Teamsters Local 85

212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America; Teamsters Union Lo- cal 287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Southern Pacific Transportation Company Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America; Teamsters Union Lo- cal 315, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America and Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company. Cases 20-CE-79, 20- CE-80, and 20-CE-81 September 21, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Respondents, Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 85, Teamsters Union Local 287, Teamsters Union Local 315, Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 70, Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, San Francisco, California, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner: This, case was heard in San Francisco, California, on November 9, 10, and 12, 1971, upon a consolidated complaint issued on August 31, 1971,' alleging that Respondent Unions had violated Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In their answer to the complaint, Respondent Unions denied commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. The issue presented is whether the objective of a work jurisdiction agreement was work preservation or the extension of the agreement to nonsignatory, neutral em- ployers. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witness- es, and the briefs filed by the four parties to this proceeding, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS On March 7, 1972, Trial Examiner Maurice Alex- andre issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief; counsel for the General Counsel filed alternative cross-exceptions together with an answer- ing brief and brief in support of alternative cross- exceptions; Charging Party, Southern Pacific Trans- portation Company, filed cross-exceptions, and a brief answering Respondents' exceptions and sup- porting its cross-exceptions, and Charging Party, San- ta Fe Transportation Company, filed a brief supporting the Trial Examiner's Decision and adopt- ing the positions of the General Counsel and Southern Pacific. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that 1. JURISDICTION Pacific Motor Trucking Co.(hereafter called PMT) and Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company (hereafter called Trail), respectively California and Kansas corporations, are each engaged as a common carrier in interstate hauling by motortruck. PMT has a place of business in San Francisco; Trail has a place of business in Los Angeles. During the year preceding issuance of the complaint , each of the two compa- nies received gross revenues in excess of $50,000 in the course and conduct of its interstate hauling operations. I find that each is engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Each of Respondents, Teamsters Locals 70, 85, 287, and 315, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts PMT is a wholly owned subsidiary of Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (hereafter called SP), a rail carrier. Trail is a wholly owned subsidiary of a holding company which also owns all the stock of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. (herein called Santa Fe RR), similarly a rail carrier. For many years, SP and Santa Fe RR, like other ' Based upon a series of charges filed as follows: On January 8 and Novem- ber 4, 1971, by Southern Pacific Transportation Co.; on February 10 and November 3, 1971, by Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co ; and on March 1 and November 3, 1971, by the latter company. 199 NLRB No. 30 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 85 213 large railroads, relied primarily upon the use of boxcars to transport freight. At some point, the two companies began to provide so-called "piggyback" service.2 The record does not disclose when such service commenced, but does show that it was in existence in the San Francisco Bay area in the early 1950's. SP has facilities to handle piggyback trailers in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, California. Santa Fe RR has similar facilities in San Francisco and Oakland, but since 1968 has carried on the bulk of its piggyback opera- tions in Richmond, California. In 1958, SP and Santa Fe RR began to offer service under a tariff known as plan IV filed with, and approved by, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Plan IV requires the railroad to transport freight from one station to another in equipment, i.e., trailers and flatcars, owned or rented by the shipper. Under such service, the railroad's subsidiary truck- ing company, PMT or Trail, places the loaded trailer on the flatcar at a designated point of origin, and removes the trailer from the flatcar at a designated destination.3 No loading or unloading of the trailer is included as part of the service furnished and paid for under the plan IV tariff.4 In 1961 the railroads received ICC approval and began to offer another type of service known as substitute service, under which the railroad, if it so desires because of a shortage of available boxcars, may with the shipper's consent provide and transport two piggyback trailers in lieu of a boxcar. As in plan IV service, the trailers are placed on and removed from the flatcars, and no loading or unloading service is furnished or paid for under the Substitute Service tarriff.5 In 1958, each of Respondent Locals was party to a local pickup and delivery supplemental (to the master) agree- ment, entered into by employer associations on behalf of various trucking companies, including PMT and Trail. Those agreements contained the following provision relat- ing to work jurisdiction in the area over which the Local had geographical jurisdiction. Only persons working under thejurisdiction of the agreement shall: (a) Drive, load and unload trucks, trailers, vans or any other type of equipment used in connection with trucks. Similar agreements were made for the following periods: 1959-61, 1961-64, and 1964-67. During 1962, Respondents began filing a series of grievances against PMT and Trail complaining that their employees were not loading and unloading the goods car- 2 The movement of piggyback freight refers to freight loads in trailers on wheels which are placed on rail flatcars for transportation by rail. The trailers are placed onto and taken from the flatcars at ramps by motor power equip- ment, and can be pulled over motor highways by such equipment. 3 Although PMT and Trail are common carriers, the said service relating to the trailer is performed under contracts with their respective parent rail- roads, and may be terminated by agreement of the contracting parties. As used herein, the terms "loading" and "unloading" respectively mean placing goods in the trailer and removing such goods therefrom. 3 A railroad may not alter the services required by a tariff . However, there are other tariffs which do include loading and/or unloading. It is also possi- ble for the shipper or consignee of goods to enter into a separate contract with PMT, Trail, or anyone else to obtain loading and/or unloading service at an additional puce. Shippers and consignees can, of course, use their own em6ployees to load and unload. Those jurisdictions were as follows : Local 70, Oakland; Local 85 San Francisco; Local 287, San Jose ; and Local 315, Richmond. Tied in the piggyback trailers under the plan IV and substi- tute service tariffs. The controversy was finally resolved by a decision permitting the shipper and consignee to make his own loading and unloading arrangement. The decision was codified and the 1967-70 supplemental agreement to which PMT, Trail, and Respondents were parties provided as fol- lows in article 45: Section 1. Except as provided in this Article, only per- sons working under the jurisdiction of this agreement shall: (a) Drive, load and unload trucks, trailers, vans, or any other type of equipment used in connection with trucks. • s s s 11 Section 2. Work at Premises of Shippers and Con- signees (a) Loading and unloading by hand of trucks, trailers, vans or any other type of equipment used as a truck, trailer or van, shall continue to be recognized as bargaining unit work, and shall be performed only by persons employed under the Local Pickup and Deliv- ery Agreement and, in particular, employees of any company not party to that Agreement shall not load, unload by hand, or enter such equipment for that pur- pose. The only exceptions to this paragraph are: s : q (4)When,because of thepeculiar nature of the com- modity and its susceptibility to damage or risk or dan- ger to persons handling it, or other condition beyond the control of the company,, the shipper or consignee re- quires that the hand loading or unloading be per- formed by their own employees. [Emphasis supplied.] Despite the exception, Respondents continued to file griev- ances relating to shipper/consignee loading and unloading. These grievances were not yet resolved at the time negotia- tions began in December 1969 for a new supplemental agreement. As a result of such negotiations, the 1970-73 supplemental agreement amended the language of the pred- ecessor agreement so as to omit the underscored language in exception (4) quoted above .7 Thereafter, and within the limitations period provided in Section 10(b) of the Act, each of the Respondents demand- ed of PMT and/or Trail that they abide by the new agree- ment and use their employees, who were members of Respondents, to load and unload trailers transported under plan IV and substitute service tanffs, where the shipper or consignee did not have employees covered by that agree- ment. In the alternative, Respondents demanded payment of "runaround" claims, i.e., a claim filed by a person assert- ing that he has been denied work to which he is entitled. PMT refused to instruct its employees to load or unload trailers unless the shipper or consignee so requested, but agreed to pay runaround claims of 4 hours' wages per trailer 7 The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the parties reached a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the agreement on or about March 13, 1970, and executed the agreement on or about August 10, 1970. 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to those of its employees designated by the complaining Respondent Local, even though such employees did not perform the work.' Trail, on the other hand, agreed to the requests for compliance with the new supplemental agree- ment, assigned employees to stay with the trailers and offer to assist in the loading and unloading, and paid out substan- tial sums in wages to such employees? Among others, PMT paid runaround claims to Respon- dent Local 85 in connection with trailers transported under plan IV to Soule Steel Co. However, upon learning that Soule Steel employed members of Local 85, PMT objected, and Local 85 agreed to drop the claims. Thereafter, Local 85 filed no further claims relating to Soule Steel. It is undisputed that PMT and Trail delivered -trailers under plan IV and substitute service tariffs to Robertson Drayage Company, a San Francisco firm which operates as the freight clearinghouse for freight forwarders,10 and which was designated as the consignee on the railroad waybill and manifest. Robertson used its own employees to unload the trailers. Such employees are members of Respondent Locals 85 and 70, and they filed no claims against PMT or Trail relating to such trailers. In the past, Robertson had been party to the above-mentioned supplemental agreements through its membership in an employer's association. Prior to commencement of the negotiations in 1969, it rescinded the association's power of attorney, and became a party to the 1970-73 agreement as an individual employer. It is also undisputed that Haslett Trucking Co., which handles piggyback work for Western Pacific Railroad, is a party to the 1970-73 supplemental agreement; that its em- ployees are represented by Respondent Local 85 in San Francisco and by Respondent Local 70 in Oakland; that it has handled trailers for both Robertson Drayage and non- signatory consignees under plan IV without loading or un- loading them; but that neither of the two Respondents has demanded compliance with the agreement by or filed runa- round claims against Haslett. Trail attempted to bill several consignees for loading and/or unloading trailers transported under the plan IV and substitute service tariffs, but the latter refused to pay the bills inasmuch as the services were not covered by the tariffs and had not been requested. However, Trail was reimbursed by Santa Fe RR. SP reimbursed PMT for the runaround claims paid by the latter. B. Concluding Findings Section 8(e) of the Act, in relevant part, provides as follows It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organi- zation and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise deal- e It appears that Local 70 filed no runaround claims against PMT In some instances, the employee's assistance was accepted by the shipper or consignee. In others, it was not, but the employee was nevertheless paid by 1 Trail. 0 Shippers and consignees frequently consolidate their shipments to save costs and speed deliveries Acting on behalf of freight forwarders, Robertson receives the freight, breaks the trailer shipments down so that individual shipments can be delivered to the ultimate customer. ing in any of the products of another employer, or to cease doing business with any other person .... Despite its broad language which appears to proscribe any agreement requiring the signatory employer to cease doing business with any other person, it is well settled that Section 8(e) does not render unlawful such an agreement where its objective is primary rather than secondary. Thus, the sec- tion does not prohibit an agreement which causes an em- ployer to cease doing business with another, if the purpose of the agreement was to protect the jobs of the employees in the bargaining unit covered by the agreement . In such situation, the cessation of business is merely incidental. On the other hand, the agreement is unlawful if its objective is to compel the customers of the signatory employer to be- come signatories. As the Supreme Court stated in National Woodwork Manufacturers Assn. v. N.L.R.B., 386 U.S. 612, "The touchstone is whether the agreement or its mainte- nance is addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employer vis-a-vis his own employees," or whether the agreement was "tactically calculated to satisfy union objec- tives elsewhere." Here, Respondents contend that the 1970-73 supple- mental agreement constituted a primary, work preservation contract and hence was lawful. The General Counsel and Charging Parties , on the other hand, assert that the agree- ment as enforced had an unlawful secondary objective. Their position is predicated upon a number of arguments,) t including the contention that the agreement constituted an unlawful signatory contract. It is unnecessary to pass upon the other arguments , inasmuch as I concur in the view that the agreement was an unlawful signatory contract.12 The agreement compels PMT and Trail to assign its own employees, who are members of Respondents, to do the work of loading or unloading of goods shipped under Plan IV and substitute service tariffs, and forbids the em- ployees of nonsignatory shippers and consignees, and those of any other nonsignatory , from performing such work. The 1967-70 agreement contained an exception to these require- ments in the case of a "condition beyond the control" of a signatory such as PMT or Trail, e.g., where the shipper or consignee preferred to make his own loading, and unload- ing arrangement. The elimination of this exception from the 1970-73 agreement thus permits PMT and Trail to handle trailers without loading or unloading in the case of signatory shippers and consignees, but not in the case of those who are not signatories. In seeking to enforce the agreement with respect to goods shipped under plan IV and substitute service tariffs, Re- spondents were selective . They demanded that the agree- ment be enforced in the case of non-signatory shippers and consignees or that in lieu thereof , the trucking companies pay runaround claims . However, they failed to make the same demand in the case of goods shipped under those 11 For example, they argue that Respondents' members have never done the work here involved, that the work was not fairly claimable , that the jobs of the unit employees were in no danger, that the objective of the agreement was work acquisition rather than protection, and that the contracting em- ployers have no right of control over the work At the hearing, I rejected SP's offer of proof relating to the similarities between piggyback trailers and containers. In his brief (p. 28), the General Counsel requests reconsideration of such rejection , and moves that the record be reopened in order to receive the rejected testimony The motion is hereby denied TEAMSTERS LOCAL 85 215 tariffs to signatories such as Richardson Drayage and Soule Steel which, I find, were consignees . Although Richardson executed a separate identical supplemental agreement and Soule employed members of Local 85, it is unlikely that their employees were part of the same bargaining unit as those of PMT and Trail. In,any event, there is no evidence, and I cannot assume, that they were. There is thus no basis for a claim that Respondents failed to invoke the agreement with respect to goods shipped to those two companies be- cause unit employees performed the work. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Respondents have not invoked the agreement at all against Haslett Trucking Co. (which handles the piggyback work for Western Pacific) even though it shipped goods under plan IV to non-signatory consignees. Accordingly, I find that an object of the agree- ment was to compel non-signatory shippers and consignees to enter into contracts with Respondents adopting the pro- visions of the 1970-73 supplemental agreement if such ship- pers and consignees wished to continue making their own arrangements for loading and unloading. Such an objective is clearly secondary. N.L.R.B. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38, Teamsters Union Local No. 87, et at. (Arden Farms Co.), 338 F.2d 23 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v. Milk Drivers' Union, Local No. 753, (Associated Milk Dealers, Inc.), 392 F.2d 845 (C.A. 7). The question then remains whether the agreement sat- isfies the "cease doing business" provision of Section 8(e). At the hearing, the General Counsel stated that he does not contend that the execution of the agreement constituted unlawful conduct, presumably because of the limitations period contained in Section 10(b) of the Act. What he does contend is that the agreement, as enforced with the consent of PMT and Trail, was unlawful. I agree.13 In the case of Trail, the agreement was implemented by the latter's assignment of a loader or unloader not contract- ed for by the shipper or consignee under the plan IV and substitute service tariffs. Such assignment necessarily re- quired Trail to incur the additional expense of wages paya- ble to the loader or unloader for the work. In the case of PMT, the agreement was implemented by paying runa- round claims to employees designated by the Respondent Local which had filed the claims. In the light of the objective found above, it is clear that the nonsignatory shippers and consignees of goods shipped in trailers handled by PMT and Trail under plan IV and substitute service tariffs are primary employers, and that the two trucking companies are neutral, and hence secondary, employers. As noted above, SP and Santa Fe RR, which similarly are neutrals, have voluntarily reimbursed PMT and Trail, respectively, for their additional costs incurred in yielding to Respondents' demands that the 1970-73 agree- ment be implemented. To rid themselves of this unwanted burden, SP and Santa Fe RR have two options open to them. One is to seek permission from the Interstate Com- merce Commission to abandon the plan IV and substitute service tariffs, thereby ceasing to do business with shippers and consignees who wish to make their own loading and unloading arrangements, and thereby causing PMT and 13 The enforcement of a contract by mutual consent of the parties consti- tutes an entering into within the meaning of Section 8(e) of the Act. Retail Clerks Union, Local 648 (Cala Foods), 172 NLRB No. 200. Trail to cease doing business with such shippers and consig- nees. The other option is to discontinue reimbursing PMT and Trail. If the railroads adopt the latter course, this in turn will present PMT and Trail with three options where a nonsignatory shipper or consignee of goods shipped under those tariffs insists upon making his own loading and un- loading arrangements. They can handle the trailer without loading or unloading, thereby violating the 1970-73 agree- ment. This will leave them vulnerable to the customary remedies for breach of contract. A second option is to dis- continue doing business with nonsignatory shippers and consignees. Or they can continue to incur additional expen- ses either by paying runaround claims, as PMT has done, or by paying employees to offer unwanted loading and un- loading services to nonsignatory shippers and consignees, as Trail had done. To establish a violation of the "cease doing business" provision, it need not be shown that a cessation of business has occurred or is inevitable, it is enough to show that the agreement offers the alternatives of a cessation of business or of adopting other injurious courses of action. Cf. Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Precon Truck- ing Corp.), 139 NLRB 1077, 1088; N.L.R.B. v. Local 825, Operating Engineers (Burns and Roe, Inc.), 400 U.S. 297; N.L.R.B. v. Carpenters District Council of New Orleans, 407 F.2d 804 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 273 F.2d 696 (C.A. 2). An agree- ment which presents neutral employers with such options gives them "no real choice." 14 Here, it is obvious that viola- tion of the 1970-73 agreement, the payment of runaround claims, and the payment of wages to employees for perform- ing unwanted work were injurious alternatives to a cessation of business with nonsignatory shippers and consignees un- der plan IV and substitute service, and gave PMT and Trail no real choice. Stated another way,the agreement as enforced interfered with the normal business relationship between neutrals, i.e., between PMT and SP, between Trail and Santa Fe RR, and between PMT and Trail on the one hand, and non-signatory shippers and consignees under the two tariffs in question who wished to arrange for their own loading and unloading. Such interference constituted a violation of the cease doing business provisions of Section 8(e). Ibid. For these reasons, and in view of the secondary objective found above, I find that the 1970-73 agreement, as enforced with the consent of PMT and Trail, was not addressed to the labor relations of PMT and Trail vis-a-vis their own employees, but was designed to apply pressure, through those companies and their parent railroads, when handling trailers under plan IV and substitute service, upon nonsig- natory shippers and consignees to adopt the provisions of the agreement. I therefore find that the agreement violated Section 8(e) of the Act. IV CONCLUSIONS OF LAW a. By enforcing the 1970-73 agreement in the manner described above, Respondents entered into agreements which were in violation of Section 8(e) of the Act. b. Such violations constituted unfair labor practices 14 Local 282, Teamsters (Precon), supra 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. V. THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it is necessary, and recommend, that Respondent be or- dered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found, and to take certain affirmative action. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 15 enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 17 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in wasting, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Company has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government ORDER Each of the Respondents herein, their respective offi- cers, agents, and representatives shall: A. Cease and desist from: (1) Maintaining, giving effect to, enforcing or imple- menting, directly or indirectly, the 1970-73 local pickup and delivery supplemental agreement which it executed, or any supplement, modification, amendment, or renewal thereof, in a manner which violates Section 8(e) of the Act. (2) Entering into, maintaining, giving effect to, or en- forcing any other contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby any employer party thereto ceases or refrains, or agrees to cease or refrain, from handling, using, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or from doing business with any other person. B. Take the following affirmative action: (1) Post in its business offices and meeting halls, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix "16 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by official representatives of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicious places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (2) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 20, signed copies of said notice in sufficient number to be post- ed by the following employers, if the latter are willing: (a) In the case of the notice by Respondent Local 85, Pacific Motor Trucking Co. and Santa Fe Trail Transporta- tion Co. (b) In the case of the notice by Respondent Local 287, Pacific Motor Trucking Co. (c) In the case of the notices by Respondent Local 70 and Respondent Local 315, Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. (3) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. l7 15 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 16 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals WE WILL NOT maintain, give effect to, enforce, or im- plement, directly or indirectly, the 1970-73 Local Pick- up and Delivery Supplemental Agreement which we executed, or any supplement, modification, amendment, or renewal thereof, in a manner which violates Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT enter into, maintain, give effect to, or enforce any other contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby any employer who is party thereto ceases or refrains, or agrees to cease or refrain, from handling, using, selling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or from doing business with any other person. Dated By Dated By Dated By BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 85, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERNOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 287, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 315, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 70, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) TEAMSTERS LOCAL 85 217 Dated By from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced (Representative) (Title) or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- This is an official notice and must not be defaced by ed to the Board's Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box anyone. 36047, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days 556-0355.