Local 456, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 1409 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

LOCAL 456, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1409
(b) Notify the'said Regional Director, in writing; within 20 days of the receipt
by the Company of a copy of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps the said Company has taken to comply therewith.16
It is further recommended that, unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respondent notify
the said Regional Director that it will comply with the foregoing Recommended
Order, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
16In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , paragraph 2(b)
thereof shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
therewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten, tell, or otherwise inform any employee that employees
may or will be laid off, discharged, or otherwise denied employment in order
to eliminate interest in, or sympathy for, any labor organization, or to prevent
selection of such organization as a collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employee with any violence against his person, or
engage in any act of violence against the person of, or assault, any employee,
because such employee is sympathetic toward, or interested in, or has engaged
in any activity in or on behalf of, any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT increase the wages or rates of pay of any employee, or offer,
promise, or extend any benefits or any changes in terms or conditions of em-
ployment of any employee in order to influence the choice of a bargaining
representative by any employee, or the attitude of any employee toward any
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join,
or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the said Act.
BROWNING INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Information regarding provisions of this notice and compliance with its terms may
be secured from the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, 90014, Telephone No. Richmond 9-4711,
Extension 1031.
Local 456, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Sid Harvey West-
chester Corp . Case No. 2-CC-770. June 21, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 19, 1963, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
142 NLRB No. 149.
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 attached Inter-
mediate Report. He further found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief. The Respondent filed no exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in the case, including the Intermediate Report and the excep-
tions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifica-
tions indicated herein.
1. We neither adopt, nor pass upon, the Trial Examiner's finding of
8('b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) violations insofar as they are based upon Re-
spondent's inducement and encouragement of employees of Rye Fuel
and Supply Company, Inc., made at Rye's premises, to refrain from
crossing Respondent's picket line at the premises of Sid Harvey West-
chester Corp. As noted by the General Counsel in his exceptions, the
complaint does not allege the inducement and encouragement of Rye's
employees to refuse to cross the picket line as a violation of the Act,
nor does the General Counsel so contend. Our conclusion that Re-
spondent Local 456 violated the Act by its conduct at Rye Fuel is
limited, therefore, to the violations alleged in the complaint, and found
by the Trial Examiner.
2. The Trial Examiner dismissed that portion of the complaint
which alleged that Respondent Local 456 had threatened, coerced, and
restrained Goyert & Co., Inc., to require it to cease doing business with
Sid Harvey in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act. The
General Counsel filed exceptions to the dismissal of this allegation.
We find merit in this exception.'
As found by the Trial Examiner, Charles Goyert, president of
Goyert & Co., Inc., credibly testified that on November 8, 1962, during
the pendency of Respondent's primary dispute with Sid Harvey, he
was told by John Wanninger, Respondent's shop steward, "Don't buy
any more parts from Sid Harvey because he was not going to install
1 We find insufficient evidence from which to conclude that Respondent also violated
Section 8(b) (4) (1) (B) by inducing and encouraging employees of Goyert to refuse to
handle parts purchased from Sid Harvey, as contended by the General Counsel. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the Trial Examiner 's dismissa l of this allegation.
LOCAL 456, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1411
them." The Trial Examiner concluded that Wanninger was not
acting in his capacity as shop steward when making the statement.
We disagree. It is undisputed that, as shop steward, Wanninger was
the agent of Respondent at Goyert and that he was the person with
whom contractual disputes were raised and resolved. Further, the
position expressed in his statement was consistent with that expressed
by the steward at Rye Fuel and later confirmed by Calabrese, Re-
pondent's secretary-treasurer. Moreover, there is no suggestion in
Wanninger's statement that it constituted the expression of personal
predilections rather than Respondent's current policy. Indeed, the
statement itself belies that interpretation, containing, as it does, an
explicit admonition against the purchase of parts from Sid Harvey.
Upon a consideration of all the factors involved, we find that Wan-
ninger's instructions not to purchase Harvey parts constituted a threat
that Goyert employees would not handle them, the object being to re-
quire Goyert to cease doing business with Sid Harvey. By this con-
duct, therefore, we find that Respondent committed an additional
violation of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act, as alleged in the com-
plaint and urged by the General Counsel?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sid Harvey Westchester Corp, is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act. Rye Fuel and Supply Company,
Inc., and Charles J. Goyert & Co., Inc., are employers engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Rye Fuel and Supply
Company, Inc., to refuse, in the course of their employment to handle
and install parts sold by Sid Harvey Westchester Corp. with an object
of forcing or requiring Rye Fuel to cease doing business with Sid
Harvey, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Sections 8 (b) (4) (i) (B) and 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. By threatening, coercing, and restraining Rye Fuel and Supply
Company, Inc., and Charles J. Goyert & Co., Inc., with an object of
forcing or requiring them to cease doing business with Sid Harvey
Westchester Corp., Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
2Local Union 825, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Nichols
Electric Company), 138 NLRB 540 ; highway Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local No. 107,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehomsemen and Helpers of
America, Independent (Rtiss & Company, Inc ), 130 NLRB 943, 948, enfd . 300 F. lid 317
(C.A 3).
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (ii) (B)
and 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not induce and encourage employees of Charles
J. Goyert & Co., Inc., in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) ( B) of the
Act.
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 Respondent, Local 456, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, its officers, agents, representatives, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Inducing or encouraging individuals employed by Rye Fuel
and Supply Company, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse in the course of their
employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise
handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or
to perform any services; or threatening, coercing, or restraining Rye
Fuel and Supply Company, Inc., Charles J. Goyert & Co., Inc., or
any other person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce; where, in either case, an object thereof is to force or re-
quire Rye Fuel and Supply Company, Inc., Charles J. Goyert & Co.,
Inc., or any other employer or person, to cease doing business with
Sid Harvey Westchester Corp.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in Respondent's business offices and meeting halls, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall,
after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the Regional
Director for the Second Region for posting, by each of the employers
named in the preceding paragraphs who are willing, at all places
where notices to their respective employees are customarily posted.
a 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."
LOCAL 456, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1413
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 456, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARET-IOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Rye Fuel and
Supply Company, Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse in the course of
their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, or
commodities, or to perform any services; nor will we threaten,
coerce , and restrain Rye Fuel and Supply Company, Inc., Charles
J. Goyert & Co., Inc., or any other person engaged in commerce,
or in an industry affecting commerce; where, in either case, an ob-
ject is to force or require Rye Fuel and Supply Company, Inc.,
Charles J. Goyert & Co., Inc., or any other employer or person, to
cease doing business with Sid Harvey Westchester Corp.
LOCAL 456, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
Members may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Fifth Floor, Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York, 10022, Telephone No. Plaza 1-5500, if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on November 16, 1962, by Sid Harvey Westchester Corp.,
hereinafter referred to as Sid Harvey, the complaint herein was issued on Decem-
ber 21, 1962 . It is alleged that Local 456, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , hereinafter referred to as the
Respondent or the Union , engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(ii)(B) of the Act. Respondent, by its answer which was amended during the
course of the hearing,' denied that it committed the unfair labor practices alleged.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert in New York, New
York, on January 30, 1962, at which all parties were represented by counsel. With
the exception of the testimony before me of one witness called by General Counsel,
all of the evidence to be considered herein is contained in a joint exhibit of all the
parties. The exhibit consists of a transcript of the proceedings in the District Court
of the Southern District of New York on December 21 and 28, 1962, on a petition of
the Regional Director of the Second Region for a temporary injunction against the
Union under Section 10(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Only
the General Counsel filed a brief, although the Trial Examiner granted, as requested,
the maximum time of 35 days for the filing of briefs.
Upon consideration of the entire record, of the demeanor of the witness who
testified before me, and of General Counsel's brief, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED
(A) Sid Harvey, a New York corporation, is a wholesaler engaged in the sale and
distribution of heating and oil burner parts and related products. It maintains its
principal office and place of business in Mount Vernon, New York, and an addi-
tional place of business in Poughkeepsie, New York. During the year ending
March 31, 1962, a representative period, Respondent had an inflow from States
other than New York of goods and materials of a value in excess of $50,000, of
which in excess of $43,000 was received at its place of business directly from said
States and in excess of $7,000 was received indirectly therefrom.
(B) Rye Fuel and Supply Company, Inc, a New York corporation, hereinafter re-
ferred to as Rye Fuel, is a retailer engaged in the sale and distribution of fuel oil
and the servicing of oil burners with its principal office and place of business in
Rye, New York. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, a
representative period, Rye Fuel derived an income in excess of $500,000 from its
said business, and received indirectly from States other than New York goods and
materials of a value in excess of $50,000.
(C) Charles J. Goyert & Co., Inc., a New York corporation, hereinafter referred
to as Goyert, is a retailer engaged in the sale and distribution of fuel oil and servicing
of oil burners, with its principal office and place of business in White Plains, New
York. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint herein Goyert sold
and distributed products valued in excess of $200,000.
As is admitted by Respondent, Sid Harvey and Rye Fuel are employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) and 8(b)(4) of the Act
and all three of the above-mentioned corporations are persons engaged in an in-
dustry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(1) and 8(b)(4) of the
Act N.L R B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, 371 U.S. 224; S. M. Kisner, et al.,
Partners, d/b/a S. M. Kisner and Sons, 131 NLRB 1196.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by it, Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
For a substantial period of time immediately preceding November 1962, Rye Fuel
and Goyert regularly purchased oil burner parts and other materials from Sid Harvey.
Commencing in October 1962, Respondent engaged in collective bargaining with
Sid Harvey for a contract covering Sid Harvey's employees and in connection there-
with made certain demands upon it. In support of said demands Respondent, since
on or about October 17, 1962, has engaged in a strike against Sid Harvey and has
picketed its premises. Sometime during the early part of November 1962, Goyert
and Rye Fuel ceased buying any parts or other materials from Sid Harvey.
A. Testimony with regard to Goyert
Charles J. Goyert, president of Goyert, testified, without contradiction, to the
following effect:
A In accordance with a stipulation the Respondent amended its answer to admit all of
the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of the complaint.
LOdAL 456, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1415
That Goyert employs two servicemen, two drivers and an installation man, all
of whom are represented by Respondent; that John W. Wanninger is the shop
steward; that on or about November 8, 1962, he had a conversation with Wan-
ninger in which Wammnger "said `Don't buy any more parts from Sid Harvey
because' he was not going to install them"; that he replied "O.K." and instructed
the parts man "not to buy any more" parts from Sid Harvey; that Wanninger
was his "main man"; and that the other people in the service department made no
statement to the effect that they would not install Sid Harvey parts.
B. Testimony with regard to Rye Fuel
Harold E. Whiting, vice president and service manager of Rye Fuel, testified,
without contradiction, to the following effect:
That Respondent represents the drivers and servicemen of Rye Fuel; that
Leonard Sabia is the shop steward; that, late in October or early in November
1962, he overheard Sabia state to a group of eight or ten drivers and servicemen
that they "were not supposed to cross the picket lines at Sid Harvey"; that there-
after Sabia said to him (Whiting) that he "wasn't supposed to have crossed the
picket lines either"; that as service manager it was his practice to go to Sid
Harvey's plant for parts; that after Sabia's statement to him he made no further
visits to Sid Harvey, although there were occasions when he needed parts; that
in a subsequent conversation with Sabia, approximately a week later, Sabia
told him that Rye Fuel was not "supposed" to receive parts from Sid Harvey
either through Sid Harvey salesmen or via the mail; and that after the second
conversation with Sabia he stopped ordering parts from Sid Harvey.
The testimony of Wilbur W. Couch, vice president of Rye Fuel (whose testimony is
included in the joint exhibit and who also testified before me), was to the following
effect:
That problems pertaining to the contract with Respondent or its administra-
tion are discussed with Sabia and "practically always" adjusted with him; that,
having been led to believe that the servicemen would not install Sid Harvey parts
already in Rye Fuel's stock, he placed a telephone call to Peter Calabrese,
secretary-treasurer of the Respondent, the individual with whom they resolved
matters which could not be resolved at the "shop steward level"; that in the
resulting telephone conversation with Calabrese on November 19, he "protested
to Mr. Calabrese that the men were not to be allowed to handle any Sid Harvey
parts including those . . . in stock"; and that Calabrese replied that "it was all
right to use the parts but I had better not attempt to get any others by any
means"; that this conversation was the first time he had spoken to Calabrese about
the Sid Harvey matter; and that Rye Fuel had ceased buying parts from Sid
Harvey prior thereto.
Calabrese (who did not testify before me, but whose testimony appears in the joint
exhibit) testified that he did have a conversation with Couch on November 19, but
that it was limited solely to Couch asking "if it was all right for the men [Rye Fuel
employees] to use the Sid Harvey parts they had in stock" and his answer, "By all
means, you can use the parts." He also testified as to the duties and authority of shop
stewards. At first he stated that they were "just to report [apparently to the em-
ployees in their unit] any special activity at a shop steward's meeting, that is all."
When questioned as to what duties they performed in the shop he admitted that they
do adjust minor disagreements with the "boss," but insisted that "mostly everything"
was referred to him (Calabrese).
I credit Couch's testimony as to the duties which Sabia performed as shop steward
at Rye Fuel and as to the contents of his (Couch's) conversation with Calabrese.
I was impressed by Couch's demeanor before me, and his testimony, both in content
and manner of delivery, was forthright and candid. On the other hand, it appears
from the content of Calabrese's testimony that he was somewhat evasive on cross-
examination and reluctantly altered his testimony as to the duties of shop stewards.
Remo M. Lombardi, president of Rye Fuel, testified, without contradiction, that on
November 23, 1962, in his presence a Board attorney read a statement to Sabia which
the attorney had prepared from information given to him by Sabia; that Sabia made
"very minor changes"; and that thereafter Sabia stated, "This [the statement as cor-
rected] is what I said . . . I won't sign it but this is what I would be glad to testify
to in court." The statement, as corrected, was received into evidence by the District
Court and is part of the joint exhibit. Incorporated in the statement is the following:
"I told some of the servicemen, let's not use any Sid Harvey parts at all until the
strike is over. If we have any left over then, we can always use them." According to
712-548-64-vol. 142-91
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the statement , he said this to them on November 16, 1962 . Counsel for Respondent
made no objection to the receipt of the statement in evidence or the admissibility of
Lombardi's testimony with regard thereto.2 Even though Calabrese, in his conversa-
tion with Couch on November 19, in effect countermanded the position stated by
Sabia insofar as it applied to parts already in stock , the position was not counter-
manded with respect to parts which might be subsequently purchased. As a matter
of fact, as I have found, Calabrese stated that Rye Fuel had "better not attempt" to
purchase further parts.
C. Concluding findings
It is alleged in paragraph 10(a) of the complaint as follows:
10. (a) In or about the first week of November 1962, Respondent, by request,
appeals, orders and instructions, induced and encouraged individuals employed
by Goyert to engage in a strike and a refusal in the course of their employment
to use, process, transport and otherwise handle and work on goods, articles,
materials and commodities , and to perform services for their employer.
It is further alleged in paragraph 11(a) :
11. (a) On or about November 8, 1962, Respondent by its agent John
Wanninger, threatened Goyert that it would instruct employees of Goyert not to
use, handle or install oil burner parts purchased by Goyert from Sid Harvey, un-
less Goyert ceased any further purchase of parts from Sid Harvey.
General Counsel relies upon the testimony of Charles Goyert regarding the
statement made to him by Wanninger (not to order any more parts from Sid
Harvey because he was not going to install them) as proof of the above allegations
.of unfair labor practices. Although Wanninger was the shop steward, I am not
satisfied that it is appropriate to inter that he was transmitting a policy or position
of the Union, or was speaking as its agent . The reason he gave to Charles Goyert
for not ordering parts was that he would not install them. From this I infer that
he was merely stating his position as an individual and was not acting in his capacity
as shop steward. There is no evidence that he attempted to induce the other
employees to adopt this position, or that he was induced by the Union to take such
a position.
Had Wanninger been only one of many servicemen in Goyert's employ, it might
be appropriate to infer that his statement not to order any more parts could
be construed as an indication that the Respondent had directly, or indirectly through
him, induced Goyert's employees not to install parts ordered from Sid Harvey, or
as a threat that the Union might take some retaliatory action if further parts were
purchased. However, Charles Goyert testified that Goyert had in its employ only
two servicemen and an installation man and that Wanninger was its "main man "
This, coupled with the reason Wanninger gave for not ordering the parts, leads
me to conclude that it would not be appropriate to infer anything more than that
'Wanninger was stating his position as an individual employee.3
Therefore, I do not believe that General Counsel has sustained the burden of
,proof as to the allegations of unfair labor practices set forth in paragraphs 10(a)
and 11(a) of the complaint. In any event, even if I were to come to the opposite
,conclusion, it would not alter the remedy which I will recommend.
It is alleged in paragraph 10(b) of the complaint as follows:
10. (b) On or about November 16, 1962, Respondent by requests, appeals,
orders and instructions of its agent Leonard Sabia induced and encouraged
individuals employed by Rye Fuel to engage in a strike and a refusal in the
course of their employment to use, process, transport and otherwise handle
and work on goods, articles, materials and commodities, and to perform
services for their employer.
It is further alleged in paragraph 11(b) :
2 Even if there were an objection as to the hearsay nature of Lombardi 's testimony, I
am of the opinion that the testimony would be admissible as an exception to the hearsay
rule, since it was with respect to an admission against interest , in view of Sabia's position
as a steward I believe it reasonable to infer that in speaking to the servicemen he was
acting in his capacity as shop steward.
3I find no merit in General Counsel's argument that there was a similarity in the
conduct of Wanninger and Sabia ( whose actions are discussed hereinbelow ) and that an
inference should be drawn therefrom that both were acting under direction of officials
.of Respondent.
LOCAL 456, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1417
11. (b) On or about November 16, 1962, Respondent, by its agent Leonard
Sabia, and on or about November 19, 1962, Respondent, by its Secretary-
Treasurer Peter Calabrese, threatened Rye Fuel that it would instruct em-
ployees of Rye Fuel not to use, handle or install oil burner parts purchased
by Rye Fuel from Sid Harvey, unless Rye Fuel ceased any further purchase of
parts from Sid Harvey.
It is, in my opinion, appropriate to conclude that Respondent is responsible for
Sabia's statements (described hereinabove) to the employees of Rye Fuel and to
Whiting, Rye Fuel's vice president. Sabia, as the shop steward, customarily repre-
sented the Respondent in adjusting with Rye Fuel matters involving the administra-
tion of Respondent's contract with Rye Fuel, and he also had the duty, as Calabrese
testified, of transmitting to the employees in his unit word of action taken at
meetings of the shop stewards (apparently with officials of Respondent). Under
the circumstances I believe that the Rye Fuel employees and Whiting could reason-
ably have concluded that in making the statements Sabia was acting within the
scope of his authority as an agent of Respondent. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local
Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Genuine Parts Company), 119 NLRB
399,415-417.
Sabia's statements to the Rye Fuel employees (that they were "not supposed to
cross the picket lines" at Sid Harvey's premises and that they not install parts
purchased from Sid Harvey) constituted inducement and encouragement within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) (B) of the Act and coercion and restraint within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(u)(B) of the Act. Rye Fuel had no dispute with
Respondent and clearly the object of Sabia's statements was to force or require
Rye Fuel to cease doing business with Sid Harvey.
Sabia also told Whiting that he was "not supposed to cross the picket lines
either," and that Rye Fuel was not "supposed" to obtain parts from Sid Harvey
by other means. The words "not supposed to" are generally used to indicate a
failure to act in conformity with conduct which has been prescribed. Since Sabia
was the shop steward, it would appear reasonable to conclude that by his stating to
the employees and Whiting that they were not supposed to cross the picket lines and
to Whiting that Rye Fuel was not supposed to obtain parts from Sid Harvey by other
means he was indicating the line of conduct prescribed by Respondent. Therefore,
I believe that Whiting and the employees whose duties required them to pick up
parts or other materials from Sid Harvey reasonably could have understood that
the Union was taking the position that they were not to enter the premises of Sid
Harvey for such purpose. It would also appear reasonable for Whiting to conclude
that obtaining parts from Sid Harvey by any means might bring retaliatory action.
Similarly, the threat of retaliatory action was also indicated in the statement which
Calabrese made to Couch (that he had "better not attempt" to get parts from Sid
Harvey). The words "better not attempt" are commonly used as a threat and in
the context which they were used by Calabrese, it was reasonable for Couch to
conclude that, if he failed to comply, the Union might retaliate. Clearly the object
of the above threats by Sabia and Calabrese was to force or require Rye Fuel to
cease doing business with Sid Harvey within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (ii) (B)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, which I have found
to be violative of the Act, occurring in connection with the operations of Sid Harvey
and Rye Fuel, described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sid Harvey and Rye Fuel are employers engaged in commerce and in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By inducing and encouraging those employees of Rye Fuel whose duties
required them to enter the premises of Sid Harvey not to cross the picket lines.
at said premises and by inducing and encouraging those employees whose duties.
required them to install heating parts not to install parts purchased from Sid Harvey
with the object of forcing and requiring Rye Fuel to cease doing business with Sid
Harvey, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) of the Act.
4. By the above conduct and by implying that retaliatory action might be taken,
should Rye Fuel do business with Sid Harvey, Respondent threatened, coerced, and
restrained Rye Fuel with the object of forcing and requiring it to cease doing busi-
ness with Sid Harvey in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act.
5. General Counsel has failed to sustain the allegations of unfair labor practices
in paragraphs 10(a) and 11(a) of the complaint.
[Recommended order omitted from publication.]
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 113, AFL-CIO and I.C.G. Electric, Inc.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. 113, AFL-CIO and I.C.G. Electric, Inc. Cases Nos. 07-CC-
90 and 27-OP-8. June 21, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 10, 1962, Trial E xaminer Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port 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 considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in these
cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.'
Upon the basis of all the evidence detailed in the Intermediate Re-
port, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that an object of Respond-
ent's picketing at the three construction projects involved was to force
or require ICG to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the
collective-bargaining representative of ICG's employees. Our dis-
senting colleague apparently assumes that we view the picketing which
1 No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent's picket-
ing at the two Davis-Becker construction projects in April 1962 did not violate Section
8(b) (4) (B ) of the Act. Accordingly, Members Rodgers and Leedom adopt such finding
pro forma.
142 NLRB No. 145,.