Local 375, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 650 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1 650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Truck Drivers, Helpers & Dockmen Local Union No
375, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America
and Womeldorf , Inc Case 3-CC-494
May 22, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On January 9, 1970, Trial Examiner Morton D Fried-
man issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a memorandum in support of exceptions The Charging
Party filed a brief in answer to the exceptions
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con
nection with this case to a three-member panel
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion,' the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein 2
2 In paragraph 1(b) substitute "Pillsbury Company,
J W Clement Company, Hickman, Coward & Wattles,
Inc , and Acme Markets, Inc ," for the words "said
employers "
3 In the first paragraph of the Appendix delete J
W Clement, Inc , Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc ,
or Acme Markets, Inc ," and substitute the word
"employer" for the word `employers "
MEMBER FANNING concurring and dissenting in part
The majority correctly finds that Respondent's state-
ments to three secondary employers were violations
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) only, and not of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) also as found by the Trial Examiner and
I concur
As to the fourth secondary employer, Pillsbury, where
the only picketing by Respondent occurred, the majority
agrees with the Trial Examiner's findings that while
the picketing was conducted in conformity with the
Moore Dry Dock" standards for lawful common situs
picketing, a statement by Respondent to that employer
somehow converted the picketing into a violation of
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) directed against the employees of
Pillsbury Since Moore Dry Dock was satisfied as to
the picketing, I do not believe there was any violation
of (i), but as with the other secondary employers, the
statement to this secondary employer was a (ii) violation
only 4
9 Sailors Union of the Pacific AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company)
92 NLRB 547
" See my partial dissent in International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local Union No II AFL-CIO et al (L G Electric Contrac
tors Inc) 154 NLRB 766
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and
orders that Respondent, Truck Drivers, Helpers & Dock
men Local Union No 375, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified
I In paragraph 1(a) delete "J W Clement Company,
Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , and Acme Markets,
Inc ," and substitute the word "employer" for the word
"employers "
' The Trial Examiner in his Decision inadvertantly listed June 3
1969 as the date of the first amended charge instead of June 30
1969 and further listed June 11 1969 instead of July 2 1969
the date the complaint was issued
as
] We conclude that Respondent s actions with respect to J W Clement
Company Hickman Coward & Wattles Inc and Acme Markets
Inc did not constitute or result in violations of Sec 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
of the Act and we shall amend the Order accordingly We agree
that Respondent violated Sec 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act with respect
to the Pillsbury Company and we further agree that Respondent by
its actions violated Sec 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) with respect to all four of the
above named companies
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner Upon a
charge filed on June 11, 1969, by Womeldorf, Inc ,
herein called Womeldorf or the Charging Party, and
a first amended charge also filed by Womeldorf on
June 3, 1969, the Regional Director for Region 3 of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, issued a complaint on June 11, 1969, on behalf
of the General Counsel of the Board against Truck
Drivers, Helpers & Dockmen Local Union No 375,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
Local 375 or the Union, alleging violations of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (n)(B) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (29 U S C , Sec 151, et seq ), herein
called the Act In its duly filed answer to the complaint,
the Union, while admitting certain allegations of the
complaint, denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices The issues posed by the pleadings are whether
the Respondent, by conduct to be set forth herein below,
threatened, restrained, and coerced certain secondary
employers and their employees in order to induce and
encourage the secondary employers directly and through
their employees to cease doing business with Womeldorf,
182 NLRB No 93
LOCAL 375, TEAMSTERS
the primary Employer and Charging Party herein, in
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing in this case was held
before me in Buffalo, New York, on September 11,
1969. All parties were represented and were afforded
full opportunity to -be heard, to introduce relevant evi-
dence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs.
Oral argument was waived. Briefs were filed by counsel
for the Charging Party and for the Union. Upon consider-
ation of the' entire record, including the briefs of the
parties, and upon my observation of each of the witness-
es as they appeared before me, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
It was admitted at the hearing herein by the Respond-
ent, and stipulated between the parties, that Womeldorf
is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal office
at Lewistown, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in
the business of operating trucking terminals and truck
services in and between various States of the United
States, including the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
and New York and is engaged, in part, in providing
and performing trucking services between its Rochester,
New York, terminal and points outside the State of
New York. During the 12-month period immediately
preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, a repre-
sentative period, Womeldorf performed in excess of
$1,000,000 worth of trucking services, of which services
valued in excess of $50,000 were performed between
the various States of the United States; and also per-
formed trucking services valued in excess of $50,000
consisting of transporting merchandise directly from its
Rochester, New York, terminal to points outside the
State of New York and also performed trucking services
valued in excess of $50,000 consisting of transporting
merchandise directly from points outside the State of
New York to its Rochester, New York, terminal.
It is conceded, and I find, that Womeldorf is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
It was further stipulated at the hearing, and I find,
that the Pillsbury Company, herein called Pillsbury;
the J. W. Clement Company, herein called Clement;
Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc., herein called Hick-
man; and Acme Markets, Inc., herein called Acme,
are employers and persons engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) and Section 8(b)(4)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was admitted by the answer, and I find, that the
Respondent Union is, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Primary Dispute
651
Womeldorf is a common carrier by motortruck of
certain commodities, principally foodstuffs, throughout
the mid-Atlantic, central States, and New England area.
Since sometime around the early 1930's, Womeldorf
has been operating, among other places, in and around
Buffalo, New York. However, Womeldorf does not
own or use a terminal in Buffalo but does have one
in Rochester, New York, about 70 miles distant, where
its employees are members, and where Womeldorf recog-
nizes and contracts with, a sister local of Local 375.
In all its other operations, Womeldorf's employees,
except top management , are unionized, and all of its
truckdrivers are represented by various locals of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Womeldorf additionally, through various truckers
associations to which it belongs, is a signatory to a
collective-bargaining agreement between the Teamsters
International and various associations called the National
Master Freight Agreement and, also, through its contract
with the Local representing its Rochester terminal
employees, Womeldorf is signatory to a supplemental
agreement to the Master Agreement known as the New
York State Teamsters Joint Counsel Freight Division,
Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement. However, it
is not a signatory directly, nor does it have any contractu-
al relations with, nor do any of its employees belong
to, Local 375.
Sometime early in 1969, Womeldorf was awarded
a United States Government mail contract which requires
Womeldorf to haul shipments of the magazine, Readers
Digest from the publisher, J. W. Clement Co., in Buffalo,
to various post offices in Pennsylvania and Camden,
New Jersey. Womeldorf's predecessor on this contract
was a local Buffalo company, Mushroom Transportation,
which had a terminal at Buffalo and whose employees
were represented by Local 375. When the Federal mail
contract was awarded to Womeldorf, therefore, Mush-
room had little work for these Local 375 members
and a number of them, therefore, were laid off. Local,
375's officials thereafter received many complaints with
regard to this from the laidoff employees of Mushroom.
As a probable result of these foregoing complaints,
sometime in the spring of 1969, Frank Campanella,
business agent of Local 375, made contact with Womel-
dorf and asked Womeldorf' s terminal manager at Roches-
ter and Womeldorf's vice president at Womeldorf's head-
quarters in Pennsylvania to hire Local 375 men whenever
Womeldorf was picking up or leaving merchandise at
various places within the jurisdictional area of Local
375. This request was refused by Womeldorf which
asserted that it already had contracts with various Team-
ster locals and therefore did not have to recognize,
bargain, or deal with Local 375. As the direct result
of this refusal, Campanella warned Womeldorf's vice
president that Womeldorf could expect picketing "or
something of that nature" whenever Womeldorf's trucks
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appeared to pick up or deliver in the jurisdictional
area of Local 375.'
It should be noted in connection with this dispute
that Local 375 supports its position by reliance on certain
terminology within the Local Cartage Supplemental
Agreement, mentioned above, which states, in substance,
under the section delineating work assignments, that
over-the-road drivers shall not be permitted to load
or unload in cities or localities where the Union exists,
it being contrary to the union rules. Womeldorf claims
that it is not bound by these contractual terms vis-
a-vis Local 375 and, furthermore, claims that the inter-
pretation of this disputed clause does not result in Wom-
eldorf's being bound thereby. We are not here concerned
with the merits of this contract dispute between Womel-
dorf and Local 375 and do not deem it necessary to
determine whether Womeldorf is bound vis-a-vis Local
375 to the terms of the foregoing agreement. The only
matter for determination here is whether in pursuit of
its dispute with Womeldorf, Local 375 approached sec-
ondary employers to whom Womeldorf was making
deliveries, or picking up merchandise, in such a manner
as to constitute unlawful inducement or encouragement
so as to constitute an unlawful secondary boycott.
B. The Secondary Activity
In furtherance of its position in the 'primary dispute,
Local 375, through Campanella , made contact with a
number of employers with whom Womeldorf did busi-
ness in the Buffalo area.
The first employer contacted by Campanella was Cle-
ment , the publisher of Reader ' s Digest . In the latter
part 'of April, Campanella came to Clement's shipping
dock, and spoke to Clement ' s supervisor of shipping,
Joseph A. Bondanza . According to Bondanza, whom
I credit , Campanella said he was there to represent
his local ; that Clement was doing business with Womel-
dorf and Womeldorf was "not a member of Campanella's
Local." Campanella said he was trying to get in contact
with Womeldorf so they could get together and do
business. Campanella further stated that if they did
not meet or come to agreement "that he would have
to picket , picket our employees ." Bondanza explained
to Campanella that Clement did not bring in the Womel-
dorf trucks ; that they came to Clement ' s premises to
pick up because Womeldorf was handling government
mail and this was the only reason that Clement used
Womeldorf . Campanella said that if Local 375 put up
a picket line he did not think anybody would cross
it but that he had respect for Clement and did not
want Clement to be hurt.
Bondanza asked what Campanella meant by picketing,
where the pickets would be stationed . Campanella stated
that they would picket out in front of the road entrance.
Campanella further explained to Bondanza that Womel-
I All the foregoing from the credited and virtually uncontroverted
testimony of Nelson H Chilcote, formerly terminal manager of Womel-
dorf's Rochester, New York, terminal , and Robert Womeldorf, vice
president and general manager of Womeldorf
dorf was hauling Clement's freight and that Womeldorf
did not have any local men on the trucks, and that,
therefore, Local 375 would picket the road entrance
when Womeldorf's truck was at Clement's dock. Bon-
danza admitted that Campanella told him that the picket-
ing would last only as long as Womeldorf's trucks were
at Clement's dock. When Bondanza asked Campanella
what the effect of a picket line would be, Campanella
stated that if they put a picket line at the Clement
entrance they would stop all trucks from coming in.
In the latter part of May an incident occurred at
the premises of Hickman, Coward & Wattles, wholesale
grocers, which company had its place of business at
a group of warehouses known as the Niagara Frontier
Food Terminal. Womeldorf trucks visited this location
to make deliveries to Hickman in the course of business.
None of the Hickman employees are represented by
Local 375.
According to Willis Coward, president of Hickman,'
on the occasion in question he heard in his office that
Womeldorf had made a second or third attempt to
deliver a shipment of merchandise to Hickman. This
was a shipment of food items from H. J. Heinz Company.
When Coward found out that the Womeldorf truck
could not get into the platform, he went outside to
find out what was the matter. Someone pointed out
Campanella to Coward. At that time Campanella was
out in the street. Coward approached him and the two
introduced themselves to each other. Coward asked
Campanella if Womeldorf's people unloaded the ship-
ment would Campanella put up a picket line. Campanella
answered "yes." Coward then inquired whether Campa-
nella intended to picket if Coward's own employees
unloaded the shipment. Again Campanella's answer was
"yes." Campanella did not describe in any way where
the picketing would occur or when it would occur or
how long the pickets would remain. However, on cross-
examination, Coward admitted that Campaella might
have explained to him that the dispute was with Womel-
dorf.
In his testimony, Campanella stated that he explained
to Coward the contract dispute that Local 375 had
with Womeldorf and told Coward that Womeldorf was
in violation of the National and Supplemental Agree-
ments; that if Womeldorf unloaded, Local 375 was going
to put up an informational picket line. Campanella admit-
ted that during this conversation Coward asked what
would happen if Hickman's own employees unloaded
the truck and Campanella told him that if the truck
was unloaded without the services of a Local 375 man
Campanella would put up a picket line. It should be
noted in connection therewith, that the record does not
reveal whether the truck was unloaded that day.
However, I find that Campanella did explain to Coward
about the primary dispute with Womeldorf but that
Campanella refused to permit Hickman's employees to
unload the truck without the use of Local 375 men.
Although Campanella's testimony with regard to this
meeting in some respects differs from Coward's, I credit
Coward's testimony.
LOCAL 375, TEAMSTERS
On occasion Womeldorf trucks come to the place
of business of Acme Markets, Inc., in Buffalo. As
in all of the instances herein, none of the employees
of Acme are represented by Local 375. On approximately
June 9, according to Howard Schneider, personnel man-
ager of Acme, he was visited in his office by Campanella.
Campanella stated that he had a small problem which
he thought Schneider could help him with. Campanella
then said that if Acme did not help him, Campanella
would put pickets at the Acme locations.
Schneider told Campanella that he did not like to
be threatened because Acme did not have any dealings
with Local 375, and, secondly, he would like to know
the problem before he was threatened with pickets.
Campanella then explained that Womeldorf was bringing
merchandise into the Acme warehouse illegally and that
Campanella would like to stop Acme from doing business
with Womeldorf. When Campanella had explained this,
Schneider said he would talk to the food buyers and
see if other arrangements could be made for getting
the merchandise into the Acme warehouse without using
Womeldorf. During the conversation, Schneider asked
Campanella how soon the pickets would be posted.
Campanella answered that they would not be put on
that day but he did say that it could happen within
the next couple of days if Acme did not cooperate.
According to Schneider, that was the end of the conver-
sation.
Campanella's version of the conversation was some-
what different. He testified that he first told Schneider
that Womeldorf was party to the National Master Freight
Agreement and also party to the New York State Agree-
ment , and that Womeldorf was in violation in the Buffalo
area in having over-the-road men unload the trucks
in Buffalo . He stated that according to the contract
Womeldorf should use local people for the unloading
service at Acme's warehouse. Then, Campanella told
Schneider that if Womeldorf did go to Acme and the
road men attempted to unload their own trucks, Local
375 would put a picket line up when Womeldorf's trucks
were being unloaded by the road driver. When Schneider
asked when the pickets would be posted, Campanella
answered that when Womeldorf was there with the
road men unloading Womeldorf's trucks, Local 375
would establish a picket line . From my observation
of the witnesses and because Schneider was in effect
not a party to the dispute between Womeldorf and
Local 375, and because Schneider's only interest was
in seeing that Acme's merchandise was delivered, I
credit Schneider over Campanella.
Another employer whose premises are visited by
Womeldorf's trucks to make pickups and deliveries is
the Pillsbury Company in Buffalo. According to Arthur
N. Rosenhahn, traffic manager for Pillsbury in Buffalo,
in the first part of June 1969, Rosenhahn received a
call at his office from the plant manager asking Rosen-
hahn if the latter knew why the Teamsters were picketing
the Pillsbury south end loading dock. Not knowing the
reason why the picketing was being conducted, Rosen-
hahn proceeded to the dock' where he saw Campanella
and three other men out in the street adjacent to the
653
loading dock. The three men with Campanella were
carrying picket signs. Rosenhahn walked over to Campa-
nella who introduced himself to Rosenhahn. Campanella
told Rosenhahn he did not want to cause any inconven-
ience but that Local 375 and Womeldorf were both
parties to the same National Agreement and Womeldorf
was violating this agreement by not employing Local
375 men to perform pickup and delivery services at
Pillsbury's plant. Campanella stated that his pickets
would remain there as long as Womeldorf's truck was
there. With that Rosenhahn went back inside, checked
with his plant people, and determined that the Womeldorf
truck was about one-third loaded at the time. According-
ly, it was decided that they would stop loading the
Womeldorf truck at that time and have Womeldorf's
truck get out. However, Womeldorf's driver would not
cross the picket line.
With that Rosenhahn went out and talked again to
Campanella and asked the latter if he would be satisfied
if the truck would leave empty or if the driver of
the Womeldorf truck would employ a Local 375 driver.
During this time they talked to the Womeldorf driver
who then made a phone call, probably to make arrange-
ments to employ a 375 driver. They finally gave up
on that because Pillsbury's employees who had evidently
been out to lunch were ready to come back to work
and Rosenhahn and the others at Pillsbury thought that
their employees would not cross the picket line. Rosen-
hahn then told Campanella that if Womeldorf did not
employ a Local 375 driver, Pillsbury would unload the
trailer and it would leave empty. Rosenhahn asked Cam-
panella if that would be satisfactory. Campanella stated
in answer that he had just been about to extend the
picket line, or transfer the picket line, to the north
end loading dock. It should be noted in connection
therewith that the north end loading dock was never
used by Womeldorf. Thereafter, without Womeldorf's
driver being able to get any specific advice from his
headquarters, Pillsbury people unloaded the truck. As
soon as Campanella was advised the truck was empty,
Campanella removed the picket line and Womeldorf's
driver left with the truck and moved out of the dock.2
It should be noted that the sign carried by the pickets
at the Pillsbury loading dock read: "Womeldorf is unfair
to Local 375."
C. Discussion and Concluding Findings
The Respondent , Local 375, contends that the only
picketing that occurred, at the south end loading dock
of Pillsbury, conformed in all respects to the Moore
Dry Dock3 standards and was free from any accompany-
ing threats or other indications that an object of the
picketing was to induce or coerce Pillsbury to cease
doing business with Womeldorf , and that , therefore,
the picketing was primary in nature and protected. The
Y I do not credit Campanella's denial that he said anything about
moving or extending the picket line to the north end dock
8 Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company),
92 NLRB 547
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charging Party, Womeldorf, contends to the contrary,
claiming that the picketing had an unlawful object as
demonstrated by the nature of business agent Campanel-
la's conduct during his conversations with the officials
of the employers heretofore mentioned
As Local 375 admits in its argument, despite the
fact that a union may carefully follow the guidelines
of Moore Dry Dock insofar as the picketing is concerned,
secondary picketing will not be saved if conversations
or other acts of the union or its representatives clearly
indicate that the object was an illegal one 4 However,
the determination of object in such cases often requires
that fine distinctions be made Thus, the picketing at
Pillsbury's dock and the accompanying conversations
must be carefully considered together and fully analyzed
It is abundantly apparent that the picketing at the
Pillsbury dock was conducted in conformity with the
Moore Dry Dock standards The picketing took place
adjacent to the dock, close to Womeldorf's truck, it
continued only for the time Womeldorf's truck was
present and the picket signs clearly advertised that the
dispute was with Womeldorf Thus, were the Moore
Dry Dock standards to be applied mechanically, it could
be concluded that the picketing, judged alone, was law-
ful
The question remains, however, whether the picketing
remains lawful when considered in the full context of
the accompanying conversation between Campanella and
Rosenhahn Campanella explained to Rosenhahn that
Local 375 and Womeldorf were parties to the national
agreement and told Rosenhahn that Womeldorf was
violating this agreement by not employing Local 375
men to perform pickup and delivery services at Pills
bury's plant Campanella stated carefully that his pickets
would remain there as long as Womeldorf's trucks were
there Thus, in this part of the conversation there was
no appeal whatsoever, or any coercive statement made,
which would indicate that the object of the picketing
was other than to advertise Local 375's dispute with
Womeldorf Then, Rosenhahn and others who manage
Pillsbury's facility decided that they would stop loading
the Womeldorf truck and have it leave the plant empty
But, Womeldorf's driver refused to cross the picket
line Thereupon, Rosenhahn again spoke to Campanella
and asked the latter if he would be satisfied if the
truck would leave empty or if the driver of the Womel-
dorf truck would employ a Local 375 driver However,
Womeldorf's driver could not induce his superiors to
permit him to hire Local 375 men for loading and unload-
ing purposes Thereupon Rosenhahn, fearing that his
own employees would not come back to work across
the picket line, asked Campanella if Pillsbury would
unload the trailer so that the truck could leave the
premises empty, would Campanella remove the pickets
This evidently satisfied Campanella who, in assenting
to this arrangement , commented that he had just been
about to extend the picket line, or transfer the picket
line, to the north end loading dock rather than the
south end loading dock where the Womeldorf truck
was located The north end loading dock, as heretofore
stated, was never used at any time by Womeldorf
Thereafter, the truck was unloaded by Pillsbury people
whereupon Campanella disbanded the picket line and
the truck left empty
I am persuaded that although there was nominal com-
pliance with the Moore Dry Dock standards, when Cam-
panella informed Rosenhahn that he was about to move
or extend the picket line to the north end loading dock
of Pillsbury's facility, which dock was used only by
Pillsbury's employees and never by Womeldorf's
employees, Campanella indicated strongly that he was
attempting to embroil the employees of Pillsbury in
the Union's dispute with Womeldorf By doing this,
Campanella displayed an intention to induce or coerce
Pillsbury's employees to refuse to perform services for
their employer with an object of forcing Pillsbury to
refuse to permit Womeldorf to make deliveries and
pickups at Pillsbury's facility, thus causing Pillsbury
to cease doing business with Womeldorf Such an object
is clearly unlawful and in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B)
of the Act I so find 5
A similar conclusion is reached with regard to the
conversation which occurred on June 9 at the premises
of Acme Markets between Howard Schneider, personnel
manager of Acme, and Campanella In that conversation,
Campanella without explaining the full situation between
Local 375 and Wolmendorf first threatened Schneider
that he would put pickets at the Acme locations if
Acme did not cooperate with Campanella as representa-
tive of Local 375 Then, upon Schneider's protests and
request for further explanation, Campanella stated that
Womeldorf was bringing merchandise into the Acme
warehouse illegally and that Campanella would like to
stop Acme from doing business with Womeldorf Thus,
the conversation as a whole constituted a threat to
picket Acme's location if Acme did not cease doing
business with Womeldorf It requires no citation of
authority to support a finding, in this instance, of a
labor organization threatening and coercing a person,
Acme, engaged in commerce, to force that person to
cease doing business with an employer engaged in com-
merce Clearly, this constitutes a violation of Section
8(b)(4)(u)(B)
In the instance of the conversation between Campanel-
la and Joseph A Bondanza, supervisor of shipping
for J W Clement Co , Campanella first explained that
he was there representing his Local and that Clement
was doing business with Womeldorf and that Womeldorf
was "not a member of Campanella's Local " Campanella
then explained that he was trying to contact Womeldorf
so that they could come to an agreement However,
Campanella then stated that if Local 375 and Womeldorf
did not come to agreement "that he would have to
picket, picket our employees "6
See Local 294 International Brotherhood of Teamsters etc (The
United Association of Journeymen etc Local No 32 AFL-CIO Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company Inc) 173 NLRB No 234
(A& B Plumbing Inc) 171 NLRB No 66 Emphasis supplied
LOCAL 375, TEAMSTERS
When Bondanza explained that Clement did not engage
Womeldorf to do its shipping but that Womeldorf was
a contractor with the United States Post Office contract-
ing to' pick up the mailed Reader's Digests published
by Clement, Campanella answered that, nevertheless,
if Womeldorf's truck came to pick up mail at Clement's
facility, Local 375 would put up a picket line which
he, Campanella, did not think anybody would cross.
He added that he had respect for Clement and did
not want Clement to be hurt. However, Campanella
further explained upon questioning by Bondanza that
the pickets would be stationed out in front of the road
entrance to Clement's premises. He did not specifically
state that the pickets would be stationed at the loading
dock, which would be the nearest place to Womeldorf's
trucks when they came to Clement's premises to pick
up Clement's merchandise. Then Campanella further
explained that Womeldorf was hauling Clement's freight
and that Womeldorf did not have any Local 375 men
on the trucks; thus, in part, explaining to Bondanza
the dispute between Womeldorf and Local 375. Addition-
ally, Campanella explained that the pickets would be
present only so long as Womeldorf's trucks remained
at Clement's premises. However, Campanella further
stated that if they put up a picket line at Clement's
entrance they would stop all trucks from coming in.
While it is possible that Bondanza did not accurately
and fully state all that traversed between himself and
Campanella, the foregoing represents, in substance, Bon-
danza's testimony. While the question of whether the
statements of Campanella as set forth represented an
attempt by Campanella to enmesh Clement in Local
375's dispute with Womeldorf is not readily answered,
I find and conclude that in the light of the other activities
of Campanella heretofore discussed that Campanella's
statements to Bondanza did not sufficiently set forth
that the threat and picketing would conform to the
Moore Dry Dock standards. Thus, Campanella did not
inform Bondanza that the picketing would occur at
the Clement dock, but rather at the Clement road
entrance which would effectively seal off the entry of
all trucks to, the Clement plant. Nor did Campanella
request that he be permitted to put the picket line
up at the dock rather than at the entrance to the Clement
premises. This is so even though the dock and not
the entrance to the Clement premises would be the
nearest place to picket the Womeldorf trucks. Moreover,
according to Bondanza's statement which I accept, Cam-
panella told Bondanza that the "employees" of Clement
would be picketed. This was a direct threat to involve
Clement's employees.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that Campanella's
threat to Bondanza, and through Bondanza to Clement,
was in violation of,Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).7
We come now to the last of the incidents, that which
occurred at the warehouse of Hickman, Coward & Wat-
tles. Here Campanella again failed to describe in any
way where the picketing would occur or when it would
' Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union 728 (Campell Coal Co.)
v N.L.R.B,249F2d512
655
occur or how long the picketing would last. Thus the
threat was a threat of picketing which would not conform
to the Moore Dry Dock standards. Moreover, when
Coward asked Campanella if the pickets would still
go up if Hickman's employees would unload the truck
themselves, Campanella's answer was in the affirmative.
This indicated that Campanella was not only seeking
to inform the public of the dispute between Local 375
and Womeldorf, but also that Local 375 would picket
to induce employees of Hickman, Coward & Wattles
to cease their work in order to force Hickman, Coward
& Wattles to cease doing business with Womeldorf."
Accordingly, I find that the threats contained in the
conversation between Campanella and Coward constitut-
ed coercion and inducement in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).1
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, and occurring in connection with the operations
set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 375 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Womeldorf, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. Clement, Hickman, Coward & Wattles; Acme; and
Pillsbury are employees engaged in commerce or in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Clement;
Hickman Coward & Wattles; Acme; and Pillsbury and
their employees with an object of forcing or requiring
the aforesaid employers to cease doing business with
Womeldorf, Inc., Respondent has engaged in and is
" Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union 728 v. N L R B , supra
" I find inapposite the cases cited by the Charging Party to support
its contention that the picketing and threats to picket in the instant
case were violative because an object was to protect the work of
Local 375 members generally. In the cited cases there were stokes
by unit employees to preserve work for union members generally.
Such theory of violation is not applicable to the situation in the case
at bar where there was no stoke by any unit employees
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in
of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act writing, within 10 days from the date of this decision,
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith i i
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional
Director for Region 3 in writing within 10 days from the date of
this Order as to what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent,
Truck Drivers, Helpers & Dockmen Local Union No
375, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chau-
ffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Inducing and encouraging employees of the Pills-
bury Company, J W Clement Company, Hickman,
Coward & Wattles, Inc , and Acme Markets, Inc to
strike or engage in a refusal in the course of their
employment to perform services where an object thereof
is to force or require the said employers to cease doing
business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other person
engaged in commerce or industry affecting commerce
(b) Threatening, coercing, or restraining said employ-
ers where an object thereof is to force them to cease
doing business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce
2 Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act
(a) Post at Respondent Local 294's business offices
and meeting halls in the Buffalo , New York, area copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix "I" Copies
of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by
Respondent Local No 375, or its representatives, shall
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including 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 mate-
nal
(b) Sign and mail copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for Region 3 for posting by Clement, Hickman,
Coward & Wattles, Acme, and Pillsbury, if they are
willing, at their Buffalo, New York, facilities
i" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify you that
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage any individ-
uals employed by J W Clement, Inc , the Pillsbury
Company, Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , or
Acme Markets, Inc , to engage in a work stoppage
or to engage in refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to refuse to handle goods with an object
of forcing or requiring the said employers to cease
doing business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other
person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting
commerce
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce J
W Clement Company, the Pillsbury Company,
Hickman, Coward & Wattles, Inc , or Acme Mar-
kets, Inc , where an object thereof is to force
or require them or any of them to cease doing
business with Womeldorf, Inc , or any other person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce
TRUCK DRIVERS,
HELPERS & DOCKMEN
LOCAL UNION No 375,
A/W INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office, fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware
Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone
(716)-842-3100