Southern Transport, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 305 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, INC. 305
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 the provisos in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
TOWER IRON WORKS, INC.,
Employer.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 24 School
Street, Boston, Massachusetts , Telephone No. 523-8100 , if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.'
Southern Transport, Inc. and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local
Union #568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 26-
CA-1781. December 16, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union
#568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 26, issued a complaint dated June 16, 1964,
against Southern Transport, Inc., herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges
in substance that the Union was and is the exclusive representative
of certain employees of the Respondent in the appropriate unit
certified on September 17, 1962, by the Regional Director, and that
on or about March 16, 1964, and thereafter the Respondent unlaw-
fully refused to bargain with the Union.
The Respondent's answer, filed on June 26, 1964, admits certain
jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies
the commission of unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, all parties to this proceeding entered into a stipula-
tion of facts, and requested that the proceeding be transferred di-
rectly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
decision and order. The request states that the parties have waived
their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner and to the issuance
150 NLRB No. 20.
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of a Trial Examiner's Decision. The parties also agree that their
stipulation and certain specified documents constitute the entire rec-
ord in the case.
On August 12, 1964, the Board granted the parties' request to
transfer the case to the Board. A brief was thereafter filed by the
Respondent and a memorandum argument was filed by the General
Counsel.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Brown].
Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation, the Respondent's brief,
the General Counsel's memorandum, and the entire record in the case,
the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Arkansas corporation engaged in the pur-
chase, transportation, and distribution of petroleum and petroleum
products within the State of Arkansas. During the 12 months prior
to the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent transported and
distributed goods that originated outside the State of Arkansas, and
which were carried into the State of Arkansas by interstate pipeline,
valued in excess of $100,000.
The. Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union #568, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union, which was certified in September 1962 as the bargain-
ing representative of the Respondent's truckdrivers, met several times
thereafter with the Respondent, but was unable to conclude an agree-
ment. Pursuant to charges filed by the Union 1 a hearing was held
before a Trial Examiner who, on August 20, 1963, issued his Inter-
mediate Report concluding that the Respondent had refused to bar-
gain collectively with the Union in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and
1 Case No. 26-CA-1489 , the record in which was incorporated by stipulation as part of
the record in the present case.
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, INC. 307
(1) of the Act. On December 24, 1963, the Board issued its Decision
and Order 2 finding that the Respondent had refused to bargain as
required by the Act, by failing "to fulfill its statutory obligation to
meet and confer with the Union at reasonable times" ; insisting dur-
ing the negotiations upon the continuation in effect of existing com-
pany rules while failing to furnish the Union with a copy of. them;
failing to notify the Union of unilateral changes in its method of
computing wages; and refusing to bargain on wages and economic
benefits.
On November 18, 1963, after issuance of the Intermediate Report
but before the Board issued its decision, the Union wrote to the
Respondent and requested resumption of negotiations. The Re-
spondent replied by letter dated November 26, 1963, that the parties
were in deadlock over a number of items and an impasse had been
reached. Shortly after issuance of the Board's decision, the Union
again requested bargaining. The Respondent's reply referred to the
Union's "inflexible position" in regard to unresolved matters and, in
addition, asked what the Union's position was "about having a cer-
tified court reporter make a transcript of the proceedings" at the
next meeting.
On January 7, 1964, the Union wrote to the Respondent that "a
change had taken place in the Union's position concerning the items
that were still in issue," stated its opposition to the Respondent's
request for the presence of a court reporter at future meetings, and
again expressed its desire to resume negotiations. The record does
not show that there was a reply to this letter. On March 11, 1964,
the Union wrote to the Respondent in regard to a specific grievance
over a work assignment, and again requested bargaining in compli-
ance with the Board's Order. The Respondent's reply, on March 16,
discussed the Union's grievance; asserted that the situation had not
changed "in respect to the matters that are and have been at an
impasse"; but stated that the Respondent was nevertheless willing
to meet and negotiate on condition that a qualified reporter be pres-
ent to make a record of the proceedings which would be binding on
all parties, and that the Respondent would be willing to bear the
expense thereof. The Union rejected this condition for the resump-
tion of negotiations, and filed its charged in the present case.
The General Counsel in his memorandum argument and the Re-
spondent in its brief assert that the sole issue is whether the Respond-
ent could lawfully require, as a precondition to negotiations, that a
reporter be present to make a transcript of the proceedings which
8145 NLRB 615.
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would be binding upon all parties .3 The General Counsel contends
that this demand showed that the Respondent was not in good faith
attempting to reach an agreement. The Respondent argues, in sub-
stance, that the presence of a court reporter to make a record is
conducive to responsible bargaining, that had there been such a rec-
ord in. the earlier proceeding, the Board would not have found the
Respondent in. violation of the Act, and that, should the Board's
Order in that proceeding be enforced by the court of appeals, the
Respondent "will be faced with contempt proceedings should it fail
to bargain as the law requires."
We find merit in the contentions of the General Counsel. In reach-
ing this conclusion, we rely on the facts that the Board's findings
in the earlier case were largely based on uncontradicted testimony,
admissions of the Respondent, and documentary evidence. Indeed,
no findings regarding the negotiation meetings were based on a reso-
lution of conflicting testimony, and the Respondent does not allege
that any of the findings in the earlier case were based upon false
testimony. Further, although the Trial Examiner in the earlier case
made certain findings adverse to the Respondent on the basis of his
resolution of conflicting testimony as to events at bargaining sessions,
the Board did not adopt those findings; yet it was not until after
the issuance of the Board's decision that the Respondent made the
presence of a reporter a condition to the resumption of negotiations.
Under all these circumstances, we conclude that the Respondent,
in insisting that a reporter be present at future negotiating meetings,
was not acting in good faith. Rather, when the Respondent's con-
duct herein is viewed as it must be against the background of its
conduct as revealed in the earlier` case, it is manifest, and we find,
that its insistence on having a reporter at negotiation meetings, de-
spite the Union's objections thereto, had as its purpose the continued
avoidance of negotiating meetings with the Union. The Respondent,
by such insistence, was therefore, now as before, in fact seeking to
avoid, delay, and frustrate any meaningful bargaining with the
Union. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent, by insisting on a
stenographic record of negotiations as a precondition for any future
meetings, violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act .4
S Although the Respondent thus indicated that the demand for a stenographic record of
negotiations was the only issue in this case, it referred in its letters , as noted above, to
an impasse in the negotiations , and it stated in its brief that certain bargaining "matters
give rise to a genuine impasse in bargaining which still obtains and respondent ' s subsequent
offers to meet were and are subject to and without waiving that position ." No evidence
has been presented , however, in the record in the earlier case or in the instant case, which
establishes that the parties failed to conclude an agreement because of a good-faith impasse
in the negotiations.
4Reed & Prince Manufacturing Company, 96 NLRB 850, 854 , enfd. 205 F. 2d 131, cert.
denied 346 U.S. 887. Cf St. Louis Typographical Union No . 8 (Graphic Arts Association
of St. Louis, Inc.), 149 NLRB 750.
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, INC. 309
IV. TIIE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act,
we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices found to have
been committed, the commission of similar and other unfair labor
practices reasonably may be anticipated. We shall therefore order
that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union #568, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, is a labor organization as defined in Section•2(5) of the
Act.
2. All truckdrivers, mechanics, mechanics' helpers, wash, tire, and
grease men, and servicemen, excluding all office employees, janitors,
night watchmen, any other employees, and all supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. The above-named labor organization was on September 17, 1962,
and at all times thereafter, the certified representative of all the
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
4: By refusing, at all times since on or about March 16, 1964, to
bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Southern Transport, Inc.,
El Dorado, Arkansas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning wages, hours, and
terms and conditions of employment with Truck Drivers & Helpers
Local Union #568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees in the following appropriate unit: All
truckdrivers, mechanics, mechanics' helpers, wash, tire, and grease
men, and servicemen, excluding all office employees, janitors, night
watchmen, any other employees, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, including the above-named
Union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named
Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appro-
priate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order".
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, INC. 311
MEMBER BROWN, concurring :
I agree with my colleagues that the Respondent violated Section
8(a) (5), but not the basis upon which this conclusion is reached.
Rather, for the reasons set forth in the separate concurrence in
St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 (Graphic Arts Association of
St. Louis, Inc.)," I find that the insistence upon a stenographic tran-
script of negotiations is, by its very nature, a rejection of the bar-
gaining duty and undermines the collective-bargaining relationship.
6 Supra.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 our employees that :
WE WILL NOT, by refusing to bargain in good faith or in any
other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Truck Drivers & Helpers Local
Union #568, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL bargain in good faith, upon request, with the above-
mentioned Union as the exclusive representative of all our em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described -below with respect to
rate of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All truckdrivers, mechanics, mechanics' helpers, wash, tire
and grease men, and servicemen, excluding all office em-
ployees, janitors, night watchmen, any other employees, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT, INC.,
Employer.
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.
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee, Telephone No. 534-3161, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local Union No. 12, United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum & Plastic
Workers of America, AFL-CIO and The Business League of
Gadsden [David Buckner, et al.]. Case No. 10-CB-1362. De-
cember 16, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 18, 1964, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set
forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Charging Party filed exceptions and briefs, and the Respondent
also filed a brief.
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, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and
briefs, and adopts the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner
only to the extent consistent herewith.'
The principal facts are detailed in the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Briefly, since 1943 the Respondent Union has been the bargaining
representative of the employees of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Com-
pany at the latter's plant at East Gadsden, Alabama. The collective
labor agreement which was in effect at all material times, and, insofar
as appears, all earlier agreements, did not contain provisions dis-
criminating racially against Negroes in the bargaining unit. In
practice, however, the Respondent and the Company construed the
contracts as permitting racial job discrimination and racial seniority
rosters, so that, to quote the Trial Examiner, "Certain jobs were
allocated to white employees and other jobs to Negro employees"
and "as to promotion, transfers, layoffs, and recalls Negro employees
with greater plant seniority had no rights over white employees with
less seniority, and vice versa." In addition, as the Trial Examiner
found, racially segregated dining and toilet facilities are maintained
i The requests of the Respondent and the Charging Party for oral argument are hereby
denied, as the record adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
150 NLRB No. 18.