co v. N.L R B , 176 F.2d 749 (C.A 4), Stewart Warner Corp. v. N L R B., 194 F.2d 207 (C A. 4), Superior Engraving Company v. N L R B., supra, Universal Oil Products Company, 108 NLRB 68 " LA-Yuma's membership in MTA dates from at least March 1949, at which time Clint signed a power of attorney designating MTA its represen- tative in dealing with Teamsters Locals 898, 208 , and 224 regarding collec- tive bargaining . In 1951 and 1953 Clint executed similar MTA powers of attorney LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 335 as collective-bargaining representative for those of its members executing powers of attorney appoint- ing CTA to so act. CTA is, like MTA was, com- posed of large and small operators engaged in in- terstate and intrastate trucking businesses operating terminals in the State of California. Under date of September 26, 1965, LA-Yuma executed a power of attorney designating MTA to represent it for the purposes of collective bargain- ing with Teamsters Locals 208 and 898. Under date of October 21, 1963, LA-Yuma ex- ecuted a power of attorney designating CTA to represent it for the purpose of collective bargaining with Local 224. Said power of attorney reads, in part, as follows: The undersigned member of the California Trucking Association does hereby make, con- stitute and appoint the California Truck As- sociation , a non-profit corporation, its Attor- ney-in-Fact and Agent, with full and exclusive power and authority to act for and on behalf of the undersigned in all matters involving collec- tive bargaining with the authorized representa- tives of our employees covered under the fol- lowing wage agreements which have been so indicated by the initials of the undersigned op- posite the agreements. [There followed a listing of Teamsters locals in California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas.] * This supersedes all prior powers of attorney given by the undersigned to the California Trucking Association relating to collective bar- gaining with representatives of our employees in the above-named wage agreements.13 In 1957, Donald Washum (herein called Don Washum), the only son of H. L. Washum, and his two cousins , James Eldree Washum and Duane Washum, the sons of the late Jim Washum, purchased all of the capital stock of Svensson Freight Lines, Inc., from Jim Guss Svensson. A few months prior to Jim Washum 's death, Don Washum bought James Eldree Washum's and Duane Washum 's shares of the capital stock in Svensson. A portion of the purchase money was borrowed by Don Washum from a Yuma, Arizona, bank, the repayment of which was guaranteed by H. L. Washum. Under date of December 5, 1958 , James Eldree Washum , then president of Svensson , executed an instrument entitled, "Local Wage Trucking Agree- ment (Non-Association )," covering certain Svensson truckdrivers. The instrument was dated May 1, 1958, and, by its terms, expired on June 20, 1961, with a yearly renewal clause unless notice of termination was served 60 days prior to its expira- tion date, whereby Svensson agreed with Teamsters Local 898 that Local Wage Trucking Agreement was to be "supplemental to and controlled by the Labor Agreement dated May 1, 1958, entered into between the Employer and Local Union No. 898 ..." 14 and in full force and effect at the time James Eldree Washum executed the Local Wage Agreement. Also on or about December 5, 1958, James El- dree Washum executed, on behalf of Svensson, an "Agreement," dated December 5, 1958, covering certain Svensson truckdrivers, and by its terms said "Agreement" was due to expire on June 30, 1961, with a yearly renewal clause unless notice of ter- mination was served 60 days prior to its expiration date. By said instrument Svensson agreed with Local 104 that said "Agreement" was to be "sup- plemental to and controlled by the Over-The-Road Master Agreement dated September 18, 1958. Should any conflict arise between any provision of this Agreement and any provisions of the Over- The-Road Master Agreement,15 the provisions of the Over-The-Road Master Agreement shall prevail." In 1961, the Western Master Freight Division of the Western Conference of Teamsters, herein called Freight Division, for and on behalf of cer- tain of its affiliated locals, including Locals 104, 208, 224, 357, and 898, and eight employer- associations, including CTA, for and on behalf of their respective members entered into three col- lective-bargaining agreements. These agreements, each covering the period July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, are entitled, "Western States Master Freight Agreement," "Western States Area Over- The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab," and "Western States Area Pick-Up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers." On or about December 21, 1961, Don Washum executed, for and on behalf of Svensson, the three agreements mentioned immediately above. One of said agreements entitled, "Western States Area Master Freight Agreement Covering Employees of Private, Common and Contract Carriers," includes the following provisions: Article I. Parties to the Agreement Section 1 . Employer Covered The Employer consists of Associations, mem- " Except for the change of the designation to CTA instead of MTA the above-quoted power of attorney was the same as used by MTA. "The "Labor Agreement" here referred to is the May 1, 1958-June 30, 1961, Western States Area Over-The-Road Master Freight Agreement en- tered into by various employer-associations, including CTA, and various Teamsters Locals, including 898 The "Employer" in the aforesaid over- the-road agreement referred to the eight employer-associations who were signatories thereto " Referring to the 1958-61 Over-The-Road agreement mentioned im- mediately above 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bers of Associations who have given their powers of attorney to the Associations to ex- ecute this Agreement and Supplemental Agreements, members who have not given such powers of attorney and individual Em- ployers who became signatory to this Agree- ment and Supplemental Agreements as hereinafter set forth. The signatory Associa- tions enter into this Agreement and Supple- mental Agreements on behalf of their members under powers of attorney. Section 2. Union covered (a) The Union consists of those Local Unions above-named and any Local Union which may become a party to this Agreement and any Supplemental Agreement as hereinafter set forth. Such Local Unions are hereinafter designated as "Local Union." In addition to such Local Unions, the Western Master Freight Division is also a party to this agree- ment and the agreements supplemental hereto. Section 3. Transfer of Company Title or In- terest This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors, administrators, executors or assigns. * * * * * Article 3. Recognition and Hiring Section 1. Recognition The Employer recognizes and acknowledges that the Western Master Freight Division and the Local Unions are the exclusive representa- tives of all employees in the classifications of work covered by this Agreement for the pur- poses of collective bargaining as provided by the National Labor Relations Act. Article 25. Jurisdictional Coverage of Con- tracts Section 1. Jurisdictional Disputes In the event that any dispute should arise between any Local Unions party to this Agree- ment or between any Local Union, party to this Agreement, and any other Union, relating to jurisdiction over employees or operations covered by this Agreement, the Employer agrees to accept and comply with the decision or settlement of the Unions or Union Tribunals which have the authority to determine such dispute. The parties do not intend by this para- graph to take away the Employer's right to designate the home domicile or the place of work of his employees. * Article 36. Termination Clause Section 1. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from July 1, 1961, to and including June 30, 1964, and shall continue in full force and ef- fect from year to year thereafter unless written notice of desire to cancel or terminate the Agreement is served by either party upon the other at least sixty (60) days prior to date of expiration. Section 2. It is further provided that where no such can- cellation or termination notice is served and the parties desire to continue said Agreement but also desire to negotiate changes or revi- sions in this Agreement, either party may serve upon the other a notice, at least sixty (60) days prior to June 30, 1964, or June 30th of any subsequent contract year, advising that such party desires to continue this Agreement but also desires to revise or change terms or condi- tions of such Agreement. During the 1960-61 negotiations, discussions were had between representatives of the Teamsters International and the representatives of various em- ployer-associations regarding the feasibility of na- tional negotiated contracts instead of, as in the past, area contracts. As a result of these discus- sions, most of the contracts 1961-64 area Over- The-Road Master Freight Agreements and the Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Agreements,"' contained clauses reading as follows: Article 26. National Agreements The parties to this Agreement accept the prin- ciple of a National Over-The-Road Agreement and a National Pick-up and Delivery and City Cartage Agreement. Accordingly, the Em- ployers and the Unions which are the parties to this Agreement shall, on written notice from the Union at least ninety (90) days before the termination date of this Agreement, enter into negotiations for the purpose of negotiating such National Agreements. However, nothing herein contained shall be construed as requir- "The Central Pennsylvania , Western Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Upper New York State, the Carolinas, Southeastern , Southwestern, Central States, and the eleven Western States area agreements LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 337 ing any party hereto to be committed to a pol- icy of complete uniformity in all matters which are covered by such National Agreements. Article 27. Multi-Employer Unit The Employer , signatory hereto, agrees to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the attached Agreement , and also agrees to be bound by the interpretations and enforcement of the Agreement. The Employer further agrees to participate in joint negotiations of any modification or renewal of the Agreement and to become a part of the multi-employer unit set forth in the Agreement. In order to ascertain what the trucking industry desired to do with respect to the above-quoted clauses a series of meetings were held. Attending these meetings were representatives of employer- associations and individual employers . 17 Thus, in about February, March, or April 1963, about six trucking operators , including Mr. White of Con- solidated Freightways, Mr. Akers of Akers Motor Line of North Carolina, Mr. Powell of Yellow Transit of Kansas City, Missouri, and C . G. Zwin- gle, president of Pacific Intermountain Express, met with Hoffa in Kansas City, Missouri, and discussed informally the clauses of the 1961 -64 bargaining agreements regarding possible future nationwide agreements. As a result of the above informal meeting and other meetings of employers only, representatives of the trucking industry were invited by certain em- ployers to attend a meeting to be held in Chicago, Illinois, on April 24, 1963. At this meeting, which was attended by Zwingle as a CTA representative, were some 100 employers or representatives of trucking industry employer-associations . White, who chaired the meeting , stated that several weeks previously he and some other employers had an in- formal discussion with Hoffal" regarding negotiat- ing in the future on a national basis; that the em- ployers present had "no authority to represent any- body, that they were simply talking to him on an in- formal basis"; that Hoffa "indicated that [the Teamsters ] certainly expected to negotiate on" a national basis . At the conclusion of White's re- marks, discussion was had with respect to negotiat- ing on a national basis in the future . It was then de- cided to form a "corporation for the purpose of negotiating or trying to negotiate a contract." The representatives of the various employer-as- sociations present at the meeting referred to im- mediately above decided "to go back to their local membership and to decide whether they or whether their particular respective associations wanted to participate in national bargaining process." Under date of May 16, 1963, CTA wrote White, the chairman of the aforementioned meeting, that its executive committee , "acting on [the ] recom- mendation made by the CTA Labor Policy Com- mittee, adopted the resolution passed at the Chicago Meeting and have (sic) appointed [seven named persons ] CTA's representatives to the Ex- ecutive Policy Committee of Trucking Employers, Inc. "19 After receiving letters from about 20 to 25 in- dividual employers and employer-associations, similar in nature to CTA's May 16 letter, it became apparent to White and others that the trucking in- dustry as a whole was desirous of proceeding to bargain collectively with the Teamsters on a na- tional basis . Thus, Trucking Employers , Inc., was incorporated on June 12, 1963, under and by virtue of the General Not-for-Profit Corporation Act of the State of Missouri, as a nonprofit corporation. The purposes of TEI, as disclosed by its articles of incorporation , include: (a) To perform the functions of a trade as- sociation for persons , proprietorships, firms, partnerships, corporations, and other associa- tions and organizations engaged in the Motor Carrier Industry. (b) To conduct Collective Bargaining negotiations with labor organizations on behalf of Motor Carriers and/or Motor Carrier As- sociations. (c) To enter into and execute Collective Bargaining Agreements with labor organiza- tions on behalf of Motor Carriers and/or Motor Carrier Associations. (d) To administer and to interpret and to assist in the administration and interpretation of Collective Bargaining Agreements on behalf of Motor Carriers and/or Motor Carrier As- sociations. (e) To compile , exchange and distribute in- formation relating to labor relations matters. (f) To conduct research surveys and statisti- cal studies in furtherance of its permitted ac- tivities. (g) To cooperate with other Motor Carrier Associations and Organizations in a manner consistent with the powers herein contained. At the initial TEI membership meeting held in Chicago on July 9, 1963, bylaws were adopted by representatives of the 27 area groups which com- posed the TEI. The aforementioned bylaws, among other things, made provision for the establishment of an execu- 17 On one occasion James R. Hoffa, general president of the Teamsters International , was present. 18 This is the above-referred-to Kansas City meeting 19 Zwingle being one of those appointed 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 23 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tive policy committee (art. VI, sec. 2) and of a negotiating committee (art. VI, sec. 4) with authority to actively manage TEI's affairs. 2. The pertinent facts20 a. The appropriate units The second amended complaint, as amended at the hearing , alleged, and Respondent 's answer thereto denied , that ( 1) all Respondent's employees together with the employees of the members of the employer-associations here involved , who have authorized said associations which associations are signatories to the 1961-64 Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Sup- plement Agreement and the 1961-64 Western States Area Master Freight Agreement as well as the employees of the individual employers who are signatories to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Sup- plement Agreement (effective July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964), in the classifications set out in those agreements, exclusive of all other em- ployees, guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act; ( 2) all Respon- dent's employees together with the employees of the members of the employer -associations here in- volved, who have authorized said association, which associations are signatory to, as well as the employees of the individual employers who are signatory to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement (effective July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964), in the classifica- tions set out in said agreements , exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen , and super- visors as defined in the Act, now constitute, and during all times material constituted , a unit ap- propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act; (3) all Respondent 's employees, together with the em- ployees of the members of the employer-associa- tions herein involved , who have authorized said as- sociations , which associations are signatory to, as well as the employees of the individual employers signatory to the National Master Freight Agree- ment and the Area Supllemental Agreements, in- cluding the Western States Area Over-The-Road Motor Freight Supplemental Agreement (effective July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967); in the classifica- tions set out in said agreements , exclusive of all other employees, guards , watchmen , and super- visors as defined in the Act, now constitute, and during all times material constituted, a unit ap- propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act; and (4) all Respondent's employees together with the employees of the members of the employer-associa- tions here involved, who have authorized said as- sociations, which associations are signatory to, as well as the employees of the individual employers signatory to, the National Master Freight Agree- ment and the Area Supplemental Agreements, in- cluding the Western Area Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement (effective July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967), in the classifications set out in said agree- ments, exclusive of all other employees , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, now constitute , and during all times material con- stituted, a unit appropriate for the purpose of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. For almost a score of years, CTA, MTA, and a great many of the other employer-associations here involved, negotiated and entered into collective- bargaining agreements on a multiemployer basis with the Teamsters International, on behalf of cer- tain of its affiliated locals, including the locals here involved. Multiemployer bargaining , as a method of negotiating labor contracts among parties as- sociated in interest , was accepted long before the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935.21 The basis for the formation of multiemployer bargaining was then, as it is now, the mutual and voluntary consent of the parties involved.22 The language of the Wagner Act, however, left no provision for Board authorization of multiemployer units. Section 9(b) of that Act declared that the Board should deter- mine in each case whether an appropriate unit for collective bargaining should be "the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof"; no ex- press authority existed for determining units larger than "the employer unit." The Board, however, recognized at an early date that multiemployer bar- gaining was a familiar and constructive process in " In the light of the Trial Examiner 's observation of the conduct and de- portment at the hearing of all the persons who testified , and after a very careful scrutiny of the entire record , all of which has been carefully read and parts of which have been reread and rechecked several times, and being mindful of the contentions of the parties with respect to the credibili- ty problems here involved , of the fact that in many instances testimony was given regarding events which took place many, many months prior to the opening of the hearing , and of the fact that very strong feelings have been generated by the circumstances of this case , coupled with the fact that it would unnecessarily protract this necessarily long Decision to summarize all the testimony or to spell out fully the confusion and inconsistencies therein, the following is a composite picture of all the factual issues in- volved and the conclusions based thereon. The parties may be assured that in reaching all resolutions, findings , and conclusions, the record as a whole has been carefully considered , relevant cases have been studied; and each contention advanced has been weighed , even though not specifically discussed " See N L.R B v Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ,ca, AFL [Buffalo Linen Supply Co. ], 353 U S. 87, 94 " See, e.g., N L R B v. Sheridan Creations, Inc , 357 F.2d 245 (C A 2), cert. denied 385 U S 1005. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES certain situations, and should be permitted if the parties desired to bargain on that basis.23 Ac- cordingly the Board has continually determined multiemployer units appropriate for bargaining where, as here, the parties have mutually consented to bargain in such units ; conversely, in the absence of the consent of the parties, the Board has declined to find such units appropriate for bargain- ing.24 The Board's administrative practice of finding multiemployer units appropriate upon the mutual and voluntary consent of the parties was confirmed by Congress when it enacted the Taft-Hartley Amendments and by the Supreme Court in Buffalo Linen Supply Co., supra, 353 U.S. 87, 94-95. Upon the basis of the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner finds, contrary to Respondent's conten- tion, that (1) all employees of Respondent and of the employers who are members of the employer- associations , including CTA, who have authorized said employer-associations , which associations are signatory to, and the employees of all employers in- dividually signatory to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplement Agreement, each effective from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the classifications set out in said agreements, exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted during such period, a unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act with respect to grievances, labor disputes , rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (2) all employees of Respondent and of the members of the employer-associations, including CTA, who have authorized the employer- associations, which associations are signatory to, and the employees of all employers individually signatory to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement each effective from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the classifications set out in said agreements , exclusive of all other employees , guards, watchmen, and su- pervisors as defined in the Act, constituted, during said period a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (3) all em- ployees of Respondent and of the members of the employer-associations, including CTA, who have been authorized said employer-associations, which associations are signatory to, and the employees of the employees individually signatory to, the Na- 19 The earliest Board decision establishing a multiemployer bargaining unit was Shipowners' Association of The Pacific Coast, 7 NLRB 1002, 1024-25. 24 See, e.g., The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , Inc., 145 NLRB 339 tional Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Supplemental Agreements including the Western States Area Over-The-Road Motor Freight Supplemental Agreement each effective from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, in the clas- sifications set out in said agreements, exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and super- visors as defined in the Act, constituted a unit ap- propriate for collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em- ployment; and (4) all employees of Respondent and of the employer-members of the employer-associa- tions, including CTA, who have authorized said em- ployer-associations, which associations are signato- ry to, and the employees of the employers in- dividually signatory to, the National Master Freight Agreement and the Area Supplemental Agree- ments, including the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement each effective from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, in the classifications set out in said agreements, exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em- ployment. The Trial Examiner further finds that the four above-described units insure, and during all times material insured, the employees within said units the full benefit of the right to self-organization, to collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. b. The Unions' majority status in the appropriate units As found above, at the time of the acquisition of LA-Yuma in 1956, by H. L. Washum and his brother Jim, that concern was a member of MTA (predecessor of CTA), and that MTA was the holder of a duly authorized power of attorney to act on LA-Yuma's behalf in all matters pertaining to negotiating, entering into, and administrating col- lective-bargaining agreements with labor organiza- tions representing certain LA-Yuma employees, in- cluding those unions here involved. In addition, the Washum brothers at the time of their purchase of LA-Yuma ratified and adopted the power of attorney which Clint had executed on or about March 22, 1949, designating MTA collec- tive-bargaining representative of LA-Yuma in its dealings with the various Teamsters Locals 361, enfd in relevant part, 340 F 2d 690 (C A. 2), Texas Cartage Company, 122 NLRB 999; Andes Fruit Company, et al., 124 NLRB 781,783; Qual- ity Limestone Products, Inc, 153 NLRB 1009. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representing LA-Yuma's employees within the Teamsters jurisdictional area .25 In fact , the Washum brothers , at the time of its acquisition of LA-Yuma succeeded to, and thereafter worked under the then existing collective -bargaining contracts which had been entered into by MTA and the Teamsters Inter- national and the Western Conference of Teamsters. In the summer of 1961, after receiving valid writ- ten powers of attorney from all the locals constitut- ing the Western Conference of Teamsters ( herein called Western Conference )28 designating the Western Conference to represent the said locals in collective bargaining with the employers or the em- ployees represented by the constituent locals of the Western Conference, representatives of the Western Conference met and conferred with representatives of CTA and of seven other em- ployer-associations, of which eight associations had received valid written powers of attorney from cer- tain of their members to represent said members in collective bargaining with the various locals com- posing the Western Conference. Under date of September 15, 1961, a written col- lective-bargaining agreement was entered by and between the Western Conference on behalf of the members of the 103 or so locals of said conference and the members of the eight employer-associations who had authorized said associations to act on their behalf. 27 Under date of September 15, 1961, representa- tives of the Western Conference, pursuant to the authority vested in the Western Conference by the powers of attorney from its various constituent lo- cals, entered into another written agreement with the representatives of CTA and the seven em- ployer-associations , which agreement , by its terms, was effective from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, and is referred to herein as the 1961-64 Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man Sleeper Cab Agreement. Likewise under date of September 15, 1961, the aforesaid eight employer-associations and the Western Conference entered into a third agree- ment, effective July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, covering certain employees of certain mem- bers of said eight employer-associations. Said agreement is referred to herein as the 1961-64 Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Agreement.28 Under date of December 5, 1958, James Eldree Washum , on behalf of Svensson , executed an agree- ment, effective May 1, 1958, through June 30, 1961, with Local 104 which provided, among other things, that said agreement was "supplemental to and controlled by the Over-The-Road Master Agreement dated September 18, 1958 . Should any conflict arise between any provision of this Agree- ment and any of the provisions of the Over-The- Road Master Agreement the provisions" of the latter shall prevail.29 Under date of May 1, 1958, Donald Washum, on behalf of Svensson, entered in a "Local Wage Trucking Agreement," effective May 1, 1958, through June 30, 1961, with Local 898 which pro- vided, among other things , that said agreement was "supplemental to and controlled by the Local Agreement dated May 1, 1958."30 On August 27 and 28, 1963, pursuant to a writ- ten request from James R. Hoffa, the General Pre- sident of the Teamsters International, representa- tives of the Western Master Freight Division of the Western Conference of Teamsters (herein called Freight Division )," together with officers and/or representatives of each Joint Council of Teamsters affiliated with the Western Conference, and officers and/or representatives of each freight local of each council, met with Hoffa in Washington, D.C. There, discussion was had relative to negotiating agree- ments "covering over-the-road, city cartage and dock employees" on a national basis. As a result of the aforementioned discussion, a resolution was unanimously adopted which pro- vided, among other things, for the appointment of certain committees to conduct negotiations with the employers involved looking toward a new col- lective-bargaining contract on a national basis, on behalf of "all over-the-road , cartage, city cartage, dock [employees] and all other employees covered by" the then existing Pick-up and Delivery Agree- ments and the various supplements and riders thereto. Under the date of September 6, 1963, the Freight Division sent to each of its affiliated locals a copy of the resolution adopted at the aforesaid August 'b On or about August 17, 1953, Clint, on behalf of LA-Yuma, executed a power of attorney appointing MTA its representative "in all matters in- volving collective bargaining with the authorized representative of our em- ployees covered under the following wage agreement which have been so indicated by the initials opposite the agreements ." The locals so designated by Clint were 208, 898, and 224 A similar power of attorney was executed by Clint on behalf of LA-Yuma, on or about February 28,195 1. 2° Composed of Locals 208, 224, 898, and about 100 other locals. In fact, the Western Conference exercises jurisdiction over the I I western continental States, Hawaii , Alaska, and the three western provinces of Canada " Said contract, by its terms, was effective from July 1 , 1961, through June 30 , 1964, and is referred to herein as the 1961-64 Western States Area Master Agreement. " As found above, Svensson became a party to these three agreements in December 1961 " The aforementioned Over-The-Road master Agreement was executed by the representatives of the Western Conference on behalf of its con- stituent locals after said locals had duly authorized , in writing, the con- ference to act on its behalf with the employers of the locals ' membership in collective bargaining . CTA, along with numerous other employer -associa- tions, was a signatory to the agreement. "The above two 1958-61 agreements signed by Svensson were con- sidered by the parties thereof as being supplemental to, and, in fact, they were actually supplemental to, and part of, the above-described 1958-61 Western States Area Over-The-Road Master Freight Agreement and/or the above-described 1958-61 Western States Area Pick -up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Agreement. 31 The Freight Division is one of the several divisions of the Western Conference and is charged with the supervision and administration of all the Western States Area collective -bargaining agreements pertaining to shipment and handling of freight LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 341 27-28, 1963, Washington , D.C., meeting. In said letter there was enclosed a copy of said resolution. The latter set forth the procedure the locals were to take in order to properly and lawfully carry out the provisions of the resolution as well as the terms of the 1961-64 Western Master Freight Agreement relating to national agreements. Under date of September 10, the Western Con- ference sent to each local affiliated with the Freight Division a letter which set forth , among other things, the names of the individuals who would represent the Conference "on the National Over- the-Road and City Cartage Policy and Negotiating Committee."32 Enclosed in each letter was a copy of a proposed amended power of attorney which was to supersede the powers of attorney previously given to the Western Conference by its affiliated lo- cals. The letter stressed the fact that before the conference could legally act as the locals' agent in negotiations relative to a new contract with the em- ployers involved , the execution of a power of attor- ney such as proposed was necessary , but only after the membership of the respective locals had given its approval to execute such an amended power of attorney. On September 19, the Freight Division received the duly executed amended power of attorney from Local 104 ;35 on September 20, the Freight Division received the duly executed amended power of at- torney from Local 208;$4 on September 30, Freight Division received Local 357's duly executed amended power of attorney. Under date of October 15, 1963, the Freight Division forwarded to the Teamsters International's Washington , D.C., headquarters the names of its af- filiated locals which had submitted amended powers of attorney and the names of those locals which had not. Between December 10, 1963 , and January 10, 1964, the Teamsters Negotiating Committee handed to the TEI Negotiating Committee (the em- ployers' bargaining representative) three lists con- taining the names of the locals who had executed amended powers of attorney authorizing the Team- sters International to represent them in negotiating a bargaining contract on a national basis. At the same time a form copy of the amended power of at- torney was also submitted to TEI. Under date of October 28, 1963, TEI sent Hoffa copies of "Company Authorization to Represent" and "Association Authorization to Represent" which expressly authorized TEI to represent the signers thereof and/or the members of the em- ployer-associations associated with TEI for the pur- pose of collective bargaining with the Teamsters. Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Ex- aminer finds that at all times since July 1, 1961, the Unions have been, and still are, the duly designated representatives of the employees in the units hereinabove found appropriate. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner finds, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, that the Unions have been since July 1, 1961, and still are, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said units for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. B. The Events Immediately Prior to the Negotiations As found above, TEI was organized on June 12, 1963, due to the apparent desire of the trucking in- dustry throughout the continental United States, to bargain collectively on behalf of the employers designating it as their bargaining representative with the Teamsters International and certain stated affiliated locals on a nationwide basis.36 One of the first tasks undertaken by the TEI or- ganizers was to set up two committees; one the Ex- ecutive Policy Committee and the other the Labor Advisory Committee. The former was comprised of representatives from each of the 27 employer-as- sociations then associated with TEI. The number of representatives allowed each association was deter- mined by the number of persons its members em- ployed. Membership on the Labor Advisory was likewise determined by the number of persons employed by the members of the participating employer-associa- tions. Commencing in July 1963, the Executive Policy Committee and the Labor Advisory Committee met on various occasions to formulate plans preparatory to the forthcoming negotiations with the Teamsters. At these meetings two sets of powers of attorney were devised for employers to execute, designating TEI as their bargaining representative. One set was for members of employer-associations and the other was for nonmembers.31 Under date of October 3, 1963, TEI forwarded to all its association members samples of "Company Authorization to Represent" and "Association Authorization to Represent" forms which the afore- mentioned Executive Policy Committee had ap- proved on September 24, 1963. The covering letter, which accompanied said samples, reads in part as follows: The procedure recommended by the Labor Advisory Committee in connection with these forms is as follows: 32 This committee , created pursuant to the August 27-28 , 1963, resolu- tion, was composed often representatives and two alternates designated by the director of each of the four Teamsters Conferences " At special meetings of Local 104 held on September 14 and 15, 1963, the membership present unanimously approved the execution of said power of attorney. I At the September 15, 1963 , general membership meeting of Local 208 the membership authorized the execution of the amended power of attor- ney. 35 One list is headed "Western Master Freight Division ", another is headed , "Southern Conference ," and another headed "Central States." 38 None of the contracts referred to herein apply to Hawaii, Alaska, or Canada 37 CTA was represented on each of these committees 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company Authorizations on the above noted forms should be sought be [sic] each Association under procedure used in the past: Each employer should be urged to authorize at least one Association in each contract area in which the employer wishes to be represented; Authorization when obtained from the Employer would be retained by the As- sociation; The Association should submit the As- sociation Authorization to Represent to T.E.I. at the above address together with a copy of the Authorization Form sent to the Companies and an alphabetical listing of those from whom authorization has been obtained; Lists so submitted should be supplemented periodically. Company authorization may be simplified and expedited if you fill in all the blanks shown in parentheses on the Company Form before you reproduce and send them to your member- ship.38 The sample company authorization form reads in part as follows: The undersigned, signatory to (designate Con- tracts and their term) does hereby authorize the (insert name of State or Area Association) and/or any other trucking employer group or committee designated by the ( Insert name of State or Area Association) to represent the un- dersigned in collective bargaining negotiations incident to the provisions of (Insert both Na- tional and Termination Articles and specify the Contracts ) This authorization shall continue in full force and effect until written revocation hereof is made by Certified Mail.... The sample association form reads in part as fol- lows: The (insert name of State or Area Association) hereby authorizes , designates and appoints Trucking Employers, Inc. and its duly ap- pointed committees to represent the aforesaid (insert name of State or Area Association) and the Employers listed herewith in collective bar- gaining negotiations incident to Article and/or Article of " The purpose of the TEI's letter of October 3, was to ascertain the names of the associations and the names of the companies it was to represent prior to the commencement of negotiations with Teamsters In- ternational so The notarized list enclosed in this letter indicated under the caption "Western States Area Pick-up & Delivery, Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement" that 186 companies had authorized CTA to act on their be- and Article ofA copy of the Employer's form of AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT is attached. In the event of the revocation of such AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT by any Em- ployer the (State or Area Association) hereby agrees to immediately notify Trucking Em- ployers, Inc. in writing by Certified Mail.... Under date of November 22, 1963, CTA wrote TEI as follows: Enclosed are three lists of companies who have executed the "Authorization To Represent" forms covering Western States Area Over-the- Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemen- tal Agreement, Western States Area Pickup and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Wor- kers Supplemental Agreement and Joint Coun- cil of Teamsters No. 7 (Bay Area) Local Pickup and Delivery Agreements. Also enclosed are copies of the authorization forms which the carriers have executed in- dividually.S9 "Association Authorization To Represent" from California Trucking Association to Trucking Employers, Inc., will be forwarded to you, air mail, special delivery, on Monday, November 25. Under date of November 25, 1963, CTA sent TEI the following samples of the forms it was hav- ing its members sign: The California Trucking Association hereby authorizes, designates and appoints Trucking Employers, Inc. and its duly appointed com- mittees to represent the aforesaid California Trucking Association and the Employers listed herewith in collective bargaining negotiations (1) incident to Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agree- ment, effective July 1, 1961, and the Over-the- Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab and Pick- Up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Agreements supplemental thereto, ex- cepting therefrom negotiations concerning the following California specialized operations agreements: California Transport Tank Agreement Agriculture-Horticultural Transportation Supplement Livestock Wage Agreements Lumber & Forest Products Transportation Supplement half, another notarized list captioned "Western States Area Over-The- Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement" contains the names of 140 companies who apparently had authorized CTA to represent them , and the third notarized list contains 71 companies under the caption, "Local Pick-up and Delivery Agreements-Joint Council No. 7 (San Fran- cisco Bay Area ) Local Union Nos. 70, 85, 287, 315, 490, 912," who ap- parently had authorized CTA to represent them. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 343 Oilfield Equipment Wage Agreement- Teamster Local Union No. 87 Oilfield Equipment Wage Agreement- Teamster Local Unions Nos. 186, 208, 224, 235, 381, 467, 542, 692, 871, 898, 982. (2) negotiations incident to Article XXI of each of the following Local Pickup and Delivery Agreements, effective July 1, 1961: Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 70 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 85 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 287 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 315 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 490 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 624 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 890 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 912 Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Local 980 Copies of the Employer's Forms of AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT are attached. In the event of the revocation of such AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT by any Em- ployer the California Trucking Association hereby agrees to immediately notify Trucking Employers, Inc. in writing by certified mail. Under date of December 3, 1963, CTA wrote TEI as follows: Enclosed are three lists of companies who have executed the "Authorization To Represent" forms covering Western States Area Over-the- Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemen- tal Agreement, Western States Area Pickup and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Work- ers Supplemental Agreement and Joint Coun- cil of Teamsters No. 7 (Bay Area) Local Pickup and Delivery Agreements.40 These lists, dated December 3, 1963, cover ad- ditions to our original lists forwarded to you on November 22, 1963. Under date of December 30, 1963, CTA wrote TEI as follows: Attached are three lists of companies who have executed the "Authorization To Represent" forms covering Western States Area Over-the- Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemen- tal Agreement, Western States Area Pickup and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Work- ers Supplemental Agreement and Joint Coun- cil of Teamsters No. 7 (Bay Area) Local Pickup and Delivery Agreements. These lists, dated December 30, 1963, cover additions to our lists dated November 22 and December 3, 1963.41 Under date of September 10, 1963, the Western Conference of Teamsters wrote each affiliated local outlining the plans for the forthcoming bargaining negotiations on a national basis and advising said locals regarding the urgency of properly notifying the employers involved, the necessary governmen- tal agencies , and advising their members regarding the necessity of amending the powers of attorney designating the International to represent the locals at the forthcoming negotiations. Under date of September 11, 1963, the Freight Division wrote to all the locals who were parties to the 11 Western States Area Master Freight Agree- ment advising them "in order to comply with legal requirements it is necessary that you have your membership approve an amendment to your exist- ing power of attorney" which said locals had given the Freight Division in 1961. The letter then stated that the amended power of attorney must be adopted by the membership of the respective lo- cals, executed, and returned "to the Western Master Freight Division prior to October 15, 1963. Also any proposed amendments or additions to the [then] existing contracts should be mailed to the Western Master Freight Division office prior to Oc- tober 15, 1963." Enclosed in the letter referred to immediately above was a copy of the proposed power of attor- ney which reads, in part, as follows: That the undersigned, by virtue of authority vested in them by LOCAL UNION NO. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, do hereby constitute, make and ap- point the NATIONAL OVER-THE-ROAD and CITY CARTAGE POLICY AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, the true and lawful attorney-in-fact for said Local Union in its name, place and stead, granting unto said attorney-in-fact full and complete power and authority to negotiate for and in behalf of said Local Union, a collective bargaining agreement, or agreements, covering Over-the-Road and City Cartage Operations, and related work, as may now be covered by addendum, supplement or separate agreement, '0 The list captioned , " Local Pickup and Delivery Agreement-Joint Council 7;' contains the names of four companies , the fist captioned, "Western States Area Pickup and Delivery , Local Cartage," contains the names of four companies, and the list captioned "Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man," contains the names of two companies. 41 The list captioned, "Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man," contains the name of LA-Yuma and the names of six other compa- nies, the list captioned , "Western States Area Pickup & Delivery," con- tains the LA-Yuma and the names of four other companies , and the list captioned, "Local Pickup and Delivery Agreements-Joint Council No. 7," contains the names of two companies , but not LA-Yuma's. 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with Operators or Committees of Operators for whom said Local Union has members working as employees. Such Agreement may be na- tional, regional, or local in scope as such Na- tional Policy and Negotiating Committee may determine. Said attorney-in-fact is further given full power and authority to conclude such contracts, together with supplements or addenda thereto as fully and finally as if negotiated and ex- ecuted by duly authorized agents or officers of said Local Union; provided, however, that such contract shall not become binding and effec- tive upon the Local Unions and their members involved in such negotiations, until approved by a majority of the votes cast by members of the Local Unions covered by such contract as provided by the National Policy and Negotiat- ing Committee. Under date of September 13, 1963, Local 208 addressed a letter by certified mail to "L. A. Yuma & Phoenix 1819 S. Soto St., Los Angeles, Califor- nia,"42 reading as follows: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the NATIONAL OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY CARTAGE POLICY AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION of the WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, and the undersigned LOCAL UNION, as bargaining agents for the involved employees desire to negotiate changes or revi- sions in the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement, all Supplements and Riders for the contract period commencing July 1, 1964, and to enter into a National Agreement as provided in Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Area Master Agreement. If you will not be represented in such negotia- tions by any of the Employer Associations who are parties to the Area Agreement, and desire individual notice of the time and place of fu- ture negotiating meetings, please advise the of- fice of the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION of the WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, Flood Building, Room 605, 870 Market Street, San Francisco, California. Under date of September 17, 1963, the Freight Division sent each of its affiliated locals a copy of the resolution which was adopted at the Washing- ton, D.C., August 27-28, 1963, conference. In the covering letter, the locals were informed: In order to implement this Resolution and to carry out the provisions of Articles 26 and 27 of the [1961-64] Western States Area Master Freight Agreement relating to National Agree- ments and in order that the Employers parties to your Local Pick-Up and Delivery Agree- "The address of LA-Yuma's Los Angeles terminal facilities The original letter was produced by Respondent and Respondent 's counsel stated on the record that he presumed that the letter was received by the addressee in the regular course of the mails ment participate in the negotiations relating to a National Agreement, it is necessary that cer- tain notices of negotiations be immediately sent out43 by each Local Union to each As- sociation and to each Employer operating under the Master Freight Agreement and any of the Supplements or Riders and to each As- sociation and to each Employer operating under your Local Pick-Up and Delivery Agree- ment, regardless of whether your Employer is a member of an Association or not.... On certain dates between September 24 and December 4, 1963, the Freight Division wrote some 2,931 employers , among them being LA-Yuma and Svensson, all of whom were parties to the 1961-64 bargaining agreements here involved, either by being individual signatories thereto or by being represented by employer-associations who signed on their behalf as their duly authorized representa- tive , the following letter: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the NATIONAL OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY CARTAGE POLICY AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE and the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION Of THE WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS , as bargaining agents for the involved employees, desire to negotiate changes or revisions in the WESTERN STATES AREA MASTER FREIGHT AGREEMENT, all Supplements and Riders , for the contract period commencing July 1, 1964, and to enter into a National Agreement as provided in Arti- cles 26, 27 and 36 of the Area Master Agree- ment. If you will not be represented in such negotia- tions by any of the Employer Associations who are parties to the Area Agreement, and desire individual notice of the time and place of fu- ture negotiating meetings , please advise the of- fice of the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION OF THE WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, Flood Building , Room 605, 870 Market Street, San Francisco , California. Under date of September 25, 1963, the Freight Division wrote to LA-Yuma, at its Los Angeles, California , terminal facilities, as follows:44 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the NATIONAL OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY CARTAGE POLICY AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE and the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION Of THE WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, as bargaining agents for the involved employees , desire to negotiate changes or revisions in the WESTERN STATES AREA MASTER FREIGHT AGREEMENT, all Supplements and Riders, for the contract period commencing July 1, 1964, and to enter [ Fn 43 inadvertently omitted. I " The registered return receipt indicates that the letter was received by LA-Yuma on September 26, 1963 In any event, the letter was produced at the hearing by Respondent. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 345 into a , National Agreement as provided in Arti- cles 26, 27 and 36 of the Area Master Agree- ment. If you will not be represented in such negotia- tions by any of the Employer Associations who are parties to the Area Agreement, and desire individual notice of the time and place of fu- ture negotiating meetings, please advise the of- fice of the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION OF THE WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, Flood Building , Room 605, 870 Market Street, San Francisco , California. The same date, September 25, the Freight Divi- sion sent an identically worded letter to Svensson's Yuma, Arizona, terminal facilities.45 Under date of October 10, 1963, the Freight Division wrote to the various Federal and state mediation agencies involved as follows: YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE NATIONAL OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY CARTAGE POLICY AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE and the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION of the WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS are in dispute with the Employers whose names are attached hereto in connection with the negotiation of an OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR FREIGHT AGREEMENT and/or LOCAL CARTAGE AGREEMENT for the period commencing July 1, 1964. Under date of October 16, 1963, the Conference wrote to those affiliated locals which had not com- plied with the request of the Freight Division to im- mediately supply it with the locals' amended powers of attorney and the lists of names of the em- ployers and the employer-associations to whom the locals had written regarding the forthcoming bar- gaining negotiations on a national basis. While the Unions were securing the necessary authority to negotiate on a national basis with the employers, CTA was likewise engaged in securing the necessary employer authority. Thus, under date of September 19, 1963, CTA wrote all its members, Respondent among them, who had given CTA labor powers of attorney the following letter: Contract reopening notices under Articles 26 (National Agreements), 27 (Multi-Employer Unit), and 36 (Termination Clause) of the Western States Area Master Freight Agree- ment are being received by C.T.A. and in- dividual member companies. Labor power of attorney members need not acknowledge the notices or take any action upon their receipt. Anticipating some time ago that the Teamsters might well invoke the "National Agreement" clause (in most industry agreements nation- wide), and in order to be organized nationally to better cope with any eventuality, C.T.A. joined with other industry bargaining groups in forming Trucking Employers, Inc., which will represent the trucking industry in national negotiations. C.T.A. is actively and well represented on the Executive Policy, Administrative and Labor Advisory Committees of Trucking Employers, Inc. (See CALTRUX September 23 for list of C.T.A. )46 A Negotiating Committee has not been selected at present, however, such selection is on the agenda of the Executive Policy Commit- tee which will meet in Chicago next week. In order for Trucking Employers, Inc., to represent you in these national negotiations, C.T.A. will need further authorization from you. A form for this purpose is being prepared and will be sent to you within the next week or 10 days. Local California specialized agreements will be treated separately and your present labor power of attorney to the Association is sufficient for the negotiating of these specialized contracts and no further authorization will be necessary. You will be kept advised of developments as they occur at the national level. In the September 23, 1963, issue of Caltrux the following appeared:47 TEAMSTERS INVOKE "NATIONAL AGREEMENT" CLAUSE The question and doubt in the minds of many people since 1961 as to whether Hoffa would actually reopen the Agreements under Article 26 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement is no longer in doubt and the question is answered. Reopening notices under Articles 26 (Na- tional Agreements ), 27 (Multi-Employer Unit), and 36 (Termination Clause), are being received by CTA and individual member com- panies . Labor power of attorney members need take no action upon their receipt. Organizational structures are being or have been set up by both Employers and the Union. Representing the Trucking Industry in forthcoming national negotiations will be Trucking Employers, Inc., an organization "The registered return receipt indicates that the letter was received by Svensson on September 20, 1963. This letter was produced at the hearing by Respondent. w Caltrux is CTA's official house organ which is published weekly and mailed on Saturday to each CTA member 41H L Washum testified, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Respondent "periodically received a magazine or newsletter" called Caltrux which CTA distributed, that he read of some of the issues but had not read all of them . It is here significant to note that sometime in April 1964 , Respondent advertised the sale of Svensson 's business in Caltrux 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD formed by some 35 industry bargaining groups throughout the country, including CTA. Other Western groups participating include Washing- ton Motor Transport Association, Truck Operators League of Oregon, Intermountain Operators League (Utah-Idaho), Arizona Truck Operators League, Western Empire Operators Association (Colorado). Committees which will function within trucking Employers, Inc., include Executive Policy Committee, Administrative Committee, Labor Advisory Committee and Negotiating Committee. The Executive Policy Committee and Administrative Committee are composed of chief executive officers of companies. The Labor Advisory Committee includes labor rela- tions representatives of associations and in- dividual companies. The Negotiating Commit- tee has not been selected. Each state or area bargaining group is represented on the Execu- tive Policy Committee in relation to the number of employees of members of that bar- gaining group, subject to a maximum of seven on the Executive Policy Committee from any one group. California and Ohio are the only states with maximum representation. CTA representatives to the Executive Policy Committee are: C. R. "Dick" Hart, Shippers Express Co., Montebello; R. F. MacNally, California Motor Express, San Francisco; R. B. Meyers, Western Transportation Co., Los An- geles; Lee Sollenbarger, Transcon Lines, Los Angeles; Ward Walkup, Jr., Merchants Express of California, San Francisco; William G. White, Consolidated Freightways, Inc., Menlo Park; C. G. Zwingle, Pacific Intermountain Ex- press Co., Oakland. Representing CTA on the Administrative Committee are: R. F. Mac- Nally, Lee Sollenberger and W. G. White. (There is one other representative from the West on this Committee, Robert H. Cutler, Il- linois-California Express, El Paso, Texas.) CTA is represented on the Labor Advisory Committee by C. R. Christensen, Consolidated Freightways, Inc., Menlo Park; Allan B. Foy, Transcon Lines, Los Angeles; Paul W. James, Pacific Intermountain Express Co., Oakland; E. J. McCarthy and D. M. Slaybaugh, Califor- nia Trucking Association. The Executive Policy Committee and Labor Advisory Committee are scheduled to meet this week in Chicago. The Teamsters Union has announced the ap- pointment of a 40-man National Policy Com- mittee composed of 10 representatives from each of the four Conference Areas. Represen- tatives from the Western Conference of Team- sters to the National Policy Committee are: Harry Bath, Local Union No. 861, Denver, Colorado; George Cavano, Local Union No. 174, Seattle, Washington; Fred Hoffman, Local Union No. 287, San Jose; George King, Local Union No. 468, Oakland; Floyd Men- denhall, Local Union No. 81, Portland, Oregon; Ted Merrill, Local Union No. 692, Long Beach; George Rohrer, Local Union No. 137, Marysville; Gene Shepherd, Local Union No. 180, Los Angeles; B. M. Waggoner, Local Union No. 104, Phoenix, Arizona. From this 40-man Policy Committee the Teamsters' Na- tional Negotiating Committee will be selected. No dates have been set for commencing negotiations; however, it is believed they will start the latter part of October or early November. Under date of October 15, 1963, CTA sent the following:4' TO CTA LABOR POWER OF ATTORNEY MEMBERS UNDER- Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man & Sleeper Cab Supplement, Western States Area Pickup & Delivery, Local Cartage & Dock Workers Supplement As we informed you in bulletin dated Sep- tember 19 and Caltrux of September 23, con- tract reopening notices under Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement are being received and cover all agreements supplemental to the Master Agreement. Article 26 - National Agreements - provides in part as follows: The parties to this agreement accept the principle of a National Over-the-Road Agreement and a National Pickup and Delivery and City Cartage Agreement. Ac- cordingly, the Employers and the Unions which are parties to this Agreement shall, on written notice from the Union at least ninety (90) days before the termination date of this Agreement, enter into negotia- tions for the purpose of negotiating such National Agreements. However, certain specialized agreements have been excluded from the national negotiations and will be dealt with on a state or area basis. These are: California Transport Tank Agreement Agricultural-Horticultural Transportation Supplement Livestock Wage Agreements Lumber & Forest Products Transportation Supplement 's The letter and enclosures received by Respondent were produced at the hearing by Respondent . The enclosures consisted of two copies of TEl proposed "Company Authorization to Represent " power of attorney LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 347 Oilfield Equipment Wage Agreement- Teamster Local Union No. 87 Oilfield Equipment Wage Agreement- Teamster Local Unions Nos. 186, 208, 224, 235, 381, 467, 542, 692, 871, 898, 982. The Negotiating Committee selected by Trucking Employers , Inc., to represent the in- dustry in national negotiations consists of: C. G. Zwingle, Chairman, Pacific Intermoun- tain Express , Oakland, Calif. T. J. Bauer, Jr., Best Way of Indiana, Inc., Terre Haute, Ind. A. Ewing Greene, Mason & Dixon Lines, Kingsport, Tenn. Howard Miller, Baltimore & Pittsburg Mtr. Exp., Pittsburgh, Pa. Sidney Upshur, Lee Way Motor Freight System, Oklahoma City, Okla. The scope of the negotiations covering Over- the-Road and Pickup & Delivery and Local Cartage is, of course , undetermined , but at the initial meeting between the Negotiating Com- mittee selected by T.E.I. and the one selected by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters it is hoped that agreement may be reached on items of the contracts to be negotiated on the National basis , and what items, if any, will be left to local negotiations. "Authorization to Represent " forms for na- tional negotiations are enclosed herewith covering your operations under the Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplement, the Western States Area Pickup & Delivery, Local Cartage & Dock Workers Supplement, or both, depend- ing on authority given CTA under your present labor power of attorney. It is necessary that we receive the executed "Authorization" at the earliest possible date as we will have to advise the Union Negotiating Committee as to the companies who are represented. If for any reason your company does not wish to execute the "Authorization To Represent," you should advise us immediately and cancel your present labor power of attorney. Other- wise, you will be included in the bargaining unit and bound by the results of the national negotiation but without being represented. If you sign the enclosed "Authorization " it will not be necessary for you to take any other ac- tion or to acknowledge the Union's reopening notices. Under date of October 18, 1963, CTA sent the following:49 TO CTA LABOR POWER OF ATTORNEY MEMBERS UNDER- WESTERN STATES AREA OVER -THE-ROAD SINGLE MAN & SLEEPER CAB SUPPLEMENT WESTERN STATES AREA PICKUP & DELIVERY, LOCAL CARTAGE & DOCK WORKERS SUPPLEMENT A few days ago we sent out forms of "Authorization To Represent" for national negotiations with the Teamsters Union. One covered the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and Over-the-Road Supple- ment; the other covered the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and Pickup & Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplement. You received one or both of those forms , because you are a party to the Master Freight Agreement and one or both of those supplements. In our letter of transmittal of those forms of authorization we said that if you do not wish to sign the authorization for national negotiations you should advise us immediately and cancel your present labor power of attorney. This letter deals more fully with that subject. As a party to the Master Freight Agreement you are in the multi-employer bargaining unit created by that agreement. Notices of opening of the Master Agreement for the negotiation of a new agreement, and supplements thereto, have been given to CTA by the Union. As you have been informed by our earlier bulletins, CTA and other employer associations have set up a national negotiating committee . You will be included in the employer bargaining unit when those national negotiations commence, unless you withdraw from that bargaining unit completely. We have been informed that national negotiations covering the Over-the-Road and Pickup & Delivery and Local Cartage may commence very soon . If you do not wish to be bound by those negotiations you must withdraw from the employer bargaining unit that will be conducting those negotiations. If that is your wish you must act immediately by giving us notice of unconditional cancellation of your labor power of attorney relating to all Teamster agreements. Such cancellation will constitute your withdrawal from the employer bargaining unit and we will so notify the Union. As far as general commodity over-the-road and pickup and delivery and local cartage operations are concerned there is no possibility that any agreements will be negotiated dif- ferent from those resulting from the national negotiations. 4' The copy received by Respondent was produced at the hearing by Respondent 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As explained in our bulletin of October 15 the following specialized agreements have been excluded from the national negotiations and will be negotiated on a state or area basis: California Transport Tank Agreement Agricultural-Horticultural Transportation Supplement Livestock Wage Agreements Lumber & Forest Products Transportation Supplement Oilfield Equipment Wage Agreement- Teamster Local No. 87 Oilfield Equipment Wage Agreement- Teamster Locals Nos. 186, 208, 224, 235, 381, 467, 542, 692, 871, 898, 982. Some carriers hope that agreements cover- ing other types of specialized operations can be negotiated in California, but it is impossible to determine now whether that can be done. If you wish to remain in the employer bar- gaining unit for the national negotiations covering the over-the-road and pickup and delivery and local cartage operations you should sign and return the authorizations sent to you with our bulletin of October 15. If not, you should cancel your power of attorney in the manner indicated above. Under date of October 21, 1963, H. L. Washum executed and delivered to CTA a power of attorney reading as follows: The undersigned member of the California! Trucking Association does hereby make, con- stitute and appoint the California Trucking As- sociation, a non-profit corporation , its Attor- ney-in-Fact and Agent, with full and exclusive power and authority to act for and on behalf of the undersigned in all matters involving collec- tive bargaining with the authorized representa- tives of our employees covered under the fol- lowing wage agreements which have been so indicated by the initials of the undersigned op- posite the agreement. * * * [There followed a listing of Labor Locals in California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas] This supercedes all prior powers of attorney given by the undersigned to the California Trucking Association relating to collective bar- gaining with representatives of our employees in the above-named wage agreements. The above-quoted power of attorney was ini- tialed by H. L. Washum in the blank space opposite "Teamsters Local Union No. 224 Line Wage Agreement." This power of attorney is substantially the same as the one Respondent, by H. L. Washum, executed and delivered to MTA under date of Sep- tember 26 , 1956, and that thereon Washum had in- itialed the blank spaces opposite "Teamster Local Union No. 898 Line Wage Agreement Local Wage Agreement"; and "Teamster Local Union 208 Local Wage Agreement." On October 22, 1963, representatives of TEI met with representatives of the Teamsters International and its affiliates . At this meeting a decision was reached as to where the collective-bargaining negotiations were to take place , the size of the negotiation committees , the area the Teamsters would represent and the area TEI would represent, and such similar matters. Under date of November 1, 1963, CTA sent the following: TO CTA LABOR POWER OF ATTORNEY MEMBERS UNDER - WESTERN STATES AREA OVER-THE-ROAD SINGLE MAN & SLEEPER CAB SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT and PICKUP & DELIVERY, LOCAL CARTAGE & DOCK WORKERS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT We advised you by certified mail under dates of October 15 and October 18 concerning the national negotiations and the steps which you as a carrier , working under the above agree- ments, should take either to affiliate with the industry in these national negotiations or, if such is not your wish, unconditional cancella- tion of your labor power of attorney relating to all Teamster agreements must be given to CTA immediately. The "Authorization To Represent" forms covering both the Western States Area Over- the-Road Single Man & Sleeper Cab Supple- mental Agreement and Western States Area Pickup & Delivery, Local Cartage & Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement were sent to you with our bulletin of October 15. "Authorization To Represent" forms have been received from over 200 carriers who desire to be represented in these national negotiations. We have not heard from your com- pany, however, and will appreciate receiving the executed authorization at the earliest possi- ble date; or the cancellation of your labor power of attorney in the manner indicated in our October 18 bulletin. Under date of November 2, 1963, CTA wrote a letter addressed jointly to Local 224 and the Freight Division, with copies purportedly sent to LA-Yuma and others, reading as follows: Please be advised that LOS ANGELES-YUMA LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 349 FREIGHT LINES , PO BOX 1428, YUMA, ARIZONA, has amended its labor power of at- torney to the California Trucking Association to include the following agreement: Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man & Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agree- ment. We will appreciate your acknowledgement of the above. In the November 11, 1963 , issue of Caltrux the following appeared: LABOR NATIONAL LABOR PICTURE The International Brotherhood of Teamsters National Policy Committee met in Washington, D.C. last week to finalize their position relative to the proposals which would be submitted to the trucking industry in coming negotiations. Following the Policy Committee Meeting, Mr. Hoffa held a press conference wherein he stated that the union 's proposals ( demands) were to be mailed last week . As of press time Caltrux had not received these proposals. During his press conference , Hoffa outlined, in part, what the union proposals would con- tain, including demands on economic matters that were so exorbitant that Hoffa himself con- ceded that the trucking industry could not meet his demands without raising shipping rates. Hoffa also conceded that he didn't ex- pect the industry to "buy his entire package" and on this point he is certainly correct. Indications were that the contract proposals would be sent to some 16,000 individual com- panies throughout the United States. Whether this will actually be done is , of course known at this time ; however, if such is not the case CTA will see that all labor power of attorney mem- bers receive copies of the union's initial proposals. There is still no date set for the industry and union representatives to commence negotia- tions . It had been anticipated that Hoffa's ap- peal to the U.S. Supreme Court for a change of venue on the Nashville trial would have been acted on by this time . Such is not the case and the appeal is still pending before the body; however, it is conceivable that the opening bargaining sessions could commence the latter part of this month or early next month. You will be advised immediately of develop- ments. In the November 18, 1963, issue of Caltrux the following appeared: LABOR NATIONAL LABOR PICTURE Demands for the next three year contract announced by Teamster President James R. Hoffa were submitted to the Trucking Em- ployers Negotiating Committee a week ago. Contrary to Hoffa's statement, as reported in the newspapers, the demands were not mailed to trucking firms throughout the country. The newspaper stories reporting Hoffa's an- nouncement have given the general terms of the demands but they have been confusing. The fact is, the draft of the demands as sub- mitted to the Employer Committee is far from clear. The wage and fringe benefit proposals are all based on the present Central States con- tracts. Many items in those contracts are not identical with corresponding items in the Western States contracts, although often are substantially the same. It will be impossible to tell exactly what the demands are until they are explained in detail to the Employer Negotiat- ing Committee. The substance of the money items of the demands appears to be about as follows: 1. Wage Rates. 15 [cents] per hour (or equivalent mileage rate) increase for each year of the three year contract term, plus an addi- tional two cents per hour in local pickup and delivery and cartage rates for the second and third years in areas now on the Central States base rate. 2. Holidays. Two additional holidays where contracts provide only six now. This apparently would not affect areas now having eight holidays, as in the Western States. 3. Health and Welfare. One dollar per week increase for each of the three years. One dollar per week is equivalent to about $4.25 per month. The Central States health and welfare contribution is now somewhat less than it is in the Western States. In addition to the regular health and welfare payments, the Union proposes a 10 [cents] per hour contribution to provide for dental and eye care. 4. Pensions. One dollar per week increase for each of the three years. The Central States pension contribution is now $6.00 per week- the same as in the Western States. 5. Vacations. Six days after one year, 12 days after three years, 18 days after 10 years and 24 days after 15 years. This would shorten the present qualifying period of 11 years to 10 and the present 18 years to 15. In the Western States the vacation provision is one week after one year, two weeks after three years, three weeks after 11 years, four weeks after 18 years. 6. Casuals. 10 [cents] per hour, or one- quarter cent per mile in lieu of fringes is proposed for casuals not on the seniority list. Apparently the fringes intended in this proposal are holidays and vacations, and do not include health and welfare and pension contributions. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Other items in the demands, such as provi- sions concerning the use of piggyback, are too indefinite and uncertain to permit a summary at this time. The Labor Advisory Committee of Trucking Employers, Inc., met last week in Chicago for a preliminary consideration of the demands. The Negotiating Committee, headed by C. G. Zwin- gle of Pacific Intermountain Express Co., Oakland, also met last Friday to consider negotiating plans, but no announcement was made of the date for the start of negotiations. Indications point to a possible starting date early in December. Authorizations for representation in the na- tional negotiations should have been forwarded to the Association by this time. Lists of carriers submitting authorizations will be prepared and submitted to the Trucking Employers, Inc. of- fice next week. Any members of CTA who have not yet mailed in their authorizations should do so immediately. In the November 25, 1963, issue of Caltrux the following appeared: NATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS "Authorization to Represent" "Authorizations to represent" have been for- warded by CTA to Trucking Employers, Inc., Washington , D.C., covering 284 companies who will be represented in the national negotiations for Over-the-Road and Local Cartage Agreements. Not included in this figure are those "authorizations to represent" which CTA holds on behalf of carriers covered under the specialized agreements (California Transport Tank Agreement ; Agricultural-Horticultural Transportation Supplement ; Livestock Wage Agreements; Lumber and Forest Products Transportation Supplement; Oilfield Equip- ment Wage Agreement-Teamsters Local Union No. 87; Oilfield Wage Agreement- Teamsters Local Union Nos. 186, 208, 224, 235, 381 , 467, 542, 692, 871 , 898, and 982). As previously advised these specialized agreements have been excluded from the na- tional negotiations. In the December 2, 1963, issue of Caltrux the following appeared: LABOR NATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS IMMINENT Arrangements and plans are being finalized for commencing national negotiations, and these plans will be completed this week. Trucking Employers, Inc., Advisory Com- mittee met in Chicago yesterday, Sunday, December 1, and will meet with the Trucking Employers, Inc. Negotiating Committee. The Executive Policy Committee will meet jointly with the Advisory Committee and Negotiating Committee on Tuesday of this week, when a final determination as to the time and place for the commencing of negotia- tions will be made. California will be represented at these meetings by its delegations to both the Adviso- ry and Policy Committees. CTA members will be kept advised of the proceedings as they develop. NATIONAL LABOR PICTURE As reported in the November 18 issue of Caltrux, proposals for the next three-year con- tracts have been submitted to the Trucking Employers, Inc. Negotiating Committee, and it is expected that CTA members will begin receiving copies of these proposals covering National Over-the-Road and National Local Agreements this week. These proposals are predicated on the Central States Agreement, and copies of these agreements are to be in- cluded for reference. These proposals are being mailed by the Western Master Freight Division of the Western Conference of Team- sters, along with a notice of the time, date, and place for the commencing of negotiations. CTA members who have forwarded to the Association "Authorization to Represent" forms covering Over-the-Road and Local Cartage Agreements need take no action upon receipt of the notice as they will be represented in these negotiations by Trucking Employers, Inc. Respondent, by H. L. Washum, executed two "Company Authorization to Represent" forms. Each form is dated December 2, 1963, and each was received by CTA 2 days later. The instruments, prepared by TEI, approved by its Executive Policy Committee, adopted by CTA, reads as follows: The undersigned, party to WESTERN STATES AREA MASTER FREIGHT AGREEMENT and WESTERN STATES AREA PICKUP & DELIVERY, LOCAL CARTAGE & DOCK WORKERS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT , which agreements are in effect through June 30, 1964, does hereby authorize the CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION and/or any other trucking em- ployer group or committee designated by the CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION to represent the undersigned in collective bargaining negotiations incident to the provisions of the above-named contracts and pursuant to reopening notices given under Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 351 This authorization shall continue in full force and effect until written revocation hereof is made by Certified Mail to CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION at 3301 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, LOS ANGELES 7, CALIFORNIA. The undersigned , party to WESTERN STATES AREA MASTER FREIGHT AGREEMENT and WESTERN STATES AREA OVER -THE-ROAD SINGLE MAN AND SLEEPER CAB SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, which agreements are in effect through June 30, 1964, does hereby authorize the CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION and/or any other trucking employer group or commit- tee designated by the CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION to represent the undersigned in collective bargaining negotiations incident to the provisions of the above-named contracts and pursuant to reopening notices given under Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement. This authorization shall continue in full force and effect until written revocation hereof is made by Certified Mail to CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION at 3301 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE , LOS ANGELES 7, CALIFORNIA. Under date of November 26, 1963, CTA for- warded to TEI its duly executed "Association Authority to Represent " which empowered TEI "and its duly appointed committee to represent.... [CTA] and the Employers listed herewith" in col- lective bargaining negotiations ... incident to Arti- cles 26, 27 and 36 of certain named 1961-64 bar- gaining agreements." The authorization concluded, "Copies of the Employer's [[sic ] Forms of AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT are attached. In the event of the revocation of such AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT by any Employer the [CTA] hereby agrees to immediately notify [TEI], in writing by certified mail." Under date of December 3, 1963, CTA for- warded to TEI three lists of names of other compa- nies having designated CTA to represent them for collective bargaining with respect to the agree ments specified in LTA's letter of November 26, 1963, to TEI. On December 30, 1963, CTA forwarded to TEI three lists containing the names of other compa- nies, among whom was LA-Yuma, who had designated CTA to represent them for collective bargaining with respect to the agreements in the aforementioned CTA November 26, 1963, letter. On the first page of the December 9, 1963, issue of Caltrux the following appeared: NATIONAL LABOR MEETINGS AUTHORIZED A committee representing thousands of trucking companies throughout the nation last week was authorized to "attempt to negotiate" a national agreement with the teamsters union. A resolution adopted by the Executive Pol- icy Committee of Trucking Employers, Inc., directed a negotiating committee to meet with a teamsters negotiating committee headed by James R. Hoffa. Trucking Employers , Inc. was founded by truck haulers of general freight from throughout the country to put up a united front to union demands . It represents companies ranging from small local carriers to transcon- tinental haulers of all types of freight. Chairman of TEI's negotiating committee is C. G. Zwingle , vice president of Pacific Inter- mountain Express, Oakland, California. Mr. Zwingle said his committee would have as one of its "prime objectives" the modifica- tion of contract provisions "to secure greater flexibility of operations and a greater utiliza- tion of manpower and equipment." He said the committee in upcoming bargain- ing sessions would be armed with data enabling it to evaluate the "true cost significance" of the union 's national contract demands. A just-completed nationwide labor cost sur- vey, Mr. Zwingle said , analyzes employee cost per mile and cost per hour under major general freight agreements. Members of the TEI Negotiating Committee are: C . G. Zwingle, vice president, Pacific In- termountain Express, Oakland , California, chairman ; A. Ewing Greene , Sr., vice pre- sident, Mason & Dixon Lines, Kingsport, Ten- nessee; Theodore J. Bauer, president, Best Way of Indiana, Inc., Terre Haute ; Sidney Upsher, vice president, Lee Way Motor Freight System , Oaklahoma City (sic), and Howard Miller, president, B & P Motor Ex- press , Inc., Pittsburg. (Continuing reports on the negotiations ap- pear under LABOR , each week). In the same December 9 issue of Caltrux-on a page other than the first-the following appeared: LABOR NATIONAL LABOR PICTURE The Labor Advisory Committee and the Ex- ecutive Policy Committee of Trucking Em- " CTA forwarded to TEI three lists containing the names of the compa- nies which had executed "Authorization to Represent" forms empowering CTA to represent them. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployers, Inc. met in Chicago last week in con- nection with the activities of Trucking Em- ployers, Inc. CTA and the West were well represented at the Executive Policy Committee by: C. R. "Dick" Hart, Shippers Express Co., Monte- bello; R. F. MacNally, California Motor Ex- press, San Francisco; R. B. Meyers, Western Transportation Co.; Los Angeles; Lee Sollen- barger, Transcon Lines, Los Angeles; Ward Walkup, Jr., Merchants Express of California, San Francisco; William G. White, Consoli- dated Freightways, Inc., Menlo Park; C. G. Zwingle, Pacific Intermountain Express Co., Oakland. CTA is represented on the Labor Advisory Committee by C. R. Christensen , Consolidated Freightways , Inc., Menlo Park; Allan B. Foy, Transcon Lines, Los Angeles; Paul W. James, Pacific Intermountain Express Co., Oakland; E. J. McCarthy and D. M. Slaybaugh, Califor- nia Trucking Association. The Labor Advisory Committee will again meet in Chicago during this week. As reported in the December 2 issue of Cal- trux , the Western Master Freight Division of the Western Conference of Teamsters was to begin mailing copies of the Union proposals covering the National Over-the-Road and the National Local Agreements this past week. This mailing has been delayed although a few of our members have reported receiving these documents . It was expected that the mailing would be completed by last weekend. CTA through Caltrux will continue to keep its members advised of future developments. In the December 16, 1963, issue of Caltrux the following appeared: LABOR NATIONAL LABOR PICTURE The labor negotiations in Chicago are follow- ing a normal complicated pattern . It has been compared by the Western observers as similar to the 1961 Western States negotiations in San Francisco. One of the disrupting influences last week was the Central States Grievance Proceedings which interrupted the negotiations frequently. In any negotiations between nu- merous Teamster Locals and Councils and a multiple-employer group , there is a host of problems encountered that must be resolved before serious negotiations can begin. A basic question requiring an early agree- ment between the parties is scope . What is to be the area of negotiations? What are the ex- ceptions or exclusions? There are numerous items not involving money that must be de- cided before serious negotiations can begin. The employer group is working effectively and in harmony. The Advisory Committee of technical experts was formed into subcommit- tees, each of which was assigned a job of analyzing the provisions of the numerous con- tracts in the United States now to be con- sidered in the Chicago negotiations. These sub- committees are making these comparisons and preparing suggested changes for the considera- tion of the Negotiating Committee. The present setup contemplates negotiations through December 19 followed by a recess until January 2. There is no evidence of a weakening of Mr. Hoffa's control over the Teamsters. There have been hints that rump groups would try to take control of the Teamsters, but our observers in Chicago say there is no evidence of this change of control. In the December 23, 1963, issue of Caltrux the following appeared: NATIONAL LABOR PICTURE The scope and type of contract to be developed during current negotiations between Trucking Employers , Inc., and the Teamsters Union were the principal areas of effort in bar- gaining sessions held Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, December 16-18, 1963. While there was a furtherance of un- derstanding between the negotiating parties, no agreements were reached on these subjects. Agreement was reached, however, on the question of extending the Chicago local cartage contracts through January 31, 1964, with retroactivity. Joint meetings of the Negotiating Committee and the Labor Advisory Committee were held Monday through Thursday , December 16-19, for the discussion of recommendations of the Labor Advisory Committee and the assignment of various study projects by the Negotiating Committee , the latter in preparation for the next series of negotiating sessions which will resume on Thursday , January 2, 1964. This week 's meetings with the Teamsters marked the first participation in the negotia- tions of two subcommittees of the Labor Ad- visory Committee . Two sessions were almost entirely devoted to presentations by the Sleeper Cab Subcommittee and the Short Haul Subcommittee. Among the primary objectives of the sub- committees' proposals were flexibility of operations and utilization of equipment. The greater part of the time at the bargain- ing table was consumed by attempts to define the concept of a master agreement and to develop an area of understanding of non- economic items. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES Plans were made to conduct daily meetings between members of the Negotiating Commit- tee and the Labor Advisory Committee in preparation for sessions with the union. A further progress report will be issued with the resumption of negotiating sessions on January 2. In the December 30 issue of Caltrux the follow- ing appeared: LABOR NATIONAL LABOR PICTURE As reported in Caltrux , negotiations with the Teamsters Union were adjourned December 20, and will be resumed in Chicago on January 2. The Labor Advisory Committee will be in session during these negotiations and a meeting of the Executive Policy Committee is scheduled for Tuesday January 7, in St. Louis, Missouri. As reported in the nation 's press, Hoffa has been granted a postponement of his Nashville, Tennessee, trial from January 6, to January 20, 1964, and it is presumed that negotiations ses- sions will be continuous until that date. Upon resumption of these sessions a further progress report will appear in these pages. Under date of December 2, 1963, the Western Master Freight Division sent by registered mail to Svensson , at its Yuma, Arizona, terminal facilities, printed copies of "proposals for the National Over- the-Road Agreement and the National City Cartage and Dock Agreement" with a letter reading as fol- lows:b1 Enclosed, please find proposals for the Na- tional Over-the-Road Agreement and the Na- tional City Cartage and Dock Agreement. The Western Master Freight Division and all Local Unions, in the Eleven Western States, concerned with National Freight Agreement negotiations wish to draw special attention to the following clause contained in the following proposal: "The Union reserves the right to make such amendments, additions, deletions and cor- rections in this proposal during the course of negotiations as it may deem appropriate." Under date of December 2, 1963, an identically worded letter and enclosures were sent to LA- Yuma, at its Los Angeles, California , terminal facilities.52 " The registered return receipt indicates that this letter and enclosures were received by the addressee on December 9, 1963. " The registered return receipt indicates that this letter and enclosures were received by the addressee on December 6, 1963. "Namely , King of Local 468 , Merrill of Local 692, Shepard of Local 180, Mendenhall of Local 81 , Rohrer of Local 190; Bath of Local 961, 353 Under date of December 13, 1963, the Freight Division wrote LA-Yuma, at its Yuma, Arizona, terminal facilities as follows: This will acknowledge your letter of December 6, 1963 , dealing with the matter of LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES as being a party to the OVER-THE-ROAD SINGLE MAN & SLEEPER CAB SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT for their em- ployees in the jurisdictions of Local 224, Los Angeles, whose work properly comes within the provisions of the Supplemental Agreement named. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES has previ- ously given power of attorney to your Associa- tion for the Master Freight Agreement, Pickup & Delivery, Local Cartage & Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement and the Over-the- Road Single Man & Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement with Local 898, El Centro. It is the Union's position that an Employer who is party to a particular supplemental agreement is a party to that particular supplemental agreement for all operations coming under that particular agreement anywhere within the Eleven Western States area, qualified only by the terms and conditions of Article 8, Section 4, Change of Operations; and subject to the limitations of Article 2, Section 3, Non- Covered Unit, of the Master Freight Agree- ment. This letter signifies approval by the Western Master Freight Division but is not to be con- strued as a waiver of the position set forth above. Under date of December 17, 1963, CTA wrote LA-Yuma at its Yuma, Arizona, terminal facilities, as follows: We have been informed by Teamster Local Union No. 224, their letter dated November 8, 1963, and the Western Master Freight Division of the Western Conference of Teamsters, their letter of December 13, 1963, that they concur in your labor power of attorney to California Trucking Association covering the Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man & Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement. C. The 1964-67 Contract Negotiations On October 31, 1963, a meeting of the Union's National Over-the-Road & City-Cartage Policy & Negotiating Committee" met at the headquarters Cavano of Local 174, Hoffman of Local 287, Shearin of Local 137, Wag- goner of Local 104 The Committee's alternate representatives were Latter of Local 222; Whitney of Local 690, Downing of Local 17, Blackmarr of Local 208, Yandell of Local 224, Burke of Local 85, Edgar of Local 162, and Kiser of Local 386 354-128 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 24 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Western Conference of Teamsters. There, after discussion had been had with respect to the suggested contract proposals which the various lo- cals affiliated with the Western Conference had submitted, the National Policy Committee con- solidated said recommendations "into one proposal for the Western States." The Committee then for- warded the finished product to the Teamsters Wash- ington, D.C., international headquarters. On November 6 and 7, 1963, the Union's 40-man National Negotiating Committee, which was com- posed of ten representatives from each of the four conferences comprising the International54 met at the Teamsters international headquarters in Wash- ington , D.C. The 40 representatives at that meet- ing compiled into two documents, the Western Conference's October 31, 1963, proposals and the proposals submitted by the Eastern, Central, and Southern Conferences. This compilation became the basis of the Union's National Over-The-Road Freight and their National Local Cartage and the Pick-up contract demands and were submitted to TEI on November 22, 1965.55 On November 22, 1963, six authorized represen- tatives of TEI and seven authorized representatives of Teamsters International met in Miami, Florida. At this meeting the Unions handed to the TEI representatives two printed booklets. One booklet contained the Teamsters proposed Over-The-Road agreement and the other its proposed City Cartage contract .56 The parties then engaged in some general discussion of the proposals as well as to what the "ground rules " were to be at the forthcoming negotiations which were set for December 10, 1963.57 The TEI Executive Policy CommitteeS8 and its Negotiating CommitteeS9 met in Chicago, Illinois, sometime prior to December 10, and discussed the Union's November 22 proposals. Subcommittees were then formed and specific items of the Union's proposal were assigned to each subcommittee with instructions to prepare counterproposals. Pursuant to agreement at the Miami November s' Namely, the Eastern , Central , Southern , and Western Conferences " Under date of November 12, 1963, the Teamsters International for- warded to the Western Conference and to each of the latter's affiliated lo- cals printed copies of the proposed National Over -The-Road Master Freight agreement and the proposed National Local Cartage agreements which had been approved by the Teamsters National Policy Committee at the aforementioned Washington , D C , November 6-7 meeting Under date of December 2, 1963 , the Western Master Freight Division sent to each employer, including LA -Yuma and Svensson , in the 11 Western States, covered by 1961-64 agreements here involved , printed co- pies of the above referred -to proposed Over-The-Road and the Local Cartage agreements The registered return receipts indicate that LA-Yuma received its copies on December 6, 1963, and Svensson received its 3 days later 6° Additional printed copies of these proposals were mailed by the Team- sters to CTA and all the other members of TEI s' The TEI representative also queried the Teamsters ' representatives as to the meaning of "Legal" which appeared under Articles 42 and 43 of the proposed Local Cartage agreement The Teamsters representatives replied 22, 1963, meeting, the TEI negotiating committee80 and the Union Negotiating Committee81 met at the Edgewater Beach Hotel in Chicago , Illinois, on December 10, 1963.82 After certain preliminaries had been had, such as posing for the TV cameras and the like, the TEI and the Teamsters representa- tives exchanged lists containing the names for whom the respective parties had received powers of attorney to act on their behalf. The TEI list con- tained the names of some 19 employer-associations, including CTA, and the Teamsters list consisted of the names of certain locals of the four Teamsters Conferences, including the Western Conference and its affiliated locals. The actual across-the-board bargaining began on December 11, at the aforementioned hotel and continued daily until December 18, when the ses- sions recessed for the Christmas holidays. The Union's Over-The-Road proposal was used primarily as the basis of discussion . This procedure was adopted because, as Zwingle testified , "There were a lot of Articles in this Over-The-Road Agree- ment that were common to the Pick-up and Delivery Agreement." Article by article of the aforesaid agreement, although not necessarily in chronological order, were fully discussed at these bargaining meetings. At the conclusion of each day 's bargaining ses- sion, the TEI committee would report the hap- penings of the day's work to its TEI 50- or 75- member Advisory Committee which was in con- tinuous session and housed at Hilton Inn, in Au- rora, Illinois, located some 50 miles from Chicago. The Advisory Committee would then instruct the Negotiation Committee as to what position it should take at the next day's bargaining session. The Unions ' negotiating committee would likewise report to its 40-man committee , which was housed in the same hotel at which the bargaining sessions were taking place, at the conclusion of each day's bargaining session. On January 2, 1964, the parties again met at the same hotel . The procedure which prevailed at the that the wording to be inserted in said articles was to be drafted by legal counsel for the respective parties Consisting of some 50 or 75 members Consisting of some 5 or 6 members This committee was selected by the Advisory Committee from among its own members. °0 Namely, Zwingle of San Francisco , California, Howard Miller of Pitt- sburg, Pennsylvania , Sidney Upsher of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Joe Hall of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Theodore Bauer of Terre Haute , Indiana 61 Among them , Hoffa, Roy Williams representing the Central Con- ference, Walter Shea , representing the Eastern States Conference, Murray Miller representing the Southern States Conference, Vern Milton and Ted Merrill representing the Western States Conference " Also present that day for negotiations , but not represented by TEI, were employers ' representatives from the Detroit steel haulers group, from the St. Louis local cartage group, from the Trans -American Freight Lines group and from the Cleveland local cartage group The record does not dis- close whether these representatives actually negotiated a contract with the Teamsters However , the record is clear that they did not participate in any TEI-Teamsters negotiations LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 355 December 10-18 sessions was continued, including nightly conferences between the parties' negotiat- ing committees and their respective larger groups. The January 15, 1964, bargaining sessions con- tinued until about 4 or 5 o'clock of the morning of January 16 at which time the parties, in the presence of the two negotiating committees, signed a three-page memorandum63 embodying, subject to ratification by the TEI "Executive Policy Commit- tee,"64 the respective employer-associations, the Policy Committee of the National Over-The-Road and City Cartage Negotiating Committeefi5 and the Local Unions. The memorandum of agreement states, among other things, that the parties agreed to all the terms and provisions of three written documents entitled (1) "National Master Agree- ment covering Over-the-Road and Local Cartage Employees of Private, Common, Contract and Local Cartage Carriers for the period of February 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967"; (2) "Memorandum Agreement of Amendment of Amendments to Road Supplement for the period 1964-1967"; and (3) "Memorandum of Agreement of Amendments of Local Cartage Supplements for the period 1964-1967." Each of the above documents provided, "The parties shall have the right to correct errors, omis- sions, and ambiguities, to make grammatical changes and to rearrange articles and sections prior to final printing of National Master Agreement and all supplements thereto." The TEI negotiating committee as well as the Teamsters negotiating committee were in constant communication throughout the January 15-16 bar- gaining session with their respective "larger com- mittee" and each negotiating committee, from time to time, was given by its respective "larger commit- tee" additional suggestions and greater bargaining authority. So, as Raymond F. Beagle, Jr., general counsel for TEI who was present throughout the entire 1963-64 bargaining meetings, testified, "when the Employer Negotiating Committee ex- ecuted [the three-page Memorandum of Agree- ment] they knew they were within the authority that had been granted them by the Policy Commit- tee (the larger committee) through constant week after week after week of authority granted them." Nevertheless, later that morning, January 16, the TEI five-man negotiating committee submitted to the full 50- or 75-man Advisory Committee the contracts which the two negotiating committees °$ The TEI negotiating committee as well as the Union's negotiating com- mittee were in periodic communication with its "larger committees" throughout this January 15- 16 session Also referred to herein as the Advisory Committee Also referred to herein as the Union 's 40-man committee ' E J McCarthy and S E Mansfield, CTA's Chief Director of Labor Relations and Assistant Chief of Labor Relations, respectively, were mem- bers of the TEI Advisory Committee and were in attendance throughout the aforesaid TEI-Teamsters , December-January bargaining sessions in- cluding the meeting which ratified the aforementioned Memorandum of Agreement °' These items were garnishments , mileage reduction , vacations , logging, had agreed to, for its consideration. The Advisory Committee then met and, after considerable discus- sion , from about 11 o'clock that morning, January 16, until about 5 that afternoon, with a break of about an hour for lunch, ratified the said memoran- dum agreement. Zwingle was then instructed to im- mediately notify Hoffa that the TEI Advisory Com- mittee had approved the memorandum of agree- ment66 At or about 5:30 p.m., Zwingle telephoned Hoffa and told him of the ratification. The Teamsters 40-man committee, by voice or rollcall vote, unanimously approved the Memoran- dum of Agreement prior to its being signed by the negotiating committee at or about 4 a.m. on Janua- ry 16. This approval was given after a lengthy discussion and subject to the acceptance by TEI of certain minor changes. This Memorandum of Agreement left certain items to be clarified as to verbiage, by legal counsel for the parties. The items, themselves, were ac- ceptable to both parties but each desired to have its counsel draft the "contract language" to be used.67 On or about January 20, 1964, the Freight Divi- sion sent to each local affiliated with the Western Conference a copy of the Memorandum of Agree- ment adopted on January 16. At a meeting called by the Freight Division and held in San Francisco on January 24, 1964, of representatives of all the locals affiliated with the Western Conference, three votes were taken with respect to the agreements reached in Chicago on January 16. The National Master Over-The-Road and Local Cartage Agreement was unanimously ap- proved; the Over-The-Road Supplement Agree- ment was unanimously approved; and the Local Cartage Supplemented Agreement was approved with two locals dissenting. The membership of the various locals affiliated with the Western Conference then voted either at the locals' regular or special meeting , upon the Chicago January 16 agreements. Similar meetings of the membership of the locals affiliated with Southern, Eastern, and Central Teamsters Con- ferences were held. The results of these meetings were communicated by the locals to their respec- tive conferences, who, in turn, forwarded the infor- mation to the Teamsters Washington, D.C., headquarters.68 On the first page of the January 20, 1964, issue of Caltrux the following appeared: moonlighting , compensation claims, and the definition of "Labor Union At the meeting of the two negotiating committees held in Chicago on March 16, 1964, the parties adopted, with some minor changes, the lan- guage prepared by the parties' respective legal counsel " Local 104 voted 390 for and 12 against , Local 208 voted 550 for and 10 against, and Local 357 voted 363 for and 67 against Under date of April 30, 1964 , Hoffa wrote to Zwingle and to Beagle that the National Freight Agreement had been ratified by an overwhelming majority Under date of May 11, 1964 , Zwingle wrote Hoffa acknowledging receipt of Hof- fa's letter and informing him that said agreement had already been ratified by the TEI Executive Committee 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NATIONAL LABOR AGREEMENT Contract negotiations which have been in progress in Chicago for the past several weeks have been concluded . These negotiations covered only a National Master Agreement, over-the-road supplements and pickup and delivery supplements. 1. Wage Increases . Hourly rates of pay shall be increased 28 [cents ] per hour over a three- year period in annual steps of 10 [cents] - 8 [cents] - 10 [cents], effective with the expira- tion of the current agreements-July 1, 1964. Mileage rates of pay shall be increased 1/4 [cents ] each year over a three-year period, ef- fective with the expiration of the current agreement-July 1, 1964. 2. Cost of Living . The cost of living provi- sions in the current Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and Local Pickup and Delivery Agreements (Joint Council 7) are not applicable. A new formula has been negotiated. The first payment under the cost of living provision will not be effective until February 1, 1966. 3. Health and Welfare Fund. An increase of $3.00 per week in employer contributions to health and welfare funds for each employee- $1.00 per week the first year , $ 1.50 per week the second year , 50 [cents]1 per week the third year. Employer contribution in the event of an on-the-job injury increased from a six- month period to a 12-month period. 4. Pension Fund. An increase of $2.00 per week in employer contributions to pension fund for each employee-$1.00 per week the first year, no increase the second year, $1.00 per week the third year. Employer contribution in the event of an on-the-job injury increased from a six-month period to a 12-month period. 5. Vacations. Employees who have completed 16 years or more of service shall receive four weeks' vacation with pay. This represents a reduction from the current qualifi- cation of 18 years of service . No change in computations. 6. Subsistence. (Over-the-Road and Sleeper Operations ) ( Single Man). Increased to $4.75. 7. Layover. (Sleeper Operations) The 15 hours layover at the layover point has been reduced to 13 hours. 8. Holidays. Remains unchanged. 9. Reno Over-the-Hill Supplement. Hourly rates of pay shall be increased 28 [cents) per hour over a three-year period in annual steps of 10 [cents] - 8 [cents] - 10 [cents], effective with the expiration of the current agreement- July 1, 1964 . This wage increase applies on the first eight hours only of the 10-hour guarantee. 10. Expiration Date . A uniform expiration date for these agreements is March 31, 1967. This applies to all areas in the United States, including the Chicago Cartage area which previously had expired December 31, 1963. Other supplemental agreements affecting the Western States Area and , in addition, those specialized agreements affecting California operators have yet to be negotiated. The Labor Advisory Committee of Trucking Employers, Inc., will be called into session within the next week or 10 days to assist in preparing final drafts of the negotiated agree- ments. Between January 16 and February 21, 1964, the Teamsters Western Conference forwarded to Respondent, CTA, and all the employers and to the employer-associations located within the 11 Western States area who were parties to, or were bound by the 1964-67 negotiations , "flat copies on legal size paper"-to use CTA's Assistant Director of Labor Relations S. E. Mansfield 's description- of the agreements reached and initialed at the Chicago January 15-16, 1964, bargaining session. On February 21, 1964, R. S. McIlvenman , chair- man of the TEI Western States Labor Advisory Committee , telegraphed CTA and the other 11 Western States employer-associations from whom TEI had received powers of attorney to attend a meeting with Teamsters Western Conference to be held in San Francisco on February 27 and 28. The telegram further stated . that the employer-group would meet separately on February 26, at a place to be designated later. On February 26, about 15 persons representing 11 Western States employer-associations met in the Sir Francis Drake Hotel, San Francisco . Mcllven- man chaired the meeting . After Zwingle had given a "run-down" of the Chicago negotiations and had outlined the agreements reached with the Team- sters, discussion was had with respect to the provi- sions of the agreements reached in Chicago. The discussion was centered around the "flat copies" of the Chicago agreement which the Teamsters had previously distributed to all interested parties. The following morning, February 27, the representatives of the Teamsters Western Con- ference and of its constituent locals and the em- ployer-group met in the Western Conference of- fices. This joint meeting and the one held the fol- lowing day was for the sole purpose , as Mans- field testified, "to make sure that there were not any errors and that the agreed -upon economic items were put in the proper places; and, that those items that were in the Western Master [agree- ment], such as vacation , health and welfare, and so forth, were inserted in the proper agreements." At the commencement of the aforementioned joint February 27 Teamsters-employers meeting, the Teamsters group handed to each employer- representative a copy of the National Agreement together with copies of various supplements thereto. The employer-representatives after some LOS ANGELES-YUMA discussion with the Teamsters representatives, the subject of which is not here pertinent, left the meet- ing and returned to their hotel where they "paired off" in groups and then carefully compared the documents given them that day by the Teamsters. The following day, February 28, the parties met again at the offices of the Western Conference. The matters regarding the language of certain contract provisions; cross references of certain provisions; the correction of typographical errors; the uninten- tional omission of words; and the like were satisfac- torily settled. The parties likewise discussed certain contract "riders" and those matters were also satisfactorily settled. On March 16, 1964, the TEI five-man negotiat- ing committee and its Executive Policy Committee met the Teamsters negotiating committee and its 40-man committee in Chicago and each group ac- cepted the verbiage prepared by the parties' respec- tive legal counsel, who were instructed at the Chicago January 15-16 bargaining session to put certain agreed-to clauses into acceptable legal lan- guage. On May 26, 1964, the same groups who con- ferred at the San Francisco February 27-28 Team- sters-Employers meeting again met at the Western Conference offices. There, the parties were presented with mimeographed or lithographed co- pies of the document which they had corrected at the aforesaid February 27-28 meeting. After cor- recting a few typographical errors, the document was accepted as reflecting the agreements reached in Chicago on January 16, 1964. The document was later printed in booklet form and distributed to all interested parties. Under date of February 2, 1964, Donald Washum, on the letterhead of LA-Yuma, wrote William Dinnie, Jr., a former CTA labor relations department employee, as follows:" With Reference to our telephone conversation the other day, we are still having considerable trouble with the Phoenix Local #104 Goon Squad trying to mix LA Yuma and H. L. Washum & Son Trucking Company under the power of attorney that was signed in Mr. Mc- Peaks office in September. We operate four different concerns. 1. Svensson Freight lines , which is an Arizona Corporation operating in intrastate traffic in Arizona under #104 jurisdiction. 2. La Yuma which has power of attorney with the CTA for #224 in LA and #898 in El Centro. 3. HL Washum & Son, a cattle hauling company with no signed contracts. 4. S & W Ranches, owned by WR Whitman and operated for him by HL Washum with no signed contracts. Attached is [sic] copies of two letter we FREIGHT LINES 357 received in the mail yesterday morning from # 104 on a grievance on Wayne Camp involving H. L. Washum & Son. Camp and three other drivers worked on three S & W rigs. Things slowed down and we cut Camp off. Not having a contract we figured if you had four apples and intended on eating three of them you would naturally eat the three best ones. He has joined #104 and they are after us to put him back on according to seniority and give him back pay. 1. What action should be taken? H. L. Washum & Son & S & W Ranches have no contract, nor do they ever intend to have. 2. Just how valid is # 104's jurisdiction over us at the present time as far as LA Yuma is concerned? Nothing has ever been signed with #1004. Do we have to accept #224 & #898 transfer into # 104 and if so what is the normal procedure? 3. If we fight them, which we intend to do we have no doubt there will be a secondary boycott against Svensson and LA Yuma within a short time. Is there someone in Phoenix you might know of that could be of help to us in Arizona matters? 4. Our percentage that McPeaks and Sid Wasson agreed upon is now being disputed as # 104 refuses to recognize it so all in all we have our problems. We would appreciate your immediate attention and consideration to this matter and would like for you to give us a call collect to 783-3359 at your earliest convenience. In the meantime we will prepare a few more questions to throw at you. Very truly yours, D. Washum Oversight: Should we be honoring #104's authority as far as us remiting [sic] the mem- bers dues etc to them in Phoenix and then deducting from the workers check? We never did this in the past and this is something they have thrown at us. Later in February 1964, H. L. Washum, accom- panied by La Fayette (Lefty) Fletcher ( herein called Lefty Fletcher), a Respondent foreman, went to the CTA Los Angeles offices and saw Dinnie. Washum informed Dinnie , to quote from Dinnie's testimony, "He was having some problems with the Union and wanted to get out" and requested Din- nie's advice. Dinnie testified that he advised Washum: that the contract provided for a withdrawal, I believe it was sixty or ninety days before the 0 CTA received this letter on February 4 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD expiration of the contract, and we had the papers that he could do that. But, he wanted to withdraw and I went to check and get a stenographer to do it and there wasn't any available, so he cancelled his power of attorney with two or three of the Unions and I wrote it out in longhand which should be in the files of California Trucking Association. Dinnie wrote on an undated, unaddressed piece of 5-by 8-1/2-inch scrap paper the following: This is your authority to cancel our P/A completely for the following wage agree- ments70 Local 898 Local 224 Local Wage Line Agreement Agreement Line Wage Agreement Under date of February 12, 1964, CTA wrote a letter addressed jointly to Master Freight, Local 224, and to Local No. 898 reading as follows:71 LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES, PO BOX 1428, YUMA, ARIZONA, has cancelled its labor power of attorney covering the following agreements: Local No. 224-Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement. Local No. 898-Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement Western States Area Pickup and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement. May we have your acknowledgment of the above. During the entire week of February 19, 1964, Mansfield was in San Francisco attending a regular session of the Joint Western Area Committee, of which he was a committee and panel member;72 also attending this session were Verne Milton, the coordinator of the Freight Division and a panel member of the Joint Western Area Committee, and B. M. Waggoner, a member of the Freight Division 70 This document was signed , "H L Washum " and, as H L Washum testified , it solely referred to the power of attorney which he had given CTA under date of October 21, 1963 It is thus clear that W ashum had not revoked, by signing this paper, the two December 2, 1963, amended powers of attorney which specifically authorized CTA to act with respect to the 1964-67 contract negotiations 7i The letter indicates that copies thereof were sent to LA-Yuma and to Joint Council 42 Mansfield testified that it is the established policy of CTA to notify the affected unions when a member cancels a CTA power of attor- ney 72 The panel members of the Joint Western Area Committee adjudicate grievances and other similar matters arising under the various bargaining agreements between the Teamsters and the employers which had not been satisfactorily settled at a lower level " What significance is to be attached to the name of the company as set Executive Committee, chairman of the Joint Western Area Committee, president of Joint Coun- cil 71, and secretary-treasurer of Local 104. During the course of the week aforementioned, probably on February 13 or 14, Waggoner in- formed Mansfield that someone connected with CTA had advised LA-Yuma that LA-Yuma need not deal with Local 104. Mansfield, not having any knowledge that such advice had been given by CTA, told Waggoner that he "would contact [his] Los Angeles office and find out just what the con- versation had been." Thereupon, Mansfield telephoned Dinnie and , according to Mansfield's testimony, he told Dinnie, "Mr. Waggoner had ad- vised me that [you] had advised the Los Angeles- Yuma Freight Lines that it was not necessary to deal with Local 104." When Dinnie admitted giving Washum such advice, Mansfield replied, to quote his testimony: I advised Mr. Dinnie that I thought that this was improper and the wrong approach, in view of the fact that nothing had changed except the jurisdiction of the Joint [Western Area] Coun- cils; that the men were still employees of the company; that they were still members of the union; and, furthermore, that we had had, dur- ing that session of the Joint Western Con- ference , two decisions involving companies who were parties to the agreements in one area and had operations in another area in which the employers had taken the position that they were not covered in the area in which they claimed not to have an agreement ; and, that the Joint Western [Area] Committee had de- cided against the employers in that case; and, that I thought that he ought to point this out to the company (LA-Yuma) in their dealings with the local union (Local 104). Mansfield then instructed Dinnie to immediately in- form Washum that his previous advice had been er- roneous and that Dinnie should tell Washum what he (Mansfield) just told him (Dinnie). The same day, Dinnie telephoned Washum, who was in Yuma, and told Washum what Mansfield had said regarding this matter. Under date of April 23, 1964, H. L. Washum wrote Dinnie the following letter which was received on April 27:73 forth on the letterhead of this document which was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 92, is not disclosed by the record Throughout the entire proceeding , Respondent has taken the position that LA-Yuma had no Phoenix terminal facilities and did no direct business there, that Svensson has its main terminal facilities in Phoenix , and whatever business LA-Yuma did in Phoenix was done through Svensson All documents bear- ing the letterhead of LA-Yuma offered in evidence-whether received or placed in the rejected file-read as follows WASHUM BROTHERS LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES MAIN OFFICE P 0 BOX 1428 - PUMA, ARIZONA -Su 3-3359 LA OFFICE, 1819 so SOTO STREET-LOS ANGELES 23, CALIF -AN 8-8486 LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES Attached are copies of letters to #208 and #357 advising them that according to Article 36 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement that we desire to terminate our agreement effective mindnight [ sic] of June 30, 1964. Please use this letter as your authority to can- cel all labor Powers of Attorney with #208 and #357 effective midnight of June 30, 1964. The record is manifestly clear that this letter could only have referred to (1) the document prepared by Dinnie in February 1964, and signed by Washum at CTA in the presence of Dinnie and Fletcher; (2) the power of attorney to MTA dated September 26, 1956, and signed by "H. L. Washum Partner;" (3) the power of attorney to CTA dated September 7, 1963, and signed by Washum; and (4) the power of attorney to MTA, signed by J. M. Clint, and received by MTA in August 1953. The record is equally clear that there were no other powers of attorney offered in evidence , or any oral or documentary evidence with respect to any other power of attorney executed by Respondent refer- ring specifically to Locals 208 and/or 357, other than those dated December 2, 1963. It thus follows that Washum's April 23 letter did not in any manner affect the validity of the two December 2, 1963, CTA powers of attorney. Under date of April 27, 1964, CTA sent a letter addressed jointly to the Freight Division and Local 208 reading as follows: LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES, PO BOX 1428, YUMA, ARIZONA , (Fifth Street at Alameda, Los Angeles ), has cancelled its labor power of attorney with California Trucking As- sociation which covered its operations under the following agreement with Local No. 208: Western States Area Pickup and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supple- ment Agreement.74 By letter dated April 27, 1964, Local 208 wrote Washum as follows: We are in receipt of your letter of April 23, 1964, advising your Company desires to ter- minate our agreement effective midnight, June 30, 1964. Your letter also states that you desire to negotiate changes and revisions in the contract commencing July 1, 1964. We are attaching a copy of a letter sent to "The postscript appearing on the copy of this letter which was sent to Respondent reads : " Mr. Washum-Our records do not indicate that we have ever had your labor power of attorney covering agreement with Teamster Local No 357, Los Angeles " 78 This September 13, 1963, letter , which was received by Respondent in the regular course of the mails, reads YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the NATIONAL OVER-THE-ROAD AND CITY CARTAGE POLICY AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE , the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION OF THE WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, and the undersigned LOCAL UNION, as bargaining agents for the involved em- 359 your Los Angeles Office on September 13, 1963, via Registered Mail. I believe this letter is self-explanatory.75 Under date of September 19, 1963, CTA wrote LA-Yuma, as well as all its other members from who it had received labor powers of attorneys ex- plaining the import of the above-quoted Local 208 letter. The CTA letter, after remarking, "Labor power of attorney members need not acknowledge the [Local 208] notices or take any action upon their receipt," then continued: Anticipating some time ago that the Team- sters might well invoke the "National Agree- ment" clause (in most industry agreements na- tionwide), and in order to be organized na- tionally to better cope with any eventuality, C.T.A. joined with other industry bargaining groups in forming Trucking Employers, Inc., which will represent the trucking industry in national negotiations. C.T.A. is actively and well represented on the Executive Policy, Administrative and Labor Advisory Committees of Trucking Em- ployers, Inc. (See CALTRUX September 23 for list of C.T.A. representatives.) A negotiating Committee has not been selected at present, however, such selection is on the agenda of the Executive Policy Commit- tee which will meet in Chicago next week. In order for Trucking Employers, Inc., to represent you in these national negotiations, C.T.A. will need further authorization from you. A form for this purpose is being prepared and will be sent to you within the next week or 10 days.... , Since you failed to appear at these negotia- tions, the only negotiations that Local 208 will be involved in is The National Master Freight Agreement, Supplemental Agreement and Riders that have already been negotiated. We hope in the near future, not later than July 1, 1964, we can meet at your Office to have these Agreements signed. No reply was made to above-quoted Local 208 letter. In fact, no reply was necessary, for Washum's April 23 letter merely referred to the 1961-64 contracts, which by their terms were to expire on June 30, 1964, and not to the two CTA December 2, 1963, powers of attorney nor to any actions taken by CTA pursuant to said powers of attorney. ployees, desire to negotiate changes or revisions in the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement, all Supplements and Riders for the contract period commencing July 1, 1964, and to enter into a National Agreement as provided in Articles 26, 27, and 36 of the Area Master Agreement If you will not be represented in such negotiations by any of the Employer Associations who are parties to the Area Agreement, and desire individual notice of the time and place of future negotiating meetings, please advise the office of the WESTERN MASTER FREIGHT DIVISION OF THE WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS , Flood Building, Room 605, 870 Market Street, San Francisco , California 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D. The Transfer of Jurisdiction Under date of November 16, 1962 , Teamsters Joint Council 71 wrote Joint Council 4276 as fol- lows: Joint Council 71 is addressing this communi- cation to you making reference to the allot- ment of jurisdiction as it presently exists in Yuma County . You will recall that some time ago this Joint Council requested that all of the Teamster jurisdiction presently held by Local 898 be allotted to Joint Council 71 and a joint committee representing the two involved Joint Councils was appointed to study and make recommendations on this request , at which time Joint Council 71 amended its request to provide that only the jurisdiction involving the sand and gravel plants in Yuma County be al- lotted to it. As of this date , Joint Council 71 is renewing its request that it be granted all Teamster ju- risdiction involving Yuma County in Arizona. We feel that favorable consideration of this request would be of mutual advantage to both Joint Councils, the local unions and member- ship involved. We would appreciate an early reply advising as to the thinking of Joint Council 42 with reference to this subject matter. Under date of January 8, 1963, Joint Council 42 wrote Joint Council 71 that its November 16, 1962, letter had been presented to the Executive Board at its January 4 meeting and that the matter was still under consideration. In or about the summer of 1963, Joint Council 42 granted the request of Joint Council 71 as con- tained in its letter of November 16, 1962.77 Under date of August 27, 1963 , Hoffa wrote Joint Council 71 that Local 467, based in San Bernardino , California, and Local 898 , based in El Centro, California, had appealed Joint Council's transfer of jurisdiction, and that he had appointed a three-man panel "to hear the dispute " at 10 a.m. on September 5, 1963, at the Los Angeles head- quarters of Joint Council 42. The concluding paragraphs of the letter state that the panel was to make a report , with recommendation, on the issues raised by the appeal to the Teamsters Gen- eral Executive Board, that the latter will then consider and decide the matter , and that its decision shall be fixed and binding upon all parties. Under date of September 27, 1963 , John F. English , Teamsters general secretary-treasurer, '° A Teamster Joint Council is composed of Teamsters locals within a certain designated area and exists for the purpose of administratively coor- dinating the work and objects of the locals within its jurisdictional area " The record does not disclose the date of this action B M Waggoner, president of Joint Council 71, testified that it took place in late summer or early fall of 1963 The incidents which followed the transfer of jurisdiction disclose that jurisdiction was transferred prior to August 27, 1963. wrote Joint Council 71. The pertinent portion of the letter reads: The Board further ruled that the decision of Joint Council 42 be upheld relative to the ac- tion taken with respect to transferring mem- bers in Yuma to the appropriate Local within the jurisdiction of Joint Council 71. ... the members [now] in Local 898 should be transferred to the appropriate Local Union in Joint Council 71, Phoenix, Arizona. Pursuant to the action taken by the General Execu- tive Board, Joint Council 71, subsequent to Sep- tember 30, 1963, assigned to Local 104 the pickup and delivery drivers and the line drivers based in Yuma. B. W. Waggoner, President of Joint Council 71 and secretary-treasurer of Local 104, upon completion of the transfer, instructed Glenn Jones, a Local 107 business agent , to go to Yuma, contact the Teamsters members employed there , to inform those members of the transfer of jurisdiction which would become effective on January 1, 1964, to ar- range for those who desired to transfer into Local 104, to receive applications from any qualified non- members who desired to become members, and to initiate the new members into Local 104.78 On December 16 or 17, 1963, Jones, accom- panied by Kenneth Holshaw , a Western Conference organizer, met with H. L. Washum , Don Washum, and Foreman Lefty Fletcher in Respondent's Yuma terminal facilities. After introductions had been exchanged , Jones informed the Washums that the jurisdiction of the Yuma-based truckdrivers, includ- ing Respondent 's, had been transferred to Local 104; that thereafter Local 104 would administer the Teamsters bargaining agreements then in effect, in- cluding all riders and supplements thereto, handle all grievances arising under said agreements, and if any grievances arose under said agreements which could not be settled at the lower level such grievances would henceforth be handled by the Joint Council 71. Jones then informed the Washums that in the future all pension , health, and welfare contributions for Respondent 's employees should be sent to the Phoenix , Arizona, offices han- dling such contributions , together with a notation that said employees were Local 104 members. Jones also advised the Washums that he intended to hold a meeting that evening in his motel room and requested them to so advise Respondent's em- ployees.79 That evening , either December 17 or 18, Jones and Holshaw held a joint meeting with some '" Jones was particularly assigned to Respondent's employees . The three other Local 104 business agents were assigned to persons employed by other Yuma-based employers engaged in the trucking industry " The same day, Jones also visited certain other Yuma freight hauling companies and explained to their representatives the transfer of jurisdic- tion and all matters pertaining to it and also requested that they advise their employees to meet with him that evening in his motel room. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 361 respondent employees and some employees of other Yuma freight hauling companies. On the fol- lowing day, Jones met with various groups of truckdrivers who were unable to attend the previ- ous evening 's meeting. At the aforesaid eveining meeting and at his group meetings, Jones explained that Local 104 had been granted jurisdiction over certain Yuma- based truckdrivers; that commencing on January 1, 1964, Local 104 would represent those employees covered by the then-existing Teamsters agreements including the riders and supplements thereto; that Local 104 would administer said agreements; and that the Yuma employers involved would after January 1, 1964, be obliged to send their respective pension and welfare and health contributions to the Phoenix , Arizona , administrative offices handling such matters. At the aforementioned evening and group meetings , 13 of the then 15 respondent employees in the units hereinabove found appropriate signed applications for transfers to, or for membership in, Local 104,80 and paid the required fees. E. Respondent-Local 104 Dealings After January 1, 1964 Under date of January 3, 1964, Local 104 wrote LA-Yuma as follows: Enclosed is the billing for Union dues for your employees who were recently transferred to this Local Union. Please make the deduc- tions on this billing immediately and remit to this Local Union. In the future you will receive a billing on ap- proximately the 25th of each month. Please make the deductions out of the first pay day of the following month, as listed on the billing, and remit such monies to this office as soon as possible thereafter, along with one copy of our billing. Any deviation, such as an employee having been terminated or off sick so that the monies cannot be deducted, please draw a line through his name and make a notation out to the side as to why such deductions were not made.81 The employees for whom deductions were to be made were Patrick Allen (balance of initiation fees plus January and February 1964 dues), Eddie Beltram (January and February dues), Raymond Frist (balance of initiation fees plus January and February dues), Ray Martin ( assessment and February dues), and James Umpfress (January and February dues plus assessment). s LA-Yuma deducted the requested amounts from the wages of the six named persons and remitted its check for $115.50 to Local 104 on or about Janua- ry 20, 1964, despite the fact that four of them were Svensson employees. Under date of January 15, 1964, Joint Council 42 wrote Respondent (the addressee was Washum Brothers) as follows: Please be advised that Joint Council of Teamsters No. 42 has awarded Yuma, Arizona territory to the Teamster Local Unions located in Phoenix, Arizona. This action was taken on June 7, 1963. Health and Welfare premiums on your employees who are effected [sic] by this change should be paid into the South Western Teamsters Security office, 1229 North 1st Street, Phoenix, 4, Arizona.83 Commencing in January 1964, and continuing for several months thereafter, Respondent (1) established a single seniority board for all Yuma- based drivers, which included LA-Yuma and Svensson drivers; (2) paid into the pension and health and welfare trust funds the monthly pay- ments called for under the 1961-64 contracts; in- dicated with its remittance of the aforesaid pay- ments that said payments were to be credited to the account of Local 104; and (3) forwarded said re- mittances to the Phoenix, Arizona, headquarters of the agency handling said payments for Local 104.54 Respondent also, during the aforesaid period, deducted from the wages of the employer-members of Local 104 dues owing Local 104 for said em- ployees and forwarded the money to said local; complained to Local 104 about the misconduct of certain of its employees and sought Jones' help in that regard; discussed with Jones the alleged unwar- ranted layoff of Bennie Fernandez; discussed with Jones grievances regarding the pay problems of cer- tlD Namely, Frank Gill Eddie Quiroz Bennie R. Fernandez Ray Martinez James Umfress Buford Zimmerman Patrick Allen Bill Babb Wayne M Camp Eddie Beltron Raymond First Veryl Malberg Ray Whitley 51 Although the letter was addressed to LA-Yuma it referred to both Svensson and LA-Yuma employees. Enclosed with the above-quoted letter were "assignment of wages" authorizations signed by each of above-named employees. Arizona being a so-called right-to-work state , "assignment of wages" authorizations are used in lieu of the customary dues-checkoff authorizations. The assignment of wages of Umfress and Beltram (each dated December 20, 1963 ) was directed to LA-Yuma, and the assignment of wages of Mar- tinez, Gill, Frist, and Allen (each dated December 20, 1963) was directed to Svensson s, There appeared in the lower righthand corner of this letter (a photoco- py) a notation reading, "Never recd by LA-Yuma or Washum Bros." Daniel F Gruender, a former Respondent counsel, testified that he received this document from Pavone prior to the November 1964 representation proceeding involving Local 104 and Respondent, that he and Pavone (then vice president of Svensson and labor relations consultant for both Svensson and LA-Yuma) were then acting on behalf of Svensson and LA-Yuma jointly in said representation proceedings , and that Pavone told him he had received the letter from a union business representative. s' Prior to the jurisdictional transfer on January 1, 1964, Respondent sent its pension and health and welfare remittances to the Los Angeles, California, headquarters of the agency handling said payment for Local 898. 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tain employees; discussed with Jones Eddie Quiroz' vacation grievance; and complained to Jones about A. J. Fletcher's misconduct and sought Jones' help with respect thereto. About mid-January 1964, Jones told Don Washum that Wayne Camp, a LA-Yuma driver, had signed a Local 104 authorization card; that the drivers had complained to him that they were hav- ing to spend too many hours picking up cattle in Yuma before proceeding to Los Angeles with their trucks, unloading the trucks in Los Angeles, and waiting for a return Yuma load, without being released from duty by the Los Angeles terminal manager in order to go to a hotel for some sleep. Don Washum, after stating that he had knowledge that such was the situation , promised to look into the matter. Don Washum and Jones also discussed on this occasion the advisability of having one overall seniority list for the LA-Yuma's and Svensson 's dock and pickup and delivery drivers. As a result of this discussion, Respondent, about mid-January 1964, established a single seniority board for the Yuma-based LA-Yuma and Svensson drivers. About mid-January 1964, Jones telephoned from Phoenix to Don Washum in Yuma and complained about the recent discharge of Bennie Fernandez. After discussing the pros and cons of the discharge, Washum agreed to reinstate Fernandez . Shortly thereafter, Fernandez was reinstated. During January 1964, Jones complained to Don Washum that Eddie Quiroz, an LA-Yuma line driver, was only given 2 weeks' vacation pay whereas under the 1961-64 bargaining contracts Quiroz was entitled to 3 weeks' vacation pay. Don Washum agreed to look into the matter. He did so and Quiroz was given an additional week's pay. On or about February 13, 1964, LA-Yuma for- warded to Local 104 its check for $61 being the total amount of March dues deducted from the wages of the above-named six employees as per the "billing" Local 104 sent LA-Yuma. On February 17, Jones, accompanied by Horace Manning , president and assistant business agent of Local 104, conferred with the two Washums and Lefty Fletcher in Respondent's Yuma offices about the discharges of Wayne Camp and A . J. Fletcher85 and the layoff of Benny Fernandez, three LA-Yuma truckdrivers. In reply to Jones' request to put the above-named men back to work, H. L. Washum replied , and Don Washum repeated his father's re- marks, that Respondent was a CTA member, that they paid CTA for advice, that they intended to fol- low CTA's advice, and that CTA had advised them that they need not recognize Local 104 as a representative of Respondent's employees. Jones then said that CTA had given them bad advice and B8 A J Fletcher is the son of Lefty Fletcher who, in turn , is a nephew of H L W ashum B° It will be recalled that on February 13 or 14, Mansfield instructed Din- nie to immediately inform H L Washum that Dinnie 's advice was errone- the Washums should recognize and deal with Local 104. H. L. Washum replied that Dinnie had advised him that then-existing contracts "did not follow from one Local Union to the other" and hence Respondent did not have a binding contract with Local 104 and therefore he would not recognize Local 104. H. L. Washum further stated that Respondent would not go through the grievance procedure with respect to the grievances Local 104 had previously filed, or was about to file, on behalf of the above-named three men." Jones then asked Don Washum why A. J. Fletcher was fired. Don Washum replied that Fletcher took too long on a certain stated trip to Los Angeles and then related the details of a certain incident which purportedly occurred between Fletcher and the Los Angeles terminal manager . H. L. Washum also remarked that Fletcher was just a drunk and that he would not reinstate him. Before the meeting concluded, H. L. Washum remarked that he was willing to sit down and negotiate a new contract with Local 104. Jones rejected the suggestion. Under date of February 18, 1964, Local 104' wrote the following letter to LA-Yuma: This will be Local 104's renewed request that we be recognized as the bargaining agent for your Yuma based employees performing work that is covered by the Pick-up ands Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement and the Western States Area Over-the-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreements, and further, that you comply with the terms and provisions of the above referred to Agreements in their entirety. We refer you to Article 25 of the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement. This will also be Local 104's request that you: 1. Furnish an itemized statement of earnings for each employee that is not attached to the check. 2. Post a current Seniority List, both Local and Line, of all employees holding seniority and forward copies to the Union office. 3. Put the Sign-in sheet back in use. 4. Maintain the heaters in your power equipment in a proper working order. During the first week of March 1964, Jones and Horace Manning met at the Yuma terminal offices with the two Washums and Lefty Fletcher. Jones opened the meeting by stating that the Trucking In- dustry-Joint State Labor-Management Committee (formerly Area Joint Labor-Management Commit- tee) had held a hearing on the three grievances which Local 104 had filed with that Committee pursuant to the terms of the bargaining contracts ous, that Dinnie should tell Washum that he was bound by the contracts re- gardless of the transfer of jurisdiction , and that Dinnie so informed Washum that day LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 363 then in force. The grievances were (1) with respect to LA-Yuma's refusal to recognize and bargain with Local 104 as the representative of the employees involved'87 (2) the discharge of A. J. Fletcher, and (3) Bennie Fernandez' February 14 layoff. Jones then stated that decisions rendered by the Commit- tee were (1) to direct LA-Yuma to recognize and bargain with Local 104 as the representative of em- ployees involved and (2) to reinstate A. J. Fletcher and Fernandez. The Washums replied-each, ac- cording to Jones, was "doing the talking"-and stated, to quote from Jones' testimony, "They had been given information from Mr. Dinnie of the California Trucking Association that the contract was not in effect with Local 104." Don Washum then asked Jones to be permitted to see copies of the said committee's decisions so that he could have copies made and forward them to CTA in order to ascertain whether the decisions should be compiled with. Jones replied that Don Washum could have his copies, and he gave them to Washum. Under date of March 11, 1964, Local 104 wrote the Freight Division, enclosing copies of the said four grievances which had been passed upon by the Joint Area Labor-Management Committee on March 2, and requested strike sanction, if a strike should become necessary to enforce said decisions. The record clearly establishes, and the Trial Ex- aminer finds, that Local 104 was legally assigned jurisdiction over all Yuma-based employees who desired to become members of Local 104 after Joint Council 42 had relinquished control over all Yuma-based members. The Trial Examiner further finds that as soon as Respondent was advised of the transfer of jurisdiction and to the fact that com- mencing on January 1, 1964, it would have to deal with Local 104 instead of Local 898, Respondent immediately afforded Local 104 recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em- ployees involved and commencing in January 1964, it dealt with Local 104 as such representative to the same extent it had recognized and dealt with Local 898 in administering the 1961-64 bargaining agree- ments in question. It thus follows that Respondent's February 1964 notice to CTA and its April 23, 1964, letter to 208 that it desired to be relieved of its obligations under the aforementioned 1961-64 agreements avails it naught. These abortive at- tempts certainly cannot-and do not-release Respondent from the 1961-67 agreements in question. F. Concluding Findings The statutory duty to bargain in good faith im- posed on employers and unions includes the duty to 01 Copies of the grievances were served on LA-Yuma but they did not ap- pear at the grievance hearings held on March I and 2 "s See The Standard Oil Co v. N L R.B., 322 F 2d 40,45 (C.A. 6), Henry I Siegel Co, Inc. v N L R.B., 340 F 2d 309, 311 (C A 2), NLRB v Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 367 F 2d 55 (C A. 10) See also N L.R.B v execute a collective-bargaining agreement reached. Section 8(d) of the Act expressly defines the duty "to bargain collectively" to include "the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party. 11811 This portion of Section 8(d), which was added by the 1947 Amendments, codifies the decisions under the original Act in H. J. Heinz Company v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 523, 524. This same requirement applies to a multiemployer agreement reached with a union by an authorized representa- tive of the employer, acting on his behalf.89 Indeed, it is particularly important that the statutory requirement respecting the execution of agree- ments reached be enforced with respect to mem- bers of a multiemployer bargaining unit. Bargaining in this situation affects a large number of employers and their employees. The effectiveness of such bar- gaining depends in large measure upon adherence by all parties to the agreements concluded at the group level. The statutory effect of requiring execution of agreements reached is readily apparent with respect to contracts negotiated on a group basis. The value of multiemployer bargaining to the development of stable and responsible industrial relationships has been widely recognized, and has been "a vital fac- tor in the effectuation of a national policy of promoting labor peace through strengthened col- lective bargaining."90 The central feature of such bargaining is the standardization of contract terms for the employers within the bargaining unit. Clearly, such standardization could not be achieved if an individual employer, having manifested an in- tent to be bound by group bargaining, could refuse to be bound by the results of that bargaining. In passing upon a situation on all fours with the one here presented, the Sixth Circuit said in Universal Insulation Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 361 F.2d 406 (C.A. 6): On July 2, 1962, Universal became a member of Master Insulators Association of Knoxville, Tennessee, which had as one of its primary Purposes the representation of its members in collective bargaining with Local 46. By joining the Association, Universal became a party to the contract then existing between the Association and the Union. The expiration date of this contract was November 15, 1962, and several months prior thereto negotiations began between the Association and the Union. Universal was kept informed of the progress of the negotiations and on November 13, 1962, when first advised that a wage increase had been offered to the Union, stated that it would withdraw from the As- sociation if the new contract provided for a Gene Hyde, dibla Hyde's Supermarket, 339 F 2d 568 (C A 9) tl8 N L R B v. Jeffries Banknote Company, 281 F 2d 893 (C A 9) 90 N.L R B. v Truck Drivers Local Union No 449, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (Buffalo Linen Supply Co ), 353 U S 87,95 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD wage increase. The Union and the Association failed to reach an agreement before the old contract expired and the employees of Univer- sal and of the other Association members, refusing to work without a contract, struck their respective employers. Negotiation con- tinued and on November 21st a contract was agreed upon which did include a wage in- crease, whereupon, Universal resigned from the Association. When the new agreement was reached, all employees of the members of the Association, with the exception of the Univer- sal employees, returned to work. Universal contends that it is not bound by the new contract because of its withdrawal from the Association. However, multiemployer bargaining is ". . . a vital factor in the effectua- tion of the national policy of promoting labor peace through strengthened collective bar- gaining". N.L.R.B. v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, 353 U.S. 87, 77 S.Ct. 643, 1 L.Ed. 2d 676 (1957), and it follows that such bargaining cannot be effective unless an em- ployer who has designated an employees' as- sociation as its bargaining representative is bound by the terms of the negotiated contract. N.L.R.B. v. Jeffries Banknote Company, 281 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1960). While it is recog- nized that membership in a multiemployer unit is wholly voluntary and that an employer is free to withdraw from it, the employer must clearly evince at an appropriate time its inten- tion to do so. N.L.R.B. v. Sklar, 316 F.2d 145 (6th Cir. 1963), and the Board has ruled that withdrawal from a multiemployer unit is un- timely absent union consent once negotiations on a new contract have started. The Kroger Company, 148 NLRB 569 (1964); Ice Cream Frozen Custard Employees, 145 NLRB 865 (1964); C & M Construction Company, 147 NLRB 843 (1964); Walker Electric Company, 142 NLRB 1214 (1963). This rule has recently been followed by the Second Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Sheridan Creations, Inc., 357 F.2d 245 (March, 1966),91 and under the facts of this case, it is concluded that it should be fol- lowed here.92 As found above, the Freight Division sent 2,931 employers who were parties to, or were bound by, the then Western States Area Master Freight Agreement, including all supplements and riders thereto, notification of its desire to negotiate changes and revisions of the aforementioned agree- ments "for the contract period commencing July 1, 1964, and to enter into a National Agreement as provided in Articles 26, 27 and 36 of the Area Master Agreement"; the letter of notification then requested those employers not desiring to be represented in such negotiations by any employer association who are parties to the then Area Agree- ment, and desired individual notice of the time and place of future negotiating meetings to so inform the Freight Division of such desire ; on or about September 26, 1963, LA-Yuma received a copy of said letter of negotiation and on or about Sep- tember 30 , 1963, Svensson also received a copy thereof; under date of September 19, 1963, CTA wrote LA-Yuma, as well as its other members who had given CTA labor powers of attorney , stating: Contract reopening notices under Articles 26 (National Agreements ), 27 (Multi-Em- ployer Unit), and 36 (Termination Clause) of the Western States Area Master Freight Agree- ment are being received by C.T.A. and in- dividual member companies. Anticipating some time ago that the Team- sters might well invoke the "National Agree- ment" clause (in most industry agreements na- tionwide), and in order to be organized na- tionally to better cope with any eventuality, C.T.A. joined with other industry bargaining groups in forming Trucking Employers, Inc., which will represent the trucking industry in national negotiations. C.T.A. is actively and well represented on the Executive Policy, Administrative ands Labor Advisory Committee of the Trucking In- dustry, Inc. (See CALTRUX September 23 for list of C.T.A. representatives.) In order for Trucking Employers, Inc., to represent you in these national negotiations, C.T.A. will need further authorization from you. A form for this purpose is being prepared and will be sent to you within the next week or 10 days. The September 23, 1963, issue of Caltrux not only set forth the names of the CTA representatives on TEI's Executive Policy Committee and the names of CTA representatives on TEI's Labor Ad- visory Committee, but it also stated, "Representing the Trucking Industry in forthcoming national negotiations will be Trucking Employers, Inc., an organization formed by some 35 industry bargain- ing groups throughout the country, including CTA." Within a few days of October 15, 1963, Respon- dent received a letter from CTA calling its atten- tion to CIA's September 19 letter and to the article appearing in the Caltrux September 23 issue re- garding contract reopening negotiations under Sec- tions 26, 27, and 36 of the Western States Master Freight Agreement, quoting in full Section 26 of 91 Cert denied , January 9 , 1967, 385 U.S. 1005 " Accord: Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, Inc., supra LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 365 said contract. The letter also stated that TEI would represent the trucking industry in national negotia- tions with the Teamsters ; requested execution of the power of attorney therein enclosed so TEI could advise the Teamsters whom TEI represented; and continued: If for any reason your company does not wish to execute the [enclosed power of attor- ney], you should advise us immediately and cancel your present labor power of attorney. Otherwise , you will be included in the bargain- ing unit and bound by the results of the na- tional negotiation but without being represented. Under date of October 18, CTA again advised all its labor power attorney members, including Respondent: As a party to the Master Freight Agreement you are in the multi-employer bargaining unit created by that agreement.... As you have been informed by our earlier bulletins, CTA and other employer associations have set up a national negotiating committee. You will be in- cluded in the employer bargaining unit when those national negotiations commence, unless you withdraw from that bargaining unit completely. ... national negotiations covering the Over- the-Road and Pickup & Delivery and Local Cartage may commence very soon. If you do not wish to be bound by those negotiations you must withdraw from the employer bargaining unit that will be conducting those negotiations. If that is your wish you must act immediately by giving us notice of unconditional cancella- tion of your labor power of attorney relating to all Teamster agreements . Such cancellation will constitute your withdrawal from the em- ployer bargaining unit and we will so notify the Union. If you wish to remain in the employer bar- gaining unit for the national negotiations covering the over-the-road and pickup and delivery and local cartage operations you should sign and return the authorizations sent to you with our bulletin of October 15. On October 21, 1963, LA-Yuma executed and delivered to CTA a power of attorney authorizing CTA to act for and on its behalf in all collective- bargaining matters concerning Local 224. The Caltrux November 25 issue called Respon- dent's attention to the fact that CTA had forwarded to TEI "Authorizations to Represent" covering 284 companies "who will be represented in the national negotiations for Over-The-Road and Local Cartage Agreements." The December 2, 1963, Caltrux issue announced the meeting of the TEI's Executive Policy Commit- tee and Advisory Committee and Negotiating Com- mittee at which meeting plans will be made for the commencement of the negotiations with the Team- sters on a national basis; that TEI had received the Teamsters proposals for 3-year "National Over-the- Road and National Local Agreements" contracts, and that CTA members would receive copies of said proposals later that week from the Freight Division together with notices of time, date, and place for the commencement of negotiating. The Caltrux December 9 issue announced: A committee representing thousands of trucking companies throughout the national last week was authorized to "attempt to negotiate" a national agreement with the team- sters union. ... the Executive Policy Committee of Trucking Employers, Inc. directed a negotiat- ing committee to meet with a teamsters negotiating committee ... [TEI]. ... was founded ... to put up a united front to union demands [and] represents companies ranging from small local carriers to trans-con- tinental haulers of all types of freight. Under date of December 2, 1963, Washum ex- ecuted two "Authorization[s] to Represent."93 These instruments were received by CTA on December 4, 1963, and authorized: CTA and/or any other trucking employer group or committee designated by the Califor- nia Trucking Association to represent the un- dersigned in collective bargaining negotiations incident to the provisions of the above-named contracts.... Not only were not Respondent's attempts to withdraw from the multiemployer group by Don Washum's February 2, 1964, letter to CTA, nor H. L. Washum's February and April 1964 revocations of the CTA October 26, 1963, and September 3, 1956, timely but those revocations specifically re- lated to the powers of attorney given CTA as to Lo- cals 208, 224, and 357. Moreover, with respect to the so-called revocations of April 23, 1964, written on the letterhead of "Los Angeles, Yuma and Phoenix" and signed "H. L. Washum, owner," specifically stated that it should not take effect until June 30, 1964, the expiration date of the 1961-64 agreements. Beginning almost immediately after the Team- "One "Authorization to Represent " referred to the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the other to the Western States Area Pickup, Local Cartage & Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement and Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supple- mental. It is significant to note that Washum acknowledged in the first of the two "Authorization [ s] to Represent" that the agreements and the supplements thereto "are in effect through June 30, 1964 " 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sters had given timely notice of its intention to open negotiations on a national basis, and continuing for months thereafter , by means of letters , bulletins, and articles appearing weekly in Caltrux, CTA in- formed Respondent and all of its other labor powers of attorney that those companies who did not notify CTA prior to the commencement of the national negotiations of their desire to withdraw from the then existing multiemployer group those employers would "be included in the bargaining unit and [would be] bound by the results of the na- tional negotiations but without being represented," Respondent did nothing, remained silent, and then finally under date of December 2, 1963, it author- ized CTA "and/or any trucking group or committee designated by" CTA to represent it "in collective bargaining incident to" a bargaining agreement on a national basis . In addition , the Teamsters also notified some 3,000 employers located within the 11 Western States, including LA-Yuma and Svensson, to the same effect. Contrary to Respondent 's contention, as ex- pressed at the hearing and in its brief, the Trial Ex- aminer finds that Respondent's attempted withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining unit was clearly untimely. The Trial Examiner further finds that Respondent violated the bargaining requirements of the Act by refusing to accept the contracts negotiated by TEI on behalf of its mem- bers, including CTA and those employers who had authorized CTA to act on their behalf, and by refusing to continue to recognize the Teamsters as the representative of Respondent 's employees in the multiemployer unit. To hold otherwise would permit the easy disintegration of such bargaining units, contrary to Congressional recognition that the statutory scheme is served by "preserving the multiemployer bargaining unit."9' For multiem- ployer bargaining can only be meaningful and thereby function as contemplated by the bargaining provisions of the Act, where the employers are bound by the agreement concluded by the repre- sentative they have authorized on their behalf. Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Ex- aminer finds that Respondent , and each of them, is, and during all times material was , (1) a party to, and bound by, the 1964-67 applicable bargaining agreements in question ; (2) LA-Yuma is a party to, and bound by, the said applicable 1964-67 agree- ments by (a) virtue of its duly executed CTA powers of attorney, (b) its failure to avail itself of the reopening and termination provisions of the 1961-64 agreements to which it was a party; (3) Svensson is a party to, and is bound by, the said ap- plicable 1964-67 agreements by (a) virtue of the integration of management control of the opera- tions of LA-Yuma and itself, (b) its failure to avail itself of the reopening and termination provisions of 4 the applicable 1961-64 agreements to which it was a party; (4) Respondent's attempted withdrawals from the multiemployer units were untimely. The Trial Examiner further finds that Respon- dent, and each of them, by (1) refusing to recog- nize or deal with the Teamsters International, Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees here in- volved on and after mid-February 1964, (2) repu- diating, and refusing to abide by the terms and con- ditions of the applicable 1961-64 collective-bar- gaining agreements in question on and after mid- February 1964, (3) refusing to process pursuant to the applicable 1961-64 bargaining agreements the grievances filed in behalf of certain discharged and/or laid-off employees, (4) refusing to abide by the awards made by the duly constituted grievances panel with respect to the aforesaid grievants, (5) by refusing to recognize and repudiating the 1964-67 applicable collective-bargaining agreements here in question; and (6 ) refusing to recognize, on and after mid-February 1964, the aforementioned transfer of jurisdiction from Joint Council 42 to Joint Council 71 violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and since such conduct necessarily interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees here involved in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent also violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) thereof. In an effort to absolve itself of any violation under the Act with respect to the 1964-67 bargain- ing agreements , Respondent's main contentions as expressed at the hearing and in its brief are: (1) The 1964-67 National Master Freight Agreement "is in restraint of trade and violates Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act"; (2) Respondent is "not bound by the National Master Freight Agree- ment" because the agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law; (3) the bargaining unit is inap- propriate; and (4) the Teamsters consented to Respondent's withdrawal from the bargaining unit. The Trial Examiner is of the opinion that the question whether a collective-bargaining agree- ment, such as here involved , violates the Sherman Antitrust Act is for the courts, and not for the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, to determine. First of all, there is no method by which the parties to an antitrust case could be assured of obtaining a Board ruling on the question. The Board's procedures do not lend themselves to the determination of issues of Federal law that arise in antitrust litigation. Secondly, the statutory scheme of the National Labor Relations Act shows that Congress intended the Federal courts to determine questions under the Sherman Antitrust Act which arise in antitrust cases within their statutory jurisdiction. Thus, as the Supreme Court stated: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction ... ap- plies where a claim is originally cognizable in " N L R B v Brown , et a! , dllb/a Brown Food Stores, 380 U S. 278, fn. LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES the courts, and comes into play whenever en- forcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which , under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special com- petence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views. [ United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63-64.95] But before the doctrine of primary jurisdiction can come into play, it is necessary not only that the issue be within the special competence of the ad- ministrative agency, but, equally important , that the regulatory statute provide suitable procedures for its resolution. In the cases in which the doctrine heretofore has been applied , the litigants in the judicial proceeding have been able to obtain an administrative ruling by filing a complaint with the agency. Thus, after the Court held in the Western Pacific case , supra, that the Court of Claims should have referred the issue of tariff interpretation there involved to the In- terstate Commerce Commission , the United States filed a complaint with the Commission raising that issue . Similarly, in the Far East case the Court, in holding that the Federal Maritime Board had pri- mary jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the legality of a steamship conference 's use of a "dual rate" system , ruled (342 U. S. at 576 ) that the United States could file a complaint with the agen- cy challenging the system under the Shipping Act. The National Labor Relations Act, however, pro- vides no similar procedure by which the parties to a pending antitrust action can be assured of obtaining a Board ruling on an issue allegedly within that agency's primary jurisdiction . Unlike most regulato- ry agencies , the Board's adjudicative processes are not automatically put into operation by filing a complaint with it. The Board 's processing of unfair labor practice cases involves a two-step procedure. First, a charge that an unfair labor practice has been committed must be filed with a Regional Director of the Board . On the basis of such charge and after investigation , the General Counsel (acting through the Regional Director ) decides either to proceed further with the case ( by issuing a com- plaint ) or to drop it. The Act gives the General Counsel "`final authority ' respecting the investiga- tion of charges, the issuance of complaints , and the prosecution of complaints before the Board." (D. B. Lewis, President , Lewis Food Company, et al. v. N.L.R.B., 357 U .S. 10, 15-16). Thus, had Respond- ent filed a suit in the Federal court contending that the agreement in question was violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act or violative of any other Federal antitrust laws and if the district court were to remit the parties to the Board , and Respondent then had filed a charge that the Teamsters had committed unfair labor practices , the General 367 Counsel, had he believed that under the Board's decisions no violations were shown, could have refused to issue a complaint and thus terminated any administrative proceeding at the outset. If the General Counsel does not issue a com- plaint, the Act provides no method by which the Board can determine whether particular conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice. Although the Board's rules of practice provide for the issuance of advisory opinions and, upon petition of the General Counsel, for declaratory orders respecting narrow jurisdictional issues, the Board in such rulings merely states whether it would assume jurisdiction over a particular controversy, and does not discuss the merits of the dispute. There are no procedures, however, for obtaining declaratory rulings on questions of labor law arising in antitrust litigation. For the Board to improvise such procedures would appear inconsistent with the basic statutory plan of the National Labor Relations Act to limit rulings on unfair labor practice questions to situations where the General Counsel has issued a complaint following the filing of a charge. Since Respondent contended at the hearing, that, assuming the Board lacks jurisdiction to decide a question involving Federal antitrust laws, consid- eration, nonetheless, should be given to Respond- ent's evidence which discloses that said 1964-67 agreements are, in fact, violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act when fashioning a remedy, if any, of unfair labor practices. Respondent's argument in support of said contention is, as expressed in its brief, "If the contract in question violates the Sher- man Antitrust Act ... the Board may not fashion a remedy which would require [Respondent] to become a party to the illegal agreement." Under the circumstances, the Trial Examiner will discuss and pass upon the four numbered contentions seriatim. As to (1) and (2) Respondent, relying heavily upon United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, Respondent points to the fourth "Whereas" clause in the "Resolution Re: National Negotia- tions" unanimously adopted at the herein above- described August 27 and 28, 1963, Washington, D.C., joint meeting of representatives from each Teamsters Joint Council and representatives from all major freight Teamsters Locals, as being indica- tive of the Teamsters and TEI "attempts to create a permanent bargaining unit of national scope, which will be subject to contracts negotiated by and between" said parties and hence violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The relied-on clause reads as follows: WHEREAS, it has been our experience that we can protect and advance the wages and work- ing conditions of our members only through uniform agreements of the widest possible 96 Cf. Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U S. 570,574-575. 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD scope which will prohibit destructive wage competition among the various geographical areas in the country, and which will make wages no longer a competitive factor in the competition among trucking employers for business. Pennington commenced as a suit brought by the trustees of a welfare and retirement fund (established by bargaining contracts between UMW and certain employers in the coal mining industry) against a coal company and its individual partners, demanding payments alleged to be due and payable to the fund under a collective-bargaining contract to which the company was a party. The company cross-claimed against UMW , alleging that the trustees, the UMW, and certain large coal opera- tors had conspired to restrain and to monopolize in- terstate commerce in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lengthy and complex allegations of the cross- claim were succinctly summarized by Mr . Justice White, writing for the majority of the Court,96 as follows: Prior to the 1950 Wage Agreement between the operators and the union, severe con- troversy had existed in the industry, particu- larly over wages, the welfare fund and the union 's efforts to control the working time of its members . Since 1950, however, relative peace has existed in the industry, all as a result of the 1950 Wage Agreement and its amend- ments and the additional understandings en- tered into between UMW and the large opera- tors. Allegedly the parties considered over- production to be the critical problem of the coal industry . The agreed solution was to be the elimination of the smaller companies, the larger companies thereby controlling the mar- ket. More specifically , the union abandoned its efforts to control the working time of the miners, agreed not to oppose the rapid mechanization of the mines which would sub- stantially reduce mine employment , agreed to help finance such mechanization and agreed to impose the terms of the 1950 agreement on all operators without regard for their ability to pay. The benefit to the union was to be in- creased wages as productivity increased with mechanization , these increases to be de- manded of the smaller companies whether mechanized or not. Royalty payments into the welfare fund were to be increased also, and the union was to have effective control over the fund 's use . The union and large companies agreed upon other steps to exclude the market- ing, production , and sale of nonunion coal. Thus the companies agreed not to lease coal N Incidentally , there was no Pennington majority opinion , as such The "main" opinion was delivered by Mr . Justice White in which Chief Justice Warren and Mr Justice Brennan Joined ; Mr Justice Douglas delivered a concurring opinion in which Justices Black and Clark Joined , Mr. Justice lands to nonunion operators , and in 1958 agreed not to sell or buy coal from such com- panies. The companies and the union jointly and successfully approached the Secretary of Labor to obtain establishment under the Walsh-Healey Act ... of a minimum wage for employees of contractors selling coal to the TVA, such minimum wage being much higher than in other industries and making it difficult for small companies to compete in the TVA term contract market. At a later time, at a meeting attended by both union and company representatives , the TVA was urged to curtail its spot market purchases , a substantial portion of which were exempt from the Walsh-Healey order . Thereafter four of the larger companies waged a destructive and collusive price-cutting campaign in the TVA spot market for coal, two of the companies, West Kentucky Coal Co. and its subsidiary Nashville Coal Co., being those in which the union had large in- vestments and over which it was in position to exercise control. [381 U.S. at 659-660.] The contention in Pennington , briefly stated, was that UMW and large producers had agreed to uti- lize uniform collective-bargaining contract terms, imposed without consideration of the individual employer 's particular circumstances, as one ele- ment in a large program to recast the industry into one almost exclusively occupied by a few large companies paying high rates of pay and according generous terms and conditions of employment to UMW members . Thus, it is clear that the facts here are vastly different from the Pennington con- troversy. Respondent's reliance upon the above-quoted August 27 and 28, 1963, Teamsters resolution, in support of one of its contentions that the 1964-67 National Master Freight Agreement was violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act and hence legally unen- forceable is misplaced . The Teamsters, by said resolution, was merely announcing that it would seek the same wage agreement from other trucking industry employers as it would demand from the TEI members. Nowhere in said resolution nor, for that fact, does the evidence herein disclose that it was the Teamsters intention or purpose to enter into a contract which would impose the same wage provision upon other trucking industry employers. Actually, the Teamsters conduct here falls within the ambit of permissible conduct as the Supreme Court in Pennington enounced at 381 U.S. 665: We have said that a union may make wage agreements with a multi-employer bargaining unit and may in pursuance of its own union in- terests seek to obtain the same terms from other employers. No case under the antitrust Goldberg delivered a concurring and dissenting opinion in the companion case (Local 189, Meat Cutters v Jewel Tea Co , 381 U S. 676, case which opinion was considered by the Court to be for both Pennington and Jewel) in which Justices Harlan and Stewart joined - LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 369 laws could be made out on evidence limited to such union behavior .2 But we think a union forfeits its exemption from the antitrust laws when it is clearly shown that it has agreed with one set of employers to impose a certain wage scale on other bargaining units . One group of employers may not conspire to eliminate com- petitors from the industry and the union is lia- ble with the employers if it becomes a party to the conspiracy. This is true even though the union's part in the scheme is an undertaking to secure the same wages , hours or other condi- tions of employment from the remaining em- ployers in the industry. 2 Unilaterally , and without agreement with any employer group to do so, a union may adopt a uniform wage policy and seek vigorously to implement it even though it may suspect that some employers cannot effectively compete if they are required to pay the wage scale de- manded by the union . The union need not gear its wage demands to wages which the weakest units in the industry can afford to pay. Such union conduct is not alone sufficient evidence to maintain a union-em- ployer conspiracy charge under the Sherman Act. There must be addi- tional direct or indirect evidence of the conspiracy There was, of course, other evidence in this case , but we indicate no opinion as to its sufficiency We do not find anything in the national labor policy that conflicts with this conclusion. This Court has recognized that a legitimate aim of any national labor organization is to obtain uniformity of labor standards and that a con- sequence of such union activity may be to eliminate competition based on differences in such standards. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 4699, 503. But there is nothing in the labor policy indicating that the union and the employers in one bargaining unit are free to bargain about the wages , hours and working conditions of other bargaining units or to at- tempt to settle these matters for the entire in- dustry. On the contrary, the duty to bargain unit by unit leads to a quite different conclu- sion. The union 's obligation to its members would seem best served if the union retained the ability to respond to each bargaining situa- tion as the individual circumstances might war- rant, without being strait-jacketed by some prior agreement with the favored employers. On remand of Pennington , after a trial without a jury, Judge Taylor found (62 LRRM 2604, 2645) the evidence insufficient to warrant a finding that UMW had engaged "in a combination or conspira- cy so as to unreasonably restrain trade or to monopolize commerce among the several states," and dismissed the allegations of the complaint as to the issue of unlawful Sherman Antitrust Act activi- ty. In the instant case , Respondent offered no evidence whatsoever to sustain its contentions that the 1964-67 National Master Agreement, including its supplements and riders , are unlawful and hence legally unenforceable. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that a bona fide contract was reached after lengthy arms-length negotiations. In short, Respondent not only failed to show that the effect of the National Master Freight Agreement was to force out of business some employers who lacked financial ability to meet the labor standards fixed by the agreement, but likewise failed to establish that there was a predatory intent on the part of the parties to said agreement to drive other trucking employers out of business. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner finds that Respondent's said numbered contentions regarding the contract's in- firmaties are without substance or merit. As to (3) the evidence discloses that CTA is a trade association admitting to membership em- ployers engaged in the trucking industry within cer- tain areas of the United States; that the purpose of CTA and its precedessor MTA, of which LA-Yuma was a member for a good many years and was aware of this purpose when it became a member, is, inter alia, to represent its members on a multiem- ployer basis in collective bargaining with the Western Conference of Teamsters and its con- stituent locals thereof. Likewise, LA-Yuma was well aware of the unit question and approved of it when it authorized CTA and TEI to act for it on a national multiemployer basis. Svensson likewise was aware of CTA's purpose from at least the time Don Washum became associated with Svensson in 1957. In pursuance of its purpose, CTA, and its predecessor MTA, negotiated collective-bargaining agreements with the Teamsters and/or the Western Conference for upwards of a score of years. LA- Yuma thereby became a party to all the negotiated collective-bargaining agreements with the Team- sters throughout the entire period of its CTA mem- bership. Svensson, independent of its integrated association with LA-Yuma, became bound by, and agreed to, the unit provisions of the 1961-64 agree- ments here in question which agreements it ex- ecuted in 1961 and likewise became bound by, and agreed to, the unit provisions of the 1964-67 agree- ments when it failed to avail itself of the reopening and termination clauses of the said 1961-64 agree- ments . Accordingly, and also for the reasons set forth in section III, A, 2, a, supra, the Trial Ex- aminer rejects, as a matter of law and fact, Respon- dent's contentions that the unit herein above found is not appropriate. During May 1964, Glen Jones and Dick Wright, two assistant business agents of Local 104, the two Washums, and Tom Pavone, Respondent's labor relations consultant and Svensson's then vice pres- ident, held several strike settlement discussions. The meetings produced no results. About mid-May 1964, Jones, Pavone, and Don Washum met in Yuma and discussed ways and means of settling the strike. During the course of this particular conversation, Pavone stated that Respondent could not afford to pay the total amount awarded by the Area Joint Labor-Manage- 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 25 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment Committee to the drivers who had filed grievances (through Local 104) with said Commit- tee. He then offered to give Jones $ 1,000 in cash and let Jones distribute the money in any manner he desired, adding that if the offer was acceptable Respondent would reinstate all the strikers except A. J. Fletcher. Jones replied that any money paid must be by checks made payable to the respective individuals to whom the awards were made. Pavone said he would bow to Jones' suggestion. Shortly after the above-referred to Jones-Pavone- Washum conversation , Jones called a meeting of the strikers in his Yuma motel room . After Jones outlined Pavone's proposition of paying $1,000 to settle the grievances and reinstating all the strikers except A. J. Fletcher, the strikers stated that Pavone's offer was unacceptable . Jones later ad- vised Pavone of the rejection. While in San Francisco about mid-June 1964, at- tending a Joint Western Committee meeting, B. M. Waggoner, president of Joint Council 71 and secre- tary-treasurer of Local 104, was informed by Edwin Blackmarr, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 208, that Larry Johnson , manager of LA-Yuma's Los Angeles terminal facilities , admittedly a super- visor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, was in the hotel where Waggoner was attend- ing the meeting and that Johnson wanted to confer with him. When the opportunity presented itself that day, Waggoner met with Johnson. Waggoner opened the conversation by saying that he understood that Johnson wanted to discuss the strike and he then asked Johnson if Johnson had full authority to act on behalf of LA-Yuma. When Johnson replied , "He felt sure that he did have" such authority, they discussed strike settle- ment and came to a tentative agreement which pro- vided for the reinstatement of the strikers with full seniority , the rulings of the Joint Area Labor- Management Committee to be complied with by LA-Yuma, and the question of A. J. Fletcher's rein- statement to be held in abeyance . Later that day, Johnson informed Waggoner that he had "con- tacted Yuma" and was advised "to drop everything." Later in June 1964, Pavone , by appointment, met with Waggoner in the latter 's Phoenix offices. After some pleasantries had been had, the strike situation was discussed . Waggoner stated that the strike could be settled by the strikers being reinstated with full seniority and the grievance rulings com- plied with. Pavone said he would confer with his client and he would contact Waggoner later. Wag- goner heard nothing further from Pavone. In the forepart of August 1964, a meeting was held at the Los Angeles offices of Brundage & Hackler, Teamsters Los Angeles counsel , at which were present H. L. Washum, Pavone, Daniel Gruender, the then Respondent Phoenix counsel, Alfred Brundage, A. D. Ward, the Teamsters Phoenix counsel , and Blackmarr , the secretary- treasurer of Local 208 . There, the parties engaged in a lengthy strike settlement discussion . The Team- sters said that the strike would be called off if the strikers were reinstated with full seniority and backpay and that the question of the reinstatement of A. J. Fletcher be submitted to the Joint Area Labor-Management Committee and the parties abide by that Committee's decision . The meeting concluded by either Gruender or Pavone remarking that Respondent would consider the proposal and would advise the Teamsters of its decision. The Teamsters heard nothing further from Respondent or from any of its representatives regarding the proposal. On October 26, 1964 , Pavone, Raymond Olson, a then business associate of Pavone , and Jack Gold- berger , a Teamsters official, met and discussed strike settlement , but no solution was reached. On or about November 7, 1964, Pavone, Raymond Olson , and Larry Johnson conferred with Edwin Blackmarr, Jack Goldberger, and Charles Hackler, a member of the law firm of Brundage & Hackler, met in Pavone 's Van Nuys, California, of- fices. The meeting referred to immediately above was opened , after introductions and pleasantries had been had , by Goldberger remarking that he desired to put in writing the terms of the strike settlement agreed upon by him and Pavone during the course of a telephone conversation they had the previous evening and that Hackler was there to draw up whatever papers were necessary . Thereupon, ac- cording to Hackler 's testimony, the following en- sued: At this stage , Mr. Pavone interrupted him and said, "Well, I did talk to you over the phone, but I was not well ; I was physically not well." Mr. Goldberger said, "Well, I don't know about that , but we talked for about an hour and reached a strike settlement agreement on this L.A.-Yuma strike . You remember that as well as I do, Pavone." Mr. Goldberger was beginning to get a little angry. When he said , "You know as well as I do that we reached a settlement agreement on this strike and I wouldn't have called this Attorney from his home on Saturday to come here and draw up the settlement papers if we hadn't one." Thereupon, Pavone said , "Now, wait a minute, Jack, I am not denying that we talked and I am not even denying what you say that we reached a strike settlement agreement. I am simply saying that I don't remember what I said ; I shouldn 't have been talking to you; I was woozy; I wan't at myself." It became then a kind of an argument LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 371 between them. Goldberger's temper was rising and he kept saying, "Look, we have come here-I would not have had Blackmarr and Hackler come here if we had not had a deal. Do you think I would bother these people? I have come here from San Francisco and they have come from their homes. You are re- nigging on the deal." Pavone said, "Well, there is no harm done. There is a man from the company here and I am here and you are here. We can sit down and discuss this thing, we can negotiate " I think he used actually the word, "Ne- gotiate." Goldberger said, "I am not here to negotiate; we are here to complete the settlement by signing a settlement agreement." In the course of the argument back and forth, if you may call it that, between Pavone and Goldberger, Goldberger said-and he said whatever Pavone 's first name is, I guess he referred to him by that name, I don't even know what that is-but, he said, "Well, don't you remember the deal was that all but the one man", and he named his name, "All of the men were to go back to work except the one man and that man was to go through the grievance procedure and the Union would call off the strike? That is all there was to it." It was at this stage that Pavone said, "Well, I am not saying, Jack, that that wasn't agreed to or that I didn't say that. But, I just wasn't at myself and I just wasn't in any shape to be doing business," and words to that effect. Johnson testified on direct examination by Respondent's counsel regarding the above-referred to meeting as follows: Q. How did the meeting begin, if you recall, who opened the meeting? A. Well, Mr. Pavone opened the meeting and said they were there to negotiate and Mr. Goldberger said that no, that he was under the impression they were there to sign a contract. Mr. Pavone said, "Yes, we are going to sign separate contracts for each company." Mr. Goldberger said that yes, we had agreed to separate contracts for the two companies. MR. SLAFF: Object to the quote we had agreed unquote. TRIAL EXAMINER : Just tell us what was said, Mr. Johnson. Q. (By Mr. Kirshman) Tell us what was said, tell us what Mr. Goldberger said, what his words were , as close as you can recall? A. That is what he said , "We agreed to sign a separate contract." Q. All right, sir. To the best of your knowledge, the best you can recall, whatever was said and who said it? A. Well, Mr. Pavone brought up- 0. Do not say brought up. As close as you can recall Pavone saying, give us that, sir. A. Pavone said that we wanted to keep the cattle operation separated and they then asked how many loads of cattle that we hauled. Q. Who asked? A. Mr. Blackmarr asked how many loads of cattle was hauled and I said it averaged maybe two to three loads a day. He disputed my word and said that cattle hauling was seasonal, it couldn't be two to three loads a day. I said, "Well, during the season it averaged out two to three loads a day." Then, Mr. Goldberger wanted us to take back all of the men with the exception of the one who had sabotaged the equipment. MR. SLAFF: Move to strike. TRIAL EXAMINER: Did he say those words? THE WITNESS: Yes, those were his words. TRIAL EXAMINER: All right, the motion is de- nied. Q. (By Mr. Kirshman) Please continue, sir. A. Mr. Pavone said that we weren't prepared to do this and I said, "What about the men that are now presently working." I asked what could be done about that the union men had come in and asked for an election. At this, Mr. Goldberger stood up and he said, "We are here to sign a contract; not for any more negotiations . The other union is an outlaw union. We have gotten rid of it before and we can get rid of it again." Mr. Hackler said that he would not waste his time with any negotiations on a Saturday; and with this, they all walked out. On cross-examination by the General Counsel re- garding this meeting, Johnson, in addition to some testimony regarding Goldberger remarking that he was there to negotiate, that he, himself, knew his employer, LA-Yuma, "was negotiating with the Teamsters," and that some statements were made regarding separate contracts and about a dispute over the transfer of jurisdiction, testified as follows: 0. Do you recall any reference to returning the strikers to their job at that meeting on November 7? A. Yes. Q. Who made that reference? A. (Pause.) I am not sure exactly; it was either Mr. Gold- berger or Mr. Blackmarr; and, I think it was Mr. Blackmarr who made the reference about returning the men to work. Q. This reference was that the union wanted all the strikers returned to work, is that not correct? A. Yes, and then Mr. Goldberger said that he went along with it, that all the drivers go 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD back to work with exception of the one that sabotaged the equipment. Q. Was that one named? A. No. Q. There was no reference to A. J. Fletcher in that meeting? A. Not that I recall; I don't recall it. Q. (By Mr . Mast) You would not sign a contract if the union did not represent a majority of your employees , would you, sir? MR. KIRSHMAN : Same objection. TRIAL EXAMINER : Overruled. Q. (By Mr . Mast ) Can you answer that, sir? A. (Pause .) At the time that we had this meeting , the only thing I can say is that I knew we would negotiate with the Teamsters. Q. Would you speak up, sir? A. I said, at that, the time we were at the meeting, all I can say is that I knew that the company was negotiating with the Teamsters. I cannot answer the question any other way. Q. You knew that the company was negotiating with the Teamsters , is that what you are saying? A. Yes. Q. You knew that they were negotiating a settlement of the strike with the Teamsters, did you not? A. Yes. Q. You knew that this involved strikers who were employed by L.A.-Yuma at Los Angeles, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And you knew it concerned strikers who were employed by Svensson-I mean, L.A.-Yuma at Yuma, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And you knew it involved strikers who were employed by Svensson at Phoenix, did you not? A. No. Q. You did not know that? A. No. Q. You knew that part of the settlement of the strike would involve the return to work-I will withdraw that. You knew that part of the Union's demands with respect to settlement of the strike was the return to work of the strikers at Los Angeles and Yuma , did you not? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember this statement by Mr. Hackler and Mr . Goldberger that , "We didn't come here to negotiate an agreement"? A. Yes. Q. You remember that in connection with the statement that " We came here to settle the strike?" A. No, it was not said in that way. It was said that they came there to sign the contract. They were under the impression that they were there to sign the contract and not for any further negotiations. Q. Now, they were there-Strike that. If the company was there to sign the con- tract, is that right? A. Yes. MR. KIRSHMAN : Just a moment, I will object. I think his testimony was that Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Hackler said they were there to sign a contract. TRIAL EXAMINER : Who made the statement, Mr. Witness? THE WITNESS: Pardon me? TRIAL EXAMINER: Who made that statement? THE WITNESS: Mr . Goldberger made the statement. Q. (By Mr. Mast) And you were saying that Mr. Pavone said nothing about a contract? A. No, I don't remember saying that. Q. What Mr.-Strike that. What did Mr. Pavone say about the con- tract? A. He said that before we signed the con- tract, he wanted to get the certain matters set- tled about bringing the men back and the cat- tle hauling. Q. Now, when Mr. Goldberger said, "We are here to sign the contract", did Mr. Pavone say, "No, we are not here to sign the con- tract"? A. No. Q. Did he say, "Yes, we are here to sign the contract"? A. No. Q. Did he make any reply with respect to the signing of a contract? A. He said , "Before we sign the contract, we want to get this settled about the cattle hauling and these certain union men you want us to return to work." Q. Now, the union men that he was refer- ring to were the strikers , is that right? A. That's right. Q. Do you remember his expressing it, "We are talking about the return to employ- ment of the strikers," or words to that effect? A. Something like that. I do not remember the exact words; it was something like, "We want to settle it about the men who are not working now." It was about bringing the men back. Q. Now, they were talking about the strike settlement at that time? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember Mr. Hackler making LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 373 the statement that he was not there for the pur- pose of negotiating a contract, sir? A. Yes. Q. That he was there-Strike that. Previously he had said that they were there for the purpose of signing the contract , right? A. That's correct. In light of the Trial Examiner 's observation of Hackler and Johnson while each was on the witness stand and after a very careful examination of the entire record , the Trial Examiner finds that Hackler 's version of what took place at the afore- mentioned meeting in Pavone 's office to be sub- stantially in accord with the facts . This finding is based mainly , but not entirely , on the fact that Hackler impressed the Trial Examiner as being one who is meticulous in not enlarging his testimony beyond his memory of what was said and done on the aforesaid occasion. On the other hand , Johnson did not so impress the Trial Examiner. In addition, the record is replete with evidence that , for months prior to this meeting , the parties met on numerous occasions and the only topic discussed was the set- tlement of the strike . There is no evidence in this record that the parties met on those occasions for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement. Under the circumstances , the Trial Ex- aminer finds, contrary to Respondent's contention, that at no time did the Charging Parties herein con- sent to Respondent 's withdrawal from the multiem- ployer unit. G. The Strike and the Refusal To Reinstate the Strikers The undisputed and credited evidence establishes that Local 104 filed four grievances with the Area Joint Labor-Management Board in February 1964; that these grievances , copies of which were mailed to LA-Yuma by Local 1004 under date of February 18, 1964 , centered around Respondent's refusal to recognize and deal with Local 104 as the bargain- ing representative of the employees involved, and the discriminatory discharges of Wayne Moody Camp and A. J. Fletcher , and the discriminatory layoff of Bennie Fernandez;97 that the said com- plaints were heard by the Committee on March 2, 1964; that LA-Yuma did not appear at the scheduled hearing ; that the Committee sustained the contentions of Local 104 that Camp and A. J. Fletcher were discriminatorily discharged and Fer- nandez was discriminatorily laid off, and directed LA-Yuma to recognize and deal with Local 104 as the bargaining representative of the employees in- volved; that during the first week in March 1964, Jones and Horace Manning , a Local 104 assistant business agent, called at Respondent's Yuma ter- minal facilities, conferred with the two Washums and Lefty Fletcher, demanded that the aforesaid Committee's March 2 decisions be adhered to, and the Washums refused to do so; and that by letter, dated March 11, 1964, Local 104 wrote the Western Freight Division, enclosing copies of the aforementioned Committee's March 2 decisions, requested strike sanction, if a strike against LA- Yuma was necessary to force LA-Yuma to comply with the aforesaid March 2, 1964, decisions. Under date of March 20, 1964, Joint Council 71 sent Hoffa a duly executed "Recognition of Con- templation Strike or Picket Action" form, along with a duly executed "Request for Out-of-Work Benefits" for Local 104 members who might strike 9S By letter, dated March 31, 1964, Hoffa directed Vernon Milton and Jack Goldberger, two Interna- tional Teamsters general organizers, "to make a thorough investigation and use your influence wherever possible to bring about a satisfactory con- clusion of the LA-Yuma-Local 107 controversy. The letter then stated that decision upon Local 104's strike sanction request would be held in abeyance until the Goldberger-Milton investigation report had been received by Hoffa. Under date of April 16, 1964, Hoffa wrote Joint Council 71 as follows: Approval for out-of-Work Benefits is herewith granted Local Union No. 104 to cover sixteen (16) members employed by Los Angeles- Yuma Freight Lines, Yuma, Arizona and twen- ty-five (25) members of Locals Nos. 357 and 208 who could become involved .... On April 28, 1964, due to Respondent's refusal to recognize and deal with Local 104 as the bar- gaining representative of the employees involved on and after mid-February 1964, coupled with LA-Yu- ma's refusal to comply with the four March 2 deci- sions of the Area Joint Labor-Management Com- mittee, Local 104 struck LA-Yuma and immediate- ly placed pickets at its Yuma and Los Angeles ter- minal facilities. On June 8, 1964, due to its refusal to recognize and deal with Local 104 as the bar- gaining representative of Svensson's truckdrivers and because LA-Yuma's aforementioned refusal of recognition of Local 104 and to comply with the said Committee's March 2 decisions, Local 104 struck Svensson and immediately placed pickets at its Phoenix terminal facilities. On the first day of the picketing at Los Angeles, April 28, only one person walked the picket line. When the seven LA-Yuma Los Angeles-based em- ployees reported for work that day, they joined the strike and refused to cross the picket line. " Under date of February 21, 1964, the Area Joint Labor -Management Committee wrote LA-Yuma that Local 104 had filed complaints against LA-Yuma , enclosed copies of the complaints , and that the matters would come on for hearing before the Committee at its offices on March 2, 1964, at 10 a.m. " One of the enclosed documents mentioned that members of Local 208 and of Local 357 "could become involved" if a strike occurred 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The next day said employees reported for work at the usual hour and again joined the strike and refused to cross the picket line. On the third day of the Los Angeles picketing, some of the Los Angeles-based employees returned to work when Larry Johnson, the Los Angeles ter- minal manager, induced them to do so by promising payment of their wages for the time they were on strike. On the third or fourth day of the Los Angeles picketing several Yuma-based LA-Yuma employees joined the Los Angeles picket line. Within a day or two thereafter, the pickets were removed. Picketing at the Yuma terminal, however, continued. As found above, Jones met several times in May 1964 with the two Washums and Pavone in an ef- fort to settle the strike; about mid-May Pavone of- fered to pay $1,000 to settle the Area Joint Labor- Management Committee's awards and to reinstate all the strikers except A. J. Fletcher; and Waggoner and Johnson met in about the second week of May in San Francisco and discussed strike settlement. About mid-May 1964 the picketing at the Los Angeles terminal was reinstated. At or about 9 p.m., on Sunday, June 7, 1964, a picket line was established at Svensson's Phoenix freight terminal. The only picket that night was Horace Manning, an assistant business agent of Local 104. The next day Billy Fields and Clarence Turner, two Svensson truckdrivers and Local 104 members, joined the picket line. About 8 a.m. on Wednesday, June 10, Manning went to the Svensson terminal and was informed by Turner, who was then doing picket duty, that five Svensson truckdrivers, 9 who were also Local 104 members, and had picketed Svensson on June 8 and/or 9, had crossed the picket line earlier that morning and had gone to work. Manning thereupon went to the Local 104 headquarters and consulted with other Local 104 officials. About 12:30 p.m. that day, June 10, Manning returned to the Svensson terminal and informed the two pickets, Turner and Fields, that he was lifting the picket line. Manning , accompanied by Turner and Fields, then went to the terminal office and told Don Cooper, Svensson's terminal manager, that he was removing the picket line and Turner and Fields "were returning to work." Cooper replied that the matter "was out of his hands and that he had nothing to do with it," suggesting that Manning, Turner, and Fields see Pavone who was then inside the terminal office. At Manning's request, Pavone came out of the office. Manning, in the presence of Turner, Fields, and Leonard Taylor, a Local 104 business agent, told Pavone, "We had removed the picket line and that these two boys, Clarence Turner and Billy "Namely, James Albritton, Utah Albritton, Leon Albritton, Harvey Harris, and another man named Harris. ' The filing of grievance with the League is the second step in the Fields, were returning to work." Pavone replied, to quote from Turner's testimony, "We [Turner and Fields] had been replaced for the day." Pavone, after referring to some incident purportedly having taken place the evening before at Gila Bend, Arizona, remarked that he did not know whether or not he could use Fields and/or Turner the following day. Later that day, June 10, Svensson sent Turner and Fields termination notices. Each notice bore the notation that the respective employee had voluntarily quit his employment with Svensson. Local 104 received copies of the termination notices on June 11. Upon receipt of the aforementioned termination notices, Manning and Jones went to Svensson's ter- minal and informed Cooper that neither Fields nor Turner had quit his job and requested that they be put to work. Cooper replied that the matter was out of his hands but that he "would check with Washum in Yuma." On June 16, not having heard from Svensson re- garding the Turner and Fields discharges, Local 104 filed grievances with the Arizona Motor Truck League, protesting the discharges of Fields and Turner.' The same day, copies of said grievances were mailed to Don Washum in Yuma and to Cooper in Phoenix. Thereafter, the league, after notification to Svensson of a hearing date having been set and Svensson's failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, found that Turner and Fields were wrongfully discharged. Because Svensson failed to comply with the league's decision, Local 104 took the Turner-Fields matter before the Area Joint Labor-Management Committee. Said commit- tee, after due notice to Svensson, held a hearing on the grievances, decided that Fields and Turner were wrongfully discharged, and so notified Svensson. Svensson refused to comply with the Area Joint Labor-Management Committee awards although requested to do so by Local 104. On or about June 17, 1964, Turner telephoned Cooper and requested a job. Cooper replied, to quote Turner, "It was out of his hands," and declined to rehire Turner. In or about October 1965, Turner again telephoned Cooper and requested employment. Cooper replied that he could not rehire Turner but Turner was at liberty to come to the terminal and fill out an employment application blank.2 In the latter part of June or in the fore part of July 1964, John Williams, vice president and busi- ness representative of Local 202, accompanied by about five Los Angeles-based LA-Yuma striking employees, who were also Local 208 members, went to the Los Angeles terminal 's office and told Larry Johnson, the terminal manager, in Pavone's grievance procedure setup under the 1961 -64 bargaining contracts involved ' Cooper's authority to hire and discharge is undisputed LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES presence that the Los Angeles terminal picket line had been withdrawn and that all the striking em- ployees were returning to work. Johnson stated that he had "no authority to rehire the people . "3 Pavone then stated, to quote Williams, "There were no openings at that time ... if the people would make an application ... they may be considered for rehire with a new seniority date if they were rehired." Williams and the employees then left. Grievances were filed by Local 208 with the Area Joint Labor-Management Committee on be- half of all the Los Angeles -based strikers who were refused reinstatement in the fore part of July 1964. Copies of the grievances were mailed to LA-Yuma by Local 208 pursuant to the procedure setup in the bargaining agreements involved . Thereafter, notice was given by the aforesaid Committee to LA-Yuma that such grievances had been filed with it and that a hearing thereon would be heard at a specified time and place . LA-Yuma failed to be represented by a duly qualified representative at the scheduled hearing and after the presentation of the matter the Committee decided that the griev- ants had been wrongfully discharged and they should be reinstated forthwith . Copies of the Com- mittee 's decisions were duly served upon LA- Yuma, but it refused to comply therewith although requested to do so by the Teamsters International, Local 208, and by Local 104. As found above , many attempts were made, com- mencing in June and for several months thereafter by Local 208, Local 104, the Teamsters Interna- tional, and Local 357, to induce Respondent to reinstate all the LA-Yuma and Svensson striking employees and to recognize Local 104 as the bar- gaining representative of the employees involved, but without avail. On May 12, 1965, A. D. Ward, attorney for the charging parties herein , sent the following tele- gram :4 LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES SVENSSON FREIGHT LINES 800 PACIFIC AVE. YUMA , ARIZONA DAN GRUENDER, ATTY. SUITE 1212 222 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. PHOENIX , ARIZONA STRIKE ENDED ON MAY 10. THROUGH LOCAL 104, EMPLOYEES MAHLBERG, GILL, FERNANDEZ, BABB , FRIST, QUIROZ , MARTINEZ , BELTRON, AND A. J. FLETCHER HEREWITH UNCONDITIONALLY OFFER TO RETURN TO WORK IMMEDIATELY. THROUGH LOCALS 104, 208 AND 357, PREVIOUS DEMANDS HAVE BEEN MADE UPON EMPLOYER THAT EMPLOYEES TURNER, FIELDS , EMPLOYEES I Johnson 's authority to hire and discharge is undisputed 4 The Yuma picket line was withdrawn on May 12, 1965 375 ALVAREZ, NELSON , GUTIERREZ , MILLER, MARTINEZ , JIMINEZ , ENGQUIST , REGALADO, AND EMPLOYEE FEDERICO BE RETURNED TO WORK. WITHOUT WAIVING RIGHTS UNDER PRIOR DEMANDS , THESE EMPLOYEES , TURNER, ET AL, THROUGH SAID UNIONS, RESPECTIVELY, HEREWITH UNCONDITIONALLY OFFER TO RETURN TO WORK IMMEDIATELY . ALL EMPLOYEES CAN BE CONTACTED AT THEIR HOME ADDRESSES OR THROUGH APPROPRIATE TEAMSTER UNION. On May 17, 1965, Daniel Gruender , the then Respondent attorney,, telegraphed Ward as fol- lows:5 REGARDING YOUR TELEGRAM DATED MAY 12, 1965. FERNANDEZ , FLETCHER AND ALVEREZ WERE TERMINATED FOR CAUSE. WILL NOT REHIRE . ALVAREZ AND OTHERS BESIDES FERNANDEZ AND FLETCHER PERMANENTLY REPLACED AS RESULT OF IMPROPER STRIKE CONCERNING INTERPRETATION AND EFFECT OF AGREEMENT . FURTHER NO WORK IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE . FERNANDEZ , BABB AND GILL ENGAGED IN STRIKE MISCONDUCT WARRANTING REFUSAL TO REINSTATE . CLIENTS DO NOT CONDONE MISCONDUCT AND ANYONE WHO MAY BE OFFERED JOB SHOULD UNDERSTAND CLIENT WILL TERMINATE IF INVESTIGATION SUBSEQUENTLY REVEALS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRIKE MISCONDUCT WARRANTING REFUSAL TO EMPLOY. TURNER ADVISES HE IS NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO WORK AND YOUR OFFER FOR HIM DENIED ON THAT GROUND ALSO. ALL INDIVIDUALS YOU DIRECTED TO REPORT TO OUR CLIENTS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT EMPLOYMENT APPLICATIONS . REQUEST YOU CONVEY THIS TELEGRAM. As above noted , the strike was called in April 1964, as a result of Respondent's refusal to recog- nize and deal with Local 104 as the bargaining representative of the employees involved and because it refused to process certain grievances on and after mid-February 1964, or to comply with the Area Joint Labor-Management Committee's decisions thereon. It is unquestionably correct , as pointed out by Respondent at the hearing and in its brief, that no finding of unfair labor practices can properly be found prior to the 10(b) cutoff date (June 8, 1964). The fact remains, however, that Respon- dent's refusal to comply with the Act 's mandates continued on and after the aforesaid cutoff date, and that the strike, because of Respondent's unfair labor practices subsequent to the cutoff date, as found herein , actually prolonged the strike. Under those circumstances , the Trial Examiner finds that, at all times after June 8, 1964, the strike was an un- fair labor practice strike and that the strikers were ' This telegram was signed , "Daniel F Gruender attorney for LA-Yuma Freight Lines and Svensson Freight Lines Inc " 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD entitled to reinstatement on the dates they uncondi- tionally applied for reinstatement.6 Respondent contends that if the Trial Examiner finds that the strikers should be offered reinstate- ment, in no event should LA-Yuma be ordered to reinstate Frank Gill , William Babb , or Bennie Fer- nandez, three Yuma-based employees , because of their picket line misconduct . It would serve no use- ful purpose to set forth here at length the activities attributed to said three employees, for the Trial Ex- aminer is convinced , and finds, after a very careful reading of the entire record and after taking into consideration the impression which all the persons, individually and collectively , who testified about these activities , made upon the Trial Examiner, that the conduct complained of was provoked by H. L. Washum and Respondent 's supervisors who ap- peared at the picket line from time to time. The filthy, vile , disgusting, and unprintable language directed by the aforesaid three strikers toward H. L. Washum and Respondents ' officials were the very same words used first by H. L. Washum against the strikers . It is true that Gill, Babb, and Fernandez threatened H. L. Washum and Lefty Fletcher, and perhaps other LA-Yuma personnel, with bodily harm, but, it is equally true, that those threats were made only after Washum and other LA-Yuma personnel had threatened the said three men with like treatment . In fact, the record establishes that on two separate occasions during the strike , H. L. Washum attempted to run down Gill, Babb, and Fernandez with his pickup truck. If it were not for their quick footwork, each of the said strikers would , no doubt, have been seriously injured because Washum was driving the truck at the time of the incidents at a speed unnecessarily excessive . The record also establishes that , in H. L. Washum's presence, supervisors and nonstrikers taunted the strikers by calling them filthy names. Respondent also points to an incident which oc- curred during the strike involving Kenneth Raul- ston. The facts regarding this incident may be sum- marized as follows: Several weeks after the strike began Raulston , a nonunion employee who worked at the terminal before, during, and after the strike drove a tractor and trailer containing some 70,000 pounds of steel from the terminal for delivery to a customer, named Curtiss, Woodman, and Roche; shortly after Raulston had left the terminal with the steel, Gill, Babb, and Fernandez followed him in Fernandez' automobile; and en route to the customer's place of business , Fernandez, the driver of the automobile , pulled the automobile alongside • The Phoenix-based employee-strikers unconditionally applied for rein- statement on June 10, 1964, the Los Angeles-based employee-strikers un- conditionally applied for reinstatement around July 1, 1964, and the Yuma-based employee-strikers unconditionally applied for reinstatement on May 12, 1965 r H L. Washum and another LA-Yuma supervisor testified that Raulston told them that Gill, Babb, and Fernandez had used abusive language and of Raulston 's truck in effort to have Raulston stop so that they could talk to him about joining the strike . Despite the strikers' efforts, Raulston did not stop the truck but continued on his way and delivered the steel. Upon the basis of the record as a whole , the Trial Examiner finds that Gill , Babb , and Fernandez on the above-described occasion were only trying to persuade Raulston to join the strike and hence they were engaging in activities protected by the Act.7 Accordingly , the Trial Examiner finds Respondent's contentions that Gill, Babb, and Fernandez had en- gaged in such picket line conduct as to warrant a finding that it "would not effectuate the policies of the Act to compel [Respondent ] to rehire such em- ployees, to trust them with heavy duty vehicles, and risk sabotage , resulting in property damage, and even personal injury," to be without merit or sub- stance. The Trial Examiner has carefully considered all the other contentions raised by Respondent at the hearing and in its brief, including the various affir- mative defenses , in support of a dismissal of the second amended complaint, as amended , and finds each to be without merit or substance. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the opera- tions described in section I, above , have a close, in- timate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and ( 5) of the Act, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has refused (1) to accept and adhere to the July 1, 1964, and March 31, 1967, collective -bargaining agreements here in- volved, (2) to process grievances and to abide by arbitration awards arising under the collective-bar- gaining agreements in effect from July 30, 1961, called him names during the trip to Curtiss, Woodman, and Roche Ral- ston, however, testified. They drove right along beside or just even with me for almost a mile and Bill Babb was hanging out the window with about his mid (indicat- ing) of his body, hollering and shouting and of course I couldn't un- derstand what he was saying due to the noise of the truck LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 377 through June 30, 1964,8 and ( 3) to recognize or deal with the Teamsters International , the Western Conference of Teamsters and their affiliated locals, including Locals 104, 208, and 357, as the collec- tive-bargaining representatives of the employees in the units hereinabove found appropriate, the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondent, upon request of the aforesaid labor organizations, (a) recognize and bargain collectively in good faith with them with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment and, if an un- derstanding is reached , embody same in a signed agreement; (b) reinstate in full force and effect the July 1, 1964, through March 31, 1967, collective- bargaining agreements here involved ; and (3) process grievances and abide by the awards arising under the collective-bargaining agreements in ef- fect from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, and from July 1, 1961, through March 30, 1964. Having found that since June 8 , 1964, the aforesaid strike has been an unfair labor practice strike , the Trial Examiner will recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer to each unfair labor practice striker who had made unconditional appli- cation for reinstatement , and was not reinstated, immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging, if necessary, any replacements in order to provide work for such strikers. If, after such dismissal or other disposition of such replacements, there are insufficient positions available for the strikers, the available positions shall be distributed among them , on the basis of seniority or such other nondiscriminatory practice as may have heretofore been applied in reduction of force in Respondent's plant.9 Thereafter, the employees for whom no em- ployment is immediately available shall be placed on a preferential hiring list and recalled as soon as work becomes available on the basis of seniority or other such nondiscriminatory manner as Respon- dent may apply. The Trial Examiner further recom- mends that Respondent reimburse the strikers for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination against them , by pay- ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount each normally would have earned as wages from the date of their respective uncondi- tional offers to return to work to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement or of preferential hiring status, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. The amount of backpay due shall be computed and paid according to the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289, and in Isis Plumbing & Heat- ing Co., 138 NLRB 716, less his net earnings during the aforesaid period. Payroll and other records in Respondent's possession are to be made available to the Board, or its agents, to assist in such compu- tation and in determining the right to reinstate- ment. The Trial Examiner further recommends that Respondent be ordered to notify the strikers if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement, under the conditions here prescribed, upon applica- tion 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. The unfair labor practices found to have been en- gaged in by Respondent are of such a character and scope that in order to insure Respondent's em- ployees of their full rights guaranteed them by the Act it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist in any manner from interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees of their ex- ercise of the rights of self-organization. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. H. L. Washum , an Individual Proprietorship d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines, herein referred to as LA-Yuma, is and has been at all times material , an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in, and at all times material was engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Svensson Freight Lines, Inc., herein referred to as Svensson, is, and has been at all times material to the issues, an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and is engaged in, and at all times material was engaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. H. L. Washum , an Individual Proprietorship, d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines and Svensson Freight Lines , Inc., herein referred to jointly as Respondent, constitute, and have con- stituted at all times material, a single integrated en- terprise and a single employer. 4. The Unions herein are, and have been at all times material, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 5. California Trucking Association is, and has been at all times material , an association of em- ployers, including Respondent, duly authorized to represent employers, including Respondent, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 6. All employees of Respondent and of the em- ployers who are members of the employer-associa- s As well as the July I, 1961-March 31, 1964, agreements and all the supplements and riders to all the 1961-64 agreements here involved. The Phoenix-based employees unconditionally applied for reinstate- ment on June 10, 1964; the Los Angeles-based employees uncondi- tionally applied for reinstatement on or about July 1, 1964; and Yuma- based employees unconditionally applied for reinstatement on May 12, 1965. Naturally, the order should direct LA-Yuma to take said action with respect to its employees and Svensson with respect to its. 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions, including California Trucking Association, who have authorized the said employer-associa- tions, which associations are signatory to, and the employees of all employers individually signatory to the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement each effective for the period of July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the classifications set out in those agreements , exclusive of all other em- ployees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted during such period a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 7. All employees of Respondent and of the em- ployers who are members of the employer-associa- tions, including California Trucking Association, and who have authorized the employer-associa- tions, which associations are signatory to, and the employees of all employers individually signatory to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agree- ment and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supple- mental Agreement effective for the period of July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the classifica- tions set out in those agreements , exclusive of all other employees , guards, watchmen , and super- visors as defined in the Act, constituted during such period a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. 8. During the period of the agreements set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 above the Unions herein have been the exclusive representatives of the em- ployees in the units described in paragraphs 6 and 7 for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 9. By failing and refusing to recognize, by repu- diating collective-bargaining agreements with, and by refusing to process grievances of the Unions, and refusing to abide by arbitration awards, Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Unions as the exclusive representatives of the employees in the units described in paragraphs 6 and 7, above, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 10. Trucking Employers, Inc., is and has been at all times material , an association of associations of employers, including California Trucking Associa- tion, duly authorized to represent employer-mem- bers of associations, including California Trucking Association, which had authorized the associations to represent them , including Respondent , for the purposes of collective bargaining. 11. All employees of Respondent and of the em- ployers who are members of the employer-associa- tions, including California Trucking Association, who have authorized said employer-associations, which associations are signatory to, and all em- ployers individually signatory to, the National Master Freight Agreement and the Area Supple- mental Agreement including the Western States Area Over-The-Road Motor Freight Supplemental Agreement each effective for the period of July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, and in the classifications set out in those agreements exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. 12. All employees of Respondent and of the em- ployers who are members of the employer-associa- tions, including California Trucking Association, who have authorized said employer-associations, which associations are signatory to, and the em- ployees of all employers individually signatory to, the National Master Freight Agreement and the Area Supplemental Agreements including the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agree- ment effective for the period of July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, and in the classifications set out in those agreements exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 of the Act. 13. The Unions herein are, and have been at all times material, the exclusive representative of the employees in the units described above in para- graphs 11 and 12 for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 14. By refusing to recognize, by refusing to bar- gain collectively with, by refusing to abide by the collective-bargaining agreements with , by refusing to process grievances of the Union, and by refusing to abide by the arbitration awards with the Unions as the exclusive representative of the employees in the units described above in paragraphs 11 and 12, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, un- fair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 15. As a result of the unfair labor practices of Respondent, the employees of Respondent quit work concertedly and went on strike, which strike was caused by and prolonged by the unfair labor practices of Respondent. 16. By failing to reinstate employees with all ex- isting employee rights upon their unconditional request for reinstatement, Respondent has dis- criminated with respect to hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment, thereby discourag- ing membership in the Unions , and has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 17. By the aforesaid discrimination and by inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act as found in the foregoing Findings of Fact, LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 379 Respondent engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 18. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are un- fair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that H. L. Washum, an Individual Proprietorship d/b/a Los Angeles-Yuma Freight Lines, his agents, successors, assigns, and Svensson Freight Lines, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and its af- filiated conferences and locals including the Western Conference of Teamsters and Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357 as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate units described as follows: All employees of Respondent and of the em- ployers who are members of associations, in- cluding California Trucking Association, who have authorized the employer associations, which associations are signatory to, and of all employers individually signatory to, the Na- tional Master Freight Agreement and the Area Supplemental Agreements including the Western States Area Over The Road Motor Freight Supplemental Agreement effective for the period from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, and in the classifications set out in those agreements exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All employees of Respondent and of the em- ployers who are members of associations, in- cluding California Trucking Association, who have authorized the employer associations, which associations are signatory to, and of all employers individually signatory to, the Na- tional Master Freight Agreement and the Area Supplemental Agreements including the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemen- tal Agreement effective for the period from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, and in the classifications set out in those agreements ex- clusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing, if requested to do so by the Team- sters International, the Western Conference of Teamsters and their affiliated locals, including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, to reinstate in full force and effect for the period from July 1, 1964, through March 31, 1967, the collective-bar- gaining agreements described above in subpara- graph (a), in the appropriate units described above in subparagraph (a). (c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Teamsters International, the Western Conference of Teamsters and their affiliated locals including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, as the exclu- sive representatives of the employees in the ap- propriate units described as follows: All employees of Respondent and employers who are members of associations, including California Trucking Association, who have authorized the employer association, which as- sociations are signatory to, and all employers individually signatory to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agree- ments effective for the period from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the classifica- tions set out in those agreements, exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and su- pervisors as defined in the Act. All employees of Respondent and employers who are members of associations, including California Trucking Association, and who have authorized the employer associations, which associations are signatory to, and all employers individually signatory to, the Western Sates Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemen- tal Agreement effective for the period from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the classifications set out in those agreements, ex- clusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (d) Refusing, if requested to do so by the Team- sters International, the Western Conference of Teamsters and their affiliated locals including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, to process grievances and abide by arbitration awards arising under the collective-bargaining agreements in ef- fect from June 30, 1961, through June 30, 1964. (e) Discouraging membership in the Teamsters International, the Western Conference of Team- sters, and their affiliated locals, including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, or any other labor organization of its employees by refusing to rein- state employees with all existing employee rights and benefits who made unconditional requests for reinstatement, or in any other manner discriminat- ing in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (f) In any manner interfering with, restraining, 380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist the Teamsters International, the Western Conference of Teamsters, and their af- filiated locals including Teamsters Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosiing, or to engage in other con- certed activities for the purposes of mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended from time to time , or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collec- tively with the Teamsters International, the Western Conference of Teamsters, and their af- filiated locals including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the units described above in para- graph 1 , subparagraph ( a) with respect to grievances , labor disputes , rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of em- ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, em- body same in a signed agreement. (b) Upon request of the Teamsters International, the Western Conference of Teamsters , and their af- filiated locals, including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 357, reinstate in full force and effect for the period from July 1, 1964, through March 31, 1967, the collective-bargaining agreements in the units described above in paragraph 1, subparagraph (a). (c) Upon request of the Teamsters International, the Western Conference of Teamsters, and their af- filiated locals including Local 104, Local 208, and Local 37, process grievances and abide by arbitra- tion awards arising under the collective-bargaining agreements in effect from June 30, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the units described above in para- graph 1 , subparagraph (c). (d) Reinstate all strikers who were denied rein- statement upon their unconditional offer to return to work to their former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights , benefits , or privileges, in the manner and to the degree set forth in the section above en- titled, "The Remedy." (e) Forthwith grant those employees who were ordered reinstated by arbitrator's awards described above in paragraph 2, subparagraph ( c), immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights, benefits, or privileges. (f) Make employees whole for any loss of pay, including contributions to all funds provided for by contract and all other benefits , suffered by reason of the discrimination against them from the date of the offer to return to work to the date of reinstate- ment, less any intermediate earnings. (g) Make their respective employees in the units described above in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a) and (c) whole for any loss of pay, including con- tributions to funds provided for by contract and all other benefits, suffered by them by the reason of the refusal to give full force and effect to the con- tracts for the period from July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1964, and the contracts for the period from July 1, 1964, through March 31, 1967, described above in paragraph 1, subparagraphs (a) and (c). (h) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (i) Post at its places of business in Yuma and Phoenix, Arizona, and at Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (j) Mail a copy of the notice attached hereto to each employee employed by LA-Yuma and Svensson during the period from April 27, 1964, to the date of compliance , at the last known address of the employee or former employee. (k) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." to In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Teamsters Local 104, Teamsters Local 208, and Teamsters Local 357, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, LOS ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES 381 Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , as the exclusive bargaining represen- tative of our employees in the appropriate units described below with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment. The appropriate units are: All employees of Respondent and of the employers who are members of associa- tions, including California Trucking As- sociation , who have authorized the em- ployer associations , which associations are signatory to, and of all employers in- dividually signatory to, the National Master Freight Agreement and the Area Supplemental Agreements including the Western States Area Over-The-Road Motor Freight Supplemental Agreement effective for the period from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, and in the classifica- tions set out in those agreements exclusive of all other employees , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. All employees of Respondent and of the employers who are members of associa- tions, including California Trucking As- sociation, who have authorized the em- ployer associations, which associations are signatory to, and of all employers in- dividually signatory to, the National Master Freight Agreement and the Area Supplemental Agreement including the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supple- mental Agreement effective for the period from July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, in the classifications set out in those agree- ments, exclusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL , for their duration, give force and effect to and abide by the terms of the collec- tive-bargaining agreements titled National Master Freight Agreement , the Western States Area Over-The-Road Supplemental Agree- ment, and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery , Local Cartage and Dock Wor- kers Supplemental Agreement all for the period of July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967. WE WILL in accordance with the terms of the National Master Freight Agreement, the Western States Area Over-the-Road Supple- mental Agreement , and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement all for the period of July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, and because of our failure to give force and ef- fect and abide by the terms of these agree- ments, make all our employees whole for any loss, including fringe benefits, which they may have suffered and pay sums into the health and welfare fund, pension trust fund, and all other funds operative thereunder, on behalf of all our employees in the unit, in an amount neces- sary to render said payments current as of the date of the posting of the notice. WE WILL bargain collectively with the above- named labor organizations as the statutory representative of all our employees in the bar- gaining units described below with respect to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or condi- tions of employment arising under and during the term of the agreements described below in the units. The bargaining units are: All employees of Respondent and em- ployers who are members of associations, including California Trucking Association, who have authorized the employer as- sociation, which associations are signatory to, and all employers individually signato- ry to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and the Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreements ef- fective for the period from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the classifica- tions set out in those agreements, exclu- sive of all other employees, guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act. All employees of Respondent and em- ployers who are members of associations, including California Trucking Association, and who have authorized the employer as- sociations, which associations are signato- ry to, and all employers individually signa- tory to, the Western States Area Master Freight Agreement and theWesfern States Area Pick-up and Delivery Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agree- ment effective for the period from July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964, in the clas- sifications set out in those agreements, ex- clusive of all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL reinstate the strikers named below in the manner and to the degree set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision enti- tled, "The Remedy," to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges enjoyed under the agreements described below, and make them whole for any loss of pay, including fringe benefits, they may have suffered and pay sums into the health and welfare fund, pension trust fund, and all other funds operative under the Western States Area 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Master Freight Agreement, the Western States Area Over-The-Road Single Man and Sleeper Cab Supplemental Agreement and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Workers Supplemental Agreement, all for the period of July 1, 1961, through June 30, 1964; and the National Master Freight Agreement, the Western States Dated By Area Over-The-Road Supplemental Agree- ment, and the Western States Area Pick-up and Delivery, Local Cartage and Dock Wor- kers Supplemental Agreement all for the period of July 1, 1964, to March 31, 1967, dismissing, if necessary , any employees hired since the beginning of the strike: Veryle Malberg Frank Gill Bennie R. Fernandez William Babb Raymond Frist Eddie F. Quiroz Ray M. Martinez Eddie Beltron A. J. Fletcher Clarence C. Turner Billy Wayne Field Dalton Alvarez Nathaniel Nelson Donald Gutierrez Andrew Miller Adolfo Martinez William Jimenez Earl A. Engquist Alberto Regalado Domenic F. Federicio WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with our employees' right to form, join, or assist the above-named labor organizations, or any other labor organization, or engage in any other concerted activity. BOARD H. L. WASHUM, AN INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETORSHIP D/B/A Los ANGELES-YUMA FREIGHT LINES (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) SVENSSON FREIGHT LINES, INC. (Employer) Dated By Note: We will notify the above-named em- ployees, if 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, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , Federal Building, Room 5411, 230 North First Avenue , Phoenix, Arizona, Telephone 261-3717.