Teamsters Local Union No. 676

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 Teamsters Local Union No. 676 and Shell Chemical Company, a Division of Shell Oil Company. Case 4-CP-179 September 29, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO Upon a charge t and amended charge 2 duly filed by Shell Chemical Company, a Division of Shell Oil Company (herein called Shell), against Teamsters Lo- cal Union No. 676 (herein called Respondent), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by its Regional Director for Region 4, on Feb- ruary 29, 1972, issued and served on the parties a complaint alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In substance, the com- plaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by engaging in recognitional picketing at Shell's plant for more than a reasonable period of time without filing a representation petition for a Board election. Respondent's answer admits certain factual alle- gations of the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Thereafter, on May 15, 1972, the parties entered into a stipulation wherein they agreed that certain documents shall constitute the entire record herein,' expressly waived all intermediate proceedings before a Trial Examiner, and submitted this case directly to the Board for its decision and order, reserving to themselves the right to file briefs. By order dated May 22, 1972, the Board approved the stipulation, transfer- red the proceeding to itself, and set a date for the filing of briefs. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the General Counsel and by Shell. 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 entire record here- in and the briefs, and makes the following: The original charge was filed and served on Respondent on January 27, 1972. 1 The amended charge was filed and served on Respondent on February 1, 1972. 3 The stipulated record consists of the charges, complaint, Respondent's answer, the stipulation with attached exhibits, and the transcript from a Sec. 10(l) Federal district court proceeding in this matter FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF SHELL 445 Shell, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of chemicals at its plant located in West Deptford, New Jersey. During the past calendar year Shell, in the course and con- duct of its operations, sold and shipped chemicals and related products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of New Jersey. We find that Shell is, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. RESPONDENTS STATUS AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION The parties stipulated , and we find that Respon- dent is, and at all material times has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Stipulated Facts For the past 10 years, Catalytic, Inc., has per- formed maintenance service at Shell's plant. In con- nection with this work, Catalytic has employed members of various labor organizations to work at the Shell plant, including William Pollinger, a truckdriver and member of Respondent. Catalytic is a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent. On December 9, 1971, Catalytic laid off 11 of its employees, including Pollinger, because Shell had in- creased the amount of maintenance work done by its own employees. However, Catalytic still employs 14 or 15 employees to work at the Shell plant. During his employment by Catalytic, Pollinger drove a truck owned by Shell. After his layoff, the truck was returned to Shell and, thereafter, at least eight Shell employees have from time to time driven the truck in performing the duties formerly performed by Pollinger. On December 13, 1971, Jackson, business agent for Respondent, unsuccessfully protested to Catalytic Pollinger's layoff. On December 21 Jackson wrote a letter to Shell which stated, inter alia: On behalf of Mr. Pollinger, we request that he be permitted to remain on the job performing his 199 NLRB No. 70 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD duties as before, and the terms of the Teamsters Local 676 Agreement covering him be permitted to remain in effect. On December 29, Shell wrote Respondent sug- gesting that it direct to Catalytic its request that Polling- er be reinstated. On January 20, 1972, Respondent began picket- ing at the Shell plant. The pickets carried signs stating, "Shell Unfair to William Pollinger/Unfair to Team- sters Local 676." However, within the week, on January 26, Respon- dent wrote Shell a letter stating that it was not seeking recognition from Shell as Pollinger's bargaining repre- sentative, but it was merely requesting: [T]hat you employ Mr. Pollinger under similar conditions with similar duties to those he enjoyed while employed by his former employer. Respondent ceased its picketing activity on Feb- ruary 11. B. Contentions of the Parties The arguments raised in the General Counsel's and Shell's briefs are substantially the same, i.e.: 1. Respondent's picketing was for a recognitional object. 2. On the basis of the Waterway Terminals 4 case, such picketing violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act. 3. Respondent's 22 days of picketing activity went beyond a reasonable period of time without a petition being filed by it. Respondent filed no brief. As an affirmative de- fense in its answer, Respondent disclaimed a recogni- tional object in the picketing, and it asserted that the object of the picketing was "to provide work opportu- nities for William Pollinger." C. Discussion and Conclusions In urging the Board to find that Respondent had a recognitional object in its picketing, the General Counsel and Shell rely heavily on our decision in Waterway Terminals. Despite some similarities be- tween that case and the instant matter, we find that the facts involved herein make these two cases distin- guishable. Thus, in Waterway Terminals, the respondent la- bor organization demanded as the price for withhold- ing pickets an arrangement whereby its members would effect a mass displacement of the employees of Waterway who were represented by another labor or- ganization. As the Trial Examiner pointed out in that case: 4 International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union Local No 8 (Waterway Terminals Company) 193 NLRB No 65. Viewed realistically, the immediate objective of Respondent's demands and the inevitable conse- quence of Waterway's acquiescence would have been the establishment of [Respondent] as the dominant voice in the representation of 60 or 70 employees affected by the change. Here, however, Respondent was seeking the em- ployment by Shell of only one employee at a time when no labor organization represented any of its employees. Shell's total workforce was in excess of 130 employees. Thus it is clear that Respondent would not have had a dominant voice in the repre- sentation of Shell's employees if Shell had hired Pol- linger and reassigned those employees who had been performing Pollinger's truckdriving duties. In Fanelli Ford Sales, Inc.,5 a case more analo- gous to the instant situation, the Board held that pick- eting for the reinstatement of a discharged employee was not per se picketing for a recognitional object.6 Rather, we there established that before the Board will infer a broader objective, an affirmative showing of such object must be made by the General Counsel. We conclude that there has been no such show- ing in this case. In its first written demand to Shell that Pollinger be employed, Respondent requested that the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement ne- gotiated between Respondent and Catalytic on Pollinger's behalf be permitted to remain in effect if he were hired by Shell. Later, after picketing had be- gun Respondent clarified this demand when it in- formed Shell that it was not seeking to represent Pollinger but only to obtain his employment by Shell under the same wages and working conditions he en- joyed during his employment by Catalytic. We find that, by picketing to enforce these demands, Respon- dent was merely attempting to obtain employment for Pollinger with wages and working conditions similar to those which he enjoyed under his former employer. Accordingly, we find from the above the General Counsel has not proven that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and therefore we shall dismiss the complaint. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Shell Chemical Company, a Division of Shell Oil Company, is, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Teamsters Local Union No. 676 is, and at all s Local 259, International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultur- al Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO (Fanelli Ford Sales, Inc), 133 NLRB 1468 r 'The Board thus expressly overruled Meat & Provision Drivers Union, Local No 626, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen & Helpers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO (Lewis Food Company), 115 NLRB 890 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 447 'material times has been, a labor organization within ORDER. the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing Shell's plant from January 20 to It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be, February 11, 1972, Respondent did not violate Sec- and it hereby is, dismissed. tion 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act-