Local Union No. 610, Intl. Brthd. of Teamsters

212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union No. 610, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America (Wetterau Foods, Inc.) and Edward W. Newman. Case 14-CB-2393 , March 6, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On August 22, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Eugene George Goslee issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respon- dent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. 1 The Charging Party has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE GEORGE GOSLEE, Administrative Law Judge: This case come on to be heard before me at St. Louis, Missouri, on July 26 and 27, 1972, upon a complaint' issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed by Local Union No. 610, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent or Local 610. The issues raised by the pleadings in this case relate to whether, or not the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) 1 The complaint in this proceeding was issued on May 18, 1972, upon a charge filed on January 24, 1972, and served on the Respondent on or about and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by acts and conduct hereinafter specified. At the conclu- sion of the hearing, all parties waived oral argument and the filing of briefs with the Administrative Law Judge. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and from my observation of the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Wetterau Foods, Inc., hereinafter called Wetterau or the Employer, is a Missouri corporation, maintains its princi- pal office and place of business at Hazelwood, Missouri, and is engaged in the sale and distribution at wholesale of food products, produce, and related items. During the past calendar year, Wetterau purchased and received goods and products used in its business operations from sources situated outside the State of Missouri, in an amount valued in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Wetterau Foods, Inc., is an Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE RESPONDENT IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint also alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED The complaint alleges that since November 15, 1971, the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by causing, and attempting to cause, Wetterau to discharge or otherwise reduce the work opportunities of the charging party, Edward W. Newman. By its answer the Respondent denies that it has engaged in any unfair labor practices in contravention of the Act and affirmatively pleads, as the complaint alleges, that Newman is a member, in good standing, of Local 610. The evidence adduced in this proceeding is attended by numerous and crucial conflicts in the versions of events and conversations related by Newman, representatives of Wetterau, and agents of the Respondent. Crucial to a determination of whether the discrimination was caused as alleged is the issue of whether the Respondent's attempts, if any, to cause Wetterau to discontinue Newman's employ- ment occurred before or after November 15, 1971, the date upon which he became a member in good standing of Local 610, as required by the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement in effect between the Respondent and Wetterau. By way of background, the record reflects that Wetterau operates a large food warehouse and distribution center in Hazelwood, which is a suburb of St. Louis. Wetterau's operations at this location are divided into two depart- ments, one for warehousing and distributing grocery products, and the second for warehousing and distributing the same date 202 NLRB No. 38 LOCAL UNION NO. 610, INTL. BRTHD . OF TEAMSTERS produce and frozen foods. Moore Distributing Company, an affiliate of Wetterau, is located a few blocks from the Wetterau warehouse. At times material to this proceeding, the drivers, and apparently also the warehousemen employed in Wetterau's grocery department, have been represented by the Respon- dent, Local 610. The Respondent also represents the drivers employed by Moore Distributing Company. The drivers and warehousemen employed in Wetterau's pro- duce department, however, are represented by Teamsters Local 688, a sister local of the Respondent, also located in St. Louis. For the purposes of hiring and dispatching drivers, Wetterau's grocery and produce departments are operated as separate entities, and at times material to this case John E. Alvers was the individual responsible for hiring and dispatching casual drivers for the grocery department. The collective-bargaining agreement in effect between Respondent and Wetterau provides for three classifications of drivers; regular, regular casuals, and casuals. Pursuant to the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement casual drivers do not, like regular drivers and regular casuals, accrue seniority. The bargaining agreement also contains a union-security provision, which requires all newly hired employees in the bargaining unit, including casual drivers, to become and remain members of Local 610 on and after 31 days of employment. In addition, the bargaining agreement contains a nonexclusive referral provision, pursuant to which the Respondent is given equal opportu- nity to provide Wetterau with additional employees. The Respondent operates a hiring hall for the use of its members and the members of sister locals. By recourse to the referral provision in the agreement and the Respon- dent's hiring hall, Newman originally obtained employ- ment with Wetterau on December 31, 1969. The evidence also reflects that Newman was referred to employment out of hiring hall on several occasions since November 15, 1971, the date on which it is alleged that the Respondent caused Wetterau to discriminate against him. As related above, Newman was hired by Wetterau as a casual driver in the grocery department on December 31, 1969. Newman continued to work as a casual driver throughout 1970, earning about $1,400. In 1971, Newman continued to work as a casual driver, but on a more extensive basis, and during that year earned approximately $6,100. The record reflects that Newman originally became a member of the Teamsters in 1946, but, as a result of a series of mergers between locals, Newman became a member of Local 688 in about 1967. In 1968, following the termination of his employment by a prior employer, Newman ceased paying dues to Local 688, and was removed from his status as a member in good standing with that Local. Following the date of his employment as a casual driver with Wetterau, Newman made no attempt to acquire membership in Local 610, although, according to his testimony, he was aware from the outset of his employment that membership in the Respondent was 2 I find, contrary to the Respondent's contention, that Charles Cooper is its agent within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) for purposes relevant to this case. As the record reflects, Cooper had authority to police compliance with the union-security provision. Included in this responsibility was Cooper's authority to lodge complaints with management and to request the 213 required by the terms of the collective-bargaining agree- ment. During the same period; Newman remained delin- quent insofar as the payment of his arrears of dues to Local 688, and at no time until November 15, 1971, was he a member in good standing in that labor organization. There is a considerable degree of conflict in Newman's testimony concerning the first occasion when he was called upon to submit proof of his membership in Local 610. On his original direct examination by the General Counsel, Newman testified that it was not until the first part of November 1971 that he was called upon to produce his membership card for the Respondent. On that occasion, Newman was approached by Charles Cooper, the acting chief steward for the drivers represented by the Respon- dent,2 and requested to produce his membership card. Newman excused himself on grounds that his card was at home. According to the further testimony of Newman, Cooper again requested to see his membership card 2 or 3 days later, and Newman again replied that his caid was at home. A few days later Cooper informed Newman that Dale Hicks, another casual driver, had blown the whistle on casuals who were not members in good standing of Local 610. According to Newman's recollection, Cooper did not, however, ask to see his membership card on that occasion. About November 12, 1971,3 Newman produced a union card from Local 688 and showed it to Cooper. Cooper held the card at arm's length, indicating some difficulty reading the print, and returned it to Newman with the comment, "I knew you had a card, but I had to see it." Newman also testified that on November 12 he visited the union hall and asked Jack Kuper, business representa- tive for the Respondent, for a transfer from Local 688 to Local 610. Kuper told Newman he could not transfer until he was straightened up with Local 688. Later, on the same date, Newman called Charles Saffo, the Respondent's hiring hall manager, and informed Saffo that he had been caught on a Local 610 job without paying union dues. Newman also informed Saffo that Wetterau intended to hire some regular drivers, and there was an additional reason why he wanted to get this straightened up with Local 610. Saffo told Newman to go to the hall and resolve his delinquency with Local 688, and then talk to Business Representative Harlan Horn. Between November 12 and 15; through the intercession of Carol Meyer, who is identified in the record as a Local 610 steward at another place of employment, Newman paid off his arrears to Local 688 and was transferred to Local 610. Newman admitted in his testimony that Horn agreed to waive Newman's dues for the current month and, on November 15, Newman received his membership card in Local 610. On cross-examination Newman adhered to his direct testimony that he was not approached for a membership card in Local 610 until early November 1971. When confronted, however, with the contents of a pretrial statement given to the Board, Newman admitted that Cooper requested his card on several occasions prior to discontinuance of the employment status of any employee who was not a member of Local 610, or who was in arrears in the payment of dues. 3 All dates recited hereinafter are in 1971, unless specified to the contrary. 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD August or September 1971. Newman also admitted that in August or September Cooper asked for his card because Wetterau intended to hire some regular drivers and Newman was eligible to take the examination for regular employment. According to Newman , he produced his Local 688 card. At a later juncture in his testimony, in response to a question posed by the Administrative Law Judge, Newman stated that he was first approached by Cooper about a union card in August or September 1970. Insofar as the events reviewed about are, concerned, Newman's testimony contrasts vividly with testimony adduced from Charles Cooper. Cooper testified that he first requested Newman's Local 610 card in May 1971. Newman told Cooper that his card was at home . Cooper repeated his request about 2 weeks later, and Newman again excused his failure to produce because his card was at home. About May 30, apparently in conjunction with Wetterau's intent to use casuals over the Memorial Day holiday, Cooper asked the Company's management not to work Newman and two other casual drivers because they were not members of Local 610. On the same date, and after he had talked to Wetterau's management, Cooper again approached Newman and informed him that if he did not produce a Local 610 card Cooper would request Wetterau not to allow Newman to work . Newman replied that the card might be in his car, and after an absence of about 45 minutes Newman returned and showed Cooper a Local 610 card containing the name "Ed Newman." Satisfied that Newman was a member of Local 610, Cooper made no further inquiry until the following October. In October Cooper called Newman at home to inform him that Wetterau intended to hire some regular drivers. In Cooper's opinion , Newman was the best qualified of the casual drivers, and Cooper intended to see that Newman was given an opportunity to take the required examination. Approximately 2 weeks Cooper was told by the Respon- dent's hiring hall that Larry Shoemack, Wetterau's general warehouse superintendent had informed the Respondent that Newman was a member of Local 688 . Cooper was unwilling to believe the report because Newman had produced a Local 610 card, but he left a note for Newman to contact him. On Sunday , November 14, Newman contacted Cooper and insisted that he was a member of Local 610, but that he intended to visit the Respondent's hall to "get this mess straightened out." On the following, November 15, Cooper was informed by Harlan Horn that Newman had transferred from Local 688 to Local 610. After he received his Local 610 membership card on November 15, Newman showed the card to Larry Shoemack and told him that he was "straightened out" with the Respondent . Following this Newman contacted John Alvers, the dispatcher , to inquire about work for the following day. While Newman was in Alvers' office Cooper and Assistant Steward Ray Thomas entered. Newman took out his Local 610 membership card and showed it to Cooper. Cooper replied that he was aware that Newman had acquired membership in good standing only that morning, and accused Newman of having previously used his deceased son's membership card for Local 610. According to Newman's testimony, he denied the accusa- tion, and during an ensuing exchange of words Cooper threatened that Newman would be moved back three places on the list of casual drivers. Newman protested, but Cooper handed Alvers a list and told Alvers that this was the way the casuals were going to work . Newman admitted that he did not see the list, and that Alvers placed the list in his desk drawer without any comment . The alleged list was not produced in evidence in this proceeding . Newman also testified that during the conversation Cooper stated that any casual in good standing with Local 610 could work. Newman further testified that after the conversation in Alvers' office he met Cooper in the drivers' room. Cooper again accused Newman of using his son's membership card, and that Newman had made a dunce out of Cooper. In response to Newman's inquiry, Cooper insisted that the casuals would be worked according to the list Cooper gave to Alvers. Before the end of the day, Newman visited the Respondent's hall and informed Harlan Horn of Cooper's threat to move him back three places on the casual list. Horn replied that Cooper could not change the bargaining agreement, meaning, insofar as I am able to determine from the record, that casual drivers do not accrue seniority for assignment purposes. In April 1972, Newman again talked to Horn after Alvers had reported to him that Cooper insisted that Newman work out of the hiring hall. Newman repeated the accusation that Cooper was depriv- ing him of casual employment through recourse to the list, and Horn again replied that Cooper had no such authority. Approximately a week after the meeting in Alvers' office, Newman contacted Ray Schrecker, Wetterau's director of operations for warehousing and transportation . Newman asked Schrecker if the Company was going to work him according to the Cooper list. Schrecker replied that Cooper couldn't change the contract. There was some discussion about the hire of additional regular employees, and Schrecker told Newman that he intended to send all the casuals over to take the examination. During early January 1972, Newman again talked to Schrecker and asked if he could take the examination for a position as a regular driver. According to Newman, Schrecker replied that Harlan Horn had said that Newman had been "screwing" the Union for 3 years, and that Cooper had told Schrecker that Newman had been using his son's membership card . In response Newman took out his Local 610 membership card and informed Schrecker that his dues were paid up and he was a member in good standing of the Respondent. Schrecker then agreed that Newman could take the examination for a position as a regular driver. Newman subsequently took the examina- tion and failed to qualify as a regular driver. On cross-examination, Newman was questioned further about his January 1972 conversation with Schrecker. In this testimony Newman related that he asked why he was not being called to work as a casual driver . Schrecker replied that the Company was not using casuals because another driver had passed the examination and had been hired as a regular driver. Following November 15, Newman continued for a short period of time to work for Wetterau 's grocery department as a casual driver . The record reveals that he worked in the LOCAL UNION NO. 610, INTL. BRTHD . OF TEAMSTERS 215 grocery department on November 16, 17, 22, and 23, following which dates Newman was employed as a casual driver in the produce department on December 27 and 30, and January 5, 7, 12, 14, and 30, 1972. Newman testified that in January, while working for the produce department he asked Alvers if he was off the list of casuals. Alvers replied, "No, you are not off the list, but Cooper has you so far back you are not going to work." Alvers testified in this proceeding, but he neither corroborated nor denied the remarks attributed to him by Newman in the January conversation. Following his employment in Wetterau's produce de- partment Newman was employed as a driver for Moore Distributing Company and worked a total of 12 days during May 1972. As related above, Moore Distributing Company is an affiliate of Wetterau and its drivers are represented by the Respondent. On June 12, 1972, following the issuance of the complaint in this case, the Respondent sent letters to Wetterau and Newman advising that Local 610 had no objection to Wetterau's employment of Newman, so long as his employment in the bargaining unit was in accordance with the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement. As of the date of the hearing, Newman had not been recalled by Wetterau, although the record reflects that the Employer continued to use casual drivers both before and after June 12, 1972. John Alvers testified as a witness for the General Counsel and described generally the conditions under which Wetterau uses casual drivers and the manner of their selection. Alvers identified three lists of names of casual drivers which he relied on at times relevant to the alleged discrimination against Newman. The list used by Alvers during November and December 1971, contains the name "Ed Newman," as does the list of casuals maintained and used by Alvers after Memorial Day 1972. According to Alvers' testimony, he customarily called employees for casual work in accordance with their length of service and record of reliability. At times proximately related to November 15, 1971, Alvers considered Newman as second or third on his list of available casuals. Alvers was aware that Newman had not been in good standing with the Respondent. At a time prior to November 15, which he characterized as a couple of months, Alvers was told by Steward Cooper that Newman was not in good standing and would have to go to the hall to "get squared away," or not work for Wetterau. In spite of Cooper's words Alvers continued to call Newman for work until on and after November 15. Alvers testified to the meeting of November 15 in his office, which he characterized as approximately the size of a pool table. Insofar as he testified that Newman came to the office to inquire about work for the following day, Alvers' version corroborates that related by Newman. In most other respects, however, and depending upon which of his several versions is credited, Alvers' testimony concerning the November 15 meeting contrasts vividly with the testimony elicited from Newman. Alvers' testimo- ny about the meeting also contrasts , in one crucial respect, with the testimony of Schrecker, and is completely contrary to evidence elicited from Cooper. Alvers related that Newman arrived at this office first, followed by Cooper and Assistant Steward Ray Thomas. Newman asked about work for the following day and Cooper interjected the comment that Newman was not in good standing as far as the Respondent was concerned and had been working on his deceased son's card. When questioned as to whether Newman produced a card, Alvers testified that when the card was produced Cooper replied, "This is not your card, this is your son's card you are operating on." When asked about the list Cooper is alleged to have handed him, Alvers denied that the list was given to him at that time . As Alvers recalled, at a later time in November or December Cooper brought a list to his office which contained the names of four casual drivers. Cooper told Alvers that these were the casuals to be used in the future. Newman's name was on the list, but had been scratched through. Cooper reminded Alvers that some casual drivers were being used who were not members of Local 610, and others were delinquent in the payment of dues. At a later stage in his testimony on direct examination, Alvers recalled that Cooper gave him the list of casual drivers on November 15 or 16. Alvers also recalled that about a week following this he had a second conversation with Cooper concerning Newman. Alvers asked Cooper how the matter was going about Newman. Cooper replied, "No way, no way." Alvers asked if Newman had come up with his dues, and Cooper replied that Newman had been operating on his deceased son's card. Cooper, according to Alvers' testimony, also threatened, ". . . if [Newman] comes back to work you will find umbrellas out in front of the warehouse." At the conclusion of his direct examination Alvers was asked why he failed to call Newman to work after January 1, 1972. Alvers replied that he had never been informed that Newman was a member in good standing with Local 610, and this was the reason he failed to call him for work. On cross-examination Alvers admitted that his recollec- tion of dates and the contents of conversations relevant to this proceeding was "not too good." Alvers particularly agreed that he was unsure of the dates of the conversations he had with Cooper about Newman' s status. With respect to his testimony of the reasons for failing to call Newman for work, Alvers stated that he was unaware of Newman's good standing in the Union until the day before the hearing commenced, when the Respondent's letter of June 12, 1972, was brought to his attention. When again questioned, however, about the meeting in his office on November 12, Alvers recalled that Newman held up a card and told Cooper that he was in good standing . Alvers also recalled that Cooper replied, "Yes, I know you got back in good standing today." As justification of the conflict with his prior testimony Alvers related that he was unsure of the dates, and admitted the possibility that Cooper or someone else had complained to him before November 15 about Newman's lack of good standing in Local 610. Schrecker testified that he was also present during a part of the conversation which took place in Alvers' office on November 15. He testified that he entered the office and heard that Newman was not in good standing, that he had been using his deceased son's card , and that Wetterau was not to use Newman as a casual driver . Schrecker also 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified that Cooper gave Alvers a list with the comment that these were the casual drivers who were paid-up members in good standing with the Union, but Schrecker never saw the list. I do not credit Schrecker's testimony that he was present in Alvers' office and overheard part of the November 12 conversation. Newman and Alvers both testified to the event and specifically named the individuals who were present. Schrecker was not named . Cooper also testified about the November 12 meeting, and specifically denied that Schrecker was present . I find it inherently incredible that four persons gathered in a room the size of a pool table could have overlooked the presence of a fifth person. In view of Newman's testimony of his January 1972 conversation with Schrecker, I also discredit Schrecker's denial that neither he nor any other management official of Wetterau was ever made aware that Newman had obtained membership in good standing and had resolved his difficulties with Local 610. In further testimony, Schrecker admitted that sometime in October or November 1971, but before November 15, Cooper complained to him about Newman 's nonmember- ship in Local 610, and told Schrecker that Newman was not to be used as a casual driver until he was "straightened out." Schrecker also testified that in January 1972, he called Harlan Horn to discuss the problem of obtaining casuals through the hiring hall, and the problem Wetterau was experiencing in finding qualified regular drivers. During the course of the conversation, there was a discussion of employees not in good standing with Local 610, and Newman's name was mentioned along with several other employees. According to Schrecker, he expressed his impression that Newman was not in good standing and Horn replied, "Yes, he's been screwing us for a couple of years." In the course of his testimony, however, Schrecker admitted that Horn did not tell him that Newman was not in good standing and did not tell him that Wetterau was not to employ Newman. As related above, Cooper was informed on November 15, that Newman had transferred from Local 688 and had perfected membership in good standing in Local 610. When Cooper met Newman in Alvers' office later that day, Newman told Cooper that he was straightened out. In the conversation which followed, apparently attended with some heat, Cooper accused Newman of lying about his union membership and questioned him about the card he had produced in May. Newman admitted that the card had belonged to his deceased son. Newman then asked where this left him as far as work was concerned , and Cooper replied, "You are straightened out with the Union, and your name will be kept on the list of available drivers." Cooper denied that he ever gave Alvers, or any other representative of Wetterau, any list of casual drivers on which Newman's name was crossed off. Cooper did admit that on November 15, after the confrontation in Alvers' office, he met with Schrecker about the casual drivers who were in good standing with Local 610. Using the Compa- ny's daily run sheet Cooper explained to Schrecker those employees who were in good standing and available for continued employment Newman's name was on the list as a member of Local 610 in good standing. I credit Cooper's testimony of the events of November 15, as well as his testimony of events which preceded that date, and I discredit the versions of the November 15 meeting related by Newman and Alvers. On the basis of the foregoing review of the evidence in this proceeding, prolix as it is by reason of the necessity to resolve factual conflicts, I am unconvinced that the General Counsel has not sustained the burden of proof in support of the allegations of the complaint. The record leaves no doubt that until November 15, 1971, Newman failed to obtain and maintain membership in Local 610 as required by the collective-bargaining agreement. It is also clear that on several occasions prior to November 15, the Respondent's agents brought Newman's noncompliance with the union-security provision to the attention of Wetterau's representative, and insisted on compliance as a condition of Newman's continued employment. I have no doubt that the Respondent's agents, particularly Cooper and Horn , strongly expressed their disapproval of Newman and the manner in which he avoided his union membership obligation. This evidence may supply the element of proof of animus, but more than an unlawful animus is required to prove that the Respondent attempted to cause, or did cause Wetterau to discriminate against Newman. I find no credible evidence that on or after November 15, the date when Newman perfected his membership in Local 610, the Respondent overtly, tacitly, or in any other manner, attempted to cause Wetterau to terminate Newman's employment or reduce the amount of time he worked as a casual driver. In arriving at the foregoing finding, I find particularly implausible the testimony of Wetterau's representatives that the Company's failure to call Newman back to work was its lack of knowledge that he had acquired member- ship in Local 610 and was in good standing. Immediately after receiving his membership card, Newman apprised Wetterau's warehouse manager, Shoemack, that he was "straightened out" with Local 610, and he showed Shoemack his card. Later on the same day, in the presence of Alvers, Newman showed his card to Cooper, and Alvers heard Cooper acknowledge that Newman was in good standing. Alvers also heard Cooper state that any casual driver in good standing would be permitted to work. As to Schrecker, assuming that none of this information was brought to his attention, he was told by Cooper on November 15 that Newman was in good standing with Local 610 and eligible for work as a casual driver. In January 1972, Newman produced his card for Schrecker, and told him that he was a member in good standing of Local 610. Finally, in June 1972 , Wetterau was notified in writing that the Respondent had no objection to Newman's employment by the Company . In spite of its continued use of casual drivers, Wetterau did not recall Newman for work. Even if I were to assume, contrary to the evidence, that Wetterau's representatives labored under a misassumption about Newman's standing in Local 610, I would, neverthe- less, be required to dismiss the complaint. I find no credible evidence that Wetterau was misled or misdirected by any acts or conduct of the Respondent, and according- LOCAL UNION NO 610, INTL. BRTHD . OF TEAMSTERS 217 ly, any misassumption or misunderstanding that existed cannot be imputed to Local 610. Having found and concluded that the Respondent has not violated the Act as alleged, I hereby issue the following recommended: 4 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be dismissed. 4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings . Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes