International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 161 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

LOCAL NO 600 , TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 161
LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS, GASOLINE
& OIL DRIVERS, chartered by the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; HIGHWAY
CHAUFFEURS & PLATFORM WORKERS, LOCAL UNION
NO. 632, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. of L.; THOMAS E. FLYNN,, as Trustee of
said Local No. 600 and Local Union No. 632; WAREHOUSE
AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 688, af-
filiated with the international Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F.
of L.; and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. and OSCEOLAFOODS,
INC.
LOCAL NO. 600 TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS, GASOLINE
& OIL DRIVERS, chartered by the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; HIGHWAY
CHAUFFEURS & PLATFORM WORKERS, LOCAL UNION
NO. 632, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. of L.; THOMAS E. FLYNN, as Trustee of
said Local No. 600 and Local Union No. 632; WAREHOUSE
AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 688, af-
filiated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F.
of L.; and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L. and THE ATKINS
PICKLE SALES COMPANY. Cases Nos. 14-CC-44 and
14-CC-45. November 25, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 9, 1953, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the-Respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b)
(4) (A) of the National Labor Relations Act, and recom-
mending that the Respondents cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
107 NLRB No. 63.
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
At the hearing, and in their exceptions and brief, the Re-
spondents urged that the activities giving rise to this proceeding
involved a primary dispute between Local 688 and the local
grocery and drayage companies in St. Louis, the secondary
employers herein, concerning the furnishing of helpers to
perform pallet and fork-lift work at the warehouses and un-
loading docks of these companies, and that such activities
did not constitute a secondary boycott in violation of Section
8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. The Trial Examiner found, and we
agree, that this dispute was resolved on March 18, 1953, by
an agreement between the secondary employers and Local
688, which provided that these employers would thereafter
provide a Local 688 employee to unload trucks when pallets
and similar devices were utilized., Like the Trial Examiner,
we find that this agreement did not effect any change in the
Respondents' conduct at the premises of the secondary em-
ployers in requiring that a Local 600 man should also be hired
by over-the-road truckdrivers, who are employees of the
primary employers or consignors herein, making city de-
liveries, or in refusing to unload over-the-road trucks unless
the drivers belonged to a union. Accordingly, for the reasons
set forth more fully in the Intermediate Report attached hereto,
we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by inducing
and encouraging the employees of the secondary employers to
lIn reaching our decision, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the statement
of Glidwell to Glenn Moller, counsel for the Charging Parties, that instructions had been
received from Rudy Palada, business agent for Local 688, not to unload nonunion drivers,
in and of itself constituted a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. However, we do find
that such statement affords additional evidence that the Respondents induced and encouraged
employees of General Grocer Company to engage in a concerted refusal to unload goods
delivered by Great Western Foods Company to the premises of General Grocer, an object
of which was to force General Grocer to cease handling the products of Great Western unless
Great Western employed union truckdrivers.
Moreover, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondents violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act at the El-Be Grocery Company by Scaturro's statement to
Moller about what Borsos had told Scaturro, and by Borsos' statement to Moller that only
nonunion over-the-road drivers had to obtain a Local 600 man to help unload. Like the Trial
Examiner, however, we do find that the Respondents unlawfully induced the employees of
El-Be to refuse to handle Atkins' goods unless Atkins' drivers employed a Local 600 man
2 The Respondents contended that certain testimony of Drury, an official of the B & L Drayage
and Warehouse Company, Inc., indicated that a dispute was pending at all times material
herein between the Respondents and the Team and Truck Owners Association, of which B & L
was a party, concerning the use of Local 600 men in unloading over-the-road trucks deliver-
ing goods to B & L. The Trial Examiner, after considering the totality of Drury's testimony,
as well as the testimony of other witnesses, found that no dispute existed between these parties
because of the March 18, 1953, agreement. We concur in this finding moreover, even if such
a dispute did exist, the incidents which the Trial Examiner found to have occurred at B & L
establish that the Respondents induced or encouraged the employees of B & L concertedly to
cease handling goods of an out-of-State trucking concern with the object of forcing B & L
to cease doing business with such concern
LOCAL NO 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 163
engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to handle material and perform services at the premises
of those employers, an object of which was to force or require
those employers to cease doing business with the primary
employers herein.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Re-
spondents, Local No. 600, Truck Drivers and Helpers, Gasoline
& Oil Drivers, chartered by the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor;
Thomas E. Flynn, as Trustee of said Local No. 600 and Local
Union No. 632; 3 Warehouse and Distribution Workers' Union,
Local 688, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. of L.; and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, A. F. of L., their officers, representatives, and
agents , shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing and encouraging the
employees of the employers listed in appendix A of the Inter-
mediate Report, or of any other employer, to engage in a strike
or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment, to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or perform any
services, where an object thereof is to require any such em-
ployer or person to cease using , selling, handling, transporting,
or otherwise dealing in the products of or to cease doing
business with Osceola Foods, Inc., Atkins Pickle Sales Company,
great Western Food Company, or any employer or person,
except insofar as any such action is permitted under Section
8 (b) (4) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at the business offices of Locals 600 and 688 in
St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the notice attached to the Inter-
3 Like the Trial Examiner, we shall not enter an order against Respondent, Local Union No.
632, as it appears that at the time of the hearing Local 632 had merged with Local 600 and
had been completely dissolved
4In its exceptions, the Respondents contended that any notices which the Board might require
them to post contain a provision that "Nothing in this Notice shall be construed to prohibit
any member of Local 600 or of Local 688 from refusing to handle any goods brought to the
warehouse at which such member may be employed by an over- the- road truck which does
not have a Local 600 man on said truck to help unload it, if such refusal is the good faith
individual choice of such member in upholding his Union principles and beliefs." In view of
the language of our order, and the related notice provision, proscribing only action in concert
which is violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), we find no merit in this contention
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report marked "Appendix B." 5 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth
Region, after being duly signed by official representatives of
the Respondents , shall be posted by the Respondents immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for a
period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, inconspicuous
places , including all places where notice to members of the
Respondents are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The Re-
spondents shall also sign copies of the notice which the Regional
Director shall submit for posting at the St. Louis premises of
the employers listed in appendix A of the Intermediate Report.
(b) Notify all members of Locals 600 and 688, through their
respective stewards, business agents , or officials, that the
Respondents withdraw all instructions, requests, or appeals that
employees of the employers listed in appendix A of the Inter-
mediate Report or of any other employer: (1) Refrain from re-
ceiving or otherwise handling merchandise of all over-the-road
shippers unless a member of Local 600 is hired by those ship-
pers to help unload trucks; and (Z) refrain from receiving or
otherwise handling merchandise delivered by nonunion truck-
drivers.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region,
in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondents have taken to complyherewith.
5 This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu
thereof the words "A Decision and Order," In the event that this Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant
to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Osceola Foods, Inc., and The Atkins Pickle Sales Company, respec-
tively, against the above-named unions, herein referred to either by local union designations
or jointly as the Respondents, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, i
by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), on May 5, 1953,
issued an order consolidating both cases for the purpose of hearing and also issued a com-
plaint against the Respondents alleging that they had engaged in conduct violating Section 8
(b) (4) (A) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hearing were
served upon all the parties.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance, that since on or
about March 6, 1953, the Respondents have engaged in and by orders, instructions, directions,
and appeals, have induced and encouraged the employees of certain named companies and of
other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employ-
ment, to use, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials,
iThe General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the hearing are referred to as
the General Counsel. The National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the Board.
LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 165
or commodities, or to perform services, an object thereof being to force or require those
employers and other employers or persons to cease using, selling, handling, transporting,
or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with, Osceola Foods, Inc.,
herein referred to as Osceola, and The Atkins Pickle Sales Company, herein referred to as
Atkins, and other employers and persons.
The Respondents in a joint answer admit certain jurisdictional allegations , deny the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices, and further allege that the only activities engaged in
by them "have been those which they are legitimately and legally entitled to in the enforce-
ment of the terms and conditions of their collective- bargaining agreements and in the preser-
vation of customs and practices in the trucking industry in the St. Louis area and in the
preservation of their established wages, hours and working conditions."
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at St Louis, Missouri, between June 1 and 3, 1953,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner All the parties were represented by counsel. Full
opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses was afforded all parties.
Prior to the commencement of this proceeding the General Counsel applied to the District
Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of Missouri, Eastern District, for in-
junctive relief pending the final adjudication of this case by the Board. 2 Testimony, exhibits,
and argument in that proceeding were presented on May 7, 1953. Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and the Respondents. 3 In the present proceeding, the parties stipulated that
the transcript in the injunction proceeding, as well as the exhibits and briefs submitted, should
be made a part of the record in this proceeding and should be used for all purposes so far
as material and relevant to the issues In addition to this record the parties presented further
testimony of witnesses and oral argument
At the conclusion of the hearing , the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to
the proof as to formal matters This motion was granted as to all pleadings without objection.
An opportunity was also afforded for the filing of briefs and/or proposed findings of fact or
conclusions of law or both None were submitted.
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF OSCEOLA AND ATKINS
Atkins is an Arkansas corporation with its principal office and place of business in Atkins,
Arkansas, where it is engaged in the production and sale of pickles. Its yearly shipment of
materials or commodities out of the State of Arkansas is valued in excess of $ 500,000. The
parties stipulated that Atkins is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and the
undersigned so finds.
Osceola is an Arkansas corporation with its principal office and place of business at
Osceola, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. It
annually ships from its Osceola plant to points outside the State of Arkansas,_ merchandise
valued in excess of $1,000,000. The parties stipulated that Osceola is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and the undersigned so finds
The parties further stipulated that certain wholesale grocery companies and drayage com-
panies mentioned in this proceeding, with principal offices and places of business in St. Louis,
Missouri, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and the undersigned so finds.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
All the Local Unions involved in this proceeding are affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , which in turn is af-
filiated with the American Federation of Labor The International admits to membership em-
ployees of Osceola and Atkins . The International Brotherhood and the Locals here involved
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act
Local 600 has jurisdiction over city truckdrivers within the City of St. Louis. Local 632
had jurisdiction of certain over -the-road drivers and platform workers in St. Louis. Prior
2 McMahon v, Local No. 600, et al. Civil No. 9176 (3).
30n June 24, 1953, an order granting a temporary injunction was issued by Hon Roy W.
Harper, District judge
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to this proceeding, both Locals were placed under a trusteeship by orders of the general
president of the international Local 632 prior to this proceeding had been totally dissolved
and disbanded and its members and contractual obligations transferred to Local 600 Local
688 has jurisdiction over warehousemen, dockmen, and platform men employed by the whole-
sale grocery concerns involved in this case.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The city-driver policy
It is undisputed that at all times here relevant there was a union policy that long distance
or over-the-road truckdrivers should not be permitted the make local deliveries in St. Louis,
such deliveries were to be made by members-of Local 600, the city drivers In the event that
an over-the-road truck was not unloaded at a central dock, then it would be necessary for the
over-the-road driver to hire a member of Local 600 to assist him as a helper. Harold J.
Gibbons is secretary-treasurer of Local 688, its top administrative officer. He also assists
Thomas E. Flynn, the trustee of Local 600 In this capacity he has engaged in negotiations on
the interpretation of a Local 600 contract. His summary of the policy is as follows:
I said I will continue to enforce the policy that over-the-road trucks, when they hit the
City of St Louis, do one of two things: Either they go to their home terminals, dump
their freight and let the city men deliver it, or as soon as they hit the city limits they
call the union and ask for a city driver to go with them It has nothing to do with the
union membership. It is an entirely different matter, and that policy will continue.
Additional extracts of his testimony on the city-driver policy are as follows:
Q Incidentally, if I may go back just fora moment, Mr Gibbons, when union over-the-
road drivers bring their equipment in to a local dock or local terminal, are those union
drivers permitted to unload their equipment?
A. They are not.
Q. Is that by reason of the provisions of the over-the-road contract'?
A. That is by reasons of the provisions of the over-the-road contract clearly spelled
out, and they are also by provisions of the Team and Truck Owners contracts.
Q. So that your union members would refuse to unload a truck driven by a union driver
over the road and hitting a city dock or terminal, is that right?
A. That is correct
Q. How are those trucks unloaded
A. They are under instructions to either go to their home terminal and unload there
and let a city delivery man make the delivery, or, secondly, if they have no home terminal,
as soon as he hits the city limits to call the union office and to get a city man to go out
with them on there and do the unloading.
Q. That is a matter of contract between management and--
A. Matter of contract and a matter of daily practice, every instance that a truck hits
the city
Q. And, of course, you have instructed your union members and members of other
unions to enforce the ter*lis of their contract
A. Without even any instructions our members know this fact, our members are good
members and they want to see to it that the union rules are lived up to. .. We will,
however, attempt to live within the agreements which our employers have already con-
tracted with us, and where the contract provides that a city man shall handle it, we will
stop any over-the-road man from handling it, but that has nothing to do with his union
membership or lack of union membership
A. I propose to continue until such time as my attorneys advise me that it is illegal
to do so, I shall continue to enforce the terms and conditions arrived at in concert with
the employers with whom we have contracts One of those provisions currently specifies
that no over-the-road truck shall be unloaded in the City of St Louis excepting by a city
deliveryman and we shall enforce that policy until such time as it is pointed out to us
that it is an illegal policy
LOCAL NO. 600 , TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 167
Oliver Wetterau , an employer representative in the administration of a contract by an
employer-association with Local 688, testified that Gibbons in a meeting with the employer
group in mid-March affirmed his objection to over-the-road drivers making local deliveries
stating that since motor freight carriers would, pursuant to contract, unload at a local dock
with subsequent deliveries being made by Local 600 drivers it was only fair that Local 600
drivers be used by over-the- road companies making direct deliveries locally This was not
a matter relating to the contract with Local 688 and was not discussed further at that meeting
Testimony was presented illustrating how this policy was applied against the Charging Parties.
These concerns had no contract with the International or any of the Locals involved herein,
nor were their drivers members of these union organizations These instances are as follows:
1. El-Be Grocery Company
David Phillips is a truckdriver employed by Atkins. On March 6, 1953,4 Phillips drove to
the El-Be Grocery Company in St. Louis to make a delivery. When he presented his bill of
lading to the receiving clerk, Nado Scaturro, a member of Local 688, Scaturro told him he
should tell his boss that in the future a union man would be needed on the truck for all unload-
ing An El-Be driver gave him the telephone number of Local 600
About a week later, Phillips returned to El-Be with another load and told Scaturro in
response to the latter's question that he had told his boss of the requirement to obtain a
union man for unloading, but that his boss was unwilling to make such an arrangement. At
that point Scaturro said he would let the Drivers Union take care of that since that was not
his union The driver who had given Phillips the telephone number of Local 600 on the last
occasion told him that he could unload. While he was so engaged three men came up and
inquired whether he was a member of the Union and when he said no they told the platform
man helping him not to unload him in the future if "they" did not get in the Union. Phillips
continued to make deliveries to El-Be without any further incident.
The undersigned credits the testimony of Glenn L. Moller, of council to the Charging
Parties, that on March 27 he interviewed Scaturro and that Scaturro told him that about 2
weeks before that date Rudy Palada, a staff member of Local 688, had spoken with Pete
Borsos, the Local 688 steward at El-Be, and that Borsos after this conversation told Scaturro
that instructions had been received from the Union that there was to be no unloading of non-
union drivers, they were to be told to unload at a local drayage dock Local 600 drivers would
then deliver the merchandise to concerns such as El-Be where Local 688 men would unload
the merchanidse Moller further testified that Borsos told him that instructions were received
from the union not to unload nonunion drivers and that all over-the- road drivers had to get
a Local 600 helper to help them unload 5
2 Allen Foods, Inc
In the latter part of April, Phillips attempted to make a delivery at Allen Foods, Inc., in
St Louis The receiving clerk asked him whether he had a union card and when Phillips said
he did not the clerk said he doubted whether he could unload him. The clerk went away and
returned with an employee whom the clerk identified as the shop steward. The shop steward
said that he would not unload him and that Phillips could not unload his truck unless he could
reach from his truck to 6 feet on the dock. Finally, one of the owners intervened and told
Phillips where to unload his truck but the shop steward told him "You'd better not come
back up here any more unless you have got a union card." Phillips has made deliveries at
other grocery warehouses in St. Louis without incident except that occasionally he has been
told that he probably would not be allowed to unload if he did not have a union card but this
threat was not implemented
J. D. Peters, a driver for Atkins, attempted to make a delivery at Allen Foods on or about
April 16 While he was unloading the receiving clerk, Del Ray, asked whether he belonged
to the Union When Peters replied that he was not a union member Ray stated that he did not
think he would be allowed to unload any more. Peters and Ray talked to John Stack, who was
introduced to Peters as the shop steward Stack told Peters that he would have to get a Local
600 man to help him. Instead Peters called Moller When Moller appeared on the scene Peters
4A11 dates hereafter mentioned are in 1953 unless the contrary is indicated,
5 Borsos did not testify Scaturro testified in the injunction proceeding but had only a vague
recollection as to the incidents testified to by Phillips and Moller.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was allowed to unload without further incident, and in fact he was helped by the steward him-
self He was unloaded at other grocery warehouses without incident
3 Dumont Cartage Co
The Dumont Cartage Co is engaged in long-distance hauling as well as local delivery
service in St. Louis The company is a party to the Central States Area Over-The-Road
Motor Freight Agreement with the Central States Drivers Council affiliated with the Inter-
national Union This agreement provides that over-the-road drivers of an employer are not
to make city deliveries and it further provides for a union shop On April 30 tworepre-
sentatives of Local 600, Lane and Schuman, questioned Raymond Culli, terminal manager
of the company, as to whether a company driver, Hamner, was going to make local de-
liveries When Culli replied that he was, they objected that the materials on the truck
according to the agreement could not be delivered except by a city driver Also when they
learned that Hamner was not a union member they said that the freight could not be delivered
However, an agreement was worked out whereby Hamner was permitted to unload his freight
the next day
4. B & L Drayage and Warehouse Company, Inc.
This company makes local deliveries of out-of-State shipments. It employs between 4
and 6 warehousemen who are members of Local 688 Roby Griffin is their steward.
On March 25, a trailer arrived with a shipment from California. There was a delay in
unloading. John Drury, vice president of the company, the president of the company, the
driver of the truck involved, and Griffin, then had a discussion. When no progress was
made Drury telephoned Local 600 and 3 of their representatives came to the company
premises in response to this telephone call. These 3 were James Clift, Francis Bayer,
and Walter Schuman. Clift stated that in order to get the truck unloaded the driver would
have to obtain a Local 600 member to unload it, Griffin then found a rank-and-file employee
who belonged to Local 600. Clift objected to the use of the Local 600 man in the company's
employ and stated that the driver would have to get a helper directly from the Local 600
union hall and pay him. The driver did this and the truck was then unloaded without further
incident. On April 22 there was a similar occurrence and these incidents have been repeated
since that time 6
5. General Grocer Company
General Grocer Company employs 191 warehouse employees who are all members of Local
688 Robert Glidwell is chief shop steward and Herman Kleb who was employed as a receiving
clerk also acts as a temporary steward for the Union. After Kleb's appointment as temporary
steward Arthur Palmer, warehouse superintendent for the company, asked him "what the
idea was of stopping drivers 9 " Kleb replied that he had been informed by the Union to ask
all drivers whether they were union men or not and, if not, to tell them to get a helper from
Local 600 to unload. The driver was not to touch any of the merchandise. Palmer, who was
a witness at the injunction hearing on May 7, testified that practice was continuing up to that
time Palmer further testified on cross-examination that he had first heard approximately
a week before the hearing that stewards had been instructed that the helper requirement
from Local 600 was to be applied whether the over-the-road driver was a union member or
not.
This practice was applied in the case of Sterling P. Allen, a truckdriver for Great Western
Foods Company, Ft Worth, Texas, a company engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. Allen tried to unload a shipment on March 23 While he was in the process of unload-
6The above findings are based upon an evaluation of the testimony of both Drury and
Griffin While their testimony differed in certain details they were agreed as to the instruc-
tions from the union representatives that a Local 600 man would have to be obtained to unload
out- of- town trucks. Griffin testified that it was his understanding that this requirement was
only to be imposed when the driver of the truck was nova union member and that he so en-
forced the requirement. Griffin also testified that these instructions were given him in the
presence of the four other members of his union employed by the company.
LOCAL NO. 600 , TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 169
ing an unidentified employee told him that he could not unload because he was not a union
member When Glidwell, the chief shop steward, was informed of the stituation he stated
that he would call Local 600 to have a man sent over to unload the truck. He placed the call
but no helper appeared. Allen then called Local 632 to which Glidwell had been referred by
Local 600. Allen was told to come to the Local 632 office and he did so. He spoke with
Charles Grogan, a temporary officer of that union under appointment of the trustee Grogan
told him that he would not give hun a release to unload unless he joined the Union. Allen
was unable to get clearance to unload and finally drove back to Ft . Worth. Since that time he
testified he has had no trouble but hires a union man to unload the truck paying him a standard
daily rate for this service regardless of the time involved
Glenn Moller, of counsel to theCharging Parties herein, testified that he spoke with Glidwell
on or about March 24 and that Glidwell told him that instructions had been received from Rudy
Palada , business agent for Local 688, not to unload nonunion drivers
6 A. C. L. Haase Company
On April 27, J. D. Peters, a truckdriver for Atkins, started to unload a shipment at the
Haase Company When the salesclerk found out that he was not a member of the Union he
stated that he did not think the steward would let Peters unload. The clerk brought the union
steward who told Peters to stop unloading because no one would move the merchandise. After
Peters called the attorney for his company, Peters was permitted to unload and has been
unloading at the Haase Company and other grocery warehouses without incident
7 Associated Grocers Company
Employees of Osceola have been required to obtain helpers from Local 600 before being
able to unload their trucks at Associated Grocers Company T. E. Wardlow arrived with a
load of oleomargarine on or about April 15 On that occasion Joseph Thoenes, a Local 688
steward, told him that he would have to hire a union man to unload his truck. When Wardlow
asked how much that would be, Thoenes replied that it would be $15.20 Thoenes finally
agreed to let Wardlow unload his truck on that occasion but told him to pass that information
on to his boss for the next time.
Wardlow next arrived with a load for Associated Grocers on May 15. On that occasion
Rex Rethoven came up to Wardlow and told him that he was from the Union and was there to
unload his truck He told Wardlow that his wage would be $15.20. Wardlow protested the
price but finally had Rethoven unload his truck. Thoenes checked this helper's union book. He
also told Wardlow to have the helper go with him to other stops that Wardlow had and to have
this helper unload at these different stops. Wardlow did so. Thoenes, who testified in the
proceeding, declared that it was his practice to check the union membership of drivers and
helpers and also to have drivers call Local 600 for helpers
W. W. Smith, another driver for Osceola, had a similar experience on May 18. On this
occasion both Thoenes and Leon Vaughn, another steward for Local 688, told him that he
needed a helper to unload. Vaughn got the helper for him Smith used this helper at his other
stops and paid him. On May 29 Thoenes again told Smith that he had to have a helper to
unload . When counsel for Osceola intervened , Smith was allowed to unload.
Gibbons, in addition to his testimony as to the union policy on the use of city drivers to
unload over - the-road trucks , denied that there was any policy or instructions issued to
refuse to unload trucks because the driver was not a member of the Union.
He also testified that when a Board representative told him of charges that there was a
refusal to unload trucks because of the nonmembership of the drivers he told the repre-
sentative that he would correct any such instances brought to his attention Further he
instructed the director of negotiations for Local 688, Richard Kavener, to send a staff member
to all loading platforms to stop any such practice and to instruct union members that was not
to be done
John Wiley, Jr , of counsel to the Respondents, testified that he learned in March of the
pending charges against the Respondents and that he then contacted the Board and counsel
for the Charging Parties and told them that the Union did not have a policy to refuse to
unload nonunion drivers and that Gibbons would correct any condition brought to his attention
where there was a purported violation of this position
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The union contracts involved in the proceeding
Several contracts were referred to in the course of this proceeding . They are as follows:
a Central States area over - the-road motor freight agreement
This a standard agreement covering drivers employed by private, common, and contract
carriers in 12 Midwestern States. Certain employers are parties to this agreement which is
also entered into by Central States Drivers Council and various local unions, all affiliated
with the International Union Members of Local 632 who have now been transferred to Local
600 and who do over-the- road driving are covered by this contract. Neither Osceola, Atkins,
nor Great Western are parties to this agreement . Nor are the wholesale grocery companies
in St. Louis who have so far been mentioned parties to this agreement. This agreement con-
tains a protection-of-rights clause (article IX) which states in substance that it shall not be
a violation of the contract or cause for discharge if an employee or employees refuse to go
through the picket line of a union or refuse to handle unfair goods. The agreement contains
union-shop provisions The agreements also contains pickup and delivery limitations (article
XXIII).
b Wage agreement between Motor Carriers' Council of St Louis, Missouri, and Local 600
Motor Carriers ' Council is an employer -association made up of over - the-road carriers.
Neither the Charging Parties, nor the grocery companies, nor the drayage companies men-
tioned are parties to this contract The agreement provides that city chauffeurs and helpers
shall perform all pickup and delivery services within a 25-air-mile radius of St. Louis
(article XI).
c Wage agreement between Motor Carriers' Council of St Louis and Local 600
This agreement covers employees in a bargaining unit consisting of platform workers,
checkers , stackers , and power -unit operators employed on motor-transportation docks in
the St . Louis area None of the employer concerns mentioned in this proceeding are parties
to this agreement
d. Agreement between Missouri-Illinois Food Distributors, Inc , and Local 688
The grocery warehouses mentioned in this proceeding were parties to this agreement with
Local 688. This agreement covers terms and conditions of employment of warehouse workers
and dockworkers. Counsel agreed that it was unnecessary to the issues in this proceeding to
have the contract itself in evidence. However, testimony was received with reference to a
dispute between the employer group and Local 688 as to whether the agreement required the
employers to furnish a Local 688 helper to unload trucks when a hand truck or other similar
device was used The Union's position is summarized as follows in a bulletin received in
evidence:
The union states their jurisdictional' policy to be as follows: If a palette or skid or
hand truck or other similar device is used at the point of delivery, the truck driver will
not be permitted to place the articles on such device. However, if no such device is used,
the driver will, as heretofore, deposit the delivered articles on your platform or on the
tail-gate of the truck. As stated above, however, if such device is employed, it will be
necessary to have a member of Local 688 assist in the unloading of the truck and in
such event, he and the driver will work together.
On March 18 a committee representing the employers met with Harold Gibbons, as repre-
sentative of Local 688, and agreed to this policy
e. Agreement between Ben Gutman Truck Service, Inc., and Local 600
This is a local-drayage contract with an employer not a party to this proceeding and is
similar to the standard agreement mentioned in (b)
LOCAL NO 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 17 1
Contentions of the Parties. Conclusions
The General Counsel and the Charging Parties contend that the admitted union policy of
refusing to unload long-distance or over-the-road trucks making local city deliveries in St.
Louis unless a helper were first obtained from Local 600 was implemented by the refusal
of Local 688 members under inducement or encouragement of the Unions involved to refuse
to unload these trucks either until a helper from Local 600 were obtained or in some cases
because the driver of the truck was a nonunion employee. In either situation it is contended
there was a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. This section is as follows:
(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents--
(4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage
in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufac-
ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials,
or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or
requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organiza-
tion or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or
otherwise dealing in the products or any other producer, processor, or manufacturer,
or to cease doing business with any other person; .
It is contended that this section commonly referred to as the secondary boycott provision was
violated in that there was an inducement or encouragement of employees of the grocery com-
panies and the drayage companies, referred to in this report, to refuse to handle the mer-
chandise of over-the-road truck companies with an object to force their immediate employers
to cease dealing in the products of, or ceasing to do business with, consignors involved in
this proceeding
The Respondents have contended in their answer that their activities "have been those
which they are legitimately and legally entitled to in the enforcement of the terms and condi-
tions of their collective bargaining agreements and in the preservation of customs and
practices in the trucking industry in the St. Louis area and in the preservation of their
established wages, hours, and working conditions " The Respondents point to the master
over-the-road contract which reserves city delivery work to city drivers and agreements
to the same effect with the Motor Carriers' Council of St. Louis to the same effect. On this
point it is argued:
when it is considered that that is an industry and area custom or practice, and when
we realize that those contractual provisions and that custom and practice is in force
against union members, we cannot conceive how it can be wrong or illegal for the very
preservation of the gains of the union to enforce that against anyone who comes into the
dock, whether he be union or whether he not be union. Obviously, the purpose and the
objection of the union in so doing is to preserve their collective bargaining gains and to
preserve their conditions That object and that purpose is an entirely different thing
from any refusal to work for the purpose of forcing a secondary employer to cease
doing business with a primary employer
If a uniform rule were not applied , it is contended , there would be a breaking down of condi-
tions obtained through collective bargaining and a weakening of the bargaining power of the
Unions involved here The Respondents argue that the policy did not have for its objective
breaking the business relationship between nonunion over - the-road consignors and consignees,
that their trucks were unloaded when a helper was obtained from Local 600 regardless of
whether the driver was a member of any of the Unions involved or not . Finally it is contended
that in essence that is a primary dispute between the local grocery and drayage companies
mentioned at the hearing and Local 688 over the furnishing of helpers to unload over -the-road
trucks
The undersigned cannot agree with the contention that this case involves a primary dispute
between the local grocery and drayage concerns and Local 688 rather than a secondary boy-
cott in violation of 8 (b ) (4) (A). There was a dispute between the grocery concerns and
Local 688 as to the obligation of the grocery concerns , not their consignors , to furnish help
17 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when goods were unloaded from trucks onto pallets or similar devices. This was resolved
on March 18 by the agreement of these grocery companies through their association that
thereafter these concerns would furnish a Local 688 employee to unload trucks when pallets
were used This agreement did not result in any change in the Union's policy that a Local 600
man should also be on every over-the-road truck making city deliveries. The undersigned
concludes that the primary dispute in this case was with out-of-town consignors such as
Osceola, Atkins, and Great Western.
The Respondents contend that they were merely trying to establish uniform city-delivery
practices in the City of St Louis, where they had entered into contracts providing for ad-
herence to the city-driver policy They could require employers who are parties to those
contracts to live up to those agreements That was involved in the incident at Dumont Cartage
Co , set forth in a previous section of this report. Furthermore , union pressure could have
been applied directly against the primary employers in this proceeding , the consignors, in
order to obtain adherence to the city-job policy However, when pressure was applied by the
refusal of Local 688 members on instructions from their stewards and by the stewards them-
selves to refuse to handle for their employers, who had no dispute with the Unions over the
city-driver policy, goods of out-of-State concerns unless those concerns employed Local 600
helpers, there was a violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. The Board has held that the
inducement and encouragement of employees of a neutral employer to refuse to handle goods
of a delivering company in aid of a demand by members of a sister local that the delivering
company use city drivers is violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 7
The Board has recognized that in some instances a union may have a contract with a
neutral employer permitting it to take action otherwise proscribed by the Act. 8 While the
secondary employers in this proceeding have a contract with Local 688, no evidence was
presented of any agreement containing provisions similar to those involved in the cases
last cited.
The contention of the Respondents that the city-job policy was not motivated by a desire
to cause a complete rupture in the business relationships between the primary and secondary
employers in this case but only to maintain union standards does not constitute a valid
defense. The question of whether certain types of secondary boycotts should be permitted
was extensively discussed during the debate on the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
Proposals to so limit the boycott section were voted down and no such exception is contained
in the Act.
The undersigned concludes that the city-driver policy was implemented by the inducement
or encouragement of employees of secondary employers to engage in concerted refusal in
the course of their employment to handle the goods of primary employers (the consignors
here) with an object of forcing their respective employers to cease dealing in the products
of the primary employers unless helpers from Local 600 were first hired by the primary
employers The testimony establishes that as of the time of the hearing there had not been
a uniform application of procedures intended to implement this policy. In some cases drivers
of the primary employers were allowed to unload without incident in some instances there
were temporary delays but the drivers were permitted to unload . Temporary secondary
boycotts are violative of the Act 9 In another group of cases drivers were not permitted to
unload until they obtained a helper from Local 600 and paid him. This conauct was violative
of the Act. In some instances stewards of Local 688 and members of that Local and also an
official of Local 632 refused to permit the unloading of a truck because of the nonmembership
of the driver Although Gibbons testified that there was no policy against the unloading of a
nonunion driver, these activities of staff members and shop stewards are binding on their
unions since this action was within the scope of their general authority. 10
The undersigned finds that the following activity, more specifically detailed in section III,
A of this report, was violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
7Roy Stone Transfer Corporation, 100 NLRB 856; see also N. L. R. B. v. Wine, Liquor
and Distillery Workers Union, et al., 178 F. 2d 584; Irvin J. Cooper, et al., 101 NLRB 1284;
Western Express Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 340.
8Conway's Express, 87 NLRB 972, affirmed 195 F 2d 906 (C. A. 2); Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, 105 NLRB 740.
9Western Express Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 340, 341.
ii Howland Dry Goods Company, 85 NLRB 1037. The bylaws of Local 688 provide that shop
stewards "shall be the highest ranking union officer in their crew. All Union members must
accept their word as union law during working hours." (Article XI, section 4.)
LOCAL NO. 600 , TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS 173
(1) El-Be Grocery Company: The statement by Pete Borsos, steward for Local 688, to
Nado Scaturro , a receiving clerk for El-Be and a member of Local 688, that instructions
had been received from the Union that there was to be no unloading of nonunion drivers
Union instructions to Borsos that nonunion drivers were not to be unloaded and that all
over - the-road drivers had to obtain a Local 600 helper to help them unload.
(2) Allen Foods, Inc.. The statement by the shop steward at this company to David Phillips,
a driver for Atkins, that he had better not come back unless he had a union card.
The statement by steward John Stack to J. D. Peters, a driver for Atkins, that he would
have to get a Local 600 man to help him. Both these statements were made in the presence
of a rank - and-file employee.
(4) B & L Drayage and Warehouse Company, Inc : The statement by James Clift, a Local
600 representative, in the presence of Roby Griffin, a Local 688 shop steward, that a driver
of a truck would have to obtain and pay for a Local 600 member to unload it.
(5) General Grocer Company The statement by Herman Kleb, shop steward for Local
688, that instructions had been received from the Union to require all nonunion drivers
to obtain a helper from Local 600 to unload their trucks.
Enforcement of the above policy by Chief Shop Steward Glidwell when he attempted to
assist Sterling Allen, a driver for Great Western Foods Company, to obtain a Local 600
helper.
The statement by Charles Grogan , an officer of Local 632, that Allen would not be given
a release permitting him to unload unless he joined the Union.
The statement by Glidwell to Glenn Moller , of counsel to the Charging Parties herein,
that instructions had been received from Rudy Palada , business agent for Local 688, not
to unload nonunion drivers.
(6) A. C. L. Haase Company: The statement of the steward to J. D. Peters, a truckdriver
for Atkins, that no employee would move his merchandise because he was not a member of
the Union.
(7) Associated Grocers Company: The statement by Joseph Thoenes, a Local 688 steward,
to T. E. Wardlow, a driver for Osceola , that he would have to hire a union man to unload his
truck.
Statements by Thoenes and Leon Vaughn, another steward for Local 688, to W. W. Smith,
a driver for Osceola, that he would have to have a union helper to unload.
The evidence establishes that the International Union, Local 600, and Local 688 joined in a
common program to implement the city-driver policy. Secondary pressure was exerted
chiefly by Local 688 through its officials and shop stewards . In addition , in at least one
instance , Local 600 representatives came to the premises of a secondary employer, B & L
Drayage and Warehouse , Inc., restated the policy and dictated how it would be carried out.
They were responsible to Thomas E. Flynn , an International representative , who has been
appointed trustee of Local 600 and 632 by the general president of the parent organization
of these unions According to the constitution of the International Brotherhood the trustee
takes full charge of the affairs of the Local Union, he reports to the general president, and
is subject to the supervision of the general president who may remove trustees at any time
and appoint successor trustees In view of this direct control over the policies and operations
of Local 600 the undersigned concludes that the International Brotherhood shares responsibility
with Local 600 and 688 for the course of conduct found violative of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection
with the operations of Osceola , Atkins, Great Western, and their consignees , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to burden and obstruct commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act, it will be
recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action which it is
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
337593 0 - 55 - 13
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Locals 600 and 688 and the International Brotherhood are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 11
2. By inducing and encouraging employees of General Grocer Company, El-Be Grocery
Company, and other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in a course of
their employment, to handle shipments to those employers by Osceola, Atkins, and Great
Western with an object to force or require General Grocer Company, El-Be Grocery Com-
pany, and other employers or persons toceasedoing business with Osceola, Atkins, and Great
Western, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
ilSince Local 632, as of the time of the hearing herein, had been completely merged with
Local 600 and had been completely dissolved, it will not be recommended that any order be
entered against it.
APPENDIX A
A. C. L. Haase Company
Allen Foods, Inc.
Associated Grocers Company
B & L Drayage and Warehouse Company, Inc.
El-Be Grocery Company
General Grocer Company
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND
HELPERS, GASOLINE & OIL DRIVERS; WAREHOUSE AND
DISTRIBUTION WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL 688, both affili-
ated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA; AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, A. F. of L.
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act we hereby
give notice that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage the employees of General Grocer Company, El-Be
Grocery Company, or of any other employer to engage in a strike or concerted refusal
in the course of their employment to use, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
goods or to perform any services where an object thereof is to require General Grocer
Company, El-Be Grocery Company, or any employer to cease using, handling, selling,
transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of, or to cease doing business with,
Osceola Foods, Inc., Atkins Pickle Sales Company, Great Western Food Company, or
with any other employer or person, except insofar as such action is permitted under
Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw any instruction, request, or appeal to employees of General Grocer
Company,. El-Be Grocery Company, or of any employer to (1) refrain from receiving or
otherwise handling merchandise of all over-the-road shippers unless a member of Local
GRAFF MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY 175
600 is hired by those shippers to help unload trucks; and (2) refrain from receiving or
otherwise handling merchandise delivered by nonunion truckdrivers.
LOCAL NO. 600, TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS,
GASOLINE & OIL DRIVERS, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
.A. F.of L.,
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By..............................................................................................
(Title of Officer)
Dated .... ............ By..............................................................................................
Trustee , Local No. 600
WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION WORKERS'
UNION, LOCAL 688, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD 0 F TEAMSTERS. CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,A. F.ofL.,
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By..............................................................................................
(Title of Officer)
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A.F.of L.,
Labor Organization.
Dated ................ By..............................................................................................
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
GRAFF MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY and LOCAL 687, INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, A. F. of L. Case No. 18-CA-470. November 25,
1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 19, 1953, Trial Examiner Dent D. Dalby issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. He also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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
107 NLRB No. 52.