Local 612, Teamsters

608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local Union #612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Ind. and AAA Motor Lines, Inc. Case 10-CC-912 June 14, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On February 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Benjamin K. Blackburn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof. 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 hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union #612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, a/w Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., Birmingham, Alabama, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BENJAMIN K. BLAcxBURN, Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on October 24, 1973.1 The complaint was issued on November 9. The hearing was held on November 28 in Birmingham, Alabama. The principal issue litigated was whether ambulatory picketing undertaken by Respondent in the course of a strike against the Charging Party met the Board's Moore Dry Dock 2 standards. For the reasons set forth below, I i All dates are 1973. s Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92 find that it did not, that the manner in which the Charging Party did picket establishes its secondary objective, and that, therefore, the Charging Party has violated Section 8(bX4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Upon the entire record, and after due consideration of oral argument and briefs filed by all parties, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Charging Party, an Alabama corporation, is engaged at Birmingham, Alabama, in the intrastate transportation of motor freight. During the year just prior to the issuance of the complaint, it received gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from operations which are essential links in the transportation of commodities in interstate commerce. Lee Way Motor Freight is engaged as a common carrier of motor freight between and through various States including Alabama. It maintains a terminal in Birming- ham. City Delivery and Cartage Company and Cooper Transfer Company are engaged as common carriers of motor freight within the State of Alabama . Each maintains a terminal in Birmingham. Western Carloading Company is engaged in the forward- ing of interstate and intrastate freight. It maintains a terminal in Birmingham. B. F. Goodrich Company is engaged in the manufac- ture and sale of tires and other rubber products. It maintains a warehouse and distribution center in Birming- ham. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts Respondent struck the Charging Party on July 16. The Charging Party retained Western Security Service to guard its terminal. In mid-September Respondent decided to resort to ambulatory picketing of the Charging Party's trucks. It formed three teams of two pickets each. It provided them with signs which read "Teamster Local 612, On Strike, AAA Motor Lines, Unfair Labor Practices." Samuel Webb, Respondent's president and business manager, instructed the pickets that they were to follow the Charging Party's trucks and picket them wherever they stopped to pick up or drop off freight. He told them to request permission to enter the terminals at which the trucks called and picket near the Charging Party's trucks. If they were denied such permission, Webb told the pickets, they were to picket at the entrance to the terminal. From the beginning of ambulatory picketing through October 15, the roving pickets frequently, although not always, failed to follow Webb's instructions. Occasions during this period on which the pickets failed to ask permission to come on the property of a neutral employer NLRB 547 211 NLRB No. 94 LOCAL 612, TEAMSTERS 609 before beginning to picket at some distance from the Charging Party's truck which was loading or unloading on that property involved Western Carloading, City Delivery, Cooper Transfer, Goodrich, and Lee Way. Western Carloading's terminal has a city street on one side of it and a railroad track on the other. There is no fence between the street and the building. Dimensions are such that large rigs backed up to the dock extend beyond Western Carloading's property and onto the street. On five or six occasions prior to October 16, work stoppages of 10 or 15 minutes occurred when Respondent's pickets appeared at the terminal. On each occasion, the pickets walked in the street parallel to the loading dock for a distance substantially beyond that part of the dock occupied by the Charging Party's truck. On each occasion, the pickets did not enter the terminal and attempt to talk to any official of Western Carloading before beginning to picket. On each occasion, as soon as William Robertson, Western Carloading's terminal manager, became aware that his employees and the employees of trucking compa- nies other than the Charging Party had stopped working, he went to the pickets and asked them to walk only in front of the Charging Party's truck. On each occasion, the pickets complied and the work stoppage came to an end. The pickets told Robertson they had been waiting for someone to come out and tell them to picket in front of the truck. The building at City Delivery's terminal runs perpendic- ular to the street. The nearest door on the loading dock is more than 50 feet from the street. There are two driveways from the street onto the property. Visits to City Delivery's terminal by Charging Party's trucks and their pickets were a daily occurrence between mid-September and October 15. On each occasion, the pickets walked on the street in front of whichever driveway the Charging Party's truck happened to be closest to. On each occasion, John Weldon, City Delivery's general manager, went to the pickets and asked them to come in and picket at the truck or leave. On two or three occasions, they came in. Other times they simply left, usually as the Charging Party's truck was leaving. Cooper Transfer's terminal is located on a frontage road which runs parallel to an interstate highway. On October 13, Respondent's roving pickets walked on the road at the entrance to the terminal approximately 250 feet from the spot where the Charging Party's truck was parked. The pickets did not ask permission to enter Cooper Transfer's terminal and picket near the truck. Cooper Transfer's terminal manager only became aware of the situation when Earl Dove, the Charging Party's president, called the pickets to his attention and suggested the manager call the Charging Party's attorney for advice about how to handle the situation. The record does not indicate what, if anything, the manager did. Goodrich's distribution center is located on Goodrich Boulevard. Trucks turning onto Goodrich's property from the boulevard travel more than 100 feet before they get to the building. Drivers must get a ticket indicating which of the building's 27 doors they are to use before they park at the loading dock. Between mid-September and October 15, each time one of the Charging Party's trucks arrived at the distribution center, Respondent's roving pickets drove onto the property behind it. As the truckdriver stopped and went into the building to get his door ticket, the pickets drove past the building, honking their horn and waving their picket sign. They went back to the driveway entrance, parked, and picketed along Goodrich Boulevard across the driveway. Employees of trucking companies other than the Charging Party stopped work and joined them there. Trucks arriving at the driveway entrance while the pickets were there did not enter. Some parked until the pickets left. Others entered through the exit driveway. On one occasion during this period, Kenneth Howd, manager of the distribution center, went to the pickets and invited them to come onto the property and picket directly in front of the Charging Party's truck. They did so. The setup at Lee Way's terminal is similar to City Delivery's. The technique used there by Respondent's pickets was similar to that used at Goodrich. On several occasions prior to October 16 the pickets drove into the terminal behind the Charging Party's truck, circled the building as they honked and waved their sign, drove off Lee Way's property, parked, and picketed at the entrance. Since the General Counsel_ .does not rely on them as evidence of unfair labor practices committed by Respon- dent, I make no findings with respect to incidents which occurred on September 11 (apparently the first day of ambulatory picketing) at the terminal of East Texas Motor Freight Lines and the store of Roommakers Carpet Company and on October 15 at the terminal of Gordons Transports, Inc. The Charging Party began using armed guards on its trucks on October 16. It asked Western Security Service to provide an armed guard for each of its trucks. Since the Charging Party dispatches between 21 and 25 trucks each day, Western could not meet its needs immediately. Consequently, on October 16, 17, and 18 some five or six trucks were manned by a driver and a guard armed with a pistol. (One guard showed up with a shotgun. Rollie Kilgore, the Charging Party's terminal manager, told him he was not riding shotgun for Wells Fargo in the Old West and ordered him to get rid of it. The record does not indicate whether Kilgore caught him before he went out on one of the Charging Party's trucks or after.) The remainder of the trucks were manned by two drivers, neither of them armed. Because of protests which immediately began coming in from the managers of other terminals about the Charging Party's trucks coming onto their property with armed guards on them, the Charging Party told Western that it wanted an unarmed guard on each truck. Western protested at sending its men out without weapons. It was finally decided that each guard would carry a can of mace. From October 19 until November 23, when the Charging Party removed guards from its trucks, guards supplied by Western carried a can of mace on their belts. Western continued to augment its guard force to the point where, approximately a week and a half after October 16, it was able to supply a guard for each truck. In the interim, the trucks which did not carry Western guards continued to be manned by two drivers. On and after October 16 Respondent's roving pickets said they were afraid of violence because of guns on the 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Charging Party's trucks when they declined invitations to picket close to them. One such incident occurred at the terminal of Mason Dixon Lines, another interstate com- mon carrier, on October 18. (The only time prior to October 16 that the Charging Party's roving pickets showed up at Mason Dixon's terminal was in September. They first asked permission of Gerald Lewis, terminal manager, to picket in front of the truck and got it. They picketed "between the headlights" and left when the truck left.) One of Respondent's business agents, A. E. Yarbor- ough, told Lewis there was a gun on the Charging Party's truck and his men were afraid of violence. Yarborough led members of Respondent some distance down the dock where they waited in the terminal yard while Lewis tried to find out whether there was, in fact , a gun. Work resumed when the truck left. A similar incident at Western Carloading's terminal on October 19 caused a partial work stoppage for more than an hour. Only the Charging Party's employees and the employees of nonunion trucking companies continued to work. Sometime after October 16, the roving pickets declined invitations to picket "between the headlights" at Good- rich's distribution center, City Delivery's terminal, and Lee Way's terminal on the ground they feared violence because they thought there was a gun on the Charging Party's truck. At the latter location, they accepted the invitation to the extent of coming into the terminal but picketed halfway between entrance and truck. Respondent stopped its ambulatory picketing around November 5, after a petition for a 10(1) injunction was filed against it. B. Analysis and Conclusions The Board has established its Moore Dry Dock standards as a measure of whether, in a common situs situation, the nature of the picketing is itself sufficient to establish the picketing union's secondary objective. If the picketing meets the following four tests , the picketing is presumptive- ly primary although, of course, other evidence may still prove a secondary objective: 1. The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary employer's premises. 2. At the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs. 3. The picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs. 4. The picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer. Here, there is no dispute that Respondent's manner of picketing the Charging Party at locations other than its own terminal met tests 1, 2, and 4. The issue is whether it met test 3. The thrust of Respondent's argument that it limited its picketing to places reasonably close to the location of the situs is "that in practically every incident where the pickets were asked to come onto the premises they either complied or left the area." As support for this proposition it relies especially on Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 592, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Estes Express Lines, Inc.), 181 NLRB 790, where, according to Respondent's brief: The Board found the respondent union not guilty of violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). In every incident recited therein the picketing was conducted on the outside of the neutral carrier's gates without permission having been sought to come to the dock. In that case the pickets arrived with the non-striking employer's truck, picketed while the truck was on the neutral employer's premises, and left when the neutral [sic; I assume Respondent's counsel intended to use the word "primary" here] employer's truck left. The Board held that this was not violative of the Act. However, in Estes Express, as the Board's recital of the relevant facts makes clear: The record also shows that on February 17, a Monday, Respondent sent letters, explaining that it would engage in ambulatory picketing, to the approxi- mately 125 secondary employers likely to be affected. These employers were advised in the letter that the picketing would conform to Moore Dry Dock stand- ards, and that it would be directed exclusively at Estes employees . Permission was sought to enter their premises in order to picket the Estes drivers more closely. These employers were informed that, if this permission were denied, picketing outside their gates would occur. In concluding, the letter requested the cooperation of the secondary employer, and asked that he cease doing business with Estes during the course of the strike. The letter asked the addressee not to consider this a "threat," but stated that his cooperation would "greatly assist in forcing Estes Express Lines to enter into a contract" for its employees. Such was the factual background when, on February 18, Respondent, having waited a day to allow the letters to reach secondary employers , began its ambula- tory picketing. [Emphasis supplied.] The issue in this case boils down to a question of whether the initiative lies with picketing union to ask permission to picket between the headlights or with picketed neutral employer to issue such an invitation before picketing at the entrance to the neutral's premises is "limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs." Estes Express, I think, stands for the proposition that it lies with the picketing union. Since the Charging Party did not take the initiative, its picketing failed to meet the third test set forth in Moore Dry Dock and is, thus, evidence proving the Charging Party's secondary objective. Additional evidence is found in the conduct of the pickets at Goodrich and Lee Way in driving onto the neutral's premises and signalling employees working there, with horn and sign, to join them at the entrance. I find, therefore, that Respondent violated Section 8(bX4)(i) and (iiXB) of the Act by picketing the Charging Party at the premises of Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carloading Company, and B. F. LOCAL 612, TEAMSTERS Goodrich Company with an object of forcing or requiring Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carload- ing Company, and B. F. Goodrich Company to cease doing business with the Charging Party. Since I have found Respondent violated the Act by its activities prior to the time the Charging Party began using armed guards on its trucks, I do not reach the issue of whether, after the Charging Party provided grounds for the pickets reasonably to fear danger to their persons, the pickets could refuse to picket between the headlights and remain at the entrances without violating rule 3. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. AAA Motor Lines, Inc., Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carloading Company, and B. F. Goodrich Company are employers engaged in commerce and persons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 2. Local Union # 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing the Charging Party at the premises of Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carload- ing Company, and B. F. Goodrich Company with an object of forcing or requiring Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Compa- ny, Western Carloading Company, and B. F. Goodrich Company to cease doing business with the Charging Party, Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Local Union #612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., its officers, agents, and representatives , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing AAA Motor Lines, Inc., at the premises of Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage 611 Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carload- ing Company, B. F. Goodrich Company, or any other ,person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing or requiring Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carloading Compa- ny, B. F. Goodrich Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor Lines, Inc. (b) In any like or related manner, engaging in, or inducing the employees of any person engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any person engaged in commerce or in any industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor Lines, Inc. (c) In any like or related manner, threatening, coercing, or restraining any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor Lines, Inc. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meetings halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" to the Regional Director for posting at facilities of AAA Motor Lines, Inc., Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, Western Carloading Company, and B. F. Goodrich Company, provided said companies choose to post said notices. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, iii writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 4 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated Federal law by the manner in which we picketed AAA Motor Lines, Inc., at the premises of other companies, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT picket AAA Motor Lines, Inc., at the premises of Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, West- ern Carloading Company, B. F. Goodrich Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce with an object of forcing or requiring Lee Way Motor Freight, City Delivery and Cartage Company, Cooper Transfer Company, West- ern Carloading Company, B. F. Goodrich Company, or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor Lines, Inc. WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, engage in, or induce the employees of any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor Lines, Inc. WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to force or require any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce to cease doing business with AAA Motor Lines, Inc. Dated By LOCAL UNION #612, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A/W INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, IND. (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 2102 City Federal Building, 2026 Second Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203, Telephone 205-325-3877.