Local Union No. 551, Teamsters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 801 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LOCAL UNION NO. 551, TEAMSTERS
Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, Ind. and Dravo Corporation, As
Sponsor Dworshak Dam Constructors. Case
19-CC-393
June 19, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On March 19, 1969, Trial Examiner Herman
Corenman issued his Decision 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 attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Local Union
No. 551, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Ind. Orofino, Idaho, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: This case, with
all parties represented , was heard in Moscow , Idaho, on
November 25 and 26, 1968, on complaint of the General
Counsel and answer of Local Union No. 551,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., herein called
Respondent or Local 551. The complaint was issued on
September 25, 1968 , on charges and amended charges
801
filed and served on August 21 and 23 and September 24,
1968, by Dravo Corporation, As Sponsor Dworshak Dam
Constructors, herein called Dworshak Dam Constructors
or DDC. The complaint alleges that the Respondent by
threats to picket the construction site of Dworshak Dam
Constructors thereby committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
referred to as the Act. The Respondent's answer asserts
that its conduct was lawful primary activity directed to
Dworshak Dam Constructors and did not violate section
8(b)(4Xi) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to produce
evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The
General Counsel, Respondent, and Dworshak Dam
Constructors have filed briefs with me and they have been
carefully considered. Upon the entire record, including
briefs, and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF DWORSHAK DAM CONSTRUCTORS
It is established by the pleadings, and I find, that
Dworshak Dam Constructors (herein referred to as DDC)
with its office at Orofino, Idaho, is a joint venture
composed of Dravo Corporation, as sponsor; S. J. Groves
and Sons Company; C. H. Leavell and Company; D K C
Constructors; and Fishback & Moore, and is engaged in
the construction of the Dworshak Dam on the Clearwater
River near Ahsahka, Idaho, pursuant to contract with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers. During the past
year, in the operation of its business Dworshak Dam
Constructors purchased and received for use at the
Dworshak Dam, goods and materials from outside the
State of Idaho valued in excess of $50,000.
I find that Dworshak Dam Constructors is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent , Local Union No. 551, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Issues
The Respondent admits that it threatened to picket
Dworshak Dam Constructors but contends that its threat
to picket grew out of a primary dispute with Dworshak
Dam Constructors. The General Counsel contends,
however, that Dworshak Dam Constructors is a secondary
employer and that the Respondent's primary dispute is
with a motor carrier named Railroad and Yellowstone
Division of Consolidated Freightways Corporation of
Delaware, herein referred to as Consolidated Freightways.
The issue, therefore, is whether Dworshak Dam
Constructors is a primary or secondary employer within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4XB); if primary the threat to
picket does not violate 8(b)(4XiiXB); if secondary the
threat to picket violates 8(b)(4XiiXB).
176 NLRB No. 109
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Preliminary Statement
The chronicle of facts and circumstances preceding the
dispute which resulted in the Respondent ' s threat to picket
Dworshak Dam Constructors are as follows:
Dworshak Dam Constructors is the prime contractor,
pursuant to agreement with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers for the construction of a concrete
dam, located about 2 1 /2 miles from Ahsahka , Idaho.
Among other things , large quantities of cement and fly
ash will be required to build the dam during the next 3 or
4 years.
In August 1966 , Dworshak Dam Constructors
submitted purchase orders for cement to Lehigh Cement
Company and to Ideal Cement Company , to be delivered
by railroad F.O.B. to the Northern Pacific rail terminal at
Ahsahka , Idaho . In July 1967 , many months before
shipments of cement were made , the purchase price of the
cement was renegotiated F.O.B. the batch plant on the
dam construction site instead of the rail terminal at
Ahsahka . This renegotiation of the purchase price was
done by Dworshak Dam Constructors so as to avoid
demurrage charges from loaded railroad cars remaining
on the railroad tract at the Ahsahka terminal. Since the
rail terminal at Ahsahka was approximately 2 1/10 miles
from the batch plant at the dam construction site, the
railroad made arrangements with a motor carrier,
Southeast Enterprises , Inc., d . b.a, F & B Trucking , herein
called F & B Trucking , to complete the final leg of the
haul by motortruck from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the
cement receiving hoppers at the batch and mix plant on
the dam construction site.
To meet the needs of the project , DDC negotiated for
and agreed to pay $21,131 to the railroad as part of the
cost of building additional rail siding at the Ahsahka
terminal to accommodate the railway cars . In order to
fulfill its obligation to transport and deliver the cement
and fly ash from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the hoppers
at the batch mix plant , F & B Trucking erected three silos
and a conveyor system at the railroad siding for the
purpose of unloading the cement and fly ash from the
railroad cars to the silos and again from the silos to their
trucks , which would then travel the 2 1 / 10 miles over
public roads and Indian land to the project site and by
private road in the project to the batch mix plant where
the cement or fly ash would be unloaded into the batch
mix plant . The empty truck and driver would then return
to the Ahsahka rail terminal for another load. F & B
Trucking entered into a compliance agreement with Local
551 on March 22, 1968 , agreeing to be bound by the AGC
construction agreement with the Teamsters to which DDC
was a party.
F & B Trucking began hauling the cement and fly ash
in March until July 1968 , when it made arrangements
with the Northern Pacific Railroad to be relieved of its
obligation because of financial difficulties.
DDC purchased from F & B Trucking the silos and
loading and unloading conveyor system as well as
miscellaneous equipment at the Ahsahka rail terminal
which had been used by F & B Trucking in connection
with the cement haul, for $ 103,000.
In July 1968 , DDC representatives invited
Consolidated Freightway representatives to look over the
cement haul previously performed by F & B Trucking to
determine if they would be interested in taking over the
haul' and acquiring by purchase or lease the Ahsahka
loading facilities . Consolidated Freightways workers
agreed with the Northern Pacific Railroad on a division of
the freight rate between the two carriers and the tariff
bureaus duly published the rates . Pursuant to an
understanding between DDC and Consolidated
Freightways , the silos and loading facilities at the railroad
siding were to be sold or leased to , and placed under the
control of Consolidated Freightways . Consolidated
Freightways is modifying the loading equipment at the
railroad terminal at its own expense.
Such mechanical repairs as DDC personnel performed
on the conveyor equipment at the railroad siding have
been charged by DDC to Consolidated Freightways. There
is no arrangement between DDC and Consolidated
Freightways in connection with the revenue to be received
by Consolidated Freightways for the transportation of the
cement and fly ash from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the
batch plant or the project site . Inasmuch as the cement is
purchased F.O.B. the batch plant at the DDC project site,
the freight for such combination rail and truck
transportation is paid by the Ideal and Lehigh Cement
Companies to the Northern Pacific Railroad which in turn
divides the freight revenue with Consolidated Freightways
in accordance with their agreement for such division of
revenue.
Consolidated Freightways , with other motor carriers, is
a party to the Teamsters National Master Freight
Agreement, as supplemented by the Western States Area
Master Agreement and the Washington and Northern
Idaho Bulk Commodities Supplemental Agreement. The
Respondent , Local 551, as well as other locals is also
party to such agreements . At the request of Mr . Bateman,
a representative of Local 551 , a meeting was held at the
Union ' s office in Lewiston , Idaho , on or about August 7,
1968. Present at the meeting were Local 551
Representatives Byers and Bateman , and Consolidated
Freightways Representatives Dickman, Lindner, and
Walker. At this meeting , Consolidated Freightways
representatives pointed out that they were parties to the
Teamsters agreements mentioned above . Local 551
representative Byers insisted that Consolidated
Freightways would have to sign a compliance agreement,
agreeing to be bound by the AGC construction agreement,
to which DDC was signatory , in order to engage in the
cement haul from the Ahsahka rail terminal to the batch
plant at the dam site . The Consolidated Freightways
representatives refused to sign the proffered AGC
compliance agreement contending that they were already
covered by the Teamsters Master Freight Agreement and
its supplements.'
On August 12, 1968, Local 551 sent DDC a telegram
reading as follows:
THIS WILL SERVE AS TWO CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS
NOTICE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4 SECTION ONE OF THE
HEC [sIC] TEAMSTERS COLLECTIVE AXXXX [SIC]
BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT YOU ARE NOT COMPLYING
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4 OF SUCH
AGREEMENT
THE CEMENT HAUL HAS IN THE PAST BEEN OPERATED
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGC-TEAMSTER COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT ANY PERSON PERFORMING THE
CEMTN [SIC] HAUL IS A SUB CONTRACTOR [SIC] WITHIN
'It is common practice for a large shipper to solicit quotes from a
common carrier on volume movement.
'The wage rates and fringes of the freight agreement supplements were
not as generous as the AGC construction agreement , which also contained
an exclusive hiring hall clause
LOCAL UNION NO . 551, TEAMSTERS 803
THE MEANING OF ARTICL [SIC] 2 SECTION 3 OF SUCH
AGREEMENT ANS [SIC] AS SUCH MUST COMPLY WITH
ARTICLE 4 OF THE AGC-TEAMSTER COLLECTIVE GXX
[SIC] BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WE INTEND TO PRESERVE THE WORK OF THE
BARGAINING UNIT AND OF [SIC] THE VIOLATION IS NOT
CORRECTED WITHIN THE NEST [SIC] TWO C [SIC]
CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS WE WILL TAKE ECONOMIC
ACTION CIPIES [SIC] TO ASSOCIATED GNERAL [SIC]
CONTRACTORS AND BUILDING RRADES [SIC]
Article IV, section 1, of the AGC construction
agreement is a union security and hiring hall clause
requiring employees to become members within 9 days
following the date of employment and an exclusive hiring
hall clause requiring union referral of employees.
Article II, section 3, of the AGC construction contract
provides as follows:
Section 3. (A) No contractor or joint venture covered
by the terms and conditions of this agreement shall
subcontract any work to a subcontractor or employer
who is not signatory to or willing to sign this Labor
Agreement.
When a proposed subcontractor or Employer is not
signatory to this Labor Agreement, there shall be a
pre-job conference between the Union, the Contractor
and the proposed subcontractor. Agreement between
these parties regarding this article must be reached
before the proposed subcontractor performs any work
on the project.
A subcontractor is a firm that takes over all or part of
the work to be performed in the completion of the job
on the jobsite or as specified below.
It is expressly understood and agreed by all parties
hereto when operations such as quarries, gravel, sand
and gravel plants, ready-mix concrete or batch plants or
any other operations are established by a contractor,
subcontractor, individual or firm and such process is
located off the immediate site of the construction
project but is established virtually exclusively to meet
the needs of the contract or a series of contracts of an
integrated project rather than to serve the public
generally, the prime contractor covered by this
agreement shall be required to see that the terms and
conditions of this labor agreement are complied with.
(B) When equipment hired, rented, or leased is used
on any job, the driver operating the equipment shall be
an employee on the payroll of the contractor and come
under all legally enforceable terms and conditions of
this agreement , including Schedule "A", if not
otherwise covered by this agreement. Owner operators
will not be on a hiring hall list or subject to the hiring
procedures.
On the afternoon of August 14, 1968, Local 551
representatives Byers and Bateman met with DDC
representatives Roberts and Campbell at the DDC project
office at Orofino, Idaho. The August 12 telegram was
discussed. Local 551 representatives took the position that
Consolidated Freightways was a DDC subcontractor, and
that unless Consolidated Freightways signed the
agreement and the Montana drivers were removed, Local
551 would picket the main gate of the DDC project and
shut down the job. According to the testimony of Roberts,
Byers stated "he wanted to protect his hiring hall practice.
. that he would `want the drivers working out of Local
551 to operate the trucks and he was attempting to
eliminate the Billings [Montana] drivers.' " Roberts told
Byers this would be no problem and in Byers' presence,
phoned Mr. Morris Lindner, division manager for
Consolidated Freightways at Billings. Roberts put Byers
on the phone to talk to Lindner about the hiring hall
problem, but once on the phone, Byers made it clear to
Lindner that Consolidated Freightways would have to
work under the AGC construction agreement with its
more liberal wages and fringe as well as its hiring hall,
and not the Teamsters bulk commodities agreement. A
meeting was then set up for the following afternoon,
August 15, 1968, at DDC's office. Attending this meeting
were Byers and Bateman for Local 551, Campbell and
Roberts for DDC, and Lindner of Consolidated
Freightways with his attorney, Mr. Jerome Anderson.
Byers took pains to point out that his conversation was
only with the DDC representatives and not with
Consolidated Freightways. Byers presented a compliance
agreement (agreeing to be bound by the AGC construction
agreement) to the DDC representatives and told them to
have Consolidated Freightways sign such compliance
agreement.
During this three-cornered conversation, Consolidated
Freightways' attorney, Jerome Anderson, took the
position that Consolidated Freightways was a common
carrier and, therefore, not allowed by law to be a
subcontractor, and that it could perform its service only as
a common carrier under a published tariff.
After a short recess, the parties resumed their meeting
and it was orally agreed that as a temporary stopgap
measure, DDC would furnish its own drivers to man the
Consolidated Freightways trucks in the cement haul from
the Ahsahka rail terminal to the project batch mix plant
until the dispute could be resolved by labor board
proceedings or other means. In the meantime, Local 551
agreed it would not picket as long as DDC drivers were
used. Accordingly, beginning August 16, 1968, DDC
employees operating Consolidated Freightways trucks
manned the cement haul operations until November 7,
1968,' but under the supervision of the Consolidated
Freightways operation manager. In the meanwhile, DDC
was reimbursed by Consolidated Freightways for its
additional wage costs in manning the cement haul. On
November 7, 1968, following the stipulation in the U.S.
District Court, the cement haul was undertaken by
Consolidated Freightways with its own drivers, and at the
time of the hearing, still were continuing pursuant to
Consolidated Freightways' collective-bargaining
obligations under the Teamsters National Master Freight
Agreement and the supplemental bulk commodities
agreement, to which Local 551 and Consolidated
Freightways are parties.
Discussion of the Issues
Local 551 takes the position that its threat to picket
DDC and shut down the job was primary action to
enforce section 3(A) of its AGC collective-bargaining
agreement with DDC.
The contention of Respondent Union may, in my
opinion, prevail only if its threats to picket DDC can be
'On November 1, 1968, in the 10 proceedings before the U.S. District
Court, by Stipulation , Local 551, without conceding that it had violated
the Act, agreed not to picket DDC for the object of forcing DDC to cease
doing business with Consolidated Freightways , or to enforce art. II, sec. 3,
of its agreement with DDC, during proceeding of this matter before the
Board.
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
held for the object of preserving work traditionally
performed by DDC employees in accordance with
principles set forth by the Court in National Woodwork
Manufacturers Association v. N.L.R. B., 386 U.S. 612,
Houston Insulation Contractors Association v. N.L.R.B.,
386 U . S. 664.
It is clear that if Respondent 's threat to picket DDC
and shut down the job under the circumstances present,
was not to preserve work traditionally performed by DDC
employees , it is reasonable to infer , that a foreseeable
object of such action would be to force a disruption and
cessation of business between DDC, Consolidated
Freightways , the cement suppliers , and the railroad. The
complaint does not allege that article II, section 3(A), of
the AGC contract agreement is violative of Section 8(e) of
the Act; its language is permitted by the construction
proviso ' to Section 8(e) of the Act.
But two considerations operate to place the Union's
action here within the proscription of Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Initially, it should be noted that for the
Section 8(e) agreement to be validly applied under the
"construction proviso ," it must be for work to be
performed at the "construction site ." In this case the
cement haul performed by Consolidated Freightways'
employees amounted to no more than the transportation
of dry cement and fly ash from the Ahsahka rail terminal
to the DDC batch mix plant . Consolidated Freightways'
function was that of a common carrier completing the last
leg of a journey by rail and motortruck to the batch mix
plant on the construction site . Neither Consolidated
Freightways nor its employees engaged in on-site
construction.
There is even greater reason for holding Consolidated
Feightways' activities not to be within the coverage of the
construction proviso to Section 8 (e) than existed in
Teamsters Local 294 (Island Dock Lumber, Inc.), 145
NLRB 484 , enfd . 342 F.2d 18 (C .A. 2), or Drivers, Local
695 (Madison Employers ' Council), 152 NLRB 577, enfd.
361 F.2d 547, 552 (C.A.D.C.), where both the Board and
the two Courts of Appeals held that the activities of
ready-mix drivers in delivering ready-mix concrete on the
construction site were not engaged in on -site construction
work . In the instant case , the activity of the Consolidated
Freightways' drivers at the dam site construction project
were more minimal ' than the drivers' activities in
delivering ready-mix concrete in Island Dock Lumber,
Inc., or Madison Employers ' Council, supra. But,
conceding arguendo, although I find to the contrary, that
the work of Consolidated Freightways ' drivers was, .on-site construction" within the meaning of the
construction proviso of Section 8 (e), that hypothesis also
is of no avail to the Respondent Union as a defense to
their threat to picket DDC and shut down the job. A valid
Section 8(e) clause within the construction proviso may be
voluntarily complied with by the employer but it may not
be enforced by economic action or threats thereof by a
labor organization for objects within the meaning of
Section 8(b)(4)(iiXB). Northeastern Indiana Building and
Construction Trades Council (Centlivre Village
Apartments ), 148 NLRB 854. Local 513, Operating
Engineers (Zeni-McKinney- Williams Corporation). 163
-117-constructiontion proviso to Sec. 8 (e) provides as follows:
Provided. That nothing in this subsection (e) shall apply to an agreement
between a labor organization and an employer in the construction
industry relating to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done
at the site of the construction, alteration , painting , or repair of a
building , structure , or other work.
NLRB No. 38; IBEW (Ets-Hokin Corporation , Etc.), 154
NLRB 839, enfd . 405 F . 2d 159 (C.A. 9); N.L.R.B. v.
Muskegon Bricklayers Union No. 5, 378 F.2d 859, (C.A.
6). It is clear , and I would find , that the threat made to
DDC representatives to picket the DDC project had for
an object to force the cessation of business between DDC
and Consolidated Freightways , in violation of
8(b)(4)(ii)(B ), unless it should appear that the conduct
engaged in by the Respondent Union can be deemed
primary activity to preserve work traditionally performed
by DDC employees.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Respondent
Union on August 7 directly requested Consolidated
Freightways representatives to sign the compliance
agreement binding itself to the terms and conditions of the
AGC construction agreement . Failing in that, it
threatened to picket DDC and shut down the project
unless DDC prevailed upon Consolidated Freightways to
sign the agreement.
Notwithstanding the Union ' s protestation to the
contrary , it is clear that its primary dispute was with
Consolidated Freightways upon whom it was seeking to
impose the AGC construction agreement , and this, not by
direct economic action against Consolidated Freightways,
but indirectly by threatening economic action against the
prime contractor DDC, unless Consolidated Freightways
signed the compliance agreement.
It appears that DDC is engaged in building a dam. It is
not a common carrier by motortruck . Consolidated
Freightways and its predecessor , F & B Trucking, were
common carriers , each as linking carriers with the
Northern Pacific Railroad in the transportation of cement
from the two cement vendors, Lehigh and Ideal Cement
Company . The freight for the transportation from the
points of origin to the batch plant on the dam
construction was being paid by the cement vendors,
Lehigh and Ideal , to be divided between the railroad and
Consolidated Freightways in accordance with their
agreement . Traditionally, from the day the cement haul
began in March 1968, this work was not performed by
DDC employees . At first the cement haul was performed
by F & B Trucking drivers . The truck-drivers employed
by DDC on the construction project had not engaged in
the cement haul, except in the temporary emergency
August 15 to November 7, 1968 , created by the
Respondent Union's threat to close down the DDC
construction project if Consolidated Freightways
continued the cement haul. The Union ' s threatened
conduct was not to preserve work traditionally performed
by DDC employees but to impose the AGC construction
agreement elsewhere , namely on Consolidated
Freightways . Under the principles pronounced by the
Supreme Court in National Woodwork Manufacturers
Association , supra, the Union ' s attempt to enforce the
subcontractors clause contained in section 3(A) of the
AGC construction agreement , by pressuring DDC,
amounted to an illegal secondary boycott within the
'Arriving at the DDC batch plant with a full truckload of cement or fly
ash, the Consolidated Freightways' driver spots the loaded trader over the
receiving hoppers, and assists in opening the bottom gate on the trailer to
allow the contents to flow out by force of gravity into the hopper. When
the trailer is emptied , the driver secures the bottom and returns to the
Ahsahka rail terminal for another load. In Island Dock Lumber, Inc.,
supra, the driver arriving at the construction site would set the mixer
agitator in motion , to make a 3-minute mix of cement , sand , gravel,
aggregate , and water and would then pour the liquid concrete from the
truck as directed by on-site employees , either into prepared building forms,
into chutes, or into cement buckets.
LOCAL UNION NO. 551, TEAMSTERS 805
meaning of 8(b)(4) (ii)(B).
But for the construction proviso to Section 8(e) of the
Act, article IT, section 3, of the AGC construction
contract would be an illegal hot cargo clause.
The aforesaid clause does not contain language
expressing a purpose of preserving work traditionally
performed by DDC employees but is the typical union
signatory clause calculated to satisfy union objectives
elsewhere . Its attempted enforcement , therefore , by threat
of picketing DDC, violates 8(b)(4)(iiXB) of the Act.
N.L.R.B. v. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 38 (Arden
Farms Co.), 338 F.2d 23 (C.A. 9), enfg. 141 NLRB 341;
Local Union No. 141, Sheet Metal Workers, 174 NLRB
No. 125; Retail Clerks Local 1288 (Nickel's Pay-Less
Stores), 163 NLRB No. 112; Columbus Building and
Construction Trades Council (Kroger Co.), 164 NLRB
No. 79; N.L.R.B. v. New York Lithographers &
Photo-Engravers Union, 385 F.2d 551 (C.A. 3), enfg. 160
NLRB 1222. Cf. Teamsters Local 386 (R.P.B. Trucking,
Inc.), 172 NLRB No. 102, Retail Store Employees, Local
Union No. 876, 174 NLRB No. 67.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in
section III, above , occurring in connection with the
operations described in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
America, Ind., its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening, restraining, or coercing Dworshak
Dam Constructors, or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce where an
object thereof is to force or require Dworshak Dam
Constructors or other persons to cease doing business with
Consolidated Freightways or any other person engaged in
connection with the transportation to the DDC jobsite of
cement, fly ash and other materials from offsite suppliers.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent's
business offices, meeting halls , and all places where
notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 19, shall, after having been duly signed by the
Respondent's authorized representatives, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to the
aforesaid Regional Director for forwarding to Dworshak
Dam Constructors for information, and if they are willing,
for posting by them in all locations where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recommended
that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it
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 make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dravo Corporation , As Sponsor, Dworshak Dam
Constructors and Consolidated Freightways are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America , Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threats made to representatives of Dworshak
Dam Constructors to picket Dworshak Dam Constructors
and to shut down the construction site , with an object of
forcing Dworshak Dam Constructors to cease doing
business with Consolidated Freightways , Respondent
Union engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B ) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Local Union No. 551, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
n the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten, restrain, or coerce Dworshak
Dam Constructors or any person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce where an object
thereof is to force or require Dworshak Dam
Constructors or any other person to cease doing
business with Consolidated Freightways or any other
person engaged in the transportation to the Dworshak
Dam Constructors jobsite, cement, fly ash and other
materials from offsite suppliers.
LOCAL UNION NO.
5 51, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AMERICA, IND. or covered by any other material.
(Labor Organization)
Dated By Persons having any question concerning this notice or
(Representative) (Title ) compliance with its provisions, may communicate directly
with the Board ' s Regional Office, Republic Building, 10th
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle , Washington 98101,
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , Telephone 583-7473.