Teamsters Local No. 85

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 85, In- ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and William Volker and Company. Case 20-CC-2131 December 8, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MI MBE RS JIENKINS ANI) PNEI.I.O On July 23, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Mi- chael D. Stevenson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed limited exceptions and resubmitted the brief previously furnished to the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent filed timely exceptions, without an accompanying brief. The General Counsel filed a motion to strike Respondent's exceptions and a brief in support thereof. The Charging Party filed a letter joining with the General Counsel's action and moved to strike any belated brief and/or ex- ceptions submitted by Respondent.' Respondent then filed a brief in support of its exceptions. Re- spondent also filed an opposition to General Coun- sel's motion to strike Respondent's exceptions and any brief in support thereof and a motion to allow late filing of Respondent Union's brief. The Gener- al Counsel then filed a letter reiterating its previous motion to strike Respondent's exceptions and any brief in support thereof. 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 at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions, brief, letters, and motions"2 and has decided to affirm the ' Ihe Charging Pary ttached Io the letter he brief it subhmitted to the Adminislratise I as Judge. I 'he (Geeral Counlll cntends that Rspondelt's exceptions should be stricken because the "staletenlit of x.xcepiotlls is rio more than a gler- al assertiot that the Administrative Laiw Judge's cclusiols and recom- mendatotms are erroneous, anid the Exceptions aire deficicnt and mealning- less in the absence of a brief filed in suppuort hereof," iling (urhoin Mining (orrxrutlon. 198 NlRB 293 (1'972) We have carefully examined Reslpindeit's exceptlu ls i light If the cited case ilid the Bo;ird's current Rules and Regulations Sec 102 4(h) aid find these exceptions are nolt so general as o be disregarded Acciordingly, we hall deny the (;criral Counsels motion to strike Respiondent's cxctptlos tlowever, Respond- ent's brief in support of exceptitons was filed late and no timnely request for an extension was made r granted Accirdilgly. we shall den Re- spondent's motltionl to allow lale filing of Resplondeli Uilon's brief We shall grant the (ielneral Cunsel's nmo(ltli to strike Responldetnt Utiion'i brief as it was unltimely filed AccrdiliglI, we shall reject ad strike the brief filed by Resplondent 253 NLRB No. 89 rulings, findings, and conclusions : of the Adminis- trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Teamsters & Auto Drivers, Local No. 85, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete the following language from paragraph 1: "to resume doing business with All-Trans Ex- press and." 2. Delete the following language from paragraph 2(b): "All-Trans Express." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. l' We find merit ill the (ieelral Couns el's limited exceptlioas which are to the Adminisrative aw Judge's conclusion that Respondent's picket- ing of Volker to force it to resume doing business with All-Trans violat- ed Sec (h)(4)(i) and ()(lI) of the Act There is no language in this sec- tiion of the Act that il(filies an objec "t Iforce t to resume doing husi- iess with" to he a iilatioi llere, the picketing acti vity enlgaged il hy Respode lct ho)s tha it tliled o make all effoirt to isolate Volker a a 11neutral eniployer roni it llabor dispute ith Ritchie Trucking Co and (;regg' I)eliscry Isrvice, the primary emplosers We agree with the conclusion of the Admililistrative Law Judge that Respondent violated Sec X(h)(4)(i) and (i)(H) of the Act h picketinig Volker with an obhect of forcing or requiring it to cease doilg business with Ritchie Trucking Co. and Gregg's )ellsery Service APPENDIX NOrICE To EMPI.OY.EI S AND ME MBERS POSTIA) BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAI. LABOR REL ATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE Wll. NOT picket or extend a picket line or engage in any other conduct to induce or encourage any individual employed by Wil- liam Volker and Company, or any other em- ployer or person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employ- ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, ar- ticles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or to threaten, coerce, or restrain the above-named employer or any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where in either case an object thereof is forcing or requiring the 632 TEAMSTERS LOCAl. NO. 85 above-named employer or any other person to cease doing business with Ritchie Trucking Co. or Gregg's Delivery Service. TEAMSTERS & AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAl NO. 85, INIl RNATIONAI BROITHIIRHOOI) OF TF AMSTERS, CHAUI FFURS. WAREHOUS.MIEN AND HiL PIERS OF AMERICA DECISION SI Arll MIN 1 ( TI It CASE MICHA l. D. SIFVINSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me at San Francisco, Califor- nia, on March 4 and 5, 1980,1 pursuant to a complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board on October 31, and which is based upon a charge filed by William Volker and Company (herein called Volker) on April 17. The com- plaint alleges that Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called Respondent) has engaged in certain viola- tions of Section 8(b)(a)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act. as amended (herein called the Act). Issues 1. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by picketing Volker under the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Whether Volker is a joint employer with any other business entity involved in this case. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General Counsel and Charging Party. 2 Upon the entire record of the case, and from my ob- servation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the followiig: FINuDING(S 01 Fxe I I. 'li l EMPIOYITR'S HSINISS Respondent admits that the Employer is a Nevada cor- poration engaged in the business of selling carpeting, floor covering, window covering, and furniture on a All dales herein refer Io 179 ules o lhirscli, s dicaed 2 riefl ii this calie were duie n April 1. 1980 O() April 4. 19801, counll- sel for Respindenit sen tio me ai hand-d-hl ired letter .lskrig for all eell- sion f ime t) April 21. 190 'this req"ist was granred thereafter. wlthloul explanation l. no brief wias filed It he fadilure f a party io file a brief, while neser helpful, is particularly dlilresslg in his case I r. Respo ndent asked fr and was given aill I onal limle file its hrief Irl additlil l 11 rriore thiln a ae cci a he harilig the SLlhJett of r ievan- cy and materrality of Resporlderl' s vilderlc' w:a, raiscd CuII nisel for Re spoindcrn represernted Ito the AdminlitranllVC I ', Judge hat, ait Ihe ppro priaec Imne.. t awuld has, ca.ses i, upporl ot hli psrlionm Ili light of Ie above everis arid conllsel for RespidlldRil's refererlce during the htilrillg Io his "year, Iof cxpercel vw ith the I ahbor tl;lrn in Washiligtbi." I r saddeled anl anIllllyed a Ils I: lawyer' filure IIIo dl what he prenmlrcsd II do Of curse, this dcrelictiii "ill havse 1t 'Iett I rn rly deci:imt wholesale basis, and having a shipping facility located in South San Francisco, California. It further admits that during the past year, in the course and conduct of the Employer's business, the Employer has purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers outside the State of California. Accord- ingly, it admits, and I find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7). II. rHF I AOR ORGANIZATION INVOI Vle) Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In. IH. Al II .,l) UNFIAIR IAHOR PRACTICI-S A. The Facts Volker is engaged in the wholesale sale and distribu- tion of home furnishings. It has shipping facilities located in Fresno and in Sacramento as well as in South San F'rancisco, where the instant controversy arose. There is also an administrative office located in Burlingame. In order to deliver its merchandise to retailers in and around the Bay Area, as well as other points in Northern California, Volker formerly used drivers employed by All-Trans Express (hereinafter All-Trans). Beginning in the early 1960's up to April 15, All-Trans leased trucks and provided drivers to Volker pursuant to an annual contract. The relationship between Volker and All-Trans was affected by two other factors besides the annual con- tract. First, was a Minimum Rate Tariff 15 (MRT-15), published by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. This document, among other matters cov- ered, defined the rates which trucking companies are permitted to charge customers for the services provided Second, was a contract between All-Trans and Respond- ent. The collective-bargaining agreement had been in force between All-Trans (including its predecessor, Walkup) and Respondent for a continuous period of time prior to 1960( up to and including the present. ()n or about April 13, All-Trans received first notice that its contract with Volker due to expire in two days would not be renewed. On April 16, All-Trans was re- placed by Ritchie Trucking Co. and Gregg's Delivery Service, both of which were nonunion. I.awrelnce Rit- chie, owner of Ritchie Trucking Co., was the father-in- law and business manager of Greg ltibby, ownler of Gregg's Delivery Service. At the hearing the parties stipulated to the following facts: (1) Commencing on or about April 15, and con- tinuing until April 17, Respondent has picketed the South San Francisco facility of William Volker & Company with picket signs stating "Notice to the Public: The employees of Volker work at less than wage arid labor standards average for this communi- ty. Teamsters Local No. 85, B'I'." (2) Commencing on or about April 18, arid con- tinuing to October 22, Respondent has picketed the South San Francisco facility of William Volker & 633 I)ECISIONS ()F NATI()NAL LABOR RELATI()NS B()ARD Company, with picket signs stating "Unfair. Volker & Company is unfair to Teamsters Local 85, IBT." (3) Commencing o or about April 16, and con- tinuing to May 29, Respondent has picketed the South San Francisco facility of William Volker & Company at times when Gregg's Delivery Service was not present, with picket signs stating "Notice to the Public: The employees of Gregg's elivery Service work at less than wage and labor standards average for this communlity. Teamsters Local No. 85, IT." (4) Commencing on or about April 16, and con- tinuing to June 11, Respondent has picketed the South San Francisco facility of Willianm Volker & Company at times when Ritchie Trucking Service was not present, with picket signs stating "Notice to the Public: The employees of (Gregg's DIelivery Service work at less thanl wage and labor stanldards average for this community. Teamsters Local No. 85, IBIT." Volker never had a collect ive-bargainilng agreement with Respondent, nor was there ever a demand for recogni- tion. Responidenit never stated it represented a majority of Volker employees. Moreover, Volker had not even employed any truckdrivers for about 1() years before the current dispute arose. However, during the duratioti of the picketing, drivers for most of the other carriers scheduled to make deliveries and pickups at Volker re- fused to make their scheduled stops because of the picket lines. Ten Volker warehouseen were members of an- other Teamster local, and refused to work a single after- noonl on the first day of picketing. Thereafter, these em- ployees crossed the picket lile and performed their jobs without incident. As a result of the labor dispute. Volker found its costs icreased due to extra expenditures and lost business. I turn next to certain background facts helpful to understading g this dispute. All-Trans leased five trucks to Volker and provided five drivers assigned to Volker on a permanentt basis, with occasional temporary or permanent replacements from time to time. The trucks remllained on the Volker premises except for repairs or refueling which was done at All-Trans. All-Trans assigned drivers to Volker on a seniority basis pursuant to thie collective-bargaining agreement between All-Trans and Respondelt. Volker had no control over initial assignments of drivers or re- placement drivers. However, front time to time, Volker management would become dissatisfied with a given driver. As a general rule, when this occurred, Volker no- tified All-Trans by letter or telephone, detailed the corn- plaint, and asked for a replacement. If All-Trans could not resolve the matter with the driver, it was necessary to contact Respondent to settle the seniority issue before the driver could be replaced. Volker had no authority to discipline the All-Trans drivers directly, nor could it hire nor fire drivers. All personnel matters involving drivers had to be conducted through All-Trans and indirectly through Respondent, by virtue of its contract with All- Trans. In sum, All-Trans after bargaining with Respondent, set rates of driver pay, amount of vacations,:' health and pension payments, assigned drivers to Volker, settled driver labor grievances,4 and disciplined drivers where necessary. All-Trans also provided weekly paychecks and W-2 statements, neither of which had any reference to Volker, as well as truck fuel and maintenance. For its part, Volker provided daily routes for deliveries with some discretion for drivers to exchange stops for their own convenience, a secure area for trucks to be left at the end of the work day with keys to the Volker yard possessed by each driver and certain other privileges and benefits which I will discuss in the "Discussion and Analysis" portion of this opinion. Subsequent to March 1978, drivers were required to obtain from Volker super- visors overtime approval as soon after it occurred as pos- sible. There were no instances where the approval was withheld, but the system did reduce overtime costs sub- stantially. Finally, the drivers assigned to Volker were permitted to keep and maintain their own timecards which would all he brought in to All-Trans by a single driver once a week. If a driver finished early, he was permitted to leave while he was paid for 8 hours and, if he finished late, he was paid for 8 hours plus the stand- ard overtime rate." 3. )ivcuvsion und A4nal.wiv ]The General Counsel contends that Respondent violat- ed Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)() of the Act. I agree and begin the discussion by finding that Respondent's picket- ing violated Sectlion 8(h)(4)(i)(B) of the Act because it in- duced or encouraged neutral employees to stop working. As described above, Rspolldent's picket signs, for a single day, read in part, "The eniployees of Volker work at less than wage anld labor standards average for this community." Volker warehousemnen refused to cross picket lines and work on the afternoon of April 16. I find Volker to be a neutral employer and a picket sign which displays the name of a neutral employer is calculated to induce and encourage employees employed by a neutral emlployer to refuse to perform services in violation of Section 8(h)(4)(i)(B) of the Acti ()n the first day of picketinig Volker Executive Jewel McCrary asked Re- spondenlt's business agent, Jack Weintraub, why Volker was being picketed, and Weintraub responded, "Because you got rid of All-Trans and hired a non-union carrier"; :'I) rivers aignlel t Vilker were perilled , t schedule the dale it Iheilr ilw) n iaLatlllll alt' first L ranginllg ailh All Itrans for a rplacementC d rl',C! 4 v'olker ()peratlit M anlager Jewell Mc(r;ry Itestitied I hal, i the all I, 1977, he wa, alprlloachled hy Respidci. l's official, Jack Weinlrauh. wilit respecl 1i disc, Sill ig a gricsance o',r ;1a All I ranls driver aslglled t, vilker Mc( rry taled I tat V lker ad In relatl nlhip with Resp lndent alnd rferred Weilnlrauh t All-lrall ()I) the ame day, Mc(.rary did pernillt Weintlrauib Io addrs the drivers assigned I, Volker ;fr a few no- tlerlu relative lo election of a ulilil steward s All-Trans had fiur other MRI 15 type ciitonracts With one excep- ion,, Ithe arrangenltl explained aboh hbet lwee ll-l rans and its drivers was the sanie as wilh Volker G (en'teral lrucl/ Drivers, Wurehhouernen. Illper & Autlromolive Empriy- nifi. Itlal 5. Internauinal Hrolherhxd ii lieu,nimers (haujiur, and Ielper ] i i-tnericu Gravbvor :le-ctre- ('lmpuan. Inc.), 243 NI.RB 665 ( 1979) 634 TEAMSTERS LOCAL. NO. 85 Weintraub went on to represent that Respondent would not interfere with Volker's business. This representation turned out to be untrue. However, even if Respondent had not interfered with Volker's business, under the cir- cumstances of Volker's name on the picket signs, said picketing would still violate the Act. 7 After I day the picket signs referred to above were re- moved, but other signs remained until October 22. These signs read in part, "Volker & Company is unfair to Teamsters Local 85, IBT." On April 18, Weintraub sent a letter to Volker, somewhat at variance with his oral statement to McCrary on April 16. The letter read in pertinent part: We have established a primary picket line before your facility in South San Francisco. As a primary co-employee of our members, you have a long- standing labor relationship with this Union going back many years. We demand that you reinstitute the above-men- tioned relationship with this Union which you have summarily discontinued. [Resp. Exh. 11.] I will find below that no joint employer relationship ex- isted between Volker and any other business entity in- volved in this case. For now, I find that Respondent's picketing violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by picketing and threatening to continue to picket Volker with an object of forcing or requiring it to cease doing business with Ritchie Trucking Co. and Gregg's Delivery Service. At this point it is helpful to examine the early case of SailorS' Union of the Pacific, 4FL (Moore Dry Dock Com- pany), 92 NLRB 547 (1950), which sets certain standards for determining whether the picketing of the premises of a secondary employer is primary and therefore lawful: (a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary em- ployer's premises; (b) At the time of the picketing the primary em- ployer is engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) The picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (d) The picketing discloses clearly that the dis- pute is with the primary employer. There can be little question that Respondent's picket- ing here violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. First, the signs in part describe Volker as "unfair" to Re- spondent, or as having employees who worked at less than wage and labor standards for the community. There is no evidence that Respondent attempted to ascertain that the wages paid by Volker were not those wages paid by Ritchie or Gregg's for that matter. Nor is there evidence that any of said wages were less than the wage and labor standards average for the community.8 Further I General liuck Driver,. Warehouvemen, Helpers & Automotive Employ- ees, Local 85 (Grayhar Electric Co.. Inc.). vupra " Thus, if the issue were properly presented by this case, I would find that Respondent engaged in unlawful area standards picketing. 4uto- motive Efmployee. I.aundry Drivers & telper, Local No. 88. International supporting the General Counsel's case, the evidence shows that Respondent's picketing continued even when the primary employers, Ritchie and Gregg's, were not present. I turn next to Respondent's apparent defense that Volker is a joint employer with All-Trans.9 In order to evaluate the contention, it is first necessary to state the applicable legal tests. The Board has long held that if two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees, they constitute "joint employers," under the Act. Davis d/b/a Holiday Inn of Benton v. N.L.R.B., 103 LRRM 2965, 88 LC I1, 941 (7th Cir. 1980). Certain specific factors have been mentioned by the Board to measure this significant control. In Parklane Hlosiery Co., Inc. and Mervyn Roberts d/b/a Parklane Ho- .sierv, its alter ego, 203 NLRB 597, 612 (1973), amended on other grounds 207 NLRB 999, the Board stated that its so-called "single employer" or "joint employer" concept defined and codified, with judicial concur- rence, within a significant number of cases normally reflects a judgment that two or more nominally sep- arate business entities may properly be considered sufficiently integrated to warrant their unitary treat- ment, for various statutory purposes. The principal factors which have normally been deemed relevant, when this Board must decide whether sufficient integration exists, have covered broadly certain demonstrable relationships between the several business entities concerned; the Board considers whether their total relationship reveals: (1) some functional interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or finan- cial control. While none of these factors, separately viewed, have been held controlling, stress has nor- mally been laid upon the first three factors which reveal functional integration with particular refer- ence to whether there is centralized control of labor relations .... [See also Radio and Television Broadcast Techni- cians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965); Southern California Stationers, et al., 162 NLRB 1517 (1967); Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 NLRB 1220 (1962), affd. 332 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 961 (1965).] Applying these tests to the relationship between Volker and All-Trans as of April 16 and subsequently, I find that the evidence falls far short of showing a joint Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen 4 Helpers of America (West Coast Supply Co.), 208 NLRB 679 1974) I did not understand at the hearing that Respondent was contending that a joint employer relationship existed between Volker and Ritchie and Gregg's. To the extent the issue is suggested by the wording on some of the picket signs, I find there is no evidence that Volker was a joint employer with Ritchie and Gregg's, basically or the same reason given in my discussion of the relationship between Volker and All-Trans. How- ever, since the issue is not squarely presented, extended discussion is not warranted 635 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employer relationship. The record shows a separate and distinct historical development of each company over the years. No officers, owners, or executives of one are connected to the other.°0 Thus, I find no common own- ership or financial control, no common management, and no centralized control of labor relations. However, there was some functional relationship between the two com- panies required by the contractual relationship. I discuss this and other evidence presented by Respondent below. Respondent provided a witness at hearing named Eugene Fambrini, an All-Trans employee and member of Respondent for 30 years. Starting in 1960 to April 15, Fambrini was assigned by All-Trans as a truckdriver for Volker. Fambrini testified that for several years, ending in 1975 or 1976, Volker provided its drivers with uni- forms consisting of six pairs of pants, eight shirts, and two jackets. The shirt had "Volker" on it. As to the truck driven, the tractor had the name "All-Trans" while the side of the truck had the name "Volker." Sometime in 1975 or 1976, the drivers began to wear a different shirt on the job without the Volker name on it. Fambrini was never told, nor did he ask, why the change in uni- form shirts occurred. The witness also described how he was permitted to purchase certain Volker products at a discount. In addition, one Christmas, Fambrini was able to order a box of candy through Volker at the same dis- count given to Volker employees. On rebuttal, Volker Executive Keith Frazier explained that these purchases were made through an accommodation account. The dis- counts are available not only to employees, but also to bankers, customers, and others for whom Volker wishes to create good will. Fambrini also testified that he and other All-Trans em- ployees were permitted to attend retirement parties for Volker employees and Volker company picnics. Again Frazier explained that these functins were accessible to others besides employees, such as friends and relatives of Volker employees. Testimony was also presented by two persons former- ly assigned by All-Trans to Volker. John Roach was found by Volker to be an unsatisfactory employee. At the request of Volker executives, he was replaced in 1974. Similarly, Warren Gettler was found on two ccca- sions to be an unsatisfactory employee. On the first occa- sion, Glen Duncan, All-Trans operations manager, met with McCrary in an attempt to resolve the matter. Duncan asked McCrary, as a courtesy to Duncan, to permit Respondent's business agent, Jim Baker, to be present. McCrary agreed, but began the meeting by saying to Baker that Volker had no relationship to Local 85. Baker agreed that this was so. At the meeting, it was agreed that Gettler would be given another chance at Volker, but a short time later, Gettler injured himself in an accident and did not return to Volker. "' Volker did not have a dispatcher as such. However, William Tins- lcy, Volker's warehouse foreman, may have occasionally directed an All- ' rans driver. He did not, however, exercise supervisory control over All-Trans driers. See Oil. Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 4-23 (Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company. Division of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Compa- ny), 173 NLRB 1244. 1245 (1968). Duncan mentioned several other examples in his testimony of All- Trans drivers who were replaced at Volker's request due to Volker dis- Finally, Robert Blincoe, a Volker executive, testified that in March 1978, he instituted a cost control measure whereby Volker executives would approve the overtime of All-Trans drivers assigned to Volker. Although this approval was always sought the next day after the over- time occurred, and even though such approval was always given, it was nevertheless effective in reducing overtime substantially." In spite of this reduction, Volker terminated the All-Trans contract because of per- ceived poor service. I have reviewed the testimony discussed above togeth- er with other evidence described in "The Facts" section of this opinion. All of this evidence evaluated in light of the entire record fails to convince me that a joint em- ployer relationship exists in this case and I find that Volker was not a joint employer with All-Trans nor with any other business entitN involved in this case. : I conclude with the very recent case of V.L.R.B. v. Retail Store Emplovyere Unrion Local 1001 (SaJi'co itle In. Co.), 100 S.Ct 2372 (1980); 88 LC '12,083 which sus- tained the Board's finding of an 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) violation because of a secondary boycott against a title company. While the issue of lawful product picketing is not present in the instant case as it was in Retail Store Employees Union, the case is nevertheless important here because it fully supports my finding that Respondent violated the Act as alleged. Respondent's secondary picketing against Volker left responsive truckdrivers no choice but to boy- cott Volker. To the extent that Respondent had a viable good-faith labor dispute with Ritchie and Gregg's-and the record raise s real doubts about this-the picketing was calculated to embroil Volker in the labor discord and coerce it into severing its relationship with Ritchie and Gregg's, or perhaps more accurately in this case, to resume its relationship with All-Trans. This is a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(13) and I so find. ' I. 1ill. I .[[: i I I0 [Il UNF IR lABOR PR ACICFS UPON O() MMI.RCt The unfair labor practices of Respondent set forth in section III, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sever- atisfaction with the driver' perfiorniace Noie of this tesi mlony, iior any other, persuades me that Volker had thal degree of substantial con- trol oer All- ras drivers to indicate a joiir t criployer relaionship exist- ed." Again this does not show a joi int emplycr relatioilhip See Inlterno- tional Chmical Workrs i:Uin ocal 483 v .LR B , 561 F2d 253, 256 257 (D C Cir 1977): Fidcliry utainrtenance & Conruction Company. In( and Columbia Nitrnge (orporaurion 173 NLRKH 103, 1037 (19681 ': The John Breuner Companry 248 NRIIB 4X83 (1980). ln Pulitzer Pub- lishin Co. v ;IL.R.B, 18X I 2d 1275 (th Cir 1980), the court denied enforcement f the Board's order, fiding a jint employer relall iiship between a newspaper publisher (Puliter) and a newspaper delivery sers- ice (erhberich) Of course, I am bound by the Board's decision, but noth- ing there causes me to change mly decision in he present case. The evi- dence ih Pulitzer suggesting a joint emploer relationship was much stronger than that here. For example. o,, i one cccasion an officer of Pulit- zer participated in negotiati ns beteen the erherich drivers and their union Also, Puliter wrote lettrs assuring that it w: uld continu e I dis- cuss safety problems with the drisers' union Finally , there had been at one time a centralized control of labor relallnons between the two cnipa- nies. None of these factors is even remoitel present in the instant case 1 Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International U nion. AFL-CIO (The New York Association for the Blind), 250 NLRB 240 (1980). 636 TEAMSTERS I.OCAI. NO. 85 al States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. H11 RMEI'DY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following. CONCUSIONS 01 LAW 1. The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Volker is a corporation engaged in commerce or in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) and Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. 3. By picketing Volker, a neutral employer, with picket signs displaying Volker's name, Respondent in- tended to induce and encourage Volker's employees to refuse to perform services in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B). 4. By picketing Volker with an object of forcing or re- quiring it to resume doing business with All-Trans and to cease doing business with Ritchie Trucking Co. and Gregg's Delivery Service, and by threatening to contin- ue said picketing, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. 5. Volker is not a joint employer with All-Trans nor with any other business entity. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER15 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 85, International Broth- Is In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National L.ahor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. he accepted hby the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections there- to shall be deemed waived foir all purposes erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and represcinta- tives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing or extending a picket line or engaging in other conduct to induce or en- courage any individual employed by William Volker & Company, or any other employer or person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commod- ities or to perform any services, or to threaten, coerce, or restrain the above-named Employer or any other per- sons engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where in either case an object thereof is forc- ing or requiring the above-named Employer or any other persons to resume doing business with All-Trans Express and to cease doing business with Ritchie Trucking Co. and Gregg's Delivery Service. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in its business office and meeting hall copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix." l ' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by an official repre- sentative of said Respondent, shall be posted by it imme- diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to its members are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Promptly after receipt of copies of said notice from said Regional Director, return the signed copies for post- ing by William Volker & Company, All-Trans Express, Ritchie Trucking Co., and Gregg's Delivery Service, if they are willing, in all places where their notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 16 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Po,rted hs Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pur,u- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National L.abor Relations Board" h637