Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 639

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1259 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639 1259
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local 639, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and District Distributors , Incorporated.'
Case No. 5-CC-77. February 4, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On December 14, 1957, the Board issued a Decision and Order in
this case.2 The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's findings that
the Respondent's picketing at the retail stores to which District's
merchandise is delivered respectively violated Section 8(b) (4) (A)
and (B) of the Act by inducing and encouraging the employees of
these stores, and employees of the stores' suppliers, to engage in a
strike or concerted refusal to work, with an object of forcing or
requiring the stores to cease doing business with District, and Dis-
trict to recognize and bargain with the Respondent. The Board
ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from the conduct found
to be unlawful and to post appropriate notices.
In making these findings, the Board stated that the instant case
comes within the rule of the Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works,
Inc., case, 107 NLRB 299, enfd. 220 F. 2d 380 (C.A., D.C.), in which
the Board and the court held that ambulatory picketing of trucks at
retail establishments of secondary employers was violative of Section
8(b) (4) (A) of the Act. Upon reconsideration, the Board has de-
cided to set forth certain additional factors in support of its con-
clusion that the picketing activities of the Respondent were in viola-
tion of the Act.
The record shows that upon District's refusal to recognize the
Respondent as the bargaining representative of its drivers, helpers,
and warehousemen, the Respondent, which has never been certified
by the Board, called a strike on March 22, 1957, at District's sole
place of business, a warehouse at 3155 V Street, NE., in the District
of Columbia. In connection with this strike, the Respondent set up
at the entrance to the warehouse a picket line with signs reading,
"District Distributors, Inc., [in light pink crayon] on strike, Local
639, Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers, AFL-CIO [in printed black
letters]." 3
As already indicated, District's operations are conducted from a
single warehouse building from which point its drivers make deliv-
eries throughout the city of Washington to retail liquor stores, bars,
i Herein called District.
' 119 NLRB 845.
3 At the time of the hearing before the Trial Examiner in May 1957 , the picketing was
still In progress at that location.
122 NLRB No. 149.
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and hotels. Eleven of District's 25 employees spend all of their
working day at the warehouse. Two spend about half of their work-
ing day at the warehouse. The remaining 12 employees are drivers
who spend a considerable portion of each day at the warehouse.
Thus, these drivers all report to the warehouse at 8 a.m. and remain
there loading their trucks and performing other work until 9:30 a.m.
when they leave to make deliveries. They normally return to the
plant before lunch and leave again at 1 p.m. on the second round
of deliveries. They usually get back at the warehouse at 3 p.m. and
remain there for the rest of the workday. As a result, those drivers
who worked during the strike crossed the picket line at least six
times a day when entering and leaving the warehouse area. More-
over, members of the general public regularly come into the area to,
purchase merchandise from various warehouses in the neighborhood.
In addition to picketing the District warehouse, the Respondent
picketed a number of retail outlets which handled goods distributed
by District 4 Whenever a driver of a District truck stopped to make
a delivery, a representative of the Respondent carried a picket sign,.
bearing the same legend as the picket sign used in front of the ware-
house, up and down the sidewalk beside the parked truck. On many
such occasions, the picket signs were visible to store employees as
well as to employees of other suppliers who were delivering merchan-
dise to the stores.
Early in May, the Respondent mailed to other unions in the area,
including other Teamster locals but not including any unions whose
members ordinarily work in retail stores, a letter requesting them to
"make clear" to their members that they were to continue working
in and making deliveries to the picketed retail liquor stores. How-
ever, there is no evidence that any of these unions relayed this mes-
sage to their members. Moreover, the Respondent's business agent
testified that "some of them did not get notice." He also testified
that during the picketing the drivers of other employers repeatedly
asked the Respondent whether they could go through the picket line
and were "given orders to go ahead and make their deliveries."
In the course of the picketing, the Respondent distributed to a
number of liquor stores a leaflet stating that District drivers were
on strike and that "Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated."
In a circular letter to "the owners of retail liquor establishments,"
dated March 29, 1957, the Respondent pointed out that District's
employees were engaging in a recognition strike. The circular fur-
ther stated that the strikers "are asking your help and cooperation
d The Respondent ' s counsel at the April 29, 1957 , injunction hearing before United
States District Judge McGarraghy ( Civil Action No. 915-57 ), explained the extension of
the picketing to the stores by stating that the primary picketing could be seen only by
District 's employees whom the picketing had not dissuaded from working , and the
Respondent had a right to direct its picketing toward "anybody."
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639 1261
as an owner of a retail liquor establishment, and request that you
not buy . . . from District ... while they are on strike to gain recog-
nition for their union." About a month later, the Respondent sent
to all retail liquor dealers in the District of Columbia a letter stating
that in furtherance of its recognition strike against District, the
Respondent planned to picket District's trucks while they were mak-
ing deliveries. The letter concluded, "Please cooperate with us and
discontinue any further purchases of District Distributors' products
until our controversy is settled."
It is clear from Respondent's requests to the picketed stores not
to buy District's products during the Respondent's recognition strike
that an object of the Respondent's picketing was to force or require
the stores to cease doing business with District, and District to bar-
gain with the Respondent. So far as the record shows, those stores
which did not buy District's merchandise were not picketed. The
evidence also shows that such picketing constituted inducement or
encouragement of neutral employers' employees to engage in a
work stoppage. Thus, the fact that the Respondent had ample
opportunity to reach District's employees by picketing at District's
warehouse indicates that the Respondent's picketing at the retail
stores, in the presence of neutral employers' employees, was directed
at such employees. The statement of the Respondent's counsel that
Respondent was concerned because picketing in front of the ware-
house could be seen only by District's employees is further evidence
that the picketing elsewhere was directed at the employees of neutral
employers rather than at District's employees. Moreover, the words
on the picket signs constituted a strike appeal to neutral employers'
employees and the inquiries directed to the pickets by such employees
show that they so interpreted them.'
The Respondent's alleged efforts to inform neutral employers'
employees that the picketing was not intended to induce them to
cease work did not obviate the tendency of the picket signs to in-
duce and encourage such action because such a message was not a
concomitant to the picketing." There is no evidence that the pickets
5 The fact that the wording on the picket signs themselves constituted a call for strike
action makes inapposite the opinion in N.L.R.B. v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, 245 F. 2d 542 (C.A. 2), on which the Respondent
relies. After observing that "the issue is whether the picketing is likely to induce a work
stoppage in the particular context in which the picketing takes place ," the court found
no such likelihood in view of the fact that picket signs did not urge anybody to go on
strike. 245 F. 2d at 548.
6 Accordingly, the opinion in N.L.R.B. v. Business Machines and Office Appliance
Mechanics Conference Board, Local 459, International Union of Electrical, Radio, &
Machine Workers, CIO (Royal Typewriter Co.), 228 F. 2d 533 (C.A. 2), cert. denied,
351 U.S. 962, is inapposite here. In that case, the court set aside the Board 's finding
that picketing at the premises of neutral employers constituted inducement and encourage-
ment of strike action by their employees on the ground that the union had "made its
intent plain" that employees should cross the picket line. 228 F. 2d at 1560. In the
instant case , the Respondent failed to make such intent "plain" either by the wording of
its signs or by other concomitant action.
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
themselves had any reason to believe, during the first 3 weeks of
the strike, that their appeal was not directed at employees of neutral
employers. Nor is there any evidence that any of the employees
working for the picketed stores were ever informed that the picket
signs were not addressed to them. So far as the record shows, the
Respondent did not so advise even the store owners until more than
a week after the picketing began.
Finally, in the circumstances of this case where the Respondent
did not make its intent plain to all neutral employees that they were
to cross the picket line, the fact that the Respondent's unfair labor
practices were unsuccessful in that no employees of neutral employers
responded to the strike appeal is no defense to such unfair labor
practices.'
Accordingly, in view of the above factors, including the appeals
to neutral employers doing business with District, we find that the
picketing of the retail stores violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B)
of the Act .8
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Drivers, Chauffeurs and
Helpers Local 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers, representa-
tives, and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging employees of
any employer other than District Distributors, Incorporated, to
engage in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their em-
ployment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on goods, articles, or commodities or to perform
services for their respective employers where an object thereof is
(1) to force or require any employer to cease doing business with
District Distributors, Incorporated, or (2) to force or require the
latter company to recognize or bargain with the Respondent Union
as the representative of its employees, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act.
7 See N.L.R.B . v. Associated Musicians, Local 802, AFL, 226 F. 2d 900, 905 ( C.A. 2).
cert . denied 351 U.S. 962. See also cases cited in footnotes 5 and 6.
8 See Sales Drivers, Helpers & Building Construction Drivers Local Union 859 of Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO [Campbell Coal Company ] and Associated General Contractors of America,
Inc., Georgia Branch, 116 NLRB 1020, enfd . 249 F. 2d 512 (C.A., D.C.), cert. denied
355 U . S. 958 ; and General Truck Drivers , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers, Local
270 of the international Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America ,' AFL-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO, and Murray W. Miller, Trustee for Local
No. 270 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen, and
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO [Diaz Drayage Company ], 117 NLRB 885 , enfd. 252 F. 2d
619 (C . A., D.C.), cert . denied 356 U.S. 931.
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639 1263
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at the business office of Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers
Local 639, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, in Washington, D.C., copies
of the said notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth
Region, after being duly signed by an official representative of the
Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places where notices to members of
the Respondent are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. The Respondent's repre-
sentative shall also sign copies of the said notice which the Regional
Director shall submit for posting, the employers willing, at the
premises of District Distributors, Incorporated, and the other em-
ployers found herein to have been affected by the Respondent's
unfair labor practices ;10
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply herewith.
MEMBER FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Order.
9In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
10 These concerns , all located in Washington , D.C., are as follows : Bright Star Liquor
Store, National Liquors, Press Liquor Store , A and A Liquor Store , and Lincoln Liquors.
APPENDIX
To ALL OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AGENTS AND MEMBERS OF DRIVERS,
CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of any em-
ployer other than District Distributors, Incorporated, to engage
in a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on goods, articles, or commodities, or to perform any
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
services for their respective employers where an object thereof
is (1) to force or require any employer or person to cease doing
business with District Distributors, Incorporated , or (2) to force
District Distributors, Incorporated , to recognize the under-
signed union as the representative of its employees , unless and
until certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL 639,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
of AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organisation.
Dated---------------- By--=----------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO and Mont-
gomery Ward & Co., Incorporated. Cases Nos. 39-CC-44 and
39-CB-227. February 4, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 22, 1958, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and
recommending that the consolidated complaints be dismissed in their
entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent Union
filed a brief in support of Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
The Board does not, however, adopt the portion of the Intermediate Report in which
the Trial Examiner found that a union's filing of a petition for representation with the
Board is "not tantamount to a demand for recognition ." we adopt the Trial Examiner's
finding that the picketing at the Houston store did not violate Section 8(b) (1) (A) be-
cause its purpose was to enlist customer support for the Union 's economic strike against
the Employer at the other stores where the Union was the ma jority bargaining repre-
sentative. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass upon his alternate finding that
the picketing was for organizational purposes and was therefore outside the proscriptive
ambit of that section.
122 NLRB No. 151.