Encinal Terminals

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 362 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Encinal Terminals and Gary D. Cose
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers
Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Gary D. Cose. Cases 20-CA-6460
and 20-CB-2329
September 27, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On June 16, 1971, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent Union filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed a reply 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
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the proceeding and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.2
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 Trial Examiner directed to the
Respondent Employer and Respondent Union and
hereby orders that the Respondents, Encinal Termi-
nals, Alameda, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, and Brotherhood of Teamsters and
Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, its officers, representa-
tives, and agents, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's recommended Order, as herein
modified.
i The Respondent Union has excepted to certain credibility findings
made by the Trial Examiner it is the Board's established policy not to
overrule a Trial Examiner' s resolutions with respect to credibility unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F 2d 363 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing his findings
2 The General Counsel filed a limited cross-exception to the Trial
Examiner's apparent oversight in failing to direct Respondent Union to
notify Respondent Employer that Respondent Union will not discriminate
against "employees" as well as "job applicants" (TXD, recommended
Order, 2(b)(l)). The Board has considered the text of the Order and hereby
modifies said Order by adding "or any other employee" after "applicant"
in the recommended Order under 2(bxl).
DECISION OF TRIAL EXAMINER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRVING ROGOSIN, Trial Examiner: The consolidated
complaint, hereinafter referred to as the complaint, issued
December 24, 1970, alleges that about September 16, 1970,
Respondent Union attempted to cause and caused
Respondent Employer to terminate the employment of
Gary D. Cose for reasons other than his failure to tender
initiation fees and periodic dues uniformly required as a
condition of acquiring or retaining membership in Respon-
dent Union, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act; and that on about said date,
Respondent Employer discharged said Cose because of his
lack of membership in Respondent Union, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.'
Respondent Union's answer admits the procedural and
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint; the occupational
titles and agency of the persons alleged to be supervisors or
agents of Respondent Employer; the descriptive titles, but
not, in all respects, the agency of the persons alleged to have
been acting on behalf of Respondent Union; and generally
denies the remaining allegations of the complaint. Respon-
dent Employer, likewise, admits the procedural and
jurisdictional allegations of the complaint; the occupational
titles and agency of the persons alleged to have been agents
of and acting on behalf of Respondent Union; the
occupational titles of the persons named in the complaint
as supervisors and agents of Respondent, while denying the
remaining allegations with respect thereto ; and denies
generally the remaining allegations of the complaint.
Hearing was held on February 26 and March 3 and 19,
1971,2 at San Francisco, California, before the duly
designated Trial Examiner. All parties, save the Charging
Party, were represented by counsel, were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
i The charge against Respondent Union was filed and served on
September 21, 1970; the original charge against Respondent Employer was
filed and served on December 3, 1970, and the first amended charge
against said Respondent was filed and served on December 21, 1970
Designations are as follows the General Counsel, unless otherwise stated,
his representative at the hearing , Respondent Union, the Union, or Local
70, Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Respondent Employer, the Employer, or the
Company, Encinal Terminals; the Charging Party, Gary D Cose, an
individual, the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat 136, 73
Stat 519, 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq, the Act; the National Labor Relations
Board, the Board Unless otherwise stated, all events occurred in 1970.
2 Unopposed continuances were granted Respondent Union due to
illness of necessary witnesses
193 NLRB No. 53
ENCINAL TERMINALS
witnesses , to introduce evidence relevant and material to
the issues , to argue orally and to file briefs and proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. At the outset of the
hearing, Respondent Union moved to dismiss the com-
plaint with regard to it on the ground that the complaint
failed to state a violation of the Act, in that it did not allege
the existence during the period involved, of a union-
security agreement which the Union had sought to enforce.
At the suggestion of the Trial Examiner, the General
Counsel made an opening statement setting forth the facts
upon which he relied in support of the allegations of the
complaint. Respondent Union, nevertheless, pressed its
motion to dismiss on the grounds stated. The motion was
denied. The parties declined to argue orally but requested
leave to file briefs, and were granted to and including April
23, 1971. The General Counsel's brief, and a letter
submitted by Respondent Employer in lieu of brief, were
timely filed. Respondent Union's brief, postmarked April
23, though not received until April 26, 1971, has been
treated as timely filed. No proposed findings of fact or
conclusions of law have been filed by any of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the resolution or
reconciliation of conflicting testimony, the appearance and
demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs, which have been
carefully considered, the Trial Examiner makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The complaint alleges, and Respondents' answers admit,
that, at all times material herein, Encinal Terminals,
Respondent Employer herein, has been a California
corporation with an office and place of business located in
Alameda, California, engaged in operating a warehouse
and transporting freight by truck.
The complaint also alleges, and Respondents' answers
admit, that, at all times material herein, Respondent
Employer has been a member of California Trucking
Association, herein called C.T.A., a nonprofit California
corporation, and employer association, which, at all times
material herein, has had as members employers engaged in
the business of transporting freight by truck in interstate
commerce, and has, among its functions, bargained
collectively with Respondent Union on behalf of its
employer-members, including Respondent Employer.
The complaint further alleges, and Respondents' answers
admit, that, during the past year, in the conduct of their
business operations, the employer-members of C.T.A.
received gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for transport-
ing freight in interstate commerce.
Finally, the complaint alleges, Respondents' answers
admit, and it is hereby found, that, at all times material
herein , C.T.A. and its employer-members, including
Respondent Employer, have constituted an employer
engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com-
3 As augmented by Joint Council No 7 (including Local Union 70,
Respondent Union herein) Local Pickup And Delivery Supplemental
Agreement, combined in booklet form
363
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and, it is found , within the Board 's jurisdictional standards.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local
No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Respondent
Union, is, and at all times material herein has been , a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Causing or Attempting to Cause
Discrimination in Regard to the Hire and Tenure of
Employment of Gary D. Cose by Respondent Union;
Discrimination by Respondent Employer in that
Regard
1. Sequence of events
Prior to July 20, 1970, Gary D. Cose , a member of
Teamsters Local 78 (not to be confused with Local 70), had
been employed as a truckdriver by Queen Trucking
Company, a carrier handling parcel deliveries as a
subcontractor of Respondent Employer. This subcontrac-
tor was not under contract with the Union . Respondent
Employer, however , as a member of C.T .A., was a party to
a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union , covering
the Company 's flatbed and container divisions.
The collective -bargaining agreement , generally referred
to as the 1967-70 National Master Freight Agreement,3
covered the period April 1, 1967, to and including March
31, 1970, and provided for automatic renewal annually
thereafter in the absence of specified notice of termination
or desire to negotiate modifications . The Master Agreement
provided for union security ; the supplemental agreement,
with its articles numbered consecutively with those of the
Master Agreement , following the signatories to that
agreement , provided for an exclusive , nondiscriminatory,
hiring hall , with preferential hiring based on experience and
length of employment in the geographical area covered by
the Local Hiring Hall, at least 1 year for eligibility on "List
A," those not meeting the eligibility requirements for that
list being registered on "List B," registrants being
dispatched in the order of notification to the dispatcher of
their availability. Under the hiring procedure, an employer
was permitted to request a driver by name only if he was
registered on the "A" list in the hiring hall in the
geographical area in which he was to be employed , if he had
previously been employed by that employer, and if he were
available for work . The record does not affirmatively
establish whether notice of termination or intention to
negotiate modifications was actually given.
The General Counsel contends , in his brief , that the
1967-70 Master Agreement expired on March 31, 1970,
although the parties stipulated at the hearing that the hiring
provisions of that agreement were in force and effect at all
times material in this proceeding.4
4 Business Representative Lawrence H. Dias also testified that the
contract was extended , particularly with regard to the hiring , union security
and grievance procedures, by mutual consent of the Union and Patrick M.
(Continued)
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Of course, if the 1967-1970 contract had expired, and had
not, as Dias contended, been orally extended, at least, as to
the applicable hiring and grievance procedures, pending the
negotiation of a new agreement , Respondent Union could
not have relied on the union-security and hiring hall
procedures as a defense to the demand for Cose's discharge,
assuming that such a demand was actually made. In view of
the stipulation of the parties at the hearing, however,
(Respondent Employer joined in the stipulation only to the
extent that article 38 (Hiring Procedure) is identical with
article 40 as it appears in the 1970-73 Master Agreement), it
must be concluded that the hiring provisions of the expired
contract were in force and effect at the time of Cose's
termination.
Turning, then, to the events culminating in Cose's
termination.
Early in July 1970, the Company took over the parcel
delivery service which it had formerly subcontracted to
Queen Trucking Company. Soon afterward, Brosnan
notified the Union that the Company would require some
ten drivers; that there was one driver, who had previously
worked for Queen, whom it wished to retain; and that it
needed the others to fill the remaining positions. Brosnan
discussed this with LeRoy D. Nunes and Lawrence H.
Dias, both business representatives of Respondent Union.5
Cose was the only driver in the Company's employ who was
not a member of Local 70, although, as he had told
Brosnan , he had a withdrawal card from Teamsters Local
78. According to Brosnan, neither of the union representa-
tives made any comment.
Sometime in August, in a telephone conversation with
Brosnan, Nunes told him that the Union was aware that the
Company had in its employ a nonunion driver, referring to
Cose, and that it should "get rid of him." In another
telephone conversation during the following week, Dias
told Brosnan that the Union was aware that the Company
was employing a nonunion driver and repeated what Nunes
had said in the earlier conversation about dismissing Cose.
During this same period, the subject was again brought
up at a meeting at the union office, while Brosnan and
another company representative were exploring with the
union representatives the type of union contract under
which the parcel delivery aspect of the operation would be
conducted, and the seniority status of the new employees in
relation to the employees engaged in the Company's other
operations. The union representatives asserted that the
Company was in violation of the hiring procedure of the
contract, and that it was liable in damages to the Union.
The union representatives denied, however, that anything
was said to the effect that the Company would have to
dismiss Cose because he was not a member of the Union.
Early in September, in another conversation, Nunes
repeated what he had previously told Brosnan. Brosnan
Brosnan, the Company's manager of labor relations ( later manager of
operations at Encinal Terminals ), sometime between July 1 and December
31, 1970, although he could not be specific in relation to the date of Cose's
termination Brosnan did not testify on the subject of the alleged oral
extension of the contract The record discloses that a new National Master
Freight Agreement was entered into, covering the period 1970-73, but
Local 70 appears to contend that it is not bound by it, a controversy which
is the subject of a separate unfair labor practice proceeding , in which the
Union is charged with violation of Sec 8(b)(3) (Case 20 -CB-2242, now
pending before another Trial Examiner) The record here discloses,
asked Nunes whether there was any chance of Cose's being
admitted to union membership. Nunes said that there was
not, "because of economic conditions," and added that the
Union was not even admitting sons of members.
Early in August, also, a week or two after Cose had
started working for the Company, John Cogland and Frank
Serrate ,6 warehouse supervisors , spoke to him on three or
four separate occasions, once while both supervisors were
together. On the first occasion, Cogland told Cose that the
Company operated under a union shop, and that in order
for him to remain employed he would have to join
Teamsters Local 70. A week or 10 days later, in a
conversation near the loading dock at the warehouse,
Serrate repeated, in substance, what Cogland had said,
adding that he wanted him "to go down and take care of it
right away." Serrate said that he would have to join the
Union, as he had already been told, because the Company
was "being pressured by the Union" for him to join.
Consequently, Cose went to the union hall on three or
four occasions during the month of August, the first time, a
day or two after his first conversation with Cogland. On
each occasion, he spoke to a clerk in the office. Cose asked
her if he could transfer from Teamsters Local 78, in which
he was a member, to Teamsters Local 70. She told him that
the Union had too many drivers who were out of work, and
that it was not accepting any transfers at that time. On each
successive occasion, he received substantially the same
response. Finally, late in August, when he repeated his
request for a transfer, she told him, at first, that the Union
was not accepting any transfers. Cose explained that, unless
he could obtain a transfer, the Company would terminate
him because all the remaining drivers were union members.
She expressed regret, but told him that a transfer was out of
the question. After some further conversation, however, she
gave him a request for transfer form to complete, and told
him to appear before the Executive Board at 10 o'clock
a.m., September 15, 1970, and "tell [his] troubles" to that
body.
On September 14, the day before he was scheduled to
appear before the executive board, when Cose returned to
the warehouse after completing his deliveries for the day,
Supervisor Serrate told him that Brosnan wanted him to
call him. Cose returned the call, and Brosnan told him that
he regretted that the Company would have to lay him off
unless he could join the Union because the Company was
being pressured by the Union due to his lack of
membership in Local 70. Cose told him that he was
scheduled to appear before the Executive Board next day to
discuss his transfer. Brosnan expressed approval, and told
Cose to let him know the outcome. Serrate, who was present
while Cose was on the phone to Brosnan, told him to take
the next day off and complete his union business.
The screening committee of the executive board meets on
however, that Respondent Employer has adjusted the wage scales in
conformity with that agreement , although, according to Dias, the Employer
did so "unilaterally " This Trial Examiner has taken cognizance of the
8(b)(3) unfair labor practice proceeding only to the extent hereinafter
mentioned . (See fn 16 )
5 According to Dias, he represented the employees at the general
trucking facility of the Company, while Nunes represented the employees
in the container division
6 Neither of these men testified.
ENCINAL TERMINALS 365
the third Tuesday of every month. Applicants for
membership or transfer are notified by the office girl of the
time for their appearance. A master list is prepared, setting
forth the names of all applicants for membership, transfers
from other locals, reinstatements , and withdrawals, for the
use of the screening committee. Each of the various
categories is listed under the applicable heading. Opposite
the names of each person appearing on the list is the name
of the employer, if any, and, in the case of applicants who
are sons of members, a designation to that effect.
After examining the applications, the committee calls the
applicant, and questions him as to whether he is employed,
if so, whether he has been employed for more than 30 days,
and then approves or disapproves the application. Where
the applicant has been employed, the business agent
servicing that employer's drivers is required to note on the
application whether the applicant is acceptable. If the
notation is favorable, and the screening committee
approves the application, the person is directed to return
the following day to pay all assessments, initiation, or
transfer fees. In September, when Cose formally requested
a transfer, it was the committee's policy, if the application
bore the notation, "Hall," indicating that the applicant
expected to work out of the hiring hall, to tell him that the
Union was not accepting applications because of adverse
employment conditions, and to suggest that he return at
some later date to inquire whether the situation has
improved. The master list is posted at union headquarters
in advance of the meeting of the screening committee, and,
under a union directive, business agents are required to
check the list so that they may learn who is scheduled to
appear. If, after investigation, according to the Union, the
business agent ascertains that the applicant obtained his job
without going through the hiring hall, the screening
committee may reject his application even though the
committee had previously approved it.
On September 15, Cose reported at union headquarters.
The screening committee, consisting of Stanley Botehlo,
vice president of Local 70, acting as chairman, and Richard
Durossett and Arthur Soto, committee members, conduct-
ed its business in the auditorium of the union headquarters.
Cose's name did not appear on the committee's master list,
either among those listed as transfers or applicants. When
the committee had completed its consideration of all the
persons whose names appeared on the master list, it was
observed that Cose was seated in the auditorium. Asked
what he was doing there, he said that he had an application
for a transfer on file. He was told that because his name had
not appeared on the master list, his request for transfer card
was not in the committee's files. It was suggested that he
investigate this at the union office. Cose went to the office,
where he obtained his card, which he submitted to the
committee.? One of the committee members, probably
7 The request for transfer card, dated August 17, 1970, bore Cose's
name , address and vital statistics, including social security number, the
name and address of his employer (Encinal), his occupation, a notation of
paid-up membership in Local No 78 and, opposite the word "Voucher,"
the words "Tent [ tentative ] OK J M," the latter initials identifying James
R. Muniz, president of Teamsters Local No 70 On the same line appeared
the signature , "L Nunes" and, in the lower right hand corner, diagonally
across the line designated , "Action of Executive Board," the word "Hold,"
with the initials "S . B.,' for Stanley Botehlo
8 According to Cose's uncontradicted testimony, a member of the
Durossett, according to Cose, thereupon added Cose's
name at the head of the list of transfers, with the name of
his employer, Encinal, alongside.
Botehlo testified that the handwritten notations, "Tent.
OK" and the initials , "JM," as well as the signature, "L.
Nunes" were on the card when it was submitted to the
screening committee. He explained that before the
committee convened President Muniz had notified him that
there was some question regarding Cose's application for
transfer, instructed Botehlo to put a "hold" on it until
Muniz reached Business Representative Nunes, and that
Botehlo made the notation, "Hold."
The committee asked Cose whether he was employed at
Encinal Terminals. Cose acknowledged that he was. One of
the committee members asked Cose whether he had any
idea why a "hold" had been placed on his card. When Cose
said that he did not, he was told to go to the office and find
out from Nunes. Cose went to the office but was told Nunes
was not in that day. Cose returned to the committee and
reported this. After discussing the matter among them-
selves, Durossett proposed that, since Cose had been
working at Encinal for at least 30 days, the committee
process and approve Cose's request for transfer notwith-
standing the "hold" on the card. With that, Durossett wrote
the words, "OK-9/ 15/70," and signed his name on the card
underneath the words "Action of Executive Board." Cose
was then told to return the following day to pay the
necessary fees and dues .8
Cose then left and reported for work at Encinal later that
day. Next morning, Cose returned to the union hall and
paid a total of $41.50, for which he was given a receipt .9
When he asked for his union dues book, he was told that he
would receive it in the mail.
Cose worked the remainder of that day. When he
returned to the terminal after making his deliveries, he
received a call from Brosnan , notifying him that he was to
be laid off because he did not have his union book. Cose
told Brosnan of his appearance before the screening
committee, informed him that his transfer had been
approved, that he had paid his dues that morning, and that
he had a receipt to show for it. Brosnan said that he was
sorry but that Cose could not work until he had his union
book. Serrate, who was present while Cose was talking to
Brosnan, told him the same thing, stating that the Company
would have to let him go until he "got the matter of the
Union squared away."
Next morning, September 17, Cose again went to union
headquarters and asked the clerk for his dues book. She
then told him that the Union had sent him a registered
letter, stating that a mistake had been made, and that the
Union would refund his fees. She also told Cose that he
would have to see one of the business agents, either Nunes
or Dias. As Nunes was out of the office, Cose spoke to Dias,
committee , whom he could not identify by name, after welcoming him to
Teamsters Local 70, told him that he could come in and pay his dues and
fees, but added, "If you are lying to me,-" when Cose interjected that he
was not lying about working for Encinal Another committee member
remarked that he was familiar with the case, and that Cose did, indeed,
work for that Company.
9 The receipt , dated "9-16-70," No 34669 and B, covered $ 12 dues, $9
on account of initiation fees, $20 for administrative and legal fees , and $.50
for transfer fee The receipt number was noted at the bottom of the request
for transfer card.
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and asked him if he knew why the Union wanted to refund
his money, pointing out that his transfer had already been
approved. Dias told him that someone had made a mistake,
that there were too many other Teamsters Local drivers out
of work, and that he should not have been hired. Cose told
Dias that he had been out of the Armed Services only a
short time, that he had found the job himself, and saw no
reason why he should be required to wait around because
others were out of work. Dias told him that if he had been a
union member at the time, he could have been fined $50 for
procuring the job by himself, and that that was what the
Union was for.10 Cose retorted that he had no intention of
giving up his job merely because union members were out
of work while he was working. Dias rejoined that if that was
his attitude, he would make sure that Cose did not "last
very long," even if he succeeded in becoming a member of
the Union.1' During the conversation, Dias also stated that
Encinal could be fined a day's wages for every day that
Cose had worked for Encinal Terminals.
Cose returned to the terminal, where he spoke to
Brosnan , showed him his receipt from the Union, and told
him that he had been refused a union book. He told
Brosnan that the Union wanted to refund the money he had
paid but that he could not understand why he should not be
able to work as long as he had paid the necessary fees.
Brosnan informed Cose that the Union had notified him
that Cose could not work for the Company without a union
book.
Soon afterward, Cose received a letter from the Union,
sent by registered or certified mail, dated September 16,
1970, signed by Muniz, as president of the Local, as
follows:
RE: Pending Transfer from Teamsters Local 78
Dear Brother Cose:
Please contact this office at your earliest conven-
ience , in order that we may refund monies deposited
with this Local Union, for transfer from Local 78, in the
amount of $41.50. This money is being refunded by
order of the Executive Board as we cannot accept your
transfer at this time.
Cose has not worked for the Company since and, as far as
the record discloses, had not applied for, and had not
received his refund as of the time of the hearing.
Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends quite simply that
Respondent Union caused Respondent Employer to
terminate Cose's employment because he was not a
member of the Union, and that Respondent Employer
yielded to the Union's demand based on such nonmember-
ship. Respondent Employer rested at the conclusion of the
General Counsel's case , without offering any evidence, and
does not deny that it discharged Cose at the Union's
demand. The Company, in effect, concedes that it had no
motive for terminating Cose's employment other than the
Union's insistence upon such action because of Cose's lack
of membership in the Union.
For its part, Respondent Union contends that it objected
to Cose's employment by the Company, allegedly in
violation of the hiring procedure, and that it merely notified
the Company that it had committed a breach of the
contract, rendering it liable in damages . The Union denies
that it demanded that the Company discharge Cose, and,
inferentially contends that the business representatives had
no authority to make such a demand.12
The chief conflict apses between the testimony of
Brosnan, on the one hand, and Nunes and Dias, on the
other. According to Brosnan , in his various conversations
with these union representatives, they stated that they were
aware that Cose was not a union member , and demanded
that he be terminated for that reason. The union
representatives, on the other hand, maintain that they
merely told Brosnan that the Company had hired Cose in
violation of the hiring hall provisions, and consequently,
was liable for damages for every day that Cose continued to
work, alluded to in the record as "run-around-pay."
Brosnan categorically denied that any mention was made in
any of these conversations that the Company was in
violation of the collective-bargaining agreement , and liable
in damages for breach of contract.
Dias denied that he discussed the Cose matter with
Brosnan in any telephone conversation but recalled that at
a meeting with company representatives to consider
grievances and other "problems," mention was made by the
union business agents that the Company had hired a
nonunion employee in violation of the contract, and that
the Company was liable in damages for breach of
contract.13
10 Dias testified that he was referring to the provisions of Art XII, sec.
2, of Local 70's bylaws
ii Although Dias denied making this statement , he admitted this
encounter with Cose , testifying that he told him that he had had no right to
solicit his own job and that, if he had been a member of the Union at the
time, he could have been fined for doing so According to Dias, this had
been preceded by a heated exchange after Cose had created a disturbance
with the girls at the counter Dias maintained that he merely told Cose that
even if he were a union member , Dias would not tolerate abusive language
toward the girls Cose 's version of the episode appears more plausible and
consistent with the otherwise conceded facts . Based on the demeanor of the
respective witnesses , and with due consideration for their possible interest
and bias, Cose 's testimony has been credited
i2 This contention, which stems from its claim this could be
accomplished only by letter from the Union, does not relieve the Union of
the consequences of the acts of its representatives It is clear that they were
acting within the scope of their general authority See Section 2(13) of the
Act See also International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union,
Cl O (Sunset Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487, 1509, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local Union No. 2067,
AFL-CIO, et a! (Associated General Contractors of America, Inc, etc.), 166
NLRB 532, 538-539 It will be recalled , moreover , that Dias testified that
he represented the employees at the general trucking facility, while Nunes
represented the employees in the container divisions of the Company's
operations
13 Respondent has not indicated the precise language of the contract
which provides for such damages, nor does a perusal of the hiring
procedure reveal such a provision . The Company, however, has not
challenged the existence of such liability and, although the contention has
not been made , the subject-matter may have been encompassed in the
blanket "past practices" provision of the contract incorporating practices
existing between the parties established prior to July 1, 1961, except as
modified by the instant contract . In any event , the existence or
nonexistence of any provision for "run-around-pay" is not determinative of
whether the union representatives actually made these statements to
Brosnan In view of the latter 's credible testimony , which had the effect of
implicating the Employer in the commission of an unfair labor practice,
ENCINAL TERMINALS 367
In another discussion with Dias during this period, on
unrelated matters, Brosnan brought up the subject of Cose.
Dias told him that if the parties could resolve their other
problems, they would be able to solve the "Cose problem."
Asked at the hearing what he meant by the remark, Dias
testified, "He didn't belong to the Union." Under
interrogation by union counsel, Dias testified ". . . my
reference was that Cose had been hired in violation of the
agreement and it's necessary for him to get into the Union,
and I though [sic] we could work something like that out.
We had to work out all of the problems we had with it"
Asked whether he meant that if the other problems were
resolved, Cose would be admitted to membership in the
Union, Dias testified "I didn't say that he could. I thought
we could work it out."
The record leaves little doubt that the reason for Cose's
termination was his lack of union membership. The
Union's contention that, while it objected to Cose's
employment solely because the Company had violated the
contract by failing to utilize the hiring hall procedure, it at
no time demanded that the Company discharge Cose
appears wholly unrealistic. Whatever reliance the Union
might have sought to place on this position is not supported
by the evidence of the Union's conduct. The realities are
that the Union sought to exclude Cose from membership in
the Union by denying him a transfer because of lack of
sufficient employment opportunities for its out-of-work
members.14 This, however, was not the Union's position
when it eventually accepted his request for transfer and
arranged for his appearance before the screening commit-
tee. It can scarcely be denied that the Union was aware,
when he first appeared at the union office, that Cose was in
Encinal's employ. On his last visit prior to his appearance
before the screening committee, he specifically told the
office girl that he would lose his job at Enctnal unless he
could loin the Union. The Union was well aware then, or
certainly at the time he appeared before the screening
committee, that he had not only been employed by the
Company for 30 days, but also that he had not been
dispatched through the hiring hail.15 Moreover, despite the
"hold" which had been noted on Cose's request for transfer
card, and after an unsuccessful effort to locate Nunes to
ascertain the reason for the notation, the screening
committee approved his transfer, welcomed him into the
local, and told him to return the following day to pay his
dues and fees. It was only after Cose had paid the required
dues and fees, President Muniz claimed, that he learned
from Nunes that Cose had obtained his job directly from
the employer, without resorting to the hiring hall, and that
the Union rescinded his transfer and offered to refund his
dues and fees. It is utterly improbable that the Union was
not aware, or, by the exercise of the slightest diligence,
could not have ascertained from its own hiring hall records,
whether Cose had, in fact, been referred to the job or
obtained it himself. Why Respondent Union should have
found it necessary to rely on the business representative to
find out whether Cose had solicited his own job has not
been explained. This information was certainly available to
the screening committee before it made its decision to
approve Cose's transfer.
This gives rise to the inference that the Union was well-
aware of the circumstances under which Cose had obtained
his job, and that it had decided, through its executive board
or screening committee, to overlook the circumstances, and
to admit him to membership, notwithstanding that the
Company had bypassed the hiring hall provisions of the
contract. One can only speculate as to the reason for the
Union's change of heart, but it is not unreasonable to infer
that the Union may have hoped to use the "Cose problem"
to bring about a resolution of the Union's other problems.
Thus, Dias' admission that he had told Brosnan that if the
Union could "work out" all of its problems with the
Company, he thought it could work out the problem of
Cose's admission to membership in the Union. But,
whatever the Union's motive in revoking Cose's transfer, it
is clear that it was not for failure to tender his initiation fees
or dues. Moreover, if the Union had objected to the hiring
of Cose because he had not been hired through the hiring
hall, it is evident that it waived this requirement or decided
to overlook it when, with full knowledge that the Company
had disregarded the hiring procedure, the Union approved
Cose's transfer. The Union's contention that, despite the
fact that it was concerned with the Employer's compliance
with the hiring procedure, it at no time demanded that the
Employer discharge Cose is wholly unconvincing and
unrealistic. It is significant that the Union at no time sought
to lodge a grievance against the Employer for alleged
violation of the hiring provision or to assert a claim for
damages to which the Union claimed to be entitled for such
breach. Instead, it resorted to the more direct course of
bringing about Cose's discharge.
It is, therefore, found that Respondent Union demanded
that Respondent Employer discharge Cose for reasons
other than his failure to tender initiation fees and union
dues, thereby violating Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the
Act. As to Respondent Employer, it is, of course, no
defense that it capitulated to the Union's demand, where it
knew or should have known that the demand was for
reasons other than the employee's failure to tender
initiation fees and union dues.
there would appear to be no motive for Brosnan to have denied the
statements which the union representatives claimed they made. Moreover,
if the Union contended that it was acting under a lawful hiring procedure,
it is unlikely that it would have hesitated to demand Cose's discharge since,
in the Union's view, he had been hired in violation of these provisions,
instead of merely charging the Company with breach of contract, and
threatening it with a claim for damages As the Union steadfastly
maintained , it was chiefly concerned with securingjobs for its out-of-work
members For all the above reasons, Brosnan's version of these
conversations has been credited
14 Asked whether prevailing economic conditions had anything to do
with the refusal to accept Cose into membership in Teamsters Local 70,
Nunes testified, "Right now at the present time we've got approximately
1,200 to 1 , 500 men not working in the Hiring Hall So it's rather unfair to
accept someone other than just taking the dues because there is just no
work available unless they are hired through the proper procedure at the
Hiring Hall "
15 It will be recalled that after the Company took over the parcel
delivery operation, Brosnan notified the Union that the Company would
need 10 drivers, I of whom it had already engaged, and that, so far as the
record discloses , the Union made no protest. There is also a suggestion in
the record that the Company sought to negotiate a separate contract with
the Union covering parcel delivery drivers, but the issue of whether any
existing contractual relations applied to these drivers was not raised in this
proceeding.
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the Board has held:
... in the ultimate analysis, it is the employer, and
only the employer , who controls the hiring and
discharge of his employees . Recognizing this, this Board
and the courts have frequently held that it is the duty of
an employer to resist the usurpation of his control over
employment by any group that seeks to utilize such
control for or against any labor organization , and that
the Act affords no immunity because the employer
believes that the exigencies of the moment require that
he capitulate to the pressures and violate the statute. "
[Case cited .] Acme Mattress Company, Inc., etc., 91
NLRB 1010 , 1015. See also H. Milton Newman, An
Individual d/b/a H . M. Newman, etc., 85 NLRB 725,
729, and cases cited at In. 15.
It is, therefore , found that , by requiring Respondent
Employer to terminate Cose 's employment because he was
not a member of the Union , especially after having first
approved his transfer , and subsequently rescinding that
action , Respondent Union has attempted to cause and has
caused an employer to discriminate against an employee in
violation of Section 8(a)(3), and has discriminated against
an employee with respect to whom membership in a labor
organization has been denied or terminated on some
ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues
and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of
acquiring or retaining membership , thereby violating
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act . It is further found
that , by acceding to Respondent Union 's request, with full
knowledge that the employee had been denied membership
in the Union for reasons other than his failure to pay or
tender the periodic dues, Respondent Employer has
discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of an employee to encourage membership in a
labor organization , thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.16
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above , occurring in connection with Respondent Employ-
er's operations described in section I, above , have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
i6 Prior to the close of the hearing , the General Counsel offered in
evidence a copy of the complaint against Teamsters Local 70, the Union
here, issued June 9, 1970, alleging violation of Sec 8 (b)(3) and ( 1)(B) of the
Act, by refusing to accept and be bound by the terms of a National Master
Freight Agreement , effective since about April 3, 1970. (Case 20 -CB-2242)
Also offered in evidence was written authorization by Encinal Terminals,
Respondent Employer here , to the California Trucking Association to
represent it in its collective bargaining In addition , the General Counsel
offered in evidence copies of excerpts from the proceedings at the hearing
in that matter, consisting in the main of an opening statement by counsel
for Teamsters Local No 70 (not counsel here), in which the Union
purportedly asserted the position that there was no collective -bargaining
agreement in force between the Union and California Trucking
Association (of which Encinal is a member ) Although stipulating to the
authenticity of the documents , Respondent objected to their admissibility
on the ground of relevance and materiality Counsel for the Union there
contended at one point that "there is no collective -bargaining agreement in
existence , that there is no signed document" and that "there is no written
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2)
and (1)(A) and that Respondent Employer has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that said
Respondents cease and desist from their unfair labor
practices and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. It will also be
recommended that Respondent Employer be ordered to
offer Gary D. Cose reinstatement to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges . It will also be recommended that Respon-
dent Union notify Respondent Employer in writing with a
copy to said Cose , that Respondent Union will not
discriminate against him or any other job applicant in
selection or referral for the employment through its hiring
hall procedures because of his nonmembership or affilia-
tion with said Respondent Union , and that it has no
objection to his employment by Respondent Employer. It
will be further recommended that Respondent Union and
Respondent Employer jointly and severally 17 be ordered to
make said Cose whole for any loss of earnings he may have
sustained by reason of the discrimination against him by
paying him a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of
discrimination against him on September 16, 1970, to the
date of the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings
during such period . Respondent Union's liability for
backpay shall terminate 5 days after its notification to
Respondent Employer that it has no objection to the
employment of said Cose , as provided above . Backpay shall
be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
The discriminatory conduct in which Respondents have
engaged regarding the hire and tenure of employment of an
employee strikes at the very essence of the Act , and it will
therefore be recommended that the Board enter a broad
cease and desist order.18
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
document that can be produced ," and that "if there is such an agreement
of any nature or kind whatsoever that it is not binding on Local 70."
Counsel also raised the issue as to which employers were a part of the
multi-employer unit; '[i ]f indeed there is a multi -employer unit ." Ruling on
the admissibility of these documents having been reserved at the hearing,
they are now received for the limited purpose of showing any inconsistency
in regard to the actual existence of a collective -bargaining agreement
binding upon Respondent Employer and Respondent Union at the time of
the action taken against Cose. In view of the findings already made,
however, it is unnecessary to resolve this issue , and no finding is made as
to whether the Union is bound by the 1970-73 National Master Freight
Agreement , an issue pending before the Trial Examiner in the other
proceeding
iT See Acme Mattress Company, etc, 91 NLRB 1010, and cases cited
is N LR B v. Entwistle Manufacturing Co, 120 F .2d 532 (C A. 4), May
Department Stores v N L R B, 326 U S. 376 ; Bethlehem Steel Co v
N L R B , 120 F 2d 641 (C.A . D C.), A. J Krajewski Manufacturing Co, Inc,
180 NLRB No. 173
ENCINAL TERMINALS
the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Encinal Terminals, a California corporation, with its
place of business in Alameda, California, Respondent
Employer herein, is, and at all times material herein has
been, an employer engaged in commerce and a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act and thejurisdictional standards of the Board.
2. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers
Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Respondent Union herein, is, and at all times material
herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Gary D. Cose on September 16, 1970,
and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate him because
he was not a member of Respondent Union, Respondent
Employer has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of an employee to encourage membership
in a labor organization thereby engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By requiring Respondent Employer to terminate or
discharge Gary D Cose because he was not a member of
Respondent Union, Respondent has attempted to cause
and has caused an employer to discriminate against an
employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and has
thereby restrained and coerced an employee in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act.
5. 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 upon the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended: 19
ORDER
A. Encinal Terminals, of Alameda, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Encouraging membership in Brotherhood of Team-
sters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization
of its employees by terminating or discharging any of its
employees or discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or
19 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
20 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
369
conditions of employment, except in accordance with the
proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is
found is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Gary D. Cose immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges.
(b) Post at its warehouse and offices in Alameda,
California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A." 20 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, shall, after being signed by a duly
authorized representative of Respondent Employer, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent Employer to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent Employer has taken to
comply herewith.21
B. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers
Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, representatives, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requiring, instructing, or inducing Respondent
Employer, its agents, successors , or assigns to terminate or
discharge employees because of their lack of membership in
Respondent Union, except in accordance with the proviso
to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner causing or attempting to cause
Respondent Employer, its agents , successors , or assigns, to
discriminate against its employees in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) Restraining or coercing employees of Respondent
Employer, its successors or assigns, in the exercise of their
right to refrain from any of the concerted activities
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Respondent Employer in writing, with a copy
to Gary D. Cose, that Respondent Union has no objection
to his employment by Respondent Employer, and will not
discriminate against him or any other job applicant in
selection for employment because he is not a member of
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
21 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith "
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Union or because he refrains from engaging in
union or other concerted activities, except to the extent that
the same may be permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
(b) Post in conspicuous places, in its business office,
hiring hall and meeting places, including all places where
notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B." 22 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent
Union's authorized representative, be posted by it immedi-
ately 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
Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
Regional Director for Region 20, for posting by Respon-
dent Employer at all locations where notices to employees
are customarily posted, if said Respondent Employer is
willing.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this decision
what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply
herewith.23
C. Encinal Terminals of Alameda, California, Respon-
dent Employer, and Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto
Truck Drivers Local No. 70, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, their officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
(1) Jointly and severally make said Gary D. Cose whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of the
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to the amount he normally would have earned
as wages from September 16, 1970, the date he was
discriminatorily discharged, to the date of Respondent
Employer's offer of reinstatement and Respondent Union's
notification to Respondent Employer, as provided above,
less his net earnings during said period, loss of earnings to
be computed in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(2) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll
records, social security records, timecards, personnel
records and reports of Respondent Employer and all
referral, dispatching, and hiring hall records, of Respon-
dent Union, and all other records necessary or useful to
determine or compute the amounts of backpay due if any.
(3) Notify said Gary D. Cose, if he is presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to
reinstatement , upon application, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20
days from the date of receipt of this decision, Respondent
Employer and Respondent Union notify said Regional
Director in writing that they will comply with the
recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring each of said Respondents to take
the aforesaid action.
22 See In 20
23 See fn 21
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Brotherhood
of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other
labor organization of our employees, by terminating or
discharging or in any other manner discriminating in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
terms or conditions of employment, except as author-
ized in the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the right to refrain
from any and all the concerted activities guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in the proviso to Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Gary D. Cose immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL jointly and severally, with the aforesaid
Union, make said Gary D. Cose whole for any loss of
earnings he may have sustained by reason of our
discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
the section of the Decision and recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner entitled, "The Remedy."
All our employees are free to engage in or refrain
from engaging in union or concerted activities on behalf
of the above-named Union or any other labor
organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section
8(a)(3) of the amended Act.
ENCINAL TERMINALS
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
In the event Gary D. Cose is presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States , notify him of his right
to reinstatement , upon application , in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
ENCINAL TERMINALS
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, 13050
Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047,
San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
TO ALL: Members, Officers, Representatives , and Agents
TO ALL: Employees of Encinal Terminals or applicants
or registrants for employment and persons using our hiring
hall whether or not members of Brotherhood of Teamsters
and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America
WE WILL NOT require, instruct or induce Encinal
Terminals to discharge , terminate , or otherwise discrim-
inate against its employees because they refrain from
engaging in union or concerted activities on behalf of
our Union , except in accordance with the proviso to
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt
to cause Encinal Terminals , its officers, agents,
successors , or assigns to discriminate against its
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Encinal
Terminals , its officers , agents, successors, or assigns, in
the exercise of the right to refrain from any and all of
the concerted activities guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act , except to the extent permitted by the proviso to
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with the aforesaid
Employer , make Gary D. Cose whole for any loss of
371
earnings which he may have sustained by reason of our
discrimination against him , in the manner set forth in
the section of the Decision and recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner entitled , "The Remedy."
WE WILL notify Encinal Terminals , in writing, with a
copy to Gary D. Cose, that we have no objection to his
employment , subject to the valid provisions of any
collective -bargaining agreement between us and Enci-
nal Terminals , to the extent authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS AND AUTO
TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL
No. 70, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
In the event Gary D. Cose is presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, notify him of his right
to reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Umversal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
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, 13050
Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047,
San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 556-0335.