General Drivers, Local 89

GENERAL DRIVERS, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and its agent, Dick Fischer and The Vertner Smith Company. Case 9-CB-1584 September 18, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On May 23, 1969, Trial Examiner Sidney J. Barban issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent Union had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also recommended that the complaint's inclusion of Union Agent Dick Fischer as an individual Respondent subject to a separate remedial order be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions, with supporting brief, to the dismissal as to Agent Fischer. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in the case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' LOCAL 89 485 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent Union, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Louisville, Kentucky, its officers, agents. and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT Oi- THE CASE SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Trial Examiner' This matter was heard before me at Louisville, Kentucky, on April 17, 1969, upon allegations in the complaint issued February 27, 1969 (based upon charges filed by the Charging Party, herein called "Smith" or "the company," on January 13. 1969), that the above-named Respondents threatened. restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called "the Union," filed an answer admitting allegations of the complaint sufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction under current standards of the Board, and to support a finding that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Respondent Dick Fischer did not file an answer to the complaint , but it is noted that the complaint does not allege that Fischer specifically engaged in any conduct in violation of the Act. Upon the entire record in this case, from observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Charging Party and the Union, I make the following FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 'Member Zagoria would not adopt the Trial Examiner' s recommended dismissal of the complaint as it alleges that the Respondent Union' s agent, Dick Fischer, had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged and proved Fischer is an admitted agent of the Respondent Union, was named individually as a Respondent in the complaint , and, contrary to the Trial Examiner, the complaint did allege that Fischer engaged in specified violations of See. 8(b)(1)(A). Fischer riled no answer to the complaint, did not testify at the hearing, and the allegation -, of the complaint as to Fischer are deemed as admitted . In view of this admission , and as the Trial Examiner found that Fischer was in charge of the picket line, observed and was aware of the acts of misconduct by the striking employees and took no measure to correct or prevent their repetition , he is the proper object of a remedial order Drivers. Salesmen . Warehousemen . Milk Processors, Cannery. Dairi Employees and Helpers Union Local 695. !Toni Pellitterr Trucking Service, Inc 1. 174 NLRB No 115. Chairman McCulloch and Member Brown find the Pellitteri case inapposite The facts in that case show that the union agents had engaged in unlawful secondary boycott activity as well as merely failing to restrain coercive conduct on the part of pickets In the present case, Union Agent Fischer has not engaged in any affirmative unlawful conduct Accordingly, they find it inappropriate to impose individual responsibility 1. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES For a considerable period of time, possibly since 1953, the Union has represented certain employees of Smith, including drivers and warehousemen engaged in the warehousing and distribution of products sold by the Company. In the latter part of August 1968, the company and the Union began negotiations for a collective-bargaining contract to succeed the then current contract expiring on September 30, 1968. The negotiations were unsuccessful, and the Union set up a picket line at the Company's warehouse location early on the morning of December 3, 1968. Across the street from the Company's location, the Union also established a shack, apparently open facing the street, where strikers and pickets congregated when not walking the picket line. Pickets walking in front of Smith's property numbered from one to five or six, from time to time walking to and from the shack across the street. I78NLRB No.80 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Picket activities related by Dennis Very shortly after the beginning of the strike, Smith began hiring replacements for the striking employees. These were customarily brought across the picket line and onto Smith's property in cars driven by management officials and salesmen. James Dennis, vice president and sales manager of Smith, testified that on occasions when he was transporting replacement employees in and out of the Company's plant, some of the pickets, particularly Union Steward Max Myers and Al Ciarlante who had previously been the union steward, would shout curses at the employees being brought in to work. According to Dennis' undenied testimony, among other extreme vulgarity. the replacements were referred to as "scabs." and told that "we know who you are, you son-of-a-bitch," and that "we will get you." The activities of the pickets was described as "belligerent," "'hostile" and "loud." On two occasions, Dennis was followed by striking employees as he was taking replacement employees home after work. In an effort to prevent the strikers from discovering the home addresses of the replacements, Dennis took them to his home. where they remained until arrangements could be made to transport them to their own homes. One of these replacement employees, William Russell, recalled being followed on an occasion when Dennis was taking him home, and on one occasion that Max Myers said something to him as he was crossing the picket line. 2 Picket activities involving Russell William Russell also asserted that the pickets on a number of occasions followed him while he was making deliveries, and would picket at the delivery stops he made. Sales Manager Dennis testified that other drivers also reported such activity. On one such occasion, on December 23, when Russell was making a delivery with another man, they were followed by Al Ciarlante, who ran up to the cab of the truck they were in, and tried to pull Russell out by his hair. When Ciarlante was persuaded to let Russell go, Ciarlante said, according to Russell's undenied testimony, that "this Christmas was going to be bleak and that he talked to one of the other drivers. . . and he found out how much money he had been making since the strike was going on and he said he could have used this money-and he might also make my Christmas unhappy by putting me in the hospital." After Russell came hack to the truck from making his delivery, Ciarlante told Russell that "some day he would see me in the store or shopping center and he said he would get me." Russell stated that at the time, Ciarlante was drunk Ciarlante was seen on the picket line and at the picket shack thereafter on a number of occasions 3. Picket activities involving hrancies On this same day, December 23, O'Neal Francies, another replacement employee who had been hired by Smith, while on a delivery trip with a salesman employed by the Company referred to as Mr Carp. was followed by Max Myers and another striker. When they stopped, Myers, in vulgar language similar to that related b} Dennis. as noted above, asked Carp where "he" had gotten "the scabs." During the period that Francies remained with the truck, while Carp went inside to make deliveries, according to Francies' uncontroverted testimony, "there was Max out there cussing and talking and he asked me, what are you son-of-a-bitches doing up here taking our jobs. We've got families to feed And I said, so do 1, and he said how do you expect to be around here and I said I expect to be here until they run me off. and he said, well you son-of-a-bitch, it might not be very long." Myers continued to picket the company plant thereafter. 4 Picket activities involving Daniels Larry H. Daniels, who was hired by Smith. on December 31, 1968, stated that when he attempted to drive into the company's premises that day, he was stopped by pickets who told him that they would not let him through. Daniels drove away and parked his car. He then walked back to the plant and apparently walked past the pickets. After passing the picket line into the plant, Daniels stated he was cursed and was told that when "I came back out of the company, they would get me, that they had my number." When he returned to his car, by a back way, after making his application for employment, Daniels found that the valve stems in three of his tires had been tampered with and the tires were flat. He returned to the company plant by the back entrance and called for assistance to inflate his tires. When he returned to his car, he found all four tires were flat. Thereafter, while a service station attendant, Stephen Flynn, was there attempting to inflate the tires on Daniels' car, two men later identified as Max Myers and Al Ciarlante. drove up, got out of their car, and came over to where Daniels was standing near Flynn kneeling at one tire on Daniels' car One of these two, identified at the hearing as Max Myers, according to Daniels' testimony, "shouted that he was going to teach me to break a picket line and that I would never break any more." Myers then hit Daniels under the eye When Flynn made a movement, he was told to mind his own business and go about his work. A scuffle then ensued. Daniels stated that he was hit again. on the nose, that he attempted to break away but was restrained by the two men, in the course of which Ciarlante pushed him. Daniels was eventually able to get to the other side of his car and got in. He states that the two men left after he said he was going after a gun. Flynn's testimony, although differing in some details and emphasis, substantially corroborates Daniels. Neither Myers nor Ciarlante testified ' Ciarlante was stopped by the police that afternoon and searched. on the street a short distance from the plant. At the time Business Agent Fischer was at the picket shack watching 5 Picket activities involving Kamer Robert L. Kamer was employed by Smith on January 6, 1969 On January 9. as he was leaving work in his car he was cursed by one of the striking employees, and was 'Daniels called the police about this incident, and later testified before a grand jury which indicted Ciarlante for assault Daniels asserted that although he had seen Myers on the picket line or at the shack across the street prior to the time he appeared before the grand jury, he had been unable to make positive identification of Myers before the time of the hearing in this matter, when he had an opportunity to see Myers at close range for the first time since December 31 The Union's brief suggests that Daniels' testimony, particularly his statement that he walked through the picket line after being barred from driving through, is incredible However. since neither Myers, who was present in the hearing room, nor Ciarlante, who was apparently available , testified, and no other reason to discredit Daniels appears, Daniels' account of the occ,urence is credited GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL 89 487 followed by a car which stopped behind him at a traffic light some distance from the Company's plant Kamer identified the driver as the same person who had cursed him at the plant Three other occupants of the car got out and came up to Kamer's stopped automobile. Kamer's uncontradicted account of the incident, in pertinent part, was ". . . they approached my car, they started calling me out and cussing me out and calling me every name they could think of and told me I was taking their jobs and that they would fix me and all this. and one of them [later identified as striking employee Ronald Gnagie] took his hand, back handed, and hit my windshield and the side window on the driver's side of the car . and the other one [later identified as striking employee Robert Perrott] kicked the side of it [the car] in " At the time, a third man, unidentified, "was at the back of the car bouncing up and down on it." The side glass in Kamer's car was shattered in the incident. Kamer swore out warrants for the arrest of Gnagie and Perrott, but agreed to an abatement of the matter at the time of trial upon the agreement of the men to the payment of S50 for damages to his car. Kanter identified both Perrott and Gnagie as pickets at the company premises before and after the incident. Gnagie thereafter ceased his picket activities, but Perrott continued to picket up to the time of the hearing 6 1 he activities of Fischer During this period, Dick Fischer, business agent of the Union, and admittedly an agent of the Union, was at or near the picket line nearly every day. According to Dennis. Fischer appeared on the picket line usually "about three times a day. In the morning he would come. and at noon, and he would come in the evening." Fischer would remain for periods of an hour to an hour and a hall Ile was often at the shack across the street with pickets who were congregated there Dennis identified Fischer as present at the shack on occasions when pickets called to replacement employees crossing the picket line as testified to by Dennis. Daniels stated that Fischer was on the picket line when he went into the plant on December 31, to make his application for employment, Daniels adding, "tie was actually on the side." Fischer clearly remained in the area for some time alter the time of the altercation at Daniel's car Fischer was present at the time set for the trial of Perrott and Gnagie, who were represented by counsel who regularly represents the Union and its members. The same counsel represented Ciarlante at a hearing to set bail after his indictment. Fischer and Union Steward Myers were on the committee which represented the Union in negotiations for a collective-bargaining contract with the company. CONCLUSIONS The threats of the pickets made to the replacement employees at the picket line and elsewhere, the following of replacement employees on their way home after work, and the acts of actual violence against these employees and their property detailed above were obviously intended to, and had a tendency to. restrain and coerce employees of the company in their right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act to refrain from the Union's strike activity. That such activity may not have frightened one or more of these employees, as the Union asserts, is immaterial, inasmuch as this conduct had a tendency to coerce and restrain the employees generally from working (and thus to join the Union's strike activity), which was the result the Union and the strikers sought. The Union argues. however, that even it the strikers' actions were coercive (which the Union does not admit), they were the private actions of individual pickets for which the Union may not be held personally responsible. The issue then is the responsibility, if' any, of respondents Union and Fischer for the coercive acts which occurred It has long been established that unions are liable under the Act, in accordance with the "ordinary law of agency," for the acts of an agent "within the scope of the agent's general authority, or the 'scope of his employment' even though the [union] has not specifically authorized or indeed may have specifically forbidden the act in question." See ILWL', CIO, et al (Sunset Line and Twine Cumpanv), 79 NLRB 1487, 1507, 1509. The burden of proving the existence, nature, and extent of the agency relationship is upon the party asserting it-in this case the General Counsel-but in the absence of direct evidence, "such inferences as are reasonable may he drawn and may sustain the General Counsel's burden of proof where as here there is no evidence to rebut them " See Teamsters, Local 536 (The Connecticut Foundry Company), 165 NLRB No. 133, see also N.L.R.B v IBTCWH of A. 290 F.2d 99, 104 (C A 2) In determining whether the Union should he held responsible for the acts with which we are concerned, Section2_(13) of the Act makes clear that "the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling."' Respondent Fischer is admittedly an agent of the Union and clearly was in general charge of the strike and picketing activities involved here. He was engaged in negotiation with the company for a collective-bargaining contract before the strike which resulted from the failure of those negotiations, and from his constant and regular attendance at the picket line activity was manifestly the Union agent assigned to guide and direct the strike and picket activities. This is implicitly conceded in the Union's brief.' However, quite apart from the Union's responsibility for Fischer's conduct in respect to the activities to which he was assigned, the complaint does not specifically allege that Fischer engaged in any acts or activity in violation of the Act for which he should be held personally and individually responsible Because of this, and upon consideration of the record as a whole, it will be recommended that the allegation of the complaint naming 'it is this provision of the Act, in particular , as the Board has held, which makes the decisions in United Mine Workers v Gibbs, 393 U S 7 15, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters v U S, 330 U S 395 (relied upon by the Union in this matter) inapplicable to the resolution of agency issues under the Act, for in Gibbs and the Carpenters case, the Supreme Court was applying the standard of the Norris-LaGuardia Act which requires proof of authorvation or ratification to establish responsibility, a standard different from the ordinary law of agency Sec Sunset Line and Twine, supra at 1509, IBTCWH of A. Local Union No 377 (All-American Stamp and Premium Corp of N Y., et ali, 159 NLRB 1313, 1314 'In asserting lack of proof of Union responsibility for acts of the pickets. the brief states, "This is not, however, to say that Respondent Fisher [sic] is not an assistant business agent of the respondent Union, or indeed he is" Further, it is asserted that not only was Fischer not present at the picket line when threats were made , but "[t]here is no intonation in the testimony that Mr Fisher was present, knew about or otherwise condoned the actions testified to that took place away from the picket line, except those of the 'roving pickets' " Lastly, it is asserted that "[t]here is no evidence that the organizer , which in this Lase we would describe as Fisher, engaged in any of the misconducts." (Un br pp 9, 9-10, 12) 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dick Fischer as a separate and individual respondent. and thus subject to a separate remedial order, shall be dismissed. As to the responsibility of the Union, at the outset, there can be no question but that the Union was responsible for the strike and picket line at the company's premises, which manifestly was designed to "hamper or stop the Company's operations" by "withdrawal of its labor force" and to dissuade or impede other employees "from working during the strike " See Sunset Line and Twine, supra, at 1510: see also United Rubber, Cork. Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, et al (Tennessee Wheel and Rubber Company), 166 NLRB No. 33, (TXD). In aid of these and other purposes associated with the strike, the Union utilized striking employees as pickets at the Smith location and approved their following company trucks and picketing points of delivery See, e.g., in 3. The activities complained of were performed by striking employees of the company, not strangers to the Union. At the picket line they were under the almost daily guidance and control of Fischer. Because of the character and duration of the activities at the picket line, Fischer's constant attendance upon, and engagement in the picketing, and his continuing relationship with the pickets, including Shop Steward Myers. at the line and at the picket shack, it is found that Fischer was aware of these activities. This is particularly shown in respect to the threats of the pickets on the line made to Daniels on December 31. Inasmuch as there is no evidence that Fischer took any action to restrain or control the pickets in their coercive activities (which, in fact, furthered the purposes of the Union in establishing the line), it is found that Fischer adopted, accepted, and ratified that conduct, and, in fact, by his passive acceptance of these actions encouraged and confirmed those actions in behalf of the Union See Sunset Line and Twine, supra at 1508 ("authorization or ratification may be manifested by conduct, even passive acquiescence, as well as by words.") Indeed, having utilized the picket line and these pickets for the purpose of deterring employees from going on the company's premises to work, Respondent is responsible for the actions of the pickets at the picket line within the reasonable scope of their employment for that purpose, even though the authority or power granted "is wrongly used," See N L.R.B v. ILWU, Local 10, et a!, (Pacific Maritime Assn.), 283 F.2d 558, 564 (C A.9), or even may have forbidden, Sunset Line and Twine, supra. In the absence of any evidence that the actions of the pickets were solely on behalf of the individuals involved, and not in behalf of the Union's purposes as they appear to be, it is inferred that the pickets were carrying out the purposes of the Union. and the Union is responsible for their actions. See, e g.. Local 612. IBTCWH of A (Deacon Truck Line, Inc ), 146 NLRB 498. 503 (" . it is well settled that a labor organization is responsible for violence in which its pickets engage at a picket line"): see also the excellent discussion by Trial Examiner Sharnikow in United Furniture Workers of America, CIO (Colonial Hardwood Flooring Company, Inc.), 84 N LRB 563, at 587-588 ("the utterance of threats and the employment of force by pickets" at the picket line "are incidental to the authorized patrol and, though forbidden, are reasonably to be expected by the labor organization when it sets forth the picket line," and are thus within the "scope of employment- of the pickets for which the labor organization is responsible): cf. Selby-Battersbv and Company, et al. v. N.L R.B, 359 F.2d 952 (C.A. 4) (holding a labor organization responsible for the activities of those engaged in an enterprise initiated by the organization which could have been reasonably anticipated). Additionally, it is found that in his position as shop steward, Myers was an agent of the Union and acted in its behalf in his threats made to the replacement employees on and away from the line, as well as in his attack upon Daniels away from the picket line Where, as here, there is no evidence of the shop steward's duties (other than that he was part of the bargaining committee), it will be inferred that he possesses the usual authority of a union steward. See Local 1016, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (Booher Lumber Co, Inc.), 117 NLRB 1739, 1746. Among the normal duties and authority of the shop steward are the functions of acting as a channel of communication between the Union and the employees, transmitting instructions, advice and counsel from the Union and reporting upon Union matters to the Union. He is generally, at the level of immediate contact with the employees, responsible for carrying out the instructions and purposes of the Union, and is so understood by the persons with whom he deals. His position is roughly comparable to that of a foreman on the factory floor, and the Union's responsibility for his conduct within the apparent scope of his employment is comparable to that of the employer for the actions of the foreman. See N L R B. v. Brewery & Beer Distributor Drivers, Helpers and Platform Men, Local 830, IBTCWH of A, 281 F.2d 319 (C.A. 3), Local 349, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Dade Sound and Controls), 149 NLRB 430, 458, in 52. From his position as shop steward, it is found that Myers regularly reported and made known to Fischer the activities of the pickets, as well as his own activities, and from the tact that Fischer took no action to restrain Myers or to disavow his actions or to limit his authority to act on behalf of the Union, but in fact permitted Myers to continue his picket line activities unabated thereafter, it is inferred and found that Fischer approved and ratified those activities. Indeed, inasmuch as it appears that the Union authorized and encouraged the pickets to carry on their activities away from the picket line, and in particular to follow employees away from the plant in furtherance of the Union's purposes, it was reasonably to be expected. considering the pattern of coercive conduct which the Union permissively encouraged at the picket line, that there would be threats and attacks upon the non-striking employees away from the picket line, in an effort to disrupt the company's operations and impel the non-striking employees to cease work In the circumstances of this case, the Union, having initiated and encouraged this pattern of conduct, may not now stand aside and assert it has no responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its conduct. See United Mine Workers of America, ei al (Solar Fuel Company), 170 NLRB No. 178 ' On the basis of the above analysis, and upon the record as a whole, it is found that the Union, by threats, following employees home, and attacks upon employees 'I find it unnecessary to determine whether the Union would be relieved of responsibility for Ciarlante's actions against Russell away from the picket line on the ground that he was drunk at the time, as the Union argues, since this incident does not differ substantially from others for which the Union has been found responsible GENERAL DRIVERS, LOCAL 89 489 and their property as set forth herein, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. The Vertner Smith Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the conduct found herein to be in violation of the Act, respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section' 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Smith Company, if they are willing, at places where they customarily post notices to employees. (c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 9, in writing within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' The allegations of the complaint naming Dick Fischer as a separate respondent shall be dismissed. Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals 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, the 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 " THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent Union engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the respondent Union cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows: RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this matter, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that respondent General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall. 1. Cease and desist from. (a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to refrain from joining or assisting a labor organization, or to refrain from engaging in a strike or any concerted activity for mutual aid or protection of working conditions. by harming or threatening to harm employees, or by damaging or threatening to damage property, or by following employees who are not engaged in transport of products for their employer. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its office and meeting hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said Notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof. and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places. including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish the Regional Director for Region 9 signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by The Vertner '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 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS of . TEAMSTERS LOCAL. 89, AND EMPLOYEES OF THE VERTNER SMITH COMPANY Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify -you that: WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of the Vertner Smith Company by - threatening to harm , or by harming them, or by damaging, or threatening to damage property, because the employees refuse to join or assist the Union. or refuse to stop working, or refuse to join in a strike. - following employees when they are not working, or are not carrying products for their employer, in order to get them to join or assist the Union , or engage in a strike, or refuse to work for their employer. -in any other way restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their right not to join or assist the Union, or engage in a strike, or to continue to work if they want to. GENERAL DRIVERS, WARFHOUSEMEN AND HFLPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 89, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office. Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3696.