Teamsters "General" Local 200

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 305 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
Teamsters "General" Local Union No . 200 and
Reilly Cartage , Inc. Case 30-CC-104
June 12, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On September 19, 1969, Trial Examiner James
M. Fitzpatrick issued his decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent,
Teamsters "General" Local No. 200, had engaged
in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the
complaint, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended that they be dismissed.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The
Charging Party filed an answering brief to Respon-
dent's exceptions and in support of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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 recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent
with the Decision herein.
The Trial Examiner found in numerous instances
that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(B) by its
conduct in instructing employees, members of
Local 200, to refuse to unload merchandise from
Reilly's trucks when such trucks appeared at the
terminal loading docks of secondary connecting
carriers. In view of the other numerous violations
by Respondent of Section 8(b)(4)(B) found by the
Trial Examiner, we deem it unnecessary to con-
i In the absence of any exceptions to the factual findings of the Trial
Examiner, with the one exception noted below, we hereby adopt his
factual findings pro forma
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent
violated Sec 8 ( b)(4)(i)(B ) by picketing the premises of the Navajo
Freight Lines, Inc, as being contrary to the evidence We find merit in
305
Sider, and we do not adopt, the Trial Examiner's
finding in this regard.
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's
finding and conclusion that its picketing at the ter-
minal entrances (except at Consolidated
Freightways, Hickey-Ryder, and Eazor) was not in
conformity with Moore Dry Dock standards.' He
reasoned that the failure of the carriers to respond
to the Respondent's letter of November 14
requesting permission to picket inside the yards did
not grant Respondent a license to picket the ter-
minal entrances while Reilly trailers were on the
situs, because Respondent was under a duty to
legalize its picketing by a further request for per-
mission from the carriers to enter upon the
premises and conduct its picketing in the dock area
adjacent to Reilly's trailers. In the Trial Examiner's
view, Respondent's failure to take such additional
affirmative action caused the terminal entrance
picketing not to conform to Moore Dry Dock and
thus to violate the Act. We do not adopt this find-
ing and conclusion.' In our opinion, the Union's
early request for permission to engage in dockside
picketing, having gone unanswered, resulted in a
fair assumption on its part that access to the prop-
erty of the neutral carriers would be denied. It is
also true that neutrals seeking to minimize the ef-
fects of the dispute could easily have invited the
pickets to the immediate vicinity of Reilly trucks
when pickets first appeared at their entrances. In
these circumstances, we cannot find that the
Union's picketing at the terminal either violated the
Moore Dry Dock standard requiring that picketing
be limited to locations reasonably proximate to the
primary situs, or otherwise evidenced a secondary
objective.
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order which Respondent contends
would preclude all picketing of Reilly Cartage
Company's trucks at connecting carriers terminals.
We find that the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order is somewhat ambiguous and we have
amended it.
The Respondent contended before the Trial Ex-
aminer, and urges the same contention in its excep-
tions before us, that Local 200's appeals to terminal
employees not to unload or otherwise handle
freight in trailers delivered by Reilly for further
over-the-road transportation was protected primary
activity within the proviso of Section 8(b)(4)(B),
Respondent 's exception The record, in our opinion, does not support this
finding of the Trial Examiner Therefore, this allegation of the complaint is
dismissed
2 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547
' Trial Examiner's Decision, sec 11, C, 19
183 NLRB No. 39
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because the services by them were related to the
on-going enterprise of Reilly . We agree with the
Trial Examiner that Respondent's related work ar-
gument is without merit , and its reliance upon our
decision in Auburndale Freezer Corporation, 177
NLRB 791, is misplaced. We do not adopt, how-
ever, that part of his rationale which finds .the re-
lated work defense to be "essentially a hot cargo
concept." Rather , we conclude that once the in-
transit freight had been unloaded from Reilly's
trucks, Reilly 's control or "presence " at that site
was ended and the Union 's activity became secon-
dary.
The General Counsel has excepted to the failure
of the Trial Examiner to specifically provide in his
Recommended Order that Respondent shall cease
and desist from picketing at Rex Chainbelt, Inc., for
proscribed objectives. We find that the Trial Ex-
aminer, through inadvertence, failed to include
such a prohibition . Accordingly, we shall amend
the Recommended Order , as set forth below.
We also amend the Trial Examiner 's proposed
notice to conform with the Order issued herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent , Teamsters "General"
Local Union No. 200, its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute for paragraph 1(a) the following:
"(a) Engaging in any conduct, including picket-
ing, which is for the purpose of inducing or en-
couraging any individual employed at the terminals
of motor freight carriers where Reilly Cartage, Inc.,
delivers or picks up freight , including Hennis
Freight Lines , Inc., Mercury Freight Lines, Inc.,
Dohrn Transfer Co., Express Freight Lines, Inc.,
Cushman Motor Delivery Co., C. W. Transport,
Inc., Clairmont Transfer Co., Advance Transporta-
tion Co., Eazor Express, Inc., Advance-United Ex-
pressways , Inc., Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc.,
Consolidated Freightways, Consolidated Forward-
ing, Inc ., Roadway Express, Knox Motor Service,
Inc., Ryder Trucklines, Hickey Cartage, Inc., or of
any other person engaged in commerce or in any
industry affecting commerce , to engage in a strike
or a refusal to use , manufacture, process , transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials , or commodities , or to perform any ser-
vices ; or threatening , coercing , or restraining any of
said motor freight carriers or other company, in-
cluding Rex Chainbelt, 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 require any of said over-the-road car-
riers or any other person or company, including
Rex Chainbelt, Inc., to cease handling, transport-
ing, or otherwise dealing in freight to be picked up
or delivered by Reilly Cartage, Inc., where such
freight remains in the possession and control of
such over-the -road carriers or any other person, or
to cease doing business with Reilly Cartage, Inc."
2. Substitute the following for footnote 26 of the
Trial Examiner 's Decision:
"In the event that this 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
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
TO ALL MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL
UNION No. 200
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HENNIS FREIGHT LINES, INC.,
MERCURY FREIGHT LINES, INC., DOHRN TRANSFER
Co., EXPRESS FREIGHT LINES, INC., CUSHMAN
MOTOR DELIVERY CO., C. W. TRANSPORT, INC.,
CLAIRMONT TRANSFER Co., ADVANCE
TRANSPORTATION Co., EAZOR EXPRESS, INC.,
ADVANCE-UNITED EXPRESSWAYS, INC., ADMIRAL
MERCHANTS-COLE-DIXIE, INC., ARKANSAS BEST
FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., CONSOLIDATED
FREIGHTWAYS, CONSOLIDATED FORWARDING CO.,
INC., ROADWAY EXPRESS-KNOX MOTOR SERVICE,
INC., RYDER TRUCK LINES, HICKEY CARTAGE,
INC., REX CHAINBELT, INC., FRED OLSON MOTOR
SERVICE COMPANY, AND CHARLES LUBOTSKY TIRE
Co.
To EMPLOYEES OF OTHER COMPANIES WHICH DO
BUSINESS WITH REILLY CARTAGE, INC.
We hereby notify you that:
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the law and
has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
carry out the order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business
representatives, business agents , or anyone act-
ing for us, whatever his title may be, do any of
the following things to force any shipper or
motor freight carrier to stop delivering freight
to or receiving freight from Reilly Cartage,
Inc., or to force any shipper or motor freight
carrier or any other company including Rex
Chainbelt, Inc., to stop doing business with
Reilly Cartage, Inc.
WE WILL NOT engage in or induce or en-
courage, by picketing, or by any other conduct
any member of this Union or any other em-
ployee working at the terminal or dock of any
motor freight carrier at which Reilly Cartage,
Inc., picks up or delivers freight or which does
business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., or any em-
ployee, including members of this Union, of
any other company, including Rex Chainbelt,
Inc., which does business with Reilly Cartage,
Inc., or any emploee, including members of
this Union, or any other company which picks
up or delivers freight or other merchandise at
Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or at the terminals or
docks of any motor freight carrier at which
Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers
freight, to strike, or to take part in a general
work stoppage, where an object thereof is to
force or require such employers to cease doing
business with Reilly Cartage, Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any way threaten, coerce, or
restrain any motor freight company at which
Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers
freight, or Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or any other
company which does business with Reilly
Cartage, Inc., where an object thereof is to
force or require such employers to cease doing
business with Reilly Cartage, Inc.
TEAMSTERS " GENERAL"
LOCAL UNION No. 200
(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 consecu
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
307
Board's Office, Second floor, Commerce Building,
744 North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
53203, Telephone 414-272-8600, Ext. 3861.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
Statement of the Case
JAMES M. FITZPATRICK, Trial Examiner: This
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act), was
tried before me at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March
17, 18, 19, 20, 27, and 28, 1969, on a complaint is-
sued January 8 and amended February 13, 1969,
pursuant to charges filed November 27, December
2, and December 4, 1968, and January 27, 1969,
and Respondent's answer to the amended com-
plaint.' The overall issue is whether the Respon-
dent, since about November 20, 1968,2 has engaged
in an extensive and unlawful secondary boycott in
connection with a longstanding dispute it has had
with the Charging Party. More particularly the
questions presented are whether Respondent, con-
trary to the requirements of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act, by picketing and verbal state-
ments on numerous occasions, induced employees
at various trucking terminals in and around Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, to cease work for their em-
ployers, and unlawfully threatened certain of these
trucking terminals with work stoppages; whether in
addition to its dispute with the Charging Party,
Respondent had a legitimate primary dispute with
some of these terminals ; and whether at a concern
called Rex Chainbelt, Respondent unlawfully
refused to restrict its activity to a separate gate
established for the use of the Charging Party and
unlawfully induced drivers of companies making
deliveries to Rex Chainbelt not to enter the
premises ; and whether in its conduct Respondent
was entitled to the shelter of an ally defense. The
facts relating to these issues, although extensive,
are in general not disputed. The conclusions to be
drawn from the facts are in dispute.
Upon the entire record, including my observation
of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs sub-
mitted by the parties, I make the following findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESSES INVOLVED
The charges were filed by Reilly Cartage, Inc.
(herein called Reilly).3 Reilly is a Wisconsin cor-
' During the hearing the complaint was further amended orally
T Unless otherwise indicated all dates mentioned herein were during the
period November 1968 to March 1969, inclusive
3 The complaint indicates the charges were filed by Russ R. Mueller and
John P Savage as attorneys for Reilly At the hearing they stated they had
not filed the charges for themselves but rather on behalf of Reilly Ac-
cordingly Reilly is treated herein as the Charging Party
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 21
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
poration engaged in and around Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, in local cartage by means of motor
truck. It annually receives over $50,000 revenue
for such local cartage of goods and products being
shipped to and from other enterprises themselves
engaged in commerce or in industries affecting
commerce. In the conduct of its business, Reilly
regularly picks up and delivers goods at the Mil-
waukee terminals of various over-the-road motor
carriers engaged in interstate hauling and in this
manner its operations form a link in the interstate
hauling of goods and commodities by motor trucks.
Among the motor carriers from whom and to
whom Reilly picks up and delivers goods are the
following: O. K., Murphy, Hennis, Navajo, Mercu-
ry, Dohrn, Express, Cushman, C. W., Clairmont,
Advance, Eazor, Advance-United, Admiral, Arkan-
sas, Consolidated Freightways, Consolidated For-
warding, Roadway, Knox, Ryder, and Hickey.' All
of these except Hickey are over-the-road motor
carriers engaged in interstate hauling . Hickey does
only local cartage for Ryder with which it shares
terminal facilities . All of the named over-the-road
carriers other than Ryder perform local cartage
with respect to some of the over-the-road ship-
ments which they handle.
Rex Chainbelt, Inc. (herein called Rex Chain-
belt) is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, and elsewhere in the manufac-
ture and sale of construction equipment, chain and
power transmission equipment, and conveyor and
process equipment. It annually ships from its Mil-
waukee plants products valued at over $1 million to
points outside Wisconsin. Rex Chainbelt is one of
the shippers of freight for which local cartage is
performed by Reilly.
At its plant Rex Chainbelt receives substantial
amounts of supplies delivered to its dock by a
variety of motor frieght carriers. Its outgoing
finished products are transported by all manner of
common carriers, including the over-the-road
trucking companies involved in this proceeding,
and on occasion even by its own trucks. Where
local hauling of such shipments to the Milwaukee
terminals of over-the-road trucking companies is
required, Rex Chainbelt since 1952 has preferred
that a single local hauler, Reilly, perform such local
cartage.' At the suggestion of Rex Chainbelt, Reilly
solicited from the various over-the-road trucking
companies agreements stating tariffs for local
cartage to be performed by Reilly. At the time of
the hearing herein Reilly had such tariff agreements
The full n ames of these carriers are respectively as follows 0 K
Trucking Co of Ohio, Murphy Motor Freight, Hennis Freight Lines, Inc ,
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc , Mercury Freight Lines, Inc , Dohrn Transfer
Co , Express Freight Lines , Inc , Cushman Motor Delivery Co , C W
Transport, Inc , Clairmont Transfer Co , Advance Transportation Co ,
Eazor Express, Inc , Advance-United Expressways , Inc , Admiral
Merchants-Cole-Dixie, Inc , Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc , Con-
solidated Freightways, Consolidated Forwarding Co , Inc , Roadway Ex-
press, Knox Motor Service, Inc , Ryder Truck Lines , and Hickey Cartage,
Inc
' See Marie T Reilly d/b/a Reilly Cartage Company, 110 NLRB 1742,
with substantially all such carriers involved in this
case. The agreements are general in terms, not
specifically referring to Rex Chainbelt freight. It
was estimated that such local cartage services were
performed by Reilly on about 50 percent of the
volume of Rex Chainbelt's outbound freight hauled
by over-the-road carriers, and that of the total
volume of Rex Chainbelt freight handled by local
cartage haulers, Reilly performed about 83 percent
and other local cartage haulers about 17 percent.
Thus Reilly handled a substantial part but not all of
Rex Chainbelt's outbound freight. For these ser-
vices Reilly was not directly compensated by Rex
Chainbelt but rather by the over-the-road carriers
in accordance with the applicable tariff agreements
between them and Reilly.
If outbound freight was a volume shipment or
hard to handle freight, the over-the-road carrier
normally supplied one of its own empty trailers to
avoid the necessity of rehandling the freight at its
Milwaukee terminal.' For such freight, Reilly's
function consisted of pulling the loaded tractor
from the Rex Chainbelt plant to the over-the-road
carriers' Milwaukee terminal and dropping the
trailer there. Reilly's services with respect to that
shipment ceased at that point. If the shipment was
less than truck load (commonly referred to as LTL
freight) Reilly ordinarily supplied a Reilly trailer
which, after being loaded at Rex Chainbelt's dock,
Reilly hauled to the designated over-the-road car-
rier's terminal where the freight was unloaded
either onto the terminal dock or immediately trans-
ferred to a trailer of the over-the-road carrier.'
Rex Chainbelt compensated the over-the-road
carriers for the complete hauling job including the
local cartage, if any, performed by Reilly. They in
turn compensated Reilly for its local cartage ser-
vices. In the circumstances above-described, the
over-the-road carriers ordinarily used Reilly rather
than their own personnel and equipment for local
cartage of Rex Chainbelt shipments because they
understood that Rex Chainbelt preferred that they
use Reilly. The evidence indicates that Rex Chain-
belt's preference was based on a desire to reduce
the number of trucks and consequent congestion at
its own docks.
Rex Chainbelt operated some trucking equip-
ment of its own, including some straight trucks
which were used for local deliveries in the Milwau-
kee area and for transportation between Rex
Chainbelt's own plants. In addition to the above-
described services performed by Reilly, Rex Chain-
1745, 1747
' Such " loaning " of trailers was standard practice in the trucking indus-
try and applied as well to freight other than Rex Chambelt freight
' The unloading of LTL freight normally was performed by terminal
dock employees , sometimes with the assistance of the Reilly driver If the
shipment was small the Reilly driver often placed it on the dock himself, or
if there were many small packages he placed , or assisted dockmen in plac-
ing, them on the tailgate of the truck If the cargo was of a kind that could
be handled best by some type of dock equipment such as handtrucks or
forklifts, the dockmen entered the truck with the equipment and removed
the cargo in that manner
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
belt also used Reilly when needed to supplement its
own fleet for transportation between its plants and
for some local hauling ordinarily performed by its
own fleet. For this it paid Reilly on an hourly basis.
Reilly has maintained its own terminal, including
a dock, office, and space for parking equipment
located about one block from the Rex Chainbelt
plant. It maintained a telephone and a dispatcher
part time at Rex Chainbelt. But it has had no cor-
porate connection with Rex Chainbelt; no joint
stockholders, and no financial arrangements.
Fred Olson Motor Service Company (herein
called Olson) is a common carrier in the interstate
transportation of goods by truck and is among the
carriers which has delivered supplies to Rex Chain-
belt's plant.
Charles Lubotsky Tire Co. (herein called Lubot-
sky) is engaged in the sale and service of automo-
bile and truck tires in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Rex
Chainbelt is a Lubotsky customer.
I find that Reilly, the various motor freight car-
riers named above, Rex Chainbelt, and Lubotsky
are employers engaged in commerce or in indus-
tries affecting commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200
(herein called Respondent or the Union), is an or-
ganization in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose of dealing with em-
ployers concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and con-
ditions of work. It is It labor organization within the
meaning of the Act. It admits to membership and
represents, among others, dockmen, warehousemen
and drivers employed by all of the above-named
over-the-road carriers. It does not represent em-
ployees of Reilly, Rex Chainbelt, or Lubotsky.
A. The Dispute
Reilly has operated nonunion . Because of this the
Union for many years has had a running dispute
with Reilly.8 In June and early July 1968, the
Union, under the terms of its collective-bargaining
agreements with the over-the-road carriers involved
herein, prosecuted grievances against the carriers
because of their continued use of Reilly for local
cartage from certain shippers. The grievances, how-
ever, because of deadlocks in the committees which
considered them, were not thereby resolved. Failing
to achieve a satisfactory solution under its contracts
with the carriers, the Union set upon a course of
self-help with regard to "the Reilly problem." On
July 23, 1968, it sent a letter to Reilly claiming that
Reilly was paying substandard wages and benefits
° See Marie T Reilly dlbla Reilly Cartage Company, supra, 1748
° In all its picketing Respondent used signs reading on one side, "Em-
ployees of Reilly Cartage Company receive substandard wages and
309
to its truckdrivers and threatening to publicize
these substandard conditions if Reilly did not
remedy the situation. It expressly disclaimed any in-
terest in representing Reilly employees. Not receiv-
ing what it considered a satisfactory response from
Reilly, the Union in late November began a two-
pronged campaign. In one facet of this it engaged in
picketing and other activity at the various terminals
of over-the-road carriers where Reilly delivered.
The other facet of the campaign involved picketing
and other activity at the premises of Rex Chain-
belt." The Union did not at any time picket or en-
gage in any other type of conduct at Reilly's own
premises.
B. Preliminary Steps in the Campaign
In anticipation of its ambulatory picketing, the
Union on November 14 mailed to each of the over-
the-road carriers dealing with Reilly a letter declar-
ing the Union's intent to picket Reilly "where
found." The letters made certain additional
requests, including a request that the terminals
refrain from influencing their dock employees to
perform work for Reilly if the employees should ex-
ercise their option not to, that if the terminals were
permitting Reilly to use their trailers that they
discontinue the practice pending resolution of the
dispute, and that although the projected picketing
would be around Reilly trucks, unless the terminals
sent the Union written permission for the pickets to
enter upon terminal property while following Reilly
trucks, the pickets would remain at gates leading
into the terminal and patrol there while Reilly was
present.
The complaint alleges and Respondent denies
that various of Respondent's dock stewards at the
terminals were its agents. In spite of Respondent's
denial, viewing the record as a whole, there is little
doubt that the dock stewards involved in this
matter were its agents within the meaning of the
Act. They acted as one of the principal conduits for
supplying information to union officials about con-
ditions at the terminals generally and specifically
with regard to the Reilly dispute. They were
likewise a normal channel for communicating in-
structions and advice from the union hall to the
membership in each terminal. Before the campaign
was activated the stewards were integrated into the
program by orientations during the regular
stewards' meetings. As the campaign progressed
they, as well as the business agents, implemented
the campaign. On numerous occasions they con-
veyed to terminal managers on behalf of the Union,
the Union's conditions with respect to the Reilly
dispute. As Respondent states in its brief, "the cam-
paign against Reilly was highly organized." The
evidence, part of which is detailed hereinafter,
benefits-Local Teamsters 200," and on the other side , "Our only dispute
is with the substandard wages and benefits by Reilly Cartage Company-
Local Teamsters 200 "
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demonstrates that the dock stewards were an essen-
tial arm of the Union in executing this highly or-
ganized campaign.
C. Events at the Terminals of Over- the-Road
Carriers
1. The events at Consolidated Freightways
Consolidated Freightways employed at its Mil-
waukee terminal about 230 members of Respon-
dent including 58 dockmen of which from 18 to 25
worked the evening shift when most of the Reilly
deliveries were made.
On November 20, the union steward at the ter-
minal, in discussing the upcoming Reilly campaign
with the supervisor of dockmen, indicated that the
dockmen would not unload Reilly freight from
either a Reilly vehicle or a Consolidated
Freightways trailer brought in by Reilly if a picket
line were present. On November 25, they had a
second talk in which the steward informed the su-
pervisor that he had been instructed by the union
hall that if Reilly brought in LTL freight on a Con-
solidated Freightways trailer the dockmen would
not unload it and that even if the trailer were left at
the dock or in the yard by the Reilly driver and the
Reilly driver then left with his tractor, union pickets
would remain until the trailer was unloaded. The
next day, November 26, they had a third talk in
which the steward told the supervisor that pending
a further decision by the union attorneys, the ter-
minal dockmen would refuse to handle Reilly
freight on the dock even after it had been unloaded
by terminal supervisors.
Reilly normally made two deliveries daily at the
Consolidated Freightways terminal . On November
27, during the first Reilly delivery, no pickets were
present and the freight was unloaded without in-
cident. On the occasion of Reilly's second delivery,
the union steward started to unload the freight but,
at that point Respondent's Business Agent
Raymond (Red) Fularczyk arrived for the first time
with pickets,10 and the steward immediately walked
off the dock with him saying to the supervisor of
dockmen that it was all his. No other dockmen
would then unload the freight.
On December 2, at the time of Reilly's first
delivery, there were no pickets and the terminal
dockmen unloaded the freight. However, after it
was unloaded Fularczyk arrived and met with the
dockmen's supervisor, the picket who accompanied
Fularczyk, the dock steward, and a local driver em-
ployed by the terminal. Fularczyk declared that the
dockmen were not going to unload Reilly freight
whether it was on a Reilly vehicle or a Consolidated
Freightways trailer brought in by Reilly, even if no
pickets were present, and that when pickets were
present they would stay even after the Reilly driver
had left the premises.
The next day, December 3, the dockmen's
steward in a conversation with the supervisor of
dockmen reaffirmed what Fularczyk had said and
in answer to a question from the supervisor as to
whether in those circumstances the dockmen would
work on other freight, the steward stated that such
decision was up to each employee. Later in the
evening, and in advance of Reilly deliveries for that
day, Fularczyk again met with the dockmen during
their coffeebreak. When the first Reilly delivery did
arrive, although there were no pickets, all of the
terminal dockmen walked off the dock en masse.
Thereafter until February 10, whenever a Reilly
delivery was made all of the dockmen as well as any
yardmen on duty walked off whether or not pickets
were present. In fact from this time on the pickets
came only infrequently to the Consolidated
Freightways terminal, although Respondent's busi-
ness agents did appear from time to tme. These
work stoppages averaged about one-half hour each
night for from 18 to 25 terminal employees. The
longest work stoppage lasting a little over 1 hour
occurred in mid-December.
Based on the evidence relating to Consolidated
Freightways I find that the statements of the union
steward to the supervisor of dockmen, made on be-
half of Respondent and in pursuance of the union
campaign against Reilly, were threats of unlawful
refusals by terminal dockmen to handle freight
delivered by Reilly forbidden by Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act. His initial statements on
November 20, 1968, although referring only to
picket line situations, were applicable regardless of
the legality of the expected picketing. His later
statements, reaffirmed by Business Agent Fularczyk
on December 2, went further, threatening con-
tinued picketing and work stoppages even after
Reilly personnel and equipment had departed. I
also find that the general work stoppages on the oc-
casion of all Reilly deliveries during the period
December 3, 1968, to February 10, 1969, which
commenced after Fularczyk's meeting with the
dockmen on December 3, were induced by Respon-
dent. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) in these regards.
2. The events at Advance
Advance employed between 26 and 28 dockmen,
all members of Respondent. It received almost daily
deliveries of freight from Reilly.
Prior to the present dispute it was not uncommon
for Reilly, when pulling an LTL load in an Advance
trailer to the Advance terminal, to use the extra
unused space in the trailer to drop off other ship-
ments at terminals of carriers other than Advance.
10 Consolidated Freightways was one of the terminals which did not per-
mit pickets to patrol at the dock but required that they patrol outside on
the street
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
Making such dropoffs was called peddling. When
the present dispute with Reilly became active
Union Representatives Jesinski and Fularczyk
threatened to close Advance down because Reilly
was using Advance trailers to peddle . In order to
avoid being shut down Advance agreed it would not
allow its trailers to be used by Reilly for peddling
and instructed Reilly not to so use its trailers.
On November 25 Roy Lane, president of
Respondent , telephoned Roger Young, the terminal
manager for Advance, and complained to him that
he was still allowing Reilly to use Advance trailers.
Lane said that trouble could occur and a strike
might occur . The terminal manager then explained
that he was only giving Reilly trailers for straight
loads and untransferable freight as he had in the
past . The union president then said okay and hung
up.
On December 6 when a Reilly truck pulled into
Advance to make a delivery Larry Grabowski, one
of the Advance dockmen , was directed by his
foreman to unload the Reilly truck . No pickets
being present, Grabowski proceeded to unload the
truck. As he finished, a union representative (un-
identified by name but admitted by Respondent to
be its agent ) appeared and told him he should not
be handling the Reilly freight . Grabowski
responded to the effect that since there were no
pickets he had done what his foreman told him to
do. The two became angry and began shouting at
each other with the result that the terminal
manager asked the union agent to leave the
premises . By this time a group of dock employees
had gathered around . Before leaving the union
agent asked the terminal manager for the em-
ployee's name, stating that he was going to take
him before the union executive board. He further
told the manager that Advance should not ask its
men to unload Reilly freight even when no pickets
were present . On this occasion by the time the
union representative had walked across the dock to
talk to Grabowski the Reilly truck had already
pulled out so that neither Reilly truck nor employee
were present at the time the union representative
spoke to Grabowski.
Advance's practice of loaning trailers to Reilly
for LTL freight and knowingly permitting Reilly to
peddle other dropoffs from that equipment was an
established business practice prior to the active
dispute. It was not essentially different from other
cooperative business practices in the industry in-
volving the loan of equipment and its existence did
not alter the complete independence of Advance
from Reilly . By threatening to shut down Advance
if it continued with the practice , Jesinski and Fu-
larczyk uttered a classic threat within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii )( B) of the Act. Construed
against the background of their threats, the
November 25 statements of President Lane to the
terminal manager amounted to a reaffirmation and
reiteration of the threats.
311
I also find that the December 6 inducement of
Grabowski by the union representative not to
thereafter handle Reilly freight, work which he
would normally perform for his employer Advance,
clearly was within the proscription of 8(b)(4)(B).
The threat to take Grabowski before the union ex-
ecutive board was a further unlawful inducement of
the dockmen present as well as an unlawful threat
to Advance.
In sum I find that by the above-described state-
ments of Lane, Fularczyk, and Jesinski Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), and by the
December 6 statements of the union representative
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ii)(B).
3. The events at Consolidated Forwarding
In normal practice Reilly made daily deliveries at
Consolidated Forwarding's terminal . Beginning
about November 25 Respondent picketed at the
front entrance to the terminal on the occasion of
every Reilly delivery until about Christmas. On two
or three occasions a business agent of Respondent
came onto the terminal dock at the time of the
picketing and announced that there was a picket
line in front and that the employees were not to
work behind the picket line. While the picketing
was in progress dock employees did not work. On
one such occasion on December 11 a business
agent persuaded a Consolidated Forwarding driver
who was returning with his vehicle to the terminal
not to enter the terminal.
In an effort to speed Reilly's departure from the
terminal the terminal management after the first
week or 10 days endeavored to have Reilly freight
unloaded immediately rather than have the Reilly
vehicle wait its turn in line with other traffic as had
been the practice prior to the active dispute.
As in the case of other carriers Consolidated For-
warding has as a matter of practice made available
to Reilly its trailers for certain volume and non-
transferable types of freight. After the picketing
began and as a result of it, Consolidated Forward-
ing refused to allow Reilly to use its trailer in this
manner.
The evidence regarding events at Consolidated
Forwarding establishes that Respondent induced
terminal dock employees to engage in general work
stoppages whenever a Reilly truck appeared for a
period of about a month. I find by such induce-
ments , which were effective in causing general
work stoppages, Respondent violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B) of the Act.
4. The events at Arkansas
In the normal course of business Reilly delivered
once each day to the Arkansas terminal.
On November 25 Robert Verhaalen, Respon-
dent's dock steward at Arkansas showed the ter-
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
minal manager a set of instructions to the dockmen
which he had prepared dealing with the manner in
which they were to perform when Reilly made
deliveries . I infer from all the circumstances that
Verhaalen also communicated these instructions to
the dockmen . In sum these instructions were that if
a picket was present at the time of a Reilly delivery
the dockmen need not unload the Reilly freight nor
sign the bills of lading . In the event no picket was
present at the time of a Reilly delivery, the
dockmen were to do nothing until advised by the
Union and in the meantime were to call one of the
business agents . In the event that Reilly delivered
freight on one of Arkansas ' trailers under circum-
stances which required that some freight either be
added or taken off the trailer, the dockmen were
likewise to do nothing until advised by the Union.
The steward told the terminal manager, however,
that once the freight was on the dock the dockmen
would handle it and in any case they would work on
other work not related to Reilly. During that week
pickets appea.ed at each of the Reilly deliveries and
the dockmen in accordance with the steward's in-
structions refused to unload the Reilly freight.
On December 2 at the time of the Reilly delivery
pickets appeared, apparently in front of the ter-
minal . On that occasion the dock steward an-
nounced to the terminal manager and a group of
dockmen who were in the vicinity that the rules had
just been changed and that no one would work
while Reilly was present. As a result the dock em-
ployees performed no work whatsoever but instead
stayed in the drivers room while the Reilly vehicle
was in the terminal and supervisors unloaded the
freight. The dock foreman told them that if they
were not going to work they should punch out,
which they did, and punch in again when they were
ready to go back to work, which they did when the
Reilly vehicle and the pickets had left. When the
Reilly delivery arrived the next day, December 3,
substantially the same events occurred.
On December 4 when the Reilly delivery arrived
the dockmen similarly refused to unload the Reilly
freight and when instructed by the foreman to
punch out they refused. He then proceeded to
punch them out himself, telling the dockmen to
punch back in when they were ready to go to work,
which they did when the Reilly vehicle and the
pickets had left.
On December 5 events initially developed in
about the same way. When the Reilly delivery ar-
rived, the dockmen refused to unload that freight
or to perform other work and also refused to follow
the foreman's instructions to punch themselves out.
Accordingly he punched them out as he had the
previous day. When supervisors had completed the
unloading of the Reilly vehicle and it had left, the
dockmen returned to the dock with Business
Agents Fularczyk and Fred Hammer who had been
out front on the picket line. Fularczyk told the
dock foreman he had no right to punch the men
out. The foreman responded that his instructions
were that if the men refused to work he was to
punch them out and that when they were ready to
go back to work they could punch themselves back
in. Fularczyk asked the foreman if he was going to
punch them back in and the foreman replied no,
that when the men were ready to go back to work
they could punch themselves back in. Fularczyk
then indicated to the dockmen that since they were
not on the timeclock they were not required to
work and were free to go . They then all left for the
day. The following day the terminal manager asked
the dockmen if the union representatives had told
them that they could go home and be paid for it
and the dockmen agreed that they had been so told.
On December 6 Business Agents Fularczyk and
Hammer again came to the terminal and conferred
with the terminal manager . They complained
because management had punched the men out,
claiming that under the union contract which pro-
vided for an eight hour guaranteed wage the em-
ployees could refuse to work and still be paid. The
terminal manager indicated that he wanted to avoid
a repetition of the expanded work stoppages. The
business agents told him that in order to avoid a
repetition the company would have to pay the
dockmen for their down time. The question of
whether the dockmen were to be paid for their
down time on December 5 was reserved and later
became the subject of a grievance procedure
prosecuted by the Union under the contract. How-
ever, the problem was resolved insofar as future in-
cidents were concerned by the company agreeing
to grant the dockmen an additional paid cof-
feebreak on the occasions of, and for the duration
of, Reilly's deliveries to the terminal . The net result
was that for the duration of the union campaign
against Reilly until early March , a couple of weeks
before the hearing herein , whenever a Reilly
delivery arrived the dockmen automatically took a
paid coffeebreak while supervisors unloaded the
freight.
In addition, commencing December 6 and con-
tinuing for the duration of the dispute, Arkansas
stopped its prior practice of allowing Reilly to use
Arkansas trailers for volume or nontransferable
loads . Instead such loads were delivered in Reilly's
own trailers which then had to be unloaded by Ar-
kansas supervisors . The net effect of this was that
the Reilly equipment and driver were present on
the premises for a longer time than would have
been the case previously and likewise the Arkansas
dockmen were off duty longer on their coffeebreak.
The Union's campaign against Reilly insofar as
Arkansas was concerned came to an end in early
March when the union steward told the terminal
manager that the dockmen would thenceforth han-
dle the Reilly freight and that there would be no
more picketing or further general work stoppages.
Dock Steward Verhaalen's November 25 instruc-
tions to the dockmen insofar as they applied to
freight left by Reilly on an Arkansas trailer were
necessarily directed to freight the control of which
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
had passed to Arkansas. To this extent, therefore,
the instructions were an inducement to Arkansas
employees not to perform work on freight for
which Arkansas was responsible. Such inducement
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and Verhaalen's ad-
vice to the terminal manager that instruction would
be applied was a threat within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 ( b)(4)(ii)(B).
The general work stoppages during Reilly deliv-
eries which commenced with the December 2
change in rules and continued to occur until the
following March were plainly contrary to the
requirements of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B).
Respondent's attempt to justify them as protests of
contract violations or because Arkansas agreed to
them are without merit. The general work stop-
pages were.all occasioned by Reilly's delivery, not
by the dock foreman thereafter punching the men
out or his insistence that they punch themselves
back in, regardless of whether he was right or
wrong under the union contract. The stoppages
were not caused by a contract dispute, rather a
contract dispute resulted from work stoppages in
pursuance of the Union's secondary boycott. And
the fact that the Arkansas management agreed to
continued work stoppages under union pressure
that they would be further expanded as on
December 5 does not legalize such stoppages.
5. The events at Roadway
Roadway, one of the larger over-the-road carriers
involved in this matter, employed between 85 and
90 members of Respondent of which about 70 were
dockmen or drivers who performed dock work.
Reilly ordinarily made daily deliveries to Roadway.
Respondent picketed at Roadway two or three
times a week beginning November 25 and continu-
ing until the last week or two of January. Pickets
were thus present during only some of Reilly's
deliveries over this period. In its early stages the
union campaign had only a limited impact on Road-
way. In the first week only one dockman ceased
working while a supervisor unloaded the Reilly
vehicles. All other dockmen continued to perform
other work. Since supervisors endeavored to unload
the Reilly vehicle as soon as possible, the Reilly
vehicle did not wait its turn as it had prior to the
dispute.
In early December the pattern of the dockmen's
response to the presence of Reilly changed. From
that time forward whenever a Reilly vehicle ap-
peared in the terminal, irrespective of the presence
or absence of pickets, the entire dock crew ceased
working. These general work stoppages continued
to occur on the occasion of each Reilly delivery
until the end of picketing at Roadway in late Janu-
ary at which time the Union and Roadway reached
an accommodation.
This came about in the following manner. Some-
time in January, in a conversation with Union Pres-
313
ident Lane, Roadway's terminal manager protested
to Lane because of the general work stoppages.
Lane indicated that there was little Roadway could
do about it but he also stated that Roadway should
work Reilly in turn. The terminal manager replied
that they couldn't do that because of the general
work stoppages but had to put a supervisor on the
truck to immediately unload it. The effect of this
was to shorten the duration of Reilly presence in
the terminal and the general work stoppage which
accompanied that presence. Thereafter the work
stoppages continued but in a later telephone con-
versation with Lane the terminal manager again
protested them, indicating the Company would
have to deduct from the dock employees pay for
the time they engaged in work stoppages. As a
result of this later conversation Business Agents
James Jesinski and Fularczyk called on the terminal
manager and in response to his reiterated threat to
dock the employees' pay, proposed that if the ter-
minal supervisors would not unload Reilly deliv-
eries immediately upon their arrival but would delay
the unloading , taking Reilly in turn with other
deliveries , the dock employees would not engage in
the general work stoppages. They agreed on this ac-
commodation and thereafter there were no further
general work stoppages nor was there any further
picketing.
All incidents of picketing at Roadway occurred
at the entrance to the terminal. The pickets did not
ask for nor were they given permission to picket the
Reilly vehicles at the dock.
I find that throughout Respondent's campaign at
Roadway general work stoppages at the dock were
engaged in when Reilly delivered, starting during
the first week with one dockman standing around
while a supervisor unloaded and thereafter being
expanded to include a general work stoppage by all
employees on the dock. Respondent seeks to justify
these general refusals to work as protests against
terminal favoritism to Reilly in unloading Reilly im-
mediately. But as with the Arkansas situation,
Respondent has the cart before the horse. In the
first place it is clear that when the campaign began
Respondent was content that supervisors at all ter-
minals should unload Reilly trucks. At Roadway, as
at other terminals , supervisors unloaded as soon as
possible from the very beginning. When the general
work stoppages at Roadway began in early
December the Union made no point about
favoritism. Not until the terminal had endured a
month of these stoppages did Lane suggest a delay
in unloading Reilly . So in fact during that time
Respondent had no issue with Roadway over the
way Reilly was unloaded but only over the fact that
Roadway continued to do business with Reilly.
But even if the question of prompt unloading of
Reilly had been raised earlier, Respondent could
not in a common situs situation impose on a neutral
employer, under threat of general work stoppages
of the neutral's employees, a limitation on efforts of
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the neutral 's management to limit the impact on the
neutral of the union campaign by hastening the pri-
mary's departure from the scene . This is especially
so when Respondent 's own members , in what it as-
serts was legitimate protected activity, refused to
unload Reilly trucks thereby necessitating unload-
ing by supervisors if it was to be done at all. For the
supervisors under such circumstances to have
chosen their own time to perform unloading, which
dock employees refused to perform , in an effort to
diminish or contain the spreading dispute did not,
in my view , ally the terminal with the primary. See
United Marine Division , Local 333, International
Longshoremen 's Association (Independent), 107
NLRB 686, 708.
In sum , I find that from November 25 until at
least mid-January Respondent engaged in daily
8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )( B) violations at Roadway when
Reilly made deliveries.
steward to the terminal manager about November
14 in anticipation of the Reilly campaign, the
overall message conveyed was that when Reilly
made deliveries , Respondent would shut down the
Eazor terminal . This was coupled with a suggestion
that Eazor could avoid the trouble of trucks refus-
ing to enter or leave the terminal on such occasions
by stopping all business with Reilly . I find these
statements were unlawful within the meaning of
Section 8 ( b)(4)(ii )(B). I also find that about the
first of December Fularczyk in effect told the
dockmen they could engage in a general work stop-
page if pickets were present and that they actually
engaged in a general work stoppage as a result of
the inducements of Hammer and Jesinski. I find
that the inducements of all three business agents
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) and those of
Hammer and Jesinski 8(b)(4)(ii )( B) as well
because of the work stoppage which resulted.
6. The events at Eazor
Reilly usually delivered freight to Eazor four
times a week . As noted elsewhere herein, about
November 14 the Union sent to all over -the-road
carriers a letter advising that ambulatory picketing
would be accompanying Reilly deliveries. In ad-
vance of the letter Respondent 's steward at Eazor,
one Llewellyn ( Proky ) Martin advised the terminal
manager that he would be receiving the Union's
letter and alerted him to the prospect of picketing
of Reilly at the Eazor terminal . The manager un-
derstood from the conversation that the dockmen
would not unload Reilly freight and would probably
take a coffeebreak when Reilly was present. The
steward indicated that it would be better if Eazor
did not do any business with Reilly because to do so
might cause a lot of trouble with trucks refusing to
enter or leave the terminal.
Respondent's pickets first appeared at Eazor in
late November . From then until the end of
December they were present whenever Reilly made
a delivery . They picketed at the terminal entrance
since Eazor refused them permission to picket at
the dock : On those occasions the Eazor dockmen
would not unload the Reilly freight. However, it
was unloaded by Eazor supervisors or the Reilly
driver after which it generally was handled by the
dockmen after the Reilly driver had left the ter-
minal.
On one occasion about the first of December
when a Reilly truck arrived Business Agents
Hammer and Jesinski came onto the dock and
spoke to the dockmen . Although the evidence does
not indicate what words they uttered , the dockmen
all took a coffeebreak until after Reilly and the
pickets had left. About the same time Business
Agent Fularczyk told the dockmen, including the
union steward, that they did not have to work while
the pickets were there.
First , with regard to the statements of the dock
7. The events at Hickey-Ryder and at Admiral
As noted earlier , Ryder , an over-the -road carrier,
performed none of its own local cartage but instead
employed Hickey , a local cartage concern , for most
such hauling . They shared a common terminal. For
the purposes of this case Hickey and Ryder are
considered a single employer . Access to the
Hickey-Ryder terminal was had through a driveway
shared with Admiral , another over-the-road carrier.
The separate Admiral terminal was somewhat
closer to the street than the Hickey-Ryder terminal
which was set back some distance . Normally Reilly
made deliveries to Hickey-Ryder once a day and to
Admiral once or twice a week.
About the time Respondent 's campaign first
began in late November Business Agent Fularczyk
followed a Reilly truck into the Hickey-Ryder ter-
minal and commenced picketing in the vicinity of
the truck . He was immediately evicted by the
Hickey management and required to picket on the
street at the entrance common to both the Hickey-
Ryder and Admiral terminals . All subsequent
picketing occurred at that location and on each oc-
casion the business agent in charge of picketing
(usually Fularczyk) would first hurry onto the
Hickey-Ryder dock to announce that Reilly was
there and then set up the picket at the entrance.
Picketing occurred about once a week from late
November until sometime in January when pickets
began to appear daily.
At first the Hickey-Ryder dockmen simply
refused to unload the Reilly trucks when the
pickets were at the gate . But in mid -January they
began to engage in general work stoppages when
the pickets appeared and even on some occasions
when no pickets were present during the Reilly
deliveries.
Similarly at Admiral on two occasions when
Reilly was delivering to the Admiral dock and
pickets were at the common entrance to the ter-
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
minals, the Admiral dockmen engaged in a general
work stoppage. In addition, on about 15 other oc-
casions during the period from the end of
November to mid-January the Admiral dockmen
refused to perform any work while pickets were at
the common entrance to the terminals because of
Reilly deliveries to the Hickey-Ryder terminal. On
these occasions there were no Reilly employees or
equipment at the Admiral terminal. On those occa-
sions the Admiral assistant manager went out to the
street to investigate how long the picket would be
up." Based on this, as well as the testimony of Fu-
larczyk that on the occasion of the first picketing at
the common entrance to the terminals chaos
resulted in the driveway and on the street because
incoming trucks at both the Admiral and the
Hickey-Ryder terminals refused to enter, I find that
Respondent's representatives were aware of the
work stoppages at Admiral caused by the picketing.
The Admiral management, unlike that at Hickey-
Ryder, did not order Respondent's pickets off the
Admiral premises. On no occasion did the pickets
specifically request permission to picket or even
make an effort to picket Reilly at the Admiral
dock.
On December 19 Business Agent Clarence
Johannes suggested to the Ryder terminal manager
that Ryder cease the longstanding practice of sup-
plying trailers to Reilly for certain types of freight.
Johannes told the terminal manager that if Reilly
continued with that practice it was possible the
Union would picket Ryder from the time such
trailer was placed loaded in their yard until such
time as the trailer was removed from the yard. The
evidence shows that with one exception throughout
the period of the active dispute Hickey-Ryder did
not make trailers available as in the past . It is not
clear whether or not they were withheld as a result
of Johannes' December 19 talk with the Ryder
manager . The exception occurred on January 24
when, in response to a request from either Rex
Chainbelt or Reilly for a trailer, the Hickey
dispatcher sent a Hickey driver with an empty
Ryder trailer to the Rex Chainbelt plant. The
driver, a member of Respondent, delivered the
empty trailer to the Rex Chainbelt dock by using
the Greenfield Avenue entrance to the plant which
had been reserved for persons other than Reilly or
Reilly suppliers. The record does not show why he
used that entrance. The driver then reported to the
Union that he had so delivered the empty trailer.
As set out hereinafter, Respondent, asserting that
the sanctity of the separate gate had thereby been
violated, immediately resumed its picketing of the
Greenfield Avenue gate. Respondent also urges
that this incident justified it in treating Hickey-
Ryder as an ally of Reilly.
"On one occasion Business Agent Jesinski , who coordinated and
managed the entire Reilly campaign , was one of the pickets
"The effect of Respondent 's blanket request for written permission to
315
I find that from mid-January on Respondent's
picketing was its signal for the general work stop-
pages at both the Hickey-Ryder and Admiral ter-
minals and that it thereby violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).
In addition, although Respondent clearly
picketed as close as it was allowed when Reilly
deliveries were made at the Hickey-Ryder terminal,
the same was not true when the deliveries were to
the Admiral terminal. The pickets were not forbid-
den to picket immediately around Reilly vehicles at
the Admiral dock. Yet they never attempted to do
so nor did they on any occasion of picketing
specifically ask permission to do so.2 While
Respondent was not affirmatively advised by Ad-
miral management that it could picket Reilly trucks
at the dock, it was Respondent's responsibility to
picket as close as possible to the Reilly trucks. I
find it did not do so. Instead I find that by design it
picketed at the common entrance during Reilly
deliveries to Admiral because by so doing it caused
a greater disruption at Admiral and Hickey-Ryder. I
further find that by instigating general work stop-
pages on the Admiral dock on some 15 occasions
when it was picketing at the common entrance
because of Reilly deliveries at the Hickey-Ryder
terminal, Respondent demonstrated that the pur-
pose of its picketing was to involve neutral em-
ployees and employers in the dispute. Accordingly,
in all the circumstances, I find that the picketing at
the common entrance to the Hickey-Ryder and
Admiral terminals was for an object proscribed by,
and therefore in violation of, Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B), and because it caused work stop-
pages at the terminals, I find it was also in violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
I further find that Johannes' threat to the Ryder
terminal manager on December 19 to picket if
Ryder continued the established past business prac-
tice of loaning trailers to Reilly was also in violation
of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Respondent's argument
that the January 24 delivery of a trailer at Rex
Chainbelt somehow made Hickey-Ryder an ally of
Reilly or a primary in the dispute thereby justifying
union action against Hickey-Ryder is without merit.
First of all, it could have no bearing on union ac-
tion with regard to Hickey-Ryder taken before
January 24. Secondly, the loan of the trailer simply
resumed an established past business practice
which existed for the convenience of the over-the-
road carriers and which Hickey-Ryder could en-
gage in without becoming a Reilly ally or a primary
disputant. Friden, Inc., 134 NLRB 598, 599,
607-608. Thirdly, it is not clear on this record to
whom the trailer was loaned on January 24,
whether to Rex Chainbelt or to Reilly. And finally,
the January 24 incident was too isolated in any case
picket at the Reilly trucks made in its letter of November 14 to all the over-
the-road carriers is treated elsewhere herein
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to destroy Hickey -Ryder 's neutrality . Drivers,
Warehouse & Dairy Employees , Local No. 75
( Seymour Transfer , Inc.), 176 NLRB 528.
8. The events at C. W.
C. W. operates one of the larger over -the-road
trucking terminals in Milwaukee , employing about
90 drivers and dockmen , all members of Respon-
dent . Reilly normally made nightly deliveries to C.
W. At such times the terminal had about 18
dockmen on duty.
From late November and continuing at the time
of the hearing herein in mid-March Respondent's
pickets appeared at the terminal entrance and exit
during some of Reilly 's deliveries . The record does
not show whether the pickets received or even
asked for permission to picket Reilly at the terminal
dock.
From late November until December 16 C. W.
dockmen , on the occasion of Reilly deliveries.
refused to unload the Reilly freight but continued
to perform other work during Reilly's presence. On
December 16 when the Reilly delivery arrived at
the terminal Irvin Bell, the union steward for
drivers who at the time was acting as dock steward,
told the dockmen to leave the dock area and go
downstairs to the lunchroom . According to the
dock foreman he told the dockmen , " to sit down
when Reilly comes in, that they 're being picketed."
Pickets were in fact present at that time . The result-
ing work stoppage , involving approximately 18
dockmen , lasted about 20 minutes until the Reilly
driver and equipment as well as the pickets had left.
During December and January the frequency of
picketing increased to the extent that Reilly deliv-
eries were accompanied by picketing as many as 3
and sometimes 4 nights a week . Subsequent to
December 16 and continuing until mid -February
the dockmen left the dock area and proceeded to
the lunchroom whenever Reilly made a delivery
whether pickets were present or not . On four such
occasions the union steward announced on the
dock that " Reilly 's here and to go downstairs." On
two other occasions union business agents ( other-
wise unidentified in the record ) spoke to the
dockmen on the dock , telling them, "go downstairs
to wait until Reilly leaves ." During such general
work stoppages the dock foreman , in order to short-
en the duration of the shutdown , endeavored to
unload Reilly as quickly as possible and speed his
departure from the terminal . In mid -January one of
Respondent 's business agents (identified as such
to the dock foreman by the union steward)
proposed to the foreman that he let the unloading
of Reilly wait awhile and that if he would do so the
business agents would not put the pickets up. The
foreman however did not accede to this proposition
but instead proceeded with his prompt unloading of
the Reilly delivery and, in accordance with the pat-
tern at that time , the pickets immediately com-
menced picketing and the dockmen walked off the
dock.
I find that the inducement of the general work
stoppages at C. W. from December 16 on and also
the instructions of the steward and the business
agents establish the secondary purpose of both their
comments and of the picketing . Accordingly, I find
that Respondent thereby violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B). As in the Arkansas and
Roadway situation the defense based on the con-
tention that C. W. favored Reilly by supervisors im-
mediately unloading is without merit.
9. The events at Mercury
In normal practice Reilly only made deliveries to
the Mercury terminal once or twice a month and
during the period of time involved in this case made
only one such delivery. In late November the Mer-
cury dock steward , Herb Lemke , advised the ter-
minal manager that he had been instructed at a
stewards ' meeting that when Reilly freight was
delivered the dock employees were not to unload it
and that a supervisor would have to. Sometime
thereafter apparently in late November or
December on the occasion of the one Reilly
delivery to Mercury, pickets appeared and picketed
around the Reilly truck at the dock. On this occa-
sion the shipment of freight, which was small, was
already unloaded from the Reilly vehicle by the
Reilly driver before the Mercury supervisor got out
to the truck. The dock employees continued to do
their other work but they were instructed by union
representatives present at that time that in the fu-
ture when Reilly deliveries arrived they were to
cease all work on the dock. One of the dockmen
then informed the terminal manager of these in-
structions and he acceded to them, indicating that
in the future when Reilly arrived the dockmen
should just drop everything while he unloaded the
Reilly freight. The evidence does not show whether
any such future incident ever occurred.
Although Respondent 's picketing during the sin-
gle incident described above was confined to the
environs of the Reilly vehicle , the union representa-
tives' inducement of the dockmen on that occasion
to stop all work during future deliveries indicates
that Respondent 's purpose in picketing was to in-
volve the dockmen and their employer in the pri-
mary dispute . I find, therefore , that the picketing at
Mercury was contrary to the proscriptions of Sec-
tion 8 ( b)(4)(i)(B ). The evidence is insufficient to
establish that a violation of 8(b )(4)(ii)(B ) occurred
at Mercury.
10. The events at Dohrn
Reilly made deliveries at Dohrn 's terminal about
three times a week and on rare occasions as many
as five times a week . In late November or early
December Dennis Kobs, Respondent's dock
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
steward at Dohrn, advised the terminal manager
that he had been at a union stewards' meeting the
night before and that the Union's instructions were
that the dockmen were not to unload Reilly freight;
that it would instead be unloaded by supervisors
who could place it on the dock and thereafter after
Reilly had left the premises the dockmen would
handle the freight. In the period that followed
whenever Reilly made a delivery the Dohrn
dockmen would not unload that freight. They did,
however, continue to work on other freight during
the Reilly delivery except in those rare occasions
when pickets appeared in which event they ceased
work altogether.13
In about mid-January the frequency of picketing
during the Reilly deliveries increased to the point
where there were pickets present at virtually every
Reilly delivery and as a consequence there was a
general work stoppage by the dockmen on each
such occasion. This pattern of events continued and
was still in existence at the time of the hearing
herein . On none of these occasions did the pickets
attempt to picket the Reilly vehicles at the Dohrn
dock, nor did they ask or receive permission to do
so. All of the picketing was conducted on the street
at the entrance to the terminal.
On February 6 in a conversation with the Dohrn
terminal manager business agent Johannes inquired
if Dohrn was then supplying trailers to Reilly. The
manager indicated that none had been requested of
Dohrn since the last of January. Johannes said to
the manager , "Well, continue on. Don't give them
any trailers."
Considering all of what transpired regarding
Dohrn, I find that Respondent's picketing con-
stituted repeated violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B). I find, however, that Johannes' Febru-
ary 6 comment to the terminal manager did not
amount to a threat, coercion, or restraint. within the
meaning of 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
11. The events at Express
Reilly typically delivered freight to Express
three or four times a week. On December 2 at 4
p.m. a Reilly operated tractor pulling a loaded Ex-
press trailer drove into the terminal. The trailer was
not to be unloaded but was to be hauled over-the-
road to its ultimate destination by an Express
tractor, so no unloading of cargo by Express dock-
men was required. Within about 10 minutes the
Reilly driver had dropped the trailer at the dock,
had his bills of lading signed in the terminal office
and had left the premises. After he had left four of
Respondent's business agents picketed at the ter-
minal entrance.14 The evidence indicates that if
" On the occasion of one such general work stoppage in mid -December
Business Agent Hammer appeared on the dock saying he was there to ob-
serve the Reilly situation It is clear, therefore, that Respondent either
directed or ratified the general work stoppages
317
they had asked permission at that time they would
have been allowed into the dock area to picket the
trailer. On the street outside several incoming
Express trucks refused to cross the picket line.
About 5 p.m. the union steward, Petroski, talked
to Business Agent Fularczyk on the dock. The
Express dockmen then little by little stopped work-
ing entirely. The general work stoppage lasted about
a half hour until the dock foreman hooked up a
tractor to the trailer left by Reilly and removed it
to another yard. The following morning the union
steward indicated to the terminal manager that in
the future when a Reilly unit was on the premises
or a picket line was out front the Express dockmen
would not work, and they would not handle Reilly
LTL freight even after it was unloaded. Thereafter
the dockmen did in fact handle Reilly LTL freight
but only after it was unloaded by supervisors. On
subsequent days pickets continued to appear out-
side the Express terminal on the occasion of about
half of the Reilly deliveries. Whenever pickets
appeared, and so long as they remained, the Ex-
press dockmen stopped all work.
As with other over-the-road carriers, Reilly's use
of Express trailers had been an established business
practice. Following the events of December 2 and
3, Express refused for a period of time to allow
Reilly to use its trailers.
Business Agent Hammer testified, without speci-
fying any date, that on one occasion Reilly, in haul-
ing a loaded Express trailer from Rex Chainbelt to
the Express terminal , made interim dropoffs of
freight at Cushman and Dohrn before the trailer
was finally spotted at the Express dock. Hammer
followed Reilly to Express and while the Reilly
driver was still on the premises set up picketing at
the Express entrance and continued the picketing
after the Reilly driver departed. The evidence does
not specify if this incident was the same or separate
from the incident of December 2 noted above, but I
infer from the total evidence that it probably was
the same occasion. Respondent offers the justifica-
tion that since Reilly was using the trailer for his
own dropoffs, i.e., deliveries unrelated to Express,
the pickets were entitled to treat it as Reilly equip-
ment and could legitimately picket it after it was
dropped at the Express dock.
As at other terminals, when pickets appeared at
Express on the occasion of a Reilly delivery, one of
the pickets, usually a business agent, came to the
dock and announced that Reilly was there. At Ex-
press this was the signal for the dockmen to stop all
work. An apt illustration of the full import of the
signal occurred on January 22 when a picket told
the Express dock foreman to order his dockmen to
stop work because Reilly was in the yard. When the
" The business agents were Hammer, Fularczyk, Melms, and Wambach
They were joined by William Petroski, the union steward at Express, after
he went off duty at 5 p in
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreman refused, the picket simply walked past him
and announced to the dockmen that Reilly was
there, whereupon they all ceased working.
In response to questions by Respondent's attor-
ney, Hammer testified generally that the only union
statement made to Express employees was that they
did not have to handle freight that was in a trailer
brought by Reilly, but that if the freight was put on
the dock by supervisors or somebody else, then
they would have to handle it. In light of other
evidence noted above I do not credit this general
denial. I find that overall the union message
received by the Express dockmen was to cease all
work when pickets appeared. This inducement to
stop all work demonstrates the Union's purpose to
involve Express and its dockmen in the primary
dispute contrary to the requirements of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). I do not deem that Reilly's
use on one occasion of an Express trailer to peddle
freight to other terminals destroyed Express' status
as a neutral in the dispute.
12. The events at Hennis
Reilly ordinarily made daily deliveries to the
Hennis terminal. Respondent's pickets first ap-
peared there about December 2 and continued to
appear thereafter about 75 percent of the Reilly
deliveries for a substantial period of time.15 On
December 3 in a conversation with the terminal
manager the dock steward, Donald Janowski, in-
dicated that at a recent stewards' meeting he had
been instructed that the dock employees were not
to handle the freight when Reilly brought it in but
that the dockmen could do other work while a su-
pervisor unloaded Reilly. During the first week in
which picketing occurred this was the way things
operated. Beginning in mid-December, however,
whenever Reilly made a delivery, the dockmen in
accordance with union instructions ceased all work,
leaving the dock and not returning until the Reilly
delivery was completed. These general stoppages
varied in duration from a minimum of 5 minutes to
an exceptional incident of 1 hour and occurred ir-
respective of whether pickets16 were present or not.
On one such occasion in the last week of December
when pickets were present Respondent Business
Agent Jesinski was on the dock and observed the
general work stoppage.
The evidence shows that nothing was said
between the Union and Hennis with respect to tak-
ing Reilly out of turn. On the contrary the evidence
indicates that at the time Reilly's deliveries were
made the Hennis dock was clear and all shipments
could be handled simultaneously.
As already found regarding Respondent's con-
duct at other terminals , I find that the above-
described events at Hennis demonstrate its secon-
dary object and I find, therefore, that by its conduct
at Hennis Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
and (ii)(B). I further note that the fact that all
deliveries at Hennis could be handled simultane-
ously indicates the pretextual nature of Respon-
dent's defense, at least regarding the Hennis situa-
tion, that general work stoppages were in protest of
alleged favoritism to Reilly in promptly unloading
Reilly freight.
13. The events at Knox
Normally Reilly delivered freight to Knox about
once a day. On December 3 Reilly made two
deliveries. One was on a Knox trailer loaded with
about 40,000 pounds of Rex Chainbelt freight, a
full load. The other was about 20,000 pounds of
Charter Wire freight, making up about one-half a
load, on a Sturm trailer which Knox had on an in-
terline basis ." Neither trailer needed to be un-
loaded by the Knox dockmen although additional
freight was scheduled to be on the Sturm trailer.
The freight already in each trailer was to remain
undisturbed and hauled over the road by Knox in
those particular trailers. .
The second December 2 Reilly delivery came in
about 2 p.m. Within a short time (a maximum of 20
minutes ) the Reilly driver had dropped the trailer,
handed over the bills of lading in the Knox freight
office, and departed. About that time Business
Agents Hammer and Fularczyk arrived and set up
picket lines at both the entrance and the exit to the
Knox yard. They received no permission to picket
inside the yard at the dock and, aside from the
blanket request made by Respondent to all carriers
in its letter of November 14, no request was made
of the Knox management to allow picketing within
the yard. The business agents stated to the Knox
management that Respondent was picketing the
two trailers left by Reilly and that the picketing
would continue as long as that freight was present
even though no Reilly employees were present and
the trailers were not The property of Reilly. In
response to this advice a Knox supervisor im-
mediately drove the full trailer out of the yard onto
the street and parked it there. Knox supervisors
then filled the Sturm trailer with additional freight
scheduled to go into it and then also drove it out of
the yard onto the street. In the meantime some 3
hours' time had passed during which the pickets
remained at the Knox entrance and exit. The
drivers of incoming trucks of both Knox and other
carriers refused to cross Respondent's picket line
and were accordingly backed up on the street.
Respondent's business agents told these incoming
drivers that it was a Local 200 picket line and, ac-
'S The record does not reveal precisely how long the union campaign
continued at Hennis
1e The testimony of Business Agent Fularczyk indicates pickets were al-
lowed in the dock area at Henms
'r Sturm was another over-the-road carrier not otherwise involved in this
case Charter Wire was another shipper of freight
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200 319
cording to Fularczyk, "You know your rights in-
volving a picket line. Use your own discretion. "18
Hammer testified that he had observed the Reilly
driver of one of the trailers making two stops at
other carriers' terminals on his way to Knox. From
this he concluded that Reilly was using the Knox
equipment to peddle other freight than that
destined for the Knox terminal and therefore
Respondent was entitled to consider the Knox and
the Sturm trailers as if they were in fact Reilly-
owned trailers which, according to him, could then
properly be picketed in the Knox yard even after
the delivery to Knox was completed. As a result of
the events on December 3 the Knox management
terminated its longstanding arrangement of loaning
trailers to Reilly.
During the balance of Respondent's active cam-
paign against Reilly whenever Reilly equipment ar-
rived at the-Knox terminal and required unloading,
the Knox dockmen refused to unload the freight so
long as the Reilly driver was present. If the freight
was on a trailer which the Reilly driver dropped at
the Knox dock, the dockmen would, however, han-
dle the freight after the Reilly driver had left, and
so far as the evidence shows, once the freight was
placed onto the dock the dockmen handled it the
same as other freight, provided no pickets were
present.
When, however, pickets were present at the
Knox gates, which occurred frequently thereafter
throughout the campaign, the dockmen on some
occasions ceased all work.'9 The terminal manager
testified that whether a general work stoppage
resulted or not seemed to depend in part upon
which men were working at the time the pickets
showed up and upon the amount of persuasion the
union representatives used on each occasion.
In an effort to minimize the impact of the picket-
ing and stoppages the Knox management sub-
sequent to December 3 endeavored, by using super-
visors, to unload all Reilly freight that required han-
dling as soon as it was brought into the terminal.
The result was that the freight brought in by Reilly
did not have to await its turn to be unloaded by the
dockmen as did other incoming shipments.
According to Fularczyk the Union's instructions
regarding not handling Reilly freight were not to
handle it while a Reilly driver was on the premises
or while it was still in the equipment in which Reilly
delivered it even though that equipment might be-
long to someone else. However, once the bills of
lading were signed and received in the terminal of-
fice and the freight was placed on the dock, the
dockmen could handle it. In his view, the freight
changed hands when the bills of lading were signed.
I find that the December 3 picketing at Knox was
unwarranted because the Reilly driver and equip-
ment had left the terminal . Reilly had no continuing
presence at Knox as was the case in United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local 6991,
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (Auburn-
dale Freezer Corporation), 177 NLRB 791. Neither
the trailers nor the freight belonged to Reilly and
whatever interim responsibility Reilly had regarding
them while providing local cartage ceased upon
delivery to Knox. To find otherwise would require a
finding that Reilly had a "continuing presence" at
all of the multitude of terminals to which it
delivered freight. And even if Reilly did use one of
the trailers to peddle freight on its way to Knox,
Reilly's relationship with that equipment ter-
minated upon delivery to Knox. Such peddling was
clearly not for the account of Knox. In fact there is
no evidence Knox knew it had occurred. Even if
there was "peddling," it was only with regard to
one trailer and not the other. Such was certainly
not, in the circumstances here, sufficient to destroy
the neutrality of Knox. On the contrary, I find that
Respondent used the situation as a pretext to in-
volve Knox, its employees, and those delivering to
its terminal , in the Reilly dispute and thereby
further disrupt the Knox operation. I find, there-
fore, that the December 3 picketing and the busi-
ness agents ' comments to incoming drivers, which
were effective to prevent their entry, were for an
object forbidden by, and were in violation of, Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act. In the light
of the December 3 events at Knox and Respon-
dent's conduct at other terminals throughout the
campaign, I find further that the picketing at Knox
after December 3 was a repeated signal to the Knox
dockmen to cease their work for Knox and was
likewise violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).
14. The events at Cushman
Reilly delivered freight to the Cushman terminal
three or four times a week, on some occasions on
trailers supplied Reilly by Cushman.
In early December Respondent began picketing
at both the entrance and exit drives to the terminal
whenever Reilly made a delivery. At these times the
pickets made no request of the terminal manage-
ment to picket immediately around the Reilly vehi-
cle nor were they directed by the management to
picket on the street. Commencing in late December
or early January the Cushman employees on the
dock refused to unload the Reilly freight but did
continue to perform other work while supervisors
unloaded the Reilly freight.
18 As contrasted with the stoppage of incoming freight, during the
December 3 incident no effort was made to prevent outbound equipment
from leaving the Knox yard and in fact , according to Hammer , several out-
bound vehicles did leave the yard during the picketing
18 The record is not clear on how many occasions during the campaign
Respondent picketed at Knox However, there were some Reilly deliveries
when no pickets appeared and there were a substantial number of other oc-
casions when pickets did appear
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the week of January 6, Reilly made a
delivery of LTL freight to Cushman at a time when
three or four Cushman employees were on the
dock. There apparently were pickets at that time.
All of the Cushman employees left the dock area
and refused to perform any work whatsoever.
James Cassidy, the dock steward at Cushman, told
the terminal manager that the employees would not
work. while Reilly was present and that they were
told not to (presumably by the Union). Cassidy
himself testified that he told the manager they
would not work because of the picket line at the
entrances.
Thereafter and apparently until the time of the
hearing general work stoppages continued when-
ever Reilly made a delivery and whether or not
pickets were present at the time of such deliveries.
Pickets were in fact present during virtually all
Reilly deliveries until some time in February when
the frequency of the pickets decreased and they ap-
peared only during about 60 or 70 percent of the
Reilly deliveries. Whenever pickets did appear an
additional effect was that no traffic either entered
or left the terminal during the picketing.
On February 3, a Reilly tractor and trailer with a
load of freight requiring transfer to a Cushman
trailer backed into the Cushman dock. At the time
two employees from Welch Cartage Company,
another local cartage concern, were moving a piano
across the dock. A business agent of Respondent
came onto the dock and at the same time picketing
began at the terminal entrance. The two Welch em-
ployees immediately stopped work and left the
dock. About the same time a driver for National
Transit, an over-the-road carrier, who was at the
terminal to make a delivery, told the Cushman
dispatcher he could not unload his freight as long as
Reilly was in the yard. Although the evidence does
not reveal specifically what, if anything, the busi-
ness agent said, I infer from the reaction to his
presence on the dock, as well as from what business
agents throughout the campaign announced at vari-
ous docks, that he announced that Reilly was there
and possibly that pickets were out front. The Reilly
driver, instead of waiting for his trailer to be un-
loaded, dropped the trailer at the dock and left with
his tractor, saying he would return later. In the
meantime the picketing continued, as did the work
stoppages on the part of the Welch and National
Transit employees, until the Reilly driver returned
some 20 minutes later and removed his trailer,
which by that time had been unloaded by Cushman
supervisors.
Considering all the circumstances at Cushman,
particularly the January escalation of general work
stoppages, the statements of the dock steward, and
what I infer to be the inducement by the business
agent of the Welch and National Transit employees
20 On this occasion the load was about 10,000 pounds and was described
as one which did not require rehandling at the Clairmont terminal prior to
being shipped out to its ultimate destination
on February 3 to stop working, I find that the
picketing had a secondary object and violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).
15. The events at Navajo
Navajo's operations in Milwaukee were smaller
than many of the other carriers involved in this
matter. They employed 14 members of Respondent
including dockmen. Reilly delivered about twice
each week to Navajo's dock. None of these were
volume loads, all being classed as LTL freight.
In the first week of December Respondent's
steward at the Navajo terminal, one Leo Wilent,
advised the terminal manager that Respondent
would be picketing the premises when Reilly
delivered freight and that the union people would
not be able to unload them. The manager then
asked if he himself could do the unloading and the
steward advised that he could. Through the balance
of December and up until mid-January Respondent
picketed at the Navajo terminal during Reilly
deliveries on about half a dozen occasions. On one
of these the pickets appeared at the doc" but on
the remainder they picketed at the terminal en-
trance. On such occasions they did not ask permis-
sion to picket at the dockside, but it is clear from
the testimony of Business Agent Fularczyk that, as
at the Hennis terminal , Navajo permitted picketing
at its dock.
Although the evidence at Navajo is not
overwhelming, I find that the picketing there was
for a secondary purpose. I base this on the Union's
picketing at the terminal entrance when it could
have picketed immediately around Reilly vehicles
at the dock. Also the widespread secondary activity
of Respondent at many other terminals throughout
the campaign is some support for the conclusion
that it picketed with the same object at Navajo. Ac-
cordingly, I find that the picketing there was con-
trary to Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B).
16. The events at Clairmont
Reilly usually delivered freight to Clairmont's ter-
minal two or three times each week. On December
9 about 5 p.m. a Reilly-operated tractor pulled into
the Clairmont terminal with a Clairmont trailer car-
rying a volume load of Rex Chainbelt freight.20
Within about 10 to 12 minutes the Reilly driver had
presented his bill of lading in the terminal office,
dropped the trailer at the dock, and left with his
tractor. According to Business Agent Hammer,
pickets arrived during this period of time and com-
menced picketing at the entrance which Clairmont
shared with Glendenning, an adjoining terminal.21
They did not request permission to picket at the
dock. According to Clairmont's terminal manager,
21 Glendenning is not among the over -the-road carriers named in the
complaint as involved in this proceeding
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
Edward Franken , he observed Hammer on the
Clairmont dock about 5:15 or 5:20 after the Reilly
driver had left and that Hammer told the dockmen
in a loud voice that they were not supposed to han-
dle any freight while Reilly was on the premises. He
then told Franken that the dockmen would not
work while the offending trailer was at the dock.
When Franken asked him how. he could get the
men back to work , Hammer suggested that he get
the trailer away from the dock , whereupon Franken
called the Reilly office to send a Reilly driver for
the trailer . It was removed from the Clairmont ter-
minal by a Reilly driver , returned to Rex Chainbelt,
and later hauled back to the Clairmont terminal by
a Clairmont-operated tractor . At the time Hammer
was talking to the dockmen engaged in a general
work stoppage which continued for a period of
about 35 to 40 minutes until the trailer was
removed from the dock.
Hammer denied that he had directed the Clair-
mont dockmen to engage in a general work stop-
page . According to him he only told them they
should not go onto the trailer to unload it. How-
ever , it is clear that they in fact did engage in a
general work stoppage not only on this occasion
but on subsequent occasions , until about mid-
February whenever Reilly came on the premises,
and whether or not a picket was present . In some
regards Hammer 's testimony about the Clairmont
incident was confusing and inconsistent . In view of
this and in the light of the entire evidence dealing
with that incident I do not credit Hammer 's version
of what he said.
Respondent endeavors to explain the work stop-
page at Clairmont after the Reilly driver had left on
the' basis that another Reilly driver came through
the entrance to the adjoining terminal at Glen-
denning and that new pickets following that driver
arrived and set up a second picket line at the en-
trance. This explanation is not adequate, however,
because the Clairmont work stoppage appears to
have been the result of Hammer 's statements to the
Clairmont dockmen and manager on the dock
rather than solely the result of the presence of the
pickets out front. Moreover , there was no reason
why he should have condoned the continuation of a
work stoppage at Clairmont in response to a picket
directed at a Reilly driver in Glendenning.
A day or two after the December 9 incident
Clairmont discontinued its longstanding practice of
permitting Reilly to use Clairmont trailers for
volume loads . Franken testified that this was done
in an effort to avoid repetition of the December 9
incident.
Hammer testified that in the December 9 in-
cident he was protesting directions of the Clairmont
management to its dockmen to go onto the trailer
left by Reilly and unload the freight . I find, how-
ever , that this freight was not to be unloaded and
required no handling by the Clairmont dockmen.
According to Hammer 's own testimony , when he
321
came onto the dock the dockmen were not working
on Reilly freight , and while he was talking at least
some of them stopped work to listen . According to
him that was the second time he was on the dock
during that incident , the first time being when the
Reilly driver first arrived , and that on this second
occasion , by which time the freight had been
turned over to Clairmont and the Reilly driver had
left, he told the dockmen that none of them had to
handle any freight in that trailer.
Based on the foregoing , I find that Hammer's
statements on the Clairmont dock on December 9,
as well as the picketing on that day and thereafter,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B).
17. The events at Advance-United
Reilly made daily deliveries of freight to Ad-
vance-United. Such deliveries were affected by the
Reilly vehicle's backing into the dock, the front of
the vehicle then being at or near the public street.
Beginning about the second week of December and
continuing until late December Respondent
picketed such Reilly vehicles by patrolling a
distance of 25 or 30 feet on the street in front of
the vehicle . On the second day on which picketing
occurred a representative of Respondent who ac-
companied the picket informed the terminal
manager that the dockmen of Advance -United did
not have to work behind the picket line. As a result
of the picketing the dockmen refused to unload the
Reilly vehicles but they engaged in no general work
stoppages during the first week . However, the next
week the dockmen engaged in general work stop-
pages during such picketing , and this reaction was
repeated thereafter whenever picketing occurred.
The complaint alleges that on or about January
14, Respondent 's president threatened Advance-
United with a work stoppage unless it ceased doing
business with Reilly . The evidence offered in sup-
port of this allegation shows that late in the week
ending January 18, Roy Lane, Respondent's pres-
ident, teephoned the manager of Advance-United
and accused him of having loaned a trailer to
Reilly . Such loans had been an established business
practice with Advance -United as with almost all of
the over -the-road carriers prior to - the dispute. Lane
told him that if Advance-United did not stop the
loan of trailers to Reilly drastic action would be
taken at the terminal . When the terminal manager
pressed him as to what he meant by drastic action,
Lane refused to elaborate over the telephone.
Although the picketing at Advance-United
plainly was as close as possible to the Reilly vehi-
cles and only during Reilly deliveries , I find that
from approximately the second week in December
on, because of the inducement of general work
stoppages during picketing ( which stoppages were
consistent with the union representatives ' declara-
tion to the terminal manager that the dockmen did
not have to work "behind " the picket line), an ob-
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ject of the picketing was to enmesh Advance-
United in the primary dispute and consequently
violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B). I also find
that by Lane's January 18 threat of drastic action at
the terminal, Respondent further violated Section
8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
18. Evidence with respect to Respondent's conduct
at O. K. and Murphy
Although the complaint alleges that Respondent
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(4)(B)
at the premises of O. K. and Murphy, there is insuf-
ficient evidence of any such conduct in the record
on which to make a finding of a violation. The only
evidence relating to these over-the-road carriers is
in the testimony of Business Agent Fularczyk to the
effect that he and other business agents picketed
virtually all of the carriers including these two. But
there is no specific evidence as to what occurred at
those locations other than a reference that O. K.
was one of the terminals where picketing occurred
around the Reilly truck at the terminal dock. Ac-
cordingly, I recommend that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent en-
gaged in unfair labor practices at the terminal of O.
K. and Murphy.
19. Location of picketing at terminals
Assuming that while Reilly trucks and drivers
were at the over-the -road terminals the Reilly
trucks constituted the situs of the dispute for the
purpose of applying Moore Dry Dock2 criteria for
common situs picketing , it is appropriate to inquire
whether Respondent 's picketing satisfied the stan-
dard which requires that picketing at a common
situs be limited to places reasonably close to the lo-
cation of the primary employer 's work situs at such
premises . At the terminals of Advance -United,
Mercury, and Hennis where picketing was in the
immediate vicinity of the Reilly vehicles, the stan-
dard clearly was met. Where pickets were not al-
lowed into the dock area , as at Consolidated
Freightways , Eazor , and Hickey -Ryder, and picket-
ing occurred at terminal entrances, the standard
was also met. At most of the other terminals picket-
ing also occurred on the street at the terminal en-
trances, but a question exists whether the standard
was met or not at these locations because of the
Union 's letter to all carriers on November 14 alert-
ing them to the prospect of ambulatory picketing at
their entrances unless the Union received their
written permission to picket at their docks. Could
the Union by such a single blanket communication
shift to the many neutral carriers for the duration of
the campaign the onus of providing advance written
permission to picket Reilly vehicles at their docks
thereby relieving the Union of any further obliga-
tion to seek to picket immediately around the
Reilly trucks? The evidence shows that at Express
and Navajo, where Respondent picketed at the ter-
minal entrances, the pickets would have been al-
lowed into the dock areas if they had asked permis-
sion at the time they picketed, but they did not ask.
Likewise at Roadway, Knox, Admiral, Cushman,'
Dohrn, and Clairmont where picketing was also at
terminal entrances, the pickets did not on any of
those occasions ask permission to enter the dock
area. The record does not indicate whether they
would have been allowed in had they asked. At
Consolidated Forwarding, Arkansas, and C. W.
picketing was also at the terminal entrances, but
the record does not show whether or not they asked
or attempted to enter the dock areas.
While I do not discount entirely Respondent's
November 14 letter to the carriers, considering all
aspects of the matter I do not think Respondent
was thereby completely relieved of further respon-
sibility to place its pickets as close as possible to the
Reilly trucks. By the November 14 letter Respon-
dent in effect attempted to grant itself a license to
picket all terminal entrances except where a ter-
minal moved in writing to revoke the license. While
it would not have been much of a chore for any of
the terminals to invite the Union to picket within
the dock area, it was not their responsibility to in-
sure the legality of Respondent's conduct. I note
that the vast majority of picketing at terminals was
at terminal entrances while no picketing at all oc-
curred at Reilly's premises. Although the matter is
not free of doubt, I find that, except at Con-
solidated Freightways, Hickey-Ryder, and Eazor
where pickets were not allowed in the dock area,
the picketing at terminal entrances did not satisfy
the Moore Dry Dock standard of being reasonably
close to the location of Reilly's work situs.
20. Respondent's contentions regarding its conduct
at the terminals
In addition to defense contentions noted else-
where herein, Respondent argues that its conduct
at the terminals of the over-the-road carriers was
protected primary activity because of what it calls
the related work doctrine and because the carriers
were allies of Reilly.
a. The related work argument
In Respondent's view its appeals to terminal em-
ployees not to unload or otherwise handle freight in
trailers delivered by Reilly was protected primary
activity within the proviso of Section 8(b)(4)(B)
because the services to be performed by them were
related to the on-going enterprise of Reilly. The ar-
_' Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
gument is that without such services Reilly could
not continue to operate. Respondent argues that it
could, therefore, legitimately attempt to halt Reilly
operations not only by applying pressure directly to
Reilly but also pressure shutting off the flow of
freight in Reilly 's local cartage pipeline either at the
source before Reilly received it or at the destina-
tion of the local haul so that Reilly could not get rid
of it.
I find no merit in this defense. It is essentially a
hot cargo concept which if adopted would permit a
disputing union to intercept disfavored cargo be-
fore reaching the disfavored employer while still in
the hands of an innocent source of freight, and to
follow disfavored cargo beyond the control of the
disfavored employer into whatever hands it might
be delivered. The fact that such an approach would
be effective in the highly integrated trucking indus-
try does not establish its legal validity. Oil, Chemi-
cal and Atomic Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 4-23 (Firestone
Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company, division of The
Firestone Tire & Rubber Company), 173 NLRB
1244, relied on by Respondent, is inapposite.
Respondent's contention goes beyond what the
Board found in Local 379, Building Material & Ex-
cavators, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America (Catalano Bros., Inc.), 175 NLRB 459,
to be proper picketing of a roving situs. Here Re-
spondent would justify its picketing and other
inducement of terminal employees even after the
departure of the Reilly driver and tractor. As
pointed out earlier, Reilly at that point had no con-
tinuing presence at the terminal in the sense of
Auburndale Freezer Corporation, supra, and cus-
tody and responsibility for the freight delivered, as
well as the trailer containing it, had already passed
from Reilly to the over-the-road carrier, Under
these circumstances inducement of terminal dock-
men "not to unload or otherwise handle freight
in trailers delivered by Reilly" was not permissible
primary activity. Seymour Transfer, Inc., supra.
b. The ally defenses
With regard to the numerous and extensive
general work stoppages by dockmen at many of the
terminals, Respondent contends' it was entitled to
induce such refusals to work because the over-the-
road carriers had allied themselves with Reilly by
the loan of trailers, by allowing Reilly to peddle
freight from loaned trailers, by engaging in a joint
venture with Reilly, and by expediting the unload-
ing of Reilly freight. None of these points have
merit. Respondent does not contend that struck
work was being performed.
As pointed out earlier herein, continuation of the
established industry practice of supplying empty
323
trailers did not make the carriers allies of Reilly.
Seymour Transfer, Inc., supra. As to peddling
freight from loaned trailers, Respondent refers only
to Reilly peddling freight from trailers of Express
and Knox. Consequently the argument is inapplica-
ble to the other 16 over-the-road carriers involved
herein. And as to Express and Knox, the evidence
indicates peddling on only one occasion from
trailers. The evidence is wholly insufficient to
establish that the management of either terminal
condoned or even knew of such peddling. Without
finding that knowingly allowing a practice of such
peddling from their trailers would make the carriers
allies of Reilly, I am of the view that the two iso-
lated occasions noted above do not furnish a suffi-
cient basis for a finding that Express or Knox
became allies of Reilly. Seymour Transfer, Inc.,
supra. As to the contention that Reilly and the
over-the-road carriers were engaged in joint ven-
tures, it is patent that they were not. The relation-
ships were ordinary ones between trucking con-
cerns doing business with each other. And finally,
with respect to the argument that expedited unload-
ing of Reilly deliveries by terminal supervisors
made them allies of Reilly, I have noted earlier
herein in discussing the events at Roadway that
such argument lacks merit. My rationale regarding
Roadway is equally applicable to the situation at
other terminals where Reilly was quickly unloaded
by supervisors.
With regard to the ally defenses I find, therefore,
that Respondent has not sustained its burden of
establishing that the various over-the-road carriers
involved herein allied themselves with Reilly in the
primary dispute with Respondent.
D. Events at Rex Chainbelt
As noted elsewhere Rex Chainbelt operated a
large plant in Milwaukee. Much of its supplies and
finished products were brought into and shipped
out of the plant by motor freight carriers which en-
tered and left the plant via an entrance on Green-
field Avenue.
On November 18 Respondent wrote to Rex
Chainbelt asserting that it maintained a close busi-
ness relationship with Reilly and that Reilly main-
tained an office and dispatcher at the Rex Chain-
belt premises on a full-time basis. The letter further
went on to say that the Union had a dispute with
Reilly and intended to picket the Reilly terminal as
well as to picket Reilly trucks, and that "it is also
our intention to station a picket at your premises
advertising the dispute with Reilly as long as any
Reilly personnel are present on your premises."
Rex Chainbelt responded by letter of November 21
informing Respondent that Reilly did not maintain
an office at the Rex Chainbelt premises and that
the Reilly dispatcher was not there on a full-time
basis but only subsequent to 12:30 p.m. each work-
ing day.
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 22
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On November 26 Rex Chainbelt set aside for
Reilly 's exclusive use a separate gate on Mitchell
Street and posted the gate with a sign reading "this
gate for exclusive use of Reilly cartage ." Thereafter
and for the duration of the dispute Reilly used only
the Mitchell Street gate and did not use the main
gate on Greenfield Avenue.
Respondent commenced picketing at the Green-
field Avenue entrance on November 27. In the days
which immediately followed picketing was inter-
rupted by the Thanksgiving holidays and when it
resumed on December 2 it was confined to the gate
reserved for Reilly on Mitchell Street . Thereafter
picketing continued in this manner until January 27
when picketing was resumed at the Greenfield
Avenue entrance until February 3.
In the meantime on December 2 Respondent by
letter to Rex Chainbelt proposed a meeting with
that company and again asked if Reilly maintained
an office at the Rex Chainbelt Dlant and whether
Reilly personnel was present at the premises prior
to 12:30 p.m. each day. In response to this letter
Rex Chainbelt 's manager of labor relations, its
plant manager, and company attorney, on
December 5 met with Fularczyk and Jesinski at
Respondent 's office and among other things again
confirmed that Reilly maintained no office at the
plant , that no Reilly personnel was there prior to
12:30 p.m. each working day, and that Reilly was
restricted to using the Mitchell Street entrance.
The resumed picketing at the Greenfield Avenue
entrance occurred on January 27, 28 , 29, 30, and
31, and again during the morning of February 3, a
Monday . The complaint alleges this picketing was a
violation of the Act.
The Greenfield Avenue gate picketing during the
period January 27-February 3 was carried on
throughout each workday even though no Reilly
personnel were present before 12:30 p.m. on each
day. Rex Chainbelt protested the picketing by wire
to Respondent on January 28 reiterating that Reilly
did not maintain an office at the plant nor have any
employees present prior to 12 : 30 p.m . on any day
and pointing out again that the Mitchell Street
gate had been reserved "for the exclusive use of
Reilly Cartage Company " and that " this gate is the
only gate used by Reilly Cartage Company or any-
one else related thereto to enter or leave our
premises . Our guards have been advised to prohibit
Reilly Cartage Company or anyone else related
thereto from using any gate other than the above-
identified reserved gate and are following our in-
structions in this regard ." The wire further noted
that a sign had been posted at the Greenfield
Avenue entrance stating " this gate is not to be used
by Reilly Cartage Company or for any equipment
to be used by Reilly Cartage Company ." About the
same time the Mitchell Street gate was posted with
an additional sign stating "this gate for exclusive
use of Reilly Cartage Inc. and equipment to be used
by Reilly Cartage Inc. All other equipment must
use the Greenfield Avenue main gate ." The follow-
ing day , January 29 , Rex Chainbelt sent a wire to
all of the over-the-road carriers with a copy to the
Respondent stating " you are hereby requested not
to pick up any equipment that has been placed on
our premises by the Reilly Cartage Company." On
January 30 it further advised the carriers with a
copy to the Respondent that "in addition to the
direction in our prior telegram , you are hereby
requested not to leave any equipment on our
premises for the Reilly Cartage Company." And
finally on January 31 in a letter to Respondent, Rex
Chainbelt summarized the steps that it had taken to
insulate itself from the Reilly dispute.
In the course of this January 27-February 3
picketing the pickets spoke to many of the
truckdrivers on incoming trucks bringing supplies
to Rex Chainbelt . As a result of the picketing and
conduct related to it, between 30 and 35 incoming
trucks turned away and refused to cross the picket
line.
On Monday morning , January 27 , a Lubotsky
truck operated by an employee of Lubotsky at-
tempted to enter the Greenfield Avenue entrance
in order to deliver some forklift tires to Rex Chain-
belt. He was told by the pickets he could not go in
even though he explained the purpose of the
delivery . Later the same day he again attempted to
enter and was again turned away . The Lubotsky
driver , who was a member of a sister local of the
Teamsters , testified that the pickets told him he
would be fined if he crossed the picket line.
On January 28 an empty Olson truck operated by
an Olson driver , which had already made a delivery
to Rex Chainbelt , while exiting about 8:15 a.m.
through the Greenfield Avenue entrance , was told
by one of the pickets "stay the hell out of here or
else."
In defense of its January 27-February 3 picketing
of the Greenfield Avenue entrance Respondent as-
serts that delivery of an empty Ryder trailer
through that entrance on January 24 gave it reason
to believe that Reilly-controlled trailers were using
that neutral entrance during that week , and, there-
fore, its picketing was proper until it received
unambiguous assurances that it would not be so
used . In Respondent 's view it received such as-
surances on Thursday , January 30 . It excuses con-
tinued picketing beyond that point on the ground of
inadvertent mistake and failure of communication
within its own organization.
However, Respondent 's justification does not
take account of all the facts . Considering all the
circumstances regarding the gate situation at Rex
Chainbelt , including the fact that the delivery of the
January 24 Ryder trailer was an isolated incident,
that the driver who pulled it in was a steward of
Respondent and the source of Respondent 's intel-
ligence in the matter , the lack of evidence as to
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
whose decision it was to enter by the neutral gate23
or to whom the trailer was delivered '21 the appeals
which the pickets made while at the Greenfield en-
trance to drivers who obviously were not supplying
Reilly with anything, and the elaborate steps taken
by Rex Chainbelt to insure, and assure Respondent
of, the neutrality of the Greenfield entrance, I am
of the view that Respondent was not justified in
picketing there. I find that it seized upon the iso-
lated delivery of the Ryder trailer on January 24 as
an excuse to move its picketing from the Mitchell
Street gate, where Reilly could be reached, to
Greenfield Avenue where its impact fell upon Rex
Chainbelt and others doing business with it.
Even if the Greenfield Avenue entrance in fact
had ceased to be an entrance effectively reserved
for neutrals and Respondent had been entitled to
picket there in accordance with accepted common
situs standards, its conduct there during the week
of picketing clearly demonstrated its secondary ob-
ject. For example, pickets were present throughout
each workday although Reilly personnel was
present only after 12:30 p.m., they turned away
many incoming drivers with freight which plainly
was not destined for Reilly but for Rex Chainbelt,
and, specifically, they made both appeals and
threats to the Lubotsky driver and the Olson driver
neither of which had any business whatever with
Reilly. So even if there had been no reserve gate,
Respondent's conduct would have been contrary to
the requirements of Section 8(b)(4)(B). See
Catalano Bros., Inc., supra.
By Thursday, January 30, Respondent had
received what even it considered satisfactory as-
surances of the neutrality of the Greenfield en-
trance . Yet the pickets remained and, after the
weekend, reappeared on Monday, February 3.
Respondent would shunt off its responsibility for
this continued picketing with the excuse of honest
mistake and lack of communication. Even if this
were so, Respondent cannot so easily avoid respon-
sibility for a continuing unfair labor practice.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent's picketing
at the Greenfield Avenue entrance during the
period January 27-February 3, together with the
appeals and threats which accompanied the picket-
ing, were violative of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B).
E. General Findings Regarding the Campaign
Considering the campaign against Reilly overall,
it clearly was not aimed directly at Reilly.25 In-
stead, in both planning and execution, it was
directed at both employees and management of
those doing business with Reilly and, on occasion,
The driver of the vehicle did not testify
Presumably it was delivered to either Rex Chambelt or Reilly (the
record does not indicate which ) pursuant to a request from one or the
other of them ( the record is not clear which ) Elsewhere in the record at is
established that Rex Chambelt employees loaded trailers at its dock, which
325
at employees of tertiaries doing business with them.
Because of the overwhelming evidence that Re-
spondent's picketing and related activity which
were all an inseparable part of its well-organized
anti-Reilly program had a secondary object, I
find that its admitted inducement of dock employees
at the various terminals not to unload Reilly trucks
was inducement of neutral employees to engage in
partial work stoppages within the proscription of
Section 8(b)(4)(i)(B) rather than protected primary
activity within the proviso. Seymour Transfer,
Inc., supra. By the same token, the numerous union
announcements made through dock stewards and
business agents that dock employees would not
do this work were threats of partial work stoppages
banned by Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). By this conduct as
well as by the other numerous and widespread
violations of 8(b)(4)(B) more particularly found
elsewhere herein I find that Respondent engaged
in, and induced and encouraged individuals em-
ployed by persons engaged in commerce or in
industries affecting commerce to engage in, strikes
and refusals in the course of their employment to
transport and otherwise handle and work on goods,
articles, materials, and commodities and to perform
services. I further find Respondent threatened,
coerced, and restrained persons engaged in com-
merce or in industries affecting commerce. I also
find that an object of Respondent's conduct was to
force or require persons doing business with Reilly,
including over-the-road carriers and Rex Chain-
belt, to cease handling or transporting freight
tendered by, or to be delivered to, Reilly and to
cease doing business with Reilly, and to force or
require persons doing business with such over-the-
road carriers or with Rex Chainbelt to cease hand-
ling or transporting freight to be picked up at, or
delivered to, or to cease doing business with such
carriers or Rex Chainbelt.
Insofar as the complaint alleges the commission of
unfair labor practices not specifically found herein,
such allegations are hereby dismissed.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
II, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of Reilly, the over-the-road carriers and Rex
Chainbelt described in section I, above, have a
close , intimate , and substantial -relationship 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.
suggests that the trailer in question did not immediately pass into the cus-
tody of Reilly I note also that technically , as to this type of freight service,
Reilly had no contractual relationship with Rex Chainbelt
25 Symptomatic is the fact that the Union never sought to reach Reilly or
Reilly employees by picketing or other activity at Reilly's own premises
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, I recommend
that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and
to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the
purposes of the Act. Because its unfair labor prac-
tices were aimed at a large number of neutral per-
sons not directly involved in its dispute with Reilly,
I recommend that broad cease-and-desist provisions
be included in such order. See Riss & Company,
Inc., 130 NLRB 943, 951, enfd. 300 F.2d 317, 322
(C.A. 3).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Reilly is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The following are persons engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act: O. K.,
Murphy, Hennis , Navajo, Mercury, Dohrn, Express,
Cushman, C. W., Clairmont, Advance, Eazor, Ad-
vance-United, Admiral, Arkansas, Consolidated-
Freightways, Consolidated Forwarding, Roadway,
Knox, Ryder, Hickey, Rex Chainbelt, Olson, and
Lubotsky.
3. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. Hennis, Navajo, Mercury, Dohrn, Express,
Cushman, C. W., Clairmont, Advance, Eazor, Ad-
vance-United, Admiral, Arkansas, Consolidated
Freightways, Consolidated Forwarding, Roadway,
Knox, Ryder, Hickey, Rex Chainbelt, Olson, and
Lubotsky are not allies of Reilly in connection with
Respondent's dispute with Reilly.
5. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii )(B) of the Act.
6. Said unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or by picketing at the terminals
of motor freight carriers where ReillyCartage, Inc.,
delivers or picks up freight, including Hennis
Freight Lines, Inc., Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., Mer-
cury Freight Lines, Inc., Dohrn Transfer Co., Ex-
16 In the event that 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
press Freight Lines, Inc., Cushman Motor Delivery
Co., C. W. Transport, Inc., Clairmont Transfer Co.,
Advance Transportation Co., Eazor Express, Inc.,
Advance-United Expressways, Inc., Admiral
Merchants-Cole-Dixie, Inc., Arkansas Best Freight
System, Inc., Consolidated Freightways, Con-
solidated Forwarding Co., Inc., Roadway Express,
Knox Motor Service, Inc., Ryder Truck Lines, and
Hickey Cartage, Inc., or in any other manner, in-
cluding orders, directions, instructions, requests, or
appeals, however given, made or imparted, or by
permitting any such to remain in existence or ef-
fect, inducing or encouraging any individual em-
ployed by any of said motor freight carriers or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an indus-
try affecting commerce to engage in, a strike or a
refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise han-
dle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services; or
threatening, coercing, or restraining any of said
motor freight carriers or any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where in either case an object thereof is to force or
require any of said over-the-road carriers or any
other person to cease handling, transporting, or
otherwise dealing in freight picked up or delivered
by Reilly Cartage, Inc., or to cease doing business
with Reilly Cartage, Inc.
(b) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Fred
Olson Motor Service Company, Charles Lubotsky
Tire Co., or any other person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, to engage in,
a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment
to use, manufacture, process, transport, or other-
wise handle or work on any goods, articles, materi-
als, or commodities or to perform any services; or
threatening, coercing, or restraining Rex Chainbelt,
Inc., Fred Olson Motor Service Company, Charles
Lubotsky Tire Co., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce,
where in either case an object thereof is to force or
require Rex Chainbelt, Inc. or any other person to
cease handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing
in freight to be picked up or delivered by Reilly
Cartage, Inc., or to cease doing business with Reilly
Cartage, Inc., or to force or require Fred Olson
Motor Service Company, Charles Lubotsky Tire
Co., or any other person to cease doing business
with Rex Chainbelt, Inc., in order to force or
require Rex Chainbelt, Inc., to cease doing business
with Reilly Cartage, Inc.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it
is found, will effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended:
(a) Post at its office copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix ."2fi Copies of said notice,
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL" LOCAL 200
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent 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 Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region
30 of the National Labor Relations Board signed
copies of said notice in sufficient numbers for post-
ing by the motor freight carriers named in para-
graph 1(a) of this Order and by Rex Chainbelt,
Inc., Fred Olson Motor Service Company and
Charles Lubotsky Tire Co., and motor freight car-
riers and persons other than those named herein
with whom Reilly Cartage, Inc., does business in
and around Milwaukee, Wisconsin, they being
willing, at all locations where notices to their
respective employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.27
Y7 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 30, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS "GENERAL"
LOCAL UNION No. 200
To EMPLOYEES OF HENNIS FREIGHT LINES, INC.,
NAVAJO FREIGHT LINES, INC., MERCURY FREIGHT
LINES , INC., DOHRN TRANSFER CO., EXPRESS
FREIGHT LINES , INC., CUSHMAN MOTOR DELIVERY
CO., C. W. TRANSPORT , INC., CLAIRMONT
TRANSFER CO., ADVANCE TRANSPORTATION CO.,
EAZOR EXPRESS , INC., ADVANCE -UNITED
EXPRESSWAYS , INC., ADMIRAL MERCHANTS-COLE-
DIXIE , INC., ARKANSAS BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM,
INC., CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS,
CONSOLIDATED FORWARDING CO., INC.,
ROADWAY EXPRESS , KNOX MOTOR SERVICE, INC.,
RYDER TRUCK LINES, HICKEY CARTAGE, INC.,
REX CHAINBELT , INC., FRED OLSON MOTOR
SERVICE COMPANY , AND CHARLES LUBOTSKY TIRE
Co.
To EMPLOYEES OF OTHER COMPANIES WHICH DO
BUSINESS WITH REILLY CARTAGE, INC.
327
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify you that:
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence it has been found that we
violated the law by committing unfair labor prac-
tices. Accordingly, we post this notice and we will
keep the promises that we make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT, nor will our officers, business
representatives, business agents, or anyone act-
ing for us, whatever his title may be, do any of
the following things to force any shipper or
motor freight carrier to stop delivering freight
to or receiving freight from Reilly Cartage,
Inc., or to force any shipper or motor freight
carrier or any other company to stop doing
business with Reilly Cartage, Inc.:
WE WILL NOT, ourselves, nor will this Union,
call strikes or engage in strikes.
WE WILL NOT picket at or in the vicinity of
terminals or docks of any motor freight carrier
which receives freight from or delivers freight
to Reilly Cartage, Inc., or which does business
with Reilly Cartage, Inc.
WE WILL NOT picket at or in the vicinity of
Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or any other company
which delivers to or receives freight from
Reilly Cartage, Inc., or which does business
with Reilly Cartage, Inc.
WE WILL NOT in any way order, direct, ask,
persuade, urge , or influence any member of
this Union or any other employee working at
the terminal or dock of any motor freight carri-
er at which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or
delivers freight or which does business with
Reilly Cartage, Inc., or any employee, includ-
ing members of this Union, of any other com-
pany, including Rex Chainbelt, Inc., which
does business with Reilly Cartage, Inc., or any
employee, including members of this Union, of
any other company which picks up or delivers
freight at Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or at the ter-
minals or docks of any motor freight carrier at
which Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers
freight, to strike, or to take part in a work stop-
page, or to refuse to do any work.
WE WILL NOT in any way threaten, coerce, or
restrain any motor freight company at which
Reilly Cartage, Inc., picks up or delivers
freight, or Rex Chainbelt, Inc., or any other
company which does business with Reilly
Cartage, Inc.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Dated By
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
TEAMSTERS "GENERAL"
LOCAL UNION No. 200
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- communicate directly with the Board's Regional
tive days from the date of posting and must not be Office, Second Floor Commerce Building, 744
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material . North Fourth Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203,
If employees have any question concerning this Telephone 414-272-3872.
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may