DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Teamsters Local Union No. 174, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousmen and Helpers of
America and Allied Employers, Inc. Case 19-
CB-3873
November 18, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On August 5, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
David G. Heilbrun issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the Em-
ployer and the General Counsel filed exceptions
and briefs, and counsel for Respondent filed an an-
swering brief and a brief in support of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision.
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 and
briefs, and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Re-
spondent Teamsters Local 174 did not unlawfully
refuse to execute the collective-bargaining agree-
ment which had been ratified by a majority of the
other participating unions because Respondent
never manifested an unequivocal intent to be bound
by association bargaining. We disagree.
The record shows that for several years Re-
spondent, herein also called Local 174, and Team-
sters Locals 117 and 313 bargained individually
with Allied Employers, Inc., an association of
wholesale grocers and soft drink bottlers in the Se-
attle and Tacoma, Washington, area, for associa-
tionwide bargaining units of drivers or warehouse-
men in the grocery and soft drink industries, re-
spectively. In 1974, after Respondent had entered
into an association contract for the wholesale gro-
cery industry, one of the other locals refused to
ratify the contract and negotiated a different agree-
ment with more favorable terms. As a conse-
quence, the association agreed to reopen Respond-
ent's contract and all executed or reexecuted con-
tracts with the more favorable terms. Based on that
experience, the unions met prior to the 1977 gro-
cery negotiations and agreed to bargain jointly,
with a single spokesman, with ratification voting
on the same day. Accordingly, all of the unions ap-
peared at Respondent's initial grocery negotiations
where Teamsters International Vice President
Weinmeister advised the association representatives
that the unions would engage in "coordinated" bar-
gaining rather than separate bargaining as in the
past. When Association Counsel King questioned
the propriety of participation by all the unions,
Union Counsel Roberts cited N.LR.B. v. General
Electric Company, 385 U.S. 533 (1967), as authority
for that proposition, and union spokesmen further
elaborated that such bargaining contemplated "one
big strike or one big settlement." The association
acquiesced and proceeded to negotiate an agree-
ment which all the unions ratified. The same par-
ties met shortly thereafter to negotiate a contract
for the soft drink industry, agreed to utilize the
same bargaining structure, and produced an agree-
ment ratified by all but Respondent, which never-
theless executed the contract, pursuant to the
unions' internal agreement to base rejection or rati-
fication on a majority of the votes cast by their re-
spective members in an overall voting group. I
At the outset of the 1980 grocery negotiations in-
volved herein, Weinmeister announced that his ex-
ecutive assistant, Grami, would serve as the unions'
spokesman, and that the unions would again
engage in "coordinated bargaining like the last
time." He further responded to an association in-
quiry as to what the situation would be if only a
majority of the Teamsters locals ratified, by stating
that that would be "an internal union problem."
Respondent's official, Cooper, who attended most,
if not all, of the bargaining sessions, informed
Grami during a union caucus that Grami was not
authorized to take bargaining positions for Local
174. Cooper also advised the association repre-
sentatives that he reserved the right to a separate
vote on any association offer, but that this was
consistent with the prior "coordinated" bargaining
format. On August 18, 1980, after approximately 17
bargaining meetings, when issues had crystalized
and strike authorizations had been voted, the asso-
ciation issued a "Last and Final Position." The
unions held ratification votes on August 17, and
ratification was voted by all except Respondent's
membership, which voted overwhelmingly against
ratification. Respondent thereupon struck and the
other locals declined to support the strike. Re-
spondent discontinued its strike on August 21 and
on September 16 the written association contract
was tendered to Respondent for signature, which
Respondent declined to execute.
We find, contrary to the Administrative Law
Judge, that the association neither was privy to
Cooper's withdrawal of Grami's actual authority to
' The union agreement was not divulged to the association which was
handed separate tabulations of the ratification voting by units.
265 NLRB No. 59
428
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174
represent Respondent nor had any basis for con-
struing Cooper's reservation of his right to a sepa-
rate vote on association offers as a change from the
established procedure. Further, it is clear from the
foregoing evidence that the parties' coordinated
bargaining format in 1977, and again in 1980, con-
templated a binding contract upon ratification by a
majority of the unions, and that Respondent tacitly
concurred therein based on its acquiescent partici-
pation in the negotiations, its execution of a prior
contract over its members' rejection, and its failure
to notify the association at any time of its rejection
of the majority ratification principle. We note that
the above findings are predicated solely on cred-
ited or uncontradicted record evidence, and not on
the Administrative Law Judge's findings and credi-
bility resolutions which he based on his subjective
characterizations of various witnessess' motives and
perceptions relating to events and internal Team-
sters rivalries which are outside of the record.2
Accordingly, we conclude that by refusing on
and after September 16, 1980, to execute and honor
the terms of the majority-ratified association con-
tract, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Allied Employers, Inc., is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is en-
gaged in commerce and business activities which
affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. General Teamsters Local Union No. 174, af-
filiated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All drivers, helpers, extra drivers, and bull
drivers employed by the employers and based at
their facilities in King County, Washington, exclud-
ing supervisors and guards defined in the Act and
all other employees, constitutes a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all material times, Respondent has been and
is the exclusive representative of the employees
within the unit found appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining.
5. By failing and refusing on and after September
16, 1980, to execute the contract ratified by the ma-
jority of union locals with Allied Employers, Inc.,
' In view of our findings herein, it is unnecessary to rule on the Gener-
al Counsel's and Charging Party's exceptions to the Administrative Law
Judge's credibility findings and on their motion to strike alleged extrane-
ous evidence from the record pertaining to his remarks. Our careful
review of the record reveals that they are wholly unsubstantiated and,
accordingly, we disavow them.
Respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with Allied Employers, Inc., within the meaning of
Section 8(bX)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section
8(bX3) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Respondent will also be directed to give retroac-
tive effect to the contract and make whole any em-
ployees covered by the contract for any financial
losses sustained by them as a result of Respondent's
unlawful refusal to sign the contract, with back-
pay computed in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and in-
terest thereon as provided in Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
General Teamsters Local Union No. 174, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain col-
lectively with Allied Employers, Inc., on behalf of
employees within the unit herein found appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, by refus-
ing on and after September 16, 1980, to execute the
contract ratified by the majority of union locals, or
from engaging in any like or related conduct in
derogation of its statutory duty to bargain.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) If requested by Allied Employers, Inc., or its
designated representatives, execute the contract
submitted to Respondent by Allied Employers,
Inc., on September 16, 1980, and make whole any
employees covered by the contract for any mone-
tary losses they may have suffered by Resondent's
refusal to sign the contract in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision and Order entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment
' We leave to the compliance stage determination of the specific finan-
cil loses sustained by employees as a result of Respondent's unlawful
refusal to sign the contract.
429
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its business offices and meeting halls
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly
signed by an official representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region
19, signed copies of the attached notice for posting
by Allied Employers, Inc., if willing, at its office or
member facilities where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for Region 19,
shall, after being duly signed by Respondent as in-
dicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Di-
rector for disposition by him.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Allied Employers, Inc., as the exclusive
representative of employees within the unit de-
scribed below, by refusing to sign the contract
ratified by a majority of the union locals,
which was submitted to our representative for
signature on September 16, 1980.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related
conduct in derogation of our statutory duty to
bargain.
WE WILL, if requested by Allied Employers,
Inc., execute the contract submitted to us for
signature by our representative on September
16, 1980, and WE WILL make whole any em-
ployees covered by the contract for any mone-
tary losses they may have suffered by our re-
fusal to sign the contract, including interest
thereon. The appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining is:
All drivers, helpers, extra drivers, and bull
drivers employed by the Employers and
based at their facilities in King County,
Washington, excluding supervisors and
guards as defined in the Act and all other
employees.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION
No. 174, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARHEOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Seattle, Washington, on April 2, 3, and
22, 1981, based on a complaint alleging that General
Teamsters Local Union No. 174, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehou-
semen and Helpers of America, violated Section 8(bX3)
and 8(d) of the Act by failing and refusing to sign a cer-
tain collective-bargaining agreement assertedly reached
during a course of dealings that originated with "ground
rules for negotiation" of March 1980 and culminated in
ratification voting on August 17, 1980.
Upon the entire record,' my observation of witnesses,
and consideration of post-hearing briefs, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESULTANT CONCLUSION
OF LAW
Allied Employers, Inc., is a multiemployer association
of wholesale grocery firms operating in the greater Seat-
tle area. As of early 1980, these were American-Strevell,
Inc., Associated Grocers, Inc., J. C. Wright Sales Co.,
Leslie Salt Co., S & W Find Foods, Inc., Safeway
Stores, Inc., The Amalgamated Sugar Co., and
Tradewell Stores, Inc. An additional member is, and for
years has been, West Coast Grocery Co. located in
nearby Tacoma. A group of Teamsters locals represent
the warehouse employees and drivers of these several
companies, including small distribution points beyond
Tacoma itself. Local 174 is a large Teamsters local of the
Pacific Northwest, having aproximately 100 labor con-
tracts covering approximately 7,000 members in retail,
wholesale, soft drink, construction, cartage, and other in-
dustries. As germane here it represents drivers and
driver-helpers employed by association members in King
County (greater Seattle), and is shown to have been
party to successive "wholesale grocery" contracts since
Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected.
430
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174
at least 1968. This relationship reflects one of the three
bargaining units that are involved in the case. A second
of these is an associationwide unit of warehouse employ-
ees represented by several Teamsters affiliates, the most
prominent of which are Local 117 for greater Seattle and
Local 599 for West Coast Grocery in Tacoma. 2 The
final bargaining unit of note is that for drivers employed
by West Coast Grocery, these being represented by
Teamsters Local 313.
Robert Cooper has been secretary-treasurer and chief
executive officer of Respondent since January 1, 1977.
Richard King has been employed at the association since
1967 and its secretary-manager since January 1, 1974.
The food industry and its suppliers are merely the "main
group" of some 300 employers overall that comprise this
body.3 King is a graduate attorney with earlier industrial
relations experience, and has been the wholesale grocery
employer's chief spokesman in negotiations since those of
1974.4 Arnold Weinmeister is secretary-treasurer of
Local 117, president of Teamsters Joint Council No. 28
for the vicinity, and a vice president of the International
Union. William Roberts is a practicing attorney in Seat-
tle with a law firm that has long represented Local 117
and the Joint Council and, in addition, has periodically
represented Local 174.
As a prelude to the 1977 round of negotiations, Wein-
meister contacted Roberts and arranged a meeting of
Teamsters representatives at which Cooper was present.
The purpose was to design a new approach to negotia-
tions for the wholesale grocery industry as to which
Local 174 would have traditionally been the lead union
in opening talks. Weinmeister's idea was to have the rep-
resentatives of other unions sitting throughout, and he
wanted legal advice on whether this would survive ob-
jection by the association. Roberts causes his office to
verify certain case precedent, and with this told Wein-
2 There are presently three small warehouse locals (down from four
until recently) whose members constitute the identifiable satellite employ-
ing locations of association members. Other than participation of such
members in certain pooled contract ratification voting there is no signifi-
cance to the case because of these entities, and henceforth their roles
shall be disregarded.
s Par. 2 of the complaint alleges that as "banded together" the various
retail grocery chains had annual gross sales in excess of $500,000 and
caused goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 to be purchased
and delivered directly from suppliers outside the State of Washington.
Respondent's answer to the complaint pleaded a lack of sufficient knowl-
edge with respect to the truth of such allegations and therefore denied
them. Such a style of pleading is expressly authorized by Board rules,
and in fact once insufficient knowledge of alleged facts is advanced this
statement alone serves as a denial. Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, Sec. 102.20
While the General Counsel has not cured this jurisdictional void, it is
evident from the inherent nature of the food distribution industry, the
scope of operations here, and the number of employees involved, that the
Board's retail standard of a $500,000 annual gross volume of business
coupled with more than de minimis flow across state lines is amply met. I
thus infer the obvious and find that association and its members are em-
ployers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and, otherwise, that Respondent Local 174 is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5).
' In that year an apparent final settlement with Local 174 had to be
reopened for further concessions after members of Local 117 refused to
ratify a contract and ultimately obtained benefits that would, but for the
unprecedented and "turmoil"-ridden reopening, have departed from tradi-
tional parallels between the two Teamsters groups as to an overall cost
package.
meister that the approach was arguably valid and had
the additional potential benefit of avoiding "the rigma-
role and foolishness" of three separate sessions since such
could all be condensed into a single ongoing effort.
This preplanning spanned February 28-March 1, 1977,
the latter date being when Local 174 negotiations were
scheduled to commence with a morning session. The del-
egation of Teamsters personnel comprised of Roberts,"
Weinmeister, Cooper, and representatives from Locals
313 and 599 appeared at the association's office where
the employer bargaining team was present. It was com-
prised of King as spokesman, along with Angelo Brus-
cas, director of personnel and industrial relations for As-
sociated Grocers, Harold Ravenscraft, industrial relations
manager for Tradewell Stores (formerly, until 1974, on
the association staff), and others. King testified that he
first questioned whether, as expected, the meeting was
for the purpose of negotiating only with Local 174. He
recalled both Weinmeister and Roberts doing "most of
the talking" in reply, and after alluding to the problems
of 1974 asking in that context whether the employer
would consider "entering into coordinated barganing."
King asked them for details and was told that it meant
all the locals would sit together at the table with only
one spokesman. Initially this was intended to be Wein-
meister. King further recalled being told that upon arriv-
al at "one [cost] settlement" including any change in
fringe benefits applying equally to all three contracts,
then all locals would conduct their ratification votes at
the same time with a "majority [of the locals] rules"
principle in effect and only a "union problem," never an
"employer problem," to obtain from such a procedure.
King testified further that the speakers sought to induce
agreement to this approach by emphasizing that it would
lead to either "one big contract or one big strike."
King is generally corroborated by both Bruscas and
Ravenscraft. The former testified concerning March 1,
1977, that after "several caucuses . . . trying to clarify
what approach the Union was making regarding coordi-
nating the bargaining between 174, 117, 599, 313," the
gist of this was Weinmeister saying they intended to pro-
ceed with coordinated bargaining to avoid a repetition of
the 1974 experience. Bruscas termed management's reac-
tion as initially negative, but further probing discussion
enused with Roberts and Weinmeister continuing to ad-
vocate coordinated bargaining. Bruscas' abiding recollec-
tion of key ending remarks from Weinmeister was the
process contemplated "something like one big strike or
one big agreement or one big settlement." Bruscas added
that this meeting was confined exclusively to discussion
of procedure and that after heated discussion of princi-
ples between King and Roberts, the employers finally ac-
cepted the notion after being given to understand that "if
the majority of the units voted for the agreement, we
would have an agreement . . . if the majority of the
votes didn't vote for the agreement, we would have a
strike."
' At this point Roberts was expressly representing Respondent in terms
of Weinmeister, as an established client, having so commissioned him be-
cause it was sister Local 174 negotiations that were at hand.
431
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ravenscraft testified that the meeting of March I,
1977, was devoted entirely to discussion of the structure
of bargaining and resulted in an understanding that it
would proceed in coordinated fashion. Ravenscraft re-
called initial employer resistance to the idea and some
caucusing. His principal testimony is that after this shak-
ing out, Weinmeister and Roberts jointly advised the em-
ployers that they should continue thinking of "separate
contracts with locals just as we had had in the past, but
that we would either have one settlement or one big
strike."
William Grami is executive assistant to Weinmeister as
the current stint of a long Teamsters career in which he
was otherwise most recently on the Western Conference
staff and previously had been secretary-treasurer of a
warehouse local. In early 1977 his particular job was di-
rector of the food division for the Western Conference,
and in that capacity he was assigned to particpation in
the wholesale grocery negotiations about to commence
in Seattle. Grami was called as a witness by the General
Counsel and testified to discussion at the opening session
of March 1, 1977. He recalled Roberts speaking of multi-
party bargaining and that this led him to understand a
single settlement would be the culmination of negotia-
tions. He buttressed this by recalling how Roberts had
explained that, even if a given local did not ratify a set-
tlement, the employer would "have an agreement with
all the local unions" and that with this assurance King
appeared satisifed. Grami testified that on this occasion
Roberts was specifically representing Local 174 along
with other Teamsters entities.
Roberts' version of the March 1, 1977, meeting is that
he fulfilled the client needs of the moment by citing Gen-
eral Electric Company, 412 F.2d 512 (1969), as the funda-
mental authority on which a proposed course of coordi-
nated bargaining would commence. Roberts parried
King's initial surprise by terming the procedure a "better
way" than to ponderously approach the entire wholesale
grocery negotiations through a continuous pattern of
"three separate negotiations" which would repetitiously
cover common language. Roberts recalled emphasizing
that the process left room to negotiate "individual prob-
lems as to each local union" as such would conveniently
arise. Roberts testified that King asked for and took a
caucus, after which he wanted to meet only with Wein-
meister and Roberts. When these three were together
privately King said that the exchanges of the day had re-
sulted in his having "learned something about coordinat-
ed bargaining," to which the association was agreeable.
Roberts added that the notion of separate contracts was
specifically acknowledged, and that Weinmeister had
added how simultaneous offers from the association
would motivate the union side to attempt making all nec-
essary ratification votes on the same day. Cooper was
present at the meeting of March 1, 1977, and acknowl-
edged that Roberts spoke as a representative of Local
174. Cooper testified that Weinmeister initiated discus-
sion of negotiating ground rules by proposing coordinat-
ed bargaining and this became the mutually chosen
course. Cooper did not recall any particular remarks of
Roberts, any details of the association seeming to initially
resist the idea, or whether a "one big strike or one big
agreement" statement had been made. However, Cooper
does expressly contradict Grami's testimony that Roberts
had voiced the principle of the employer having a con-
tract with all locals even though one might not vote to
ratify. Cooper characterized Grami's role in the 1977 ne-
gotiations as purely being that of a spokesman but with-
out authority to bind Local 174 to any agreement and
without any "lead" role in the process.
On this general basis, the 1977 negotiations ensuede
and ultimately, in June of that year, representatives of
principal locals involved agreed in writing to recom-
mend acceptance of a "last and final proposal" from the
association.7 Ratification was affirmative in all bargain-
ing units, and from this a 1977 agreement was consum-
mated effective to dates in late March 1980 for the driv-
ers' unit and to late April 1980 for the warehouse unit.
After timely exchange of reopening notices, the parties
prepared for 1980 negotiations.8 The first session was set
for March 10, a date on which Local 174 delivered its
comprehensive draft of "Demands and Proposals" for
the new contract. More importantly, there were verbal-
isms between the parties in the course of this meeting."
In this setting King testified that during the initial meet-
ing of March 10, at which Cooper was present, Wein-
meister reiterated the Teamsters interest in coordinated
bargaining which had seemingly worked well in 1977.
He also confirmed that Grami would be spokesman
throughout, adding, according to King, that this would
include "authority to represent all the Locals involved."
Weinmeister was then to have explained that the objec-
tive was one settlement for all locals except for neces-
sary attention to local issues, and all involved would
vote at the same time. King recalled how, at that point,
Herbert Engdahl, vice president of operations for West
Coast Grocery, asked what would occur should there be
a particular rejection by members. King testified that
Weinmeister's response was that, if a majority of the
units would vote to ratify, then the employers could con-
sider they had a contract for the matter would become
an "internal union problem."
This general pattern of testimony was repeated by
Bruscas along with the General Counsel's witnesses,
Gary Carlson, staff negotiator with Safeway Stores in
the Seattle area, and William Evans, operations manager
for American-Strevall. Additionally, Al Lamp, employee
relations manager for Associated Grocers as of March
10, testified that he was present at the negotiating meet-
' In the process Grami succeeded to Weinmeister's original role as
chief union spokesman.
'The quoted phrase associates to art. XII of the Teamsters constitu-
tion wherein a "final offer of settlement" as so judged by a local union's
executive board must be submitted to the membership and can only be
rejected by a two-thirds vote. This art. also contemplates pooled ratifica-
tion voting when more than one local "is involved." The particular docu-
ment just described was signed by Cooper, Robert Thurston, Robert Pa-
vollk, and Weineiister for Locals 174, 313, 599, and 117, respectively. It
was also countersigned by King on behalf of association members
8 All dates and named months hereafter are in 1980, unless expressly
shown otherwise. Occasionally the year 1980 shall be repeated for em-
phaais.
e Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service had gathered the parties
preliminary on February 4, at which time Grami, speaking for the Team-
sters, advised King and other employer representatives that they desired
to again engage in coordinated bargaining with himself to be spokesman.
432
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174
ing on that date and not only recalled the above-quoted
(internal union problem) remark of Weinmeister, but had
taken notes at the time which he presently recalled as in-
cluding a recordation of Weinmeister's statement that "if
a majority of the employees voted to ratify the contract,
then the contract was ratified."'o
Grami's testimony was that Weinmeister's composite
response to a series of questions posed at the time by
King was that, if only a majority of the Teamsters locals
ultimately ratified, this would become an internal union
problem but that a strike would not ensue. Grami could
not specifically recall that Weinmeister had enlarged on
the prognostication by adding that the situation posed
would also mean that the employers had a contract. Sim-
ilarly, Cooper recalled only that Weinmeister used the
"internal union" words at that point. Cooper agreed with
King that Weinmeister characterized the general mode of
the bargaining as being "like last time."
From this is a laborious sequence of negotiations fol-
lowed over a course of 16 more meetings that led to
August 14. By this time the Teamsters locals had ob-
tained strike authorization from their members and issues
were well crystallized. Aside from typical economics and
language matters, certain interunion rivalries were also
having an effect. This manifested on two levels in that
Local 117 was dominant in members respecting this com-
ponent of the association, while Local 174 was a major
traditional drivers unit readily thought of as a pillar of
Teamsters unionism and enjoying a traditional wage dif-
ferential to confirm the distinction. The other rub was in
regard to interface between work jurisdiction of Local
174 and Tacoma-based brethen of Local 313, particularly
as the industry had gravitated into distribution practices
that favored Local 174. This was a so-called work pres-
ervation clause, one that Local 313 initially sought to
"clarify" and as late as May 20, was proposing strong
protective-type language in a recapitulation of pending
"Local Union Issues" that were outstanding at the time.
Local 174 was essentially seeking success in three
areas; these being health and welfare improvements, an
avoidance of contract "take-outs (or "take-aways") in
regard to straight time for Sunday work, and an avoid-
ance of break-in rate for new employees as low as 80
percent. Cooper testified that in regard to the work-pres-
ervation friction between his members and Local 313, he
had met privately with Grami during the course of nego-
tiations and advised that Local 313 was overreaching
and should be told so which Grami agreed to do. '
A "Last and Final Position" of the employers evolved
on August 14, and this was again, as in 1977, deemed by
executive boards involved the "final offer of settlement"
o1 Lamp explained that this notetaking was done at the nudging of
Bruscas, his superior at the time, in the immediate moments after Wein-
meister's utterances. In this he is consistent with Bruscas, who separately
testified that he had directed Lamp to capture the seemingly important
concession of Weinmeister that if "the majority of the Locals agreed, we
would have the agreement and they would have an internal Union prob-
lem."
I I In the course of these protracted negotiations Local 313 lost an arbi-
tration case on the point, thus tending to vindicate Cooper's contentions
on the subject.
within intendment of the Teamsters constitution.' This
10-page document actually comprised three parts, appli-
cably respectively to the warehouse locals, then to Local
174, and finally to Local 313. As to Local 174, it repre-
sented an adherence to desired "take-outs" respecting
straight time work by drivers as performed during a
second Sunday afternoon shift, and with respect to an
80-percent break-in rate for new employees over 60 days.
It also failed to contemplate the health and welfare im-
provements sought by Cooper throughout the negotia-
tions, consistent with his initial written proposals back in
March.' 3
Voting then ensued among the Teamsters members on
August 17, with the result that Local 174 had 286 votes
to reject and 7 votes to accept. This sentiment was not
only resounding but well within the Teamsters constitu-
tional provision for a valid rejection, and in consequence
Cooper set an apparent work stoppage in motion."1 4
Members of his local began to engage in prestrike prepa-
ration at Safeway Stores' premises, and by mid-morning
of August 17, their activities were notoriously known
among key persons involved in the bargaining. This was
manifested particularly by telephone contact from Grami
to King as matters unfolded. Meanwhile Cooper was ma-
neuvering behind the scenes with Weinmeister, and oth-
erwise within the Teamsters chain of command, in re-
spect to an admittedly "mess[y]" situation. The picketing
had mixed success, particularly because Weinmeister had
no inclination to support it since this would have under-
cut his own position of "establish[ing] that I (Weinmeis-
ter) had a contract." Further, the state of things at that
point in time was not only that Local 174 was without
strike sanction within normal Teamsters protocols, but at
the gathering on August 17, when all ratification voting
took place, it was made clear to Cooper by Weinmeister
that such strike sanction was unlikely to be obtained.
The parties met again under FMCS auspices on
August 21, at which point it developed that the associ-
ation was contending it had a contract with Local 174.
The upshot was discontinuance of picketing on that date
and filing of the charge upon which this litigtation is
based. The body of this 8(bX3) charge quoted Grami as
having repeatedly said "the Union required all Locals to
abide by a vote of the majority." On September 16, King
wrote to Cooper enclosing a complete copy of what the
association believed was its 1980-83 contract with Local
" This document represented a refinement of the status of employer
proposals in an earlier comprehensive recap dated August 4.
i" This final offer also confirmed various language provisions as to
hours, discharge for cause and grievance procedure, plus confirming a
S3-per-hour increase in wage rates over the proposed 3-year term of the
contract. Significantly, the keys passage on wage economics included the
following sentence: "The retroactive pay of approximately seven hun-
dred-seventy-five dollars (S775) (plus overtime worked) is contingent
upon settlement without economic action."
" The other two units had voted to accept. However, dynamics of the
moment caused business agent John Coucett and Pavolka on behalf of
their Tacoma area Locals 313 and 599, respectively, to post notices assur-
ing their own members that Local 174 did not plan to establish any pick-
eting at West Coast Grocery and that since any such activity is not au-
thorized or sanctioned "by anyone, including Local 174" the members
were directed not to honor "any picket lines so established unless later
told otherwise."
433
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
174, asking that a copy be signed and returned. Consisent
with his own position, Cooper has declined to do so.
This case has many trappings to what is an esentially
narrow controlling issue of fact. The principle involved
is whether or not Local 174 has manifested an unequivo-
cal intention to be bound by multiparty bargaining in the
sense of casting itself with other related labor organiza-
tions and relinquishing to a common effort its own cus-
tomary, if not here traditional, authority to contract. See
Joseph McDaniel d/b/a Custom Colors Contractors, 226
NLRB 851 (1976); Rock Springs Retail Merchants Associ-
ation, 188 NLRB 261 (1971). While some surrounding
factors bear on this issue, the essential question is wheth-
er composite verbalisms of March 1, 1977, and March
10, 1980, amounted to such a manifestation. I readily find
they do not, and for this reason Cooper's determination
to resist the contention of Local 174 now being under
contract is not only correct, but a salute to his own reso-
lute instinct while so many others wallowed in confu-
sion, self-deceit, false hope, and a generally unschooled
outlook on this rather odd illustration of the nuances in-
herent in sophisticated collective bargaining.
Credibility as between the several witnesses must first
and critically be resolved. Here, from standpoints of de-
meanor, bias, consistency, impressiveness of key elements
in recall, and intrinsic probabilities of fact, I thoroughly
credit the testimony of both Roberts and Cooper. I do so
in this order because Roberts was the architect of what
was essentially a routine lawyerly resolution of client
needs; namely, a better way for the fractious personal-
ities atop these particular Teamsters locals to get along
and generally spend more time and energy confronting
the collective employers rather than confronting within
themelves. On March 1, 1977, Roberts plainly advanced
General Electric as a blueprint for action, and accurately
spelled out its meaning including that it suggested an ef-
ficient, productive, and progressive way for an employer
association to deal with more than one local union in a
situation where simultaneousness could largely substitute
for repetitiveness, and particularized issues could be dealt
with in appropriate, separate fashion. Had these essential
principles been understood from the beginning by King,
I do not see how this controversy would have risen. The
essential hitch seems to have been that it was not tested
in 1977 and King's erroneous impression flourished over
the next 3 years to the point that an unrelated remark of
Weinmeister dealing with strike sanction politics was ea-
gerly seized upon as an afterthought in a spurious at-
tempt to forge a contract relationship where none in fact
existed. Since Weinmeister did not testify, my character-
ization of his remark is founded on crediting Cooper
who persuasively recalled that on March 10, 1980, Wein-
meister spoke only of coordinated bargaining without
adding that one settlement would apply to all locals or
that majority vote among the locals was binding on all.
It is also notable that Cooper credibly recounted Grami's
remark to King on August 14 that one of the locals was
plainly dissatisfied with its proposal from the association.
There is thus a fatal gap in the General Counsel's case
which is that Cooper, as the only authority figure for
Local 174 as opposed to Grami's role as spokesman for
convenience, never assented to be jointly bound by
word, deed, or acquiescence.
While the General Electric case involved various Inter-
national unions banding together to better deal with a
giant employer, the court's adoption and description of
coordinated bargaining leave ample room to adroitly
apply the process to these wholesale grocery negotia-
tions. This is precisely what Roberts did, and any misun-
derstanding must be assigned as the fault of King for key
language of a decision leaves no room for doubt. Thus,
the background in General Electric was one in which
unions were dissatisfied with "the results of their prior
separate efforts," had previously sought "joint informal
discussions on various matters" (emphasis supplied), and
disclaimed any intention of creating "joint bargaining."
The court skirted an intriguing, and here highly relevant,
question of whether the state of the law was that several
unions could seek an arrangement to use a certain joint
bargaining demand as a condition of "separate but sub-
stantially simultaneous negotiations." The court relegated
this point to another untouched area of "the extent to
which the law permits cooperation in bargaining among
unions or employers," and held that these matters would
be better adjudicated when a case arose in which im-
proper "motives" were shown, or conflict from outside
influences made "mixed-union committees" suspect. The
court's concluding rationale, one that was Robert's point
of departure and was reasonably implicit in all that he
said on March 1, 1977, was that an employer could not
lawfully refuse to bargain with a union (there the IUE)
so long as it sought to bargain solely on behalf of those
employees it exclusively represented and notwithstanding
that members of other unions were on its bargaining
committee.
I find King's testimony to be particularly unreliable
and believe that his own partisan misperceptions have
corrupted all other evidence upon which the General
Counsel relies. It is first significant that Roberts credibly
testified how the General Electric case was cited to King,
and shortly thereafter he pronounced himself educated
on the subject. However 4 years later King admitted to
"honestly [not] know[ing]" what coordinated bargaining
meant. Furthermore, counsel for the General Counsel
even subtly attributed inattention to King at the instant
hearing in terms of whether Robert's contemporaneous
testimony was that the term "joint bargaining" had been
uttered back in 1977. More importantly King's testimony
was simply hesitant, imprecise, and utterly failed to es-
tablish the key element of any agent for Local 174 ad-
vancing an unequivocal intent to be bound jointly to a
tentative industrywide contract.
Comparable infirmities attached to the testimony of
Bruscas, Ravenscraft, 1s and, particularly, Lamp. I am
's A component of Jt. Exh. 2 is the 1971-74 contract between the as-
sociation and Local 313 covering West Coast Grocery. Ravenscraft's
conformed signature appears on this document, next to the astonishing in-
advertence of showing "Local Union No. 174" as the contracting party.
Participation in such inattentiveness does not bespeak the care to be ex-
pected of one involved with labor-management intricacies, nor does it in-
spire confidence in Ravenscraft's reliability as a witness, particularly
where an eager allegiance to one party permits bending of truth.
434
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174
satisfied that they cannot be credited in recalling that
Weinmeister announced a "majority" rule, whereunder
Local 174 would possibly be bound to whatever pro-
posed contract was ratified in other units. Conversely,
each of these witnesses displayed too eager a desire to
buttress institutional objectives, and were otherwise un-
persuasive on demeanor grounds. '
The swing witness is Grami, for while Cooper's verac-
ity is high, he simply was not that attuned, nor need he
have been, to the miscellaneous rhetoric of "big table"
experiences. Although called by the General Counsel,
Grami was a certifiably "political" person in the Team-
sters domain and this characteristic colored his testimo-
ny. In this context the General Counsel paid a dear price
for what Grami delivered. His opening recollection con-
cerning March 1, 1977, was of how Roberts projected
that any settlement yielded by the negotiations about to
commence would not be "preclude[d]" by one of the
bargaining units declining to ratify. Grami's testimony
from that point onward was essentially all downhill with
respect to lending any support to key allegations of the
complaint. First of all, he undermined the General Coun-
sel's theory of unequivocalness by opining that the
"loosely . . . used" terms coordinated bargaining, mul-
tiunion coordination, area and joint bargaining do not
"frankly . . . tell you what you want to know." He de-
fined the role of spokesman as being a communicator of
"unions[']" positions, and conceded that with respect to
the 1980 negotiations Cooper had never given him the
authority to take positions for Local 174. Related to this
was his testimony that Cooper had reserved the right to
a separate vote on any employer offer, and that this was
said "fairly early" in the negotiations to the employers.
He repudiated the quoted phraseology of the unfair labor
practice charge in which he was supposedly to have said
that all locals were required "to abide by a vote of the
majority" and conversely testified that he had never in
so many words told the employers that Local 174 would
be bound by a majority vote. Were all this not enough
he retraced Weinmeister's remarks in opening the 1980
negotiations recalling a description of ground rules
wherein ratification voting would be "along lines of sep-
arate contracts, and he could not recall Weinmeister
adding to the crucial "internal union problem" phrase
that the employers would have a contract."1 I have con-
sidered Grami's backtracking under further examination
whereby he lamely fell into ambiguous phrasing of "ev-
erything we were doing was telling them [employers],"
and how the "total[ity]" of words might suggest a "ma-
jority" rule concept. I reject these afterthoughts as mere
unworthy attempts to remain centrist in a more than
two-way power struggle.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party have
also contended that happenings in the soft drink industry
negotiations of this vicinity in both 1977 and 1980 shed
further light on the case. As to this industry, the produc-
tion bargaining units are those of bottling, loading, and
local distribution employees represented by Local 117
1n On this same basis and for reasons of demeanor I also discredit the
testimony of rebuttal witesses Carlon and Evarns.
" Th'is point reflects Coopers credible recollection. and is corroborat-
ed both directly by Doucett and obliquely by Engdahl.
and totaling about 1,200 persons. Local 174 has a small
unit of 65 drivers and in 1977 Cooper did in fact deter-
mine to "piggy-back" the main bargaining of Local 117.
When his own members overwhelmingly rejected the
1977 contract he battled off any moves toward a work
stoppage by sheer dint of member discipline. Sobered by
this experience he then determined for 1980 soft drink
negotiations and onward that notwithstanding his unit's
relative smallness the realities of internal union politics
were such that it made better sense to allow members a
free hand in the ratification process, even though rejec-
tion would be futile because any work stoppage by such
a group would be unsanctioned, unsupported, or both. In
1980 Local 174 members voted 43 to 23 to reject the set-
tlement also. However, this result was one vote short of
the Teamsters two-thirds constitutional rule, and thus
distinctions between Cooper's 1977 and 1980 position
never came to a test. The entire subject of soft drink ne-
gotiations fails to add sufficient weight to affect the
issue. Ironically, Carl Wojciechowski, the association's
chief negotiator for soft drink industry employers, equat-
ed "internal union problems" with separate voting and
separate contracts.
The epilogue of this case is that while Cooper sat
phlegmatically through both sets of negotiations, he was
acutely attuned to essence of the bargaining process and
its significance both to his members and his own political
survival in the sophisticated challenge of maintaining
office with a major Teamsters affiliate. Conversely, asso-
ciation representatives were naively susceptible to pos-
turings, idle mouthings, and the tactical frills of these
complex dealings. Granted, they were also acutely con-
cerned with economics sought from them, and with at-
tainment of the most favorable language provisions to
best meet any current conditions. Yet this left them ill-
equipped to recognize the potential for misunderstanding
as each side groped through the new coordinated ap-
proach to bargaining for the industry. In both kind and
degree the fledgling phenomenon was highly experimen-
tal in this setting, fundamentally different from all that
had been so customary before, and permeated with nu-
ances of internecine competitiveness and jealousies
within the sister affiliates themselves. The very crux of
the case is that Cooper was by configuration of events
forced into a doomed power play"', which the associ-
ation attempts to seize upon as leverage for deferring ret-
roactive pay increases and benefits gained by the other
Teamsters bargaining units. I am necessarily uncon-
cerned with the equity of such a loss should the driver
members represented by Cooper find it a consequence
from which they cannot escape," but in truth this
thought never need be reached because his strategy was
solidly founded in fact and law, if not instinct itself. Had
'1 It should be remembered that he had suppressed strike action by his
members of the soft drink industry in 1977, a decision making even more
inevitabkle that the catbartic appeal of a strike need soon be satisfied else-
where to maintain his klegitimacy a a leader.
10 It must be remembered too that the scheme of labor-management
law provides even harsher punishment for employees subject to reckless
or inept union leadenship. Under Sec. 8(d) of the Act their antus as em-
ployees may dissolve by operation of low whenever stautory steps estab-
lished to place orderliness in the contract renewal process are flaunted.
435
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the General Counsel not chosen to adopt King's wishful
thinking as to what the entire experience of March 10,
1980, constituted, viewed in light of the 1977 negotia-
tions, and as parroted by the several witnesses whose ef-
fective ability to recall I have discredited, this case pre-
sumably would not have been prosecuted. The overall
probative evidence utterly fails to show under governing
legal principles of association-type bargaining that Local
174 has reached and thereafter refused to sign a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
[Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from pub-
lication.]
436
