Teamsters, Local 85

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 462 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America ' and Viking Delivery Service, Inc.
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca and Viking Delivery Service, Inc. Cases
20-CC-882, 20-CC-937, and 20-CB-2129
November 9, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On May 20, 1970, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm
issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examin-
er's Decision and a supporting brief and Respondent
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases 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 these cases and hereby adopts the
findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
The Trial Examiner concluded, inter alia, that
Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) by
its picketing at the premises of Dow Jones &
Company, Inc., Airborne Freight and Loretz. We
agree but only for the reasons stated herein.
The pertinent facts show that on Thursday, May 1,3
about 7:30 p.m., three of Respondent's pickets were
on the Dow Jones plant's loading dock. One of the
pickets, Henry Montano, an organizer for Respon-
dent, was wearing a yellow sash draped over his
shoulder which had written on it only the word
"Picket." When Dow Jones' production manager,
Walter Phillips, asked what was the matter, Respon-
dent's business representative, A. T. Andrade, stated
that Respondent had a "problem" with Viking
Delivery Service and "that there was a picket on the
dock, but if [Phillips] didn't want him on the dock,
they would go to the parking lot entrance." Phillips
told Andrade they could remain on the dock as long
as they did not interfere with the work. At the time of
this conversation a truck belonging to Airborne
Freight was backed up to the dock and was being
loaded; no truck belonging to Viking was present.
After his talk with Andrade, Phillips left the loading
area. Subsequently, a Viking truck arrived at the
loading dock and, as it pulled up to the dock,
Montano, wearing his "Picket" sash, was standing in
front of the truck.
On Wednesday, September 24, when Viking truck-
driver, Paul Babcock, started to unload a shipment at
the Airborne facility, he was, as the Trial Examiner
found, assaulted by two of Respondent's agents, one
of whom was Montano. After Babcock picked himself
up, he looked for an Airborne receiving clerk to
acknowledge delivery. When he spotted a receiving
clerk and was walking toward him, Babcock heard a
whistling sound, looked back, and saw Montano
showing a picket sign to the receiving clerk. The
receiving clerk looked at the sign and told Babcock
that he could not sign for the freight and that Babcock
would have to go into the office. As Babcock
proceeded toward the office, Montano, walking 10 to
15 steps ahead of Babcock all along the platform and
into the Airborne Freight office, displayed his picket
sign to Airborne's employees. As Montano walked
into the office displaying his picket sign to the
employees, Babcock asked an employee for a receipt
for the freight which he had delivered and this
employee told him that he would have to go upstairs
and "see somebody about it" as he could not sign for
it. At this point, Babcock telephoned his employer
and was told to leave the handbill on the boxes which
he had left on the receiving platform.
On Thursday, September 25, a Viking truck drove
into Loretz and Company's warehouse area. As
Loretz receiving clerk James Linnehan walked toward
the Viking driver, he saw a man, who he identified as
Montano, standing alongside the Viking truck,
wearing a banner on which appeared only the word
"Picket." Another man who Linnehan was unable to
identify was carrying a picket sign that he could not
read. When Linnehan asked Montano what was going
on, Montano replied, "If you guys keep letting Viking
come in here, we'll be picketing you next."
r The name of Respondent as it appears in the Trial Examiner's and goods for various firms within California , which are engaged in
Decision is incorrect and is hereby corrected. interstate commerce.
2 We note that there is evidence in the record establishing that Viking 3 All dates are in 1969.
Delivery Service, Inc., received in excess of $50,000 for transporting freight
186 NLRB No. 72
TEAMSTERS,
In Moore Dry Dock Company,4 the Board estab-
lished the following criteria for determining whether
the picketing of the premises of a secondary employer
is primary and therefore lawful: (a) the picketing must
be strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is
located on the secondary employer's premises; (b) at
the time of the picketing the primary employer must
be engaged in its normal business at the situs; (c) the
picketing must be limited to places reasonably close to
the location of the situs; and (d) the picketing must
disclose clearly that the dispute is with the primary
employer. If any one of these conditions is not met,
the picketing is unlawful.5
Applying these standards to the instant case, we
find that one or more of these conditions were not met
in the three incidents alleged as violative of the Act.
Thus, in two of the incidents, at Dow Jones &
Company, Inc., and Loretz and Company, the picket
signs did not disclose that the dispute was with Viking
Delivery Service, Inc., the primary employer. In
addition, in the Dow Jones incident, the pickets were
clearly on the loading dock before the primary situs
arrived there. Finally, in the Airborne Freight incident,
one of the pickets left the situs and carried his picket
sign into the Airborne office, pointing out its legend
to the Airborne employees while the Viking driver was
trying to get a receipt acknowledging delivery.
Under the circumstances of this case, we therefore
find that the picketing practice followed by Respon-
dent was secondary and therefore violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local 85, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
San Francisco, California, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the following
action:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging, by
picketing, threats, barring ingress to and egress from
company property, or any other means, the individu-
als employed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc.,
Airborne Freight Corporation and Loretz and Com-
pany, or individuals employed by any other employer
within said Respondent Union's territorial jurisdic-
tion, engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
4 Sailors Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company), 92
NLRB 547
5 Retail Fruit & Vegetable Clerks Union, Local 640, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO v N L R B, 249 F 2d 591 (C A 9),
enfg 116 NLRB 856
LOCAL 85 463
commerce, to engage in, strikes or refusals in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to
perform any services , where an object thereof is to
force or require their employer, or Dow Jones &
Company, Inc., Airborne Freight Corporation, or
Loretz and Company, or any other employer or
persons to cease doing business with each other or
with Viking Delivery Service, Inc., or any other
employer.
(b) Threatening, restraining, coercing, or assaulting
any individual employed by Viking Delivery Service,
Inc., or any employer or person engaged in commerce
or in an industry affecting commerce, by using or
threatening them with force and violence, assaulting
them, blocking or barring ingress and egress of
individuals employed by Viking to premises where
they have business, or in any other manner restraining
and coercing said persons in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Causing or threatening damage to trucks and
other property of Viking Delivery Service, Inc., and
injuring or threatening physical violence to employ-
ees, supervisors, and company officers, and interfer-
ing with a Viking truckdriver driving on company
business.
(d) Inducing, encouraging, instigating, or assisting
any employee or other person to engage in such
conduct.
(e) In any other manner restraining or coercing any
employees in their right under the Act to engage in or
not to engage in a strike, to honor or not to honor a
picket line, or to engage in or not to engage in
concerted activities or in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post, in conspicuous places, in each of the
Respondent's business offices, meeting halls and all
other places where notices or communications to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A."6 Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 20, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent labor
organization, shall be posted by Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent labor organization to insure
6 In the event this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 "
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Furnish to the said Regional Director sufficient
signed copies of the aforementioned notices for
posting by Viking Delivery Service, Inc., Airborne
Freight Corporation, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.,
and Loretz and Company, if willing, at all places and
locations where they customarily post notices to their
employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken by the Respondent to
comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To
EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
To All Employees of: Viking Delivery Service, Inc.,
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Airborne Freight Corp.,
Loretz and Company
To All Members of: Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers, Local 85, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America
After a trial at which all parties were given an
opportunity to present evidence and argument, the
National Labor Relations Board has decided that
Teamsters Local 85 violated the law by committing
certain unfair labor practices and has ordered us to
post this notice. Teamsters Local 85 intends to carry
out the order of the Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT, in any manner prohibited by
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the National Labor
Relations Act, threaten, coerce, or restrain Dow
Jones & Company, Inc., Airborne Freight Corp.,
and Loretz and Company, or any other person
engaged in commerce or any industry affecting
commerce where, in either case, an object thereof
is to force or require the above-named employers,
or any other person, to cease doing business with
Viking Delivery Service, Inc., or any other person.
WE WILL NOT solicit or request members of
Local 85 or of any other Teamsters local to refuse
to pick up, deliver, load, or unload freight at the
terminals of Dow Jones, Airborne, Loretz, or any
other person engaged in commerce or an industry
affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require Dow Jones, Airborne, Loretz, or
any other person to cease doing business with
Viking, or any other employer.
WE WILL NOT prohibit the members of Local 85
from making pickups or deliveries, loading or
unloading shipments of freight, at the terminals of
Dow Jones, Airborne, Loretz, or any other person
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting
commerce, by any provision of the constitution,
bylaws, working rules, or collective-bargaining
agreement of Local 85, where an object thereof is
to force or require Dow Jones, Airborne, Loretz,
or any other person to cease doing business with
Viking, or any other employer.
WE WILL NOT discipline, penalize, or discrimi-
nate against any member, nor cite any member for
union disciplinary proceedings, for making pick-
ups or deliveries at Dow Jones, Airborne, Loretz,
or any other person engaged in commerce or an
industry affecting commerce, where an object
thereof is to force or require Dow Jones, Airborne,
Loretz, or any other person to cease doing business
with Viking, or any other employer.
WE WILL NOT threaten to cause harm or injury
to employees, supervisors or company officers of
Viking Delivery Service, or any other employer
doing business with Viking.
WE WILL NOT block ingress to and egress from
companies where Viking employees have business.
WE WILL NOT cause or threaten damage to the
property and trucks of Viking or any other
employer doing business with Viking.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees of Viking
Delivery Service, Inc., Dow Jones & Company,
Inc., Airborne Freight Corp., and Loretz and
Company, or the employees of any other employer
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL 85,
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 85
Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California,
Telephone 415-556-3197.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
HENRY S. SAHM, Trial Examiner: This case, heard at San
Francisco, California, on vanous dates between February 3
and March 6, 1970,1 pursuant to charges filed the preceding
May 6, September 29, and November 21 and complaints
issuing June 11, October 21, and December 31, presents two
related questions: first, whether Respondent, herein called
the Union, violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, in
pertinent part and as amended in 1959, which makes it
unlawful for a union or its agents "to engage in, or to
induce or encourage" employees "to engage in, the
withholding of services," or to "threaten, coerce, or
restrain" an employer, where an object is to force a
cessation of business relations between neutral employers
and the primary employer with whom the union has a labor
dispute. This section renders unlawful the use of a
secondary boycott to implicate neutral secondary employ-
ers in disputes not their own.2 The second question is
whether the Union, during the course of its picketing
Viking Delivery Service, herein called Viking, the Compa-
ny, and Charging Party, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
allegedly threatening bodily harm and assaulting personnel
of Viking. Upon the entire record, and after due
consideration of the brief filed by the General Counsel,3
there are hereby made the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Company, a California corporation, engaged in
hauling and transportation of freight by trucks, with its
place of business in Santa Clara, California, received in
excess of $39,000 for transporting freight and goods within
California for Dow Jones & Company, during the past
calendar year, and is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
with its principal office in New York City, New York, and
other offices in Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Ohio,
Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey publishes, among other
things, the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper. Dow Jones
subscribes to interstate news services; publishes nationally
syndicated features; and advertises nationally sold prod-
ucts. At its Palo Alto, California, plant, at which certain
incidents involved in this proceeding occurred, it has
annual gross revenues in excess of $200,000 and it annually
ships newspapers valued in excess of $50,000 from said
plant directly to consignees in various States of the Western
United States.
Airborne Freight Corp. is an employer engaged in the
business of performing interstate freight shipping services
for Dow Jones' vanous publications and periodicals.
I All dates refer to the year 1969 except where otherwise stated
2 See Ohio Valley Carpenters v N L.R B, 339 F 2d 142 (C A 6),
NLRB v Local 683, 1 BE W, 359 F.2d 385 (C A 6), N L R.B v Local
465
Respondent admits and it is found that Viking is an
employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
The Respondent Union, Local 85 of the Teamsters, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Walter Phillips, production manager of Dow Jones' Palo
Alto plant, testified as follows: The Wall Street Journal is
trucked from the Palo Alto plant by Viking to the local post
offices, and Greyhound bus and train terminals in the Bay
area4 for distribution to various cities in the Western part
of the country. On Thursday, May 1, at approximately 7:30
p.m., John Driscoll, the mailroom foreman, apprised
Phillips that there were three Teamsters pickets on the
plant's loading dock. As Phillips proceeded to the loading
platform, he saw three men speaking to the mailroom
typographical union shop steward. When they finished
speaking, Phillips introduced himself and one of the men,
A. T. Andrade, business representative of the Respondent
Union, introduced himself and his two companions, Henry
Montano, an organizer, and another organizer named Rex
Smith. Montano was wearing a yellow sash about 4 inches
wide and 8 inches long, draped over his shoulder and
pinned to his coat which had written on it the word
"Picket." When Phillips inquired what brought them to
Dow Jones' premises, Andrade stated the Union had a
"problem" with Viking Delivery Service. When Phillips
asked if the picketing meant "a secondary boycott,"
Andrade replied in the negative, stating it was a "roving
picket."
At the time of this colloquy, continues Phillips'
testimony, there was a truck of Airborne Freight backed up
to the dock being loaded. Airborne Freight is a forwarder
for Dow Jones, picking up the Wall Street Journal at its
plant for delivery to their San Francisco Airport terminal
for shipment by airplanes to various cities . Phillips then left
the loading area to make a telephone call. When he
returned to the loading dock, he noticed a Viking truck on
the premises, and that the Airborne truck was not being
loaded and had been moved out into the yard about 20 feet
away from the dock. Phillips asked what was the trouble
and Andrade, the union official, said that the Airborne
truckdnver, Carl Jensen, a member of the Teamsters
Union, would not load his truck as long as the Viking truck
was at the dock. Phillips requested Andrade to permit the
Airborne truck to be loaded. Andrade consented to allow
the Airborne truckdnver to finish loading his truck
whereupon it departed for the Airport to deliver the
newspapers for loading aboard a scheduled flight at the San
Francisco Airport.
The Viking truckdriver who was on the Dow Jones'
premises when the above-described incident occurred
refused to load his truck until he was sent additional help
by his employer from Viking's terminal, about 7 miles
1140, Hod Carriers, 285 F.2d 397, 402 (C A. 8), cert denied 366 U.S 903
3 The Respondent failed to file a brief
4 The "Bay area" encompasses nine counties in northern California.
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distance, because, testified Phillips, "... he said, he was
afraid to."
Dow Jones' plant is closed from Thursday evening to
Sunday afternoon. Phillips notified Viking that Dow Jones
would not use their trucks on Sunday, May 4, and Monday,
May 5, because "we didn't want to take any chances of a
picket line around the plant that would keep any of our
union employees from coming to work."
Phillips testified that during his conversation with
Andrade, the latter made it clear that the Union's picketing
would be limited to such times as Viking trucks were on
Dow Jones' premises . When Phillips asked Andrade what it
would take to remove the pickets from Dow Jones'
property, he said, according to Phillips, ". . . get rid of that
damned outfit [Viking] and I asked him what would I do to
get my mail out, and he said, that's your problem."
John Driscoll, who is foreman of Dow Jones' mailing
room, credibly corroborated Phillips' testimony. Driscoll
testified in substance as follows: When the Viking truck
arrived at the loading dock, the Airborne driver, Carl
Jensen, moved his truck away from the loading platform
and when Driscoll inquired of Jensen if he was going to
continue to load his truck, Jensen said, ". . . he'd have to
talk to these people from the Union that were there,"
referring to Andrade, Montano, and Smith. As a result,
Dow Jones' employees were unable to load the Airborne
truck as it had been driven away from the loading platform.
It was then that Phillips, Dow Jones' production manager,
asked Andrade, the Teamsters union official, if he would
permit the Airborne driver to continue loading the truck,
whereupon Jensen, the driver, backed the Airborne truck
up to the loading platform and finished putting aboard the
truck the Wall Street Journals. After the Airborne truck
and the Viking truck had left the premises of Dow Jones,
testified Driscoll, he accompanied Phillips over to where
Andrade was standing on the loading ramp and Phillips
"asked Mr. Andrade how we could stop having the pickets.
Mr. Andrade told him that if we would get rid of Viking we
wouldn't have any more problems. But if we kept Viking,
we were going to have some problems."
On examination by the Charging Party's counsel, it was
elicited from Driscoll that the Airborne trucks have a
specific schedule in order for them to make certain airline
flights and that a delay of 5 to 15 minutes at the dock could
result in the Wall Street Journals missing their scheduled
flights. Driscoll went on to explain that was the reason he
asked Jensen, the driver of the Airborne truck, after he had
backed his vehicle away from the loading dock whether he
would finish loading the newspapers because he was
apprehensive that Jensen would not arrive at the San
Francisco Airport in time to make the scheduled flight.
Driscoll stated in answer to this question that Jensen told
him "that he would have to talk to the representatives that
were there from his Union before he would load the truck."
On cross-examination by Respondent's counsel , Driscoll
testified that when the Viking truck pulled up to Dow
Jones' loading dock that Montano, the union organizer,
who was wearing a "Picket" sash draped over his shoulder
and attached to his coat as described above, was standing
in front of the Viking truck.
Paul Babcock has been employed as a truckdriver for
Viking Delivery Service for approximately 10 months.
Around noon on Wednesday, September 24, he delivered
flowers to the Airborne Freight Corporation's loading dock
at the San Francisco Airport. He drove his truck to the
loading dock, parked it, walked around to unload the
flowers and as he opened the truck door in order to place
the flowers on the loading dock, he noticed that there was a
man standing to his immediate left and another man to his
immediate right. The man on his right, whom he identified
as Henry Montano, was carrying a Teamsters sign which,
among other things, had written on it "Viking" and
"unfair." As he was unloading the freight, Babcock testified
that Montano called him a scab and a punk. After Babcock
lifted the boxes of flowers onto the receiving platform, he
proceeded to place his hand upon the platform in order to
swing himself up and onto the platform, when his hand was
pulled out from underneath him causing him to fall to the
ground. He states that he did not see whom of the two men
grabbed his arm, but it is his belief that it was Henry
Montano. Babcock states that as he was lying on the
ground after falling off the platform, ". . . there was a
sound such as, like spitting,-although I couldn't see it, but
I could sort of feel a small impact on the back of my shirt
which I assume was spit . . . there was a substance on my
shirt later when I looked at it."
Babcock's testimony continues that after he lifted himself
off the ground, he looked for a receiving clerk of Airborne
in order to get a receipt acknowledging delivery of the
flowers. As he was walking down the Airborne receiving
ramp, he noticed that there were no Airborne employees on
the ramp, which, he testified, was unusual as there were
usually several Airborne employees on the loading ramp
whenever he brought freight there in the past. When he
finally located a receiving clerk and as he was walking
towards him, testified Babcock, "I got about 5 or 10 feet
from him when I heard a whistling sound, I looked back
and [Montano] the business agent was holding a [picket]
sign, and showing it to the receiving clerk.. . . the receiving
clerk looked at the sign and told me that he couldn't sign
for my freight; that I would have to go into the office." As
Babcock proceeded toward the office, Montano was
walking 10 to 15 steps ahead of him on the platform and
then went into Airborne's office with Babcock walking
behind him and Montano "was showing the sign to the
different people" as he was walking through the Airborne
office. As Montano proceeded to walk into the Airborne
Freight office displaying his picket sign to the employees,
Babcock stated he asked an employee for a receipt for the
freight which he had delivered and unloaded onto the
loading dock. This employee, according to Babcock, told
him that he would have to go upstairs and "see somebody
about it. He couldn't sign for it."
At this point, Babcock telephoned his employer, the
Viking terminal, and related to Richard Bangham, the
president of the company, and John Glenn, the vice
president, what had occurred and asked what he should do.
He was told by them to leave the handbill on the flower
boxes which he had left on the receiving platform.
When Babcock returned to his truck, a green Ford station
wagon was parked in front of it, blocking his egress, but it
was moved so that he was able to leave the Airborne
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 85 467
property. This automobile was identified as belonging to
John Cardinale, a union organizer, who figures prominently
in two incidents which are described later in this Decision.
He testified that under normal circumstances that stop at
Airborne would have taken "less than six minutes" but on
September 24 he was there for over an hour.
When Babcock returned to the Viking truck terminal, he
reported to his superiors what had occurred at the Airborne
terminal and also related his experiences to six or seven of
his fellow truckdrivers who were at the terminal at that
time.
On Thursday, September 25, Babcock testified that he
drove to American Airlines at the San Francisco Airport,
where he had "problems" in making his delivery because
the American Airlines' receiving clerks refused to talk to
him. As he was preparing to drive his truck away, the same
green Ford station wagon, which he had seen the day
before at Airborne, had his truck blocked so that he was
unable to leave American Airlines' receiving dock. He
testified that there were two men blocking his truck, one of
whom he did not know and the other whom he identified as
John Cardinale, an organizer for Respondent Local 85.
Babcock telephoned his office and spoke to John Glenn,
the vice president, who told him to wait there and he would
dispatch another truckdriver by the name of Paul Kerns. As
he was waiting for Kerns to arrive, Babcock testified that
the unidentified man was standing next to his truck with a
picket sign which stated "things like unfair, substandard
salaries." When Kerns arrived, the Ford station wagon was
moved so that Babcock was able to move his truck.
Both Babcock and Kerns left American Airlines in
separate trucks and drove to Loretz and Company, a freight
forwarder, located in South San Francisco. When they
arrived there, Babcock testified that he heard Henry
Montano, a union organizer, who had arrived at the same
time, telling James Linnehan, who is employed as a
receiving clerk by Loretz and Company, "if you let Viking
come in here, we'll be here next, or we'll come picket you
next." Babcock then returned to Viking's terminal where he
related what had occurred.
The following day, September 2E, Babcock made a
delivery to Airborne Freight Corporation at the San
Francisco Airport. After he had unloaded his freight, the
receiving clerk refused to give him a receipt, telling him
that, if he wanted one, he would have to see someone in the
office. As he was walking towards the office, Babcock saw
Airborne's dispatcher and asked him to sign the bill of
lading, but he also refused stating that "if he signed my bill
of lading, he would have to sign a day's wages for signing
my handbill." 5 Babcock then saw an employee in the
office, whom the dispatcher referred him to, who told him
to wait until he spoke with someone upstairs in order to find
out whether Viking's freight could be received. When this
Airborne employee returned, he told Babcock he was
unable to sign for the freight, but if the freight was left on
the loading dock that it would be shipped to its destination.
As no one at Airborne would issue him a receipt, Babcock
was compelled for the second time, to leave the freight on
the loading dock. See above.
The complaint was amended at the hearing to read as
follows:
... on or about January 26, 1970 near the intersec-
tion of Third Street and 18th in San Francisco,
California, Respondent, by Cardinale, threatened
bodily harm to an employee of Viking which threat
became known to Viking employees immediately
thereafter... .
Babcock testified as follows with respect to this
allegation: On January 26, 1970, while he was driving his
truck in San Francisco and while stopped for a red traffic
light, he heard Cardinale, a union organizer, who appeared
unseen and was standing alongside the driver's side of his
truck, yell to another man who was standing on the other
side of the street: "Hey, Frank, here's our old buddies from
Viking." Babcock then related the vilest of obscenities
which Cardinale called him and he testified that Cardinale
challenged Babcock to get out of his truck, threatening to
assault him, if he did. Babcock also testified that Cardinale
said to him: "One of these ... mornings [you are ] going to
get in [your] truck, and it was going to go sky high." At this
point, the traffic light changed and Babcock drove on.
When Babcock was examined by company counsel, he
described Cardinale's threat as follows: "One of these .. .
mornings you're going to get in your truck, and you and
your . . . driver buddies are gonna start your trucks and
they're going to go sky high."
James Linnehan, who was subpenaed by the General
Counsel, is employed as a receiving clerk for Loretz and
Company, freight forwarders for various companies and
custom brokers. He corroborated Babcock's testimony. See
above. Linnehan testified as follows: On September 25, a
Viking Delivery Service truck drove into Loretz's ware-
house area. As Linnehan walked toward Babcock, he saw a
man whom he identified as Montano standing alongside
the Viking truck, wearing a "banner" draped over his
shoulder on which appeared the word "Picket." Another
man whom he was unable to identify was carrying a picket
sign that he was unable to read which he described as "a
cardboard sign that had the handle nailed to it." Linnehan's
testimony continues that he asked Montano "What's going
on," to which Montano replied: "If you guys keep letting
Viking come in here, we'll be picketing you next."
Richard Bangham, president of Viking Delivery Service,
Inc., testified with respect to a physical assault which he
alleges John Cardinale, a union organizer, committed upon
him. On September 30, about 1:30 p.m., Bangham drove his
personal car to the premises of the Flying Tigers Air
Freight Terminal at the San Francisco Airport. He had
been going to the airport daily to watch and observe their
trucks because, "We had been having several instances
during the past week of problems with Teamsters Local 85,
and I had been going up to the airport almost daily to watch
our trucks and observe our trucks and make sure there was
no further problems. That was what I was doing on that
date." He went on to state that he was at the airport on
September 25 because one of their trucks was there that day
to deliver freight and their trucks while at the airport the
past week had been having "an unusual amount of flat
5 This is an unmistakable reference to the dispatcher 's apprehension
that if he were to do business with Viking, his Union would fine him a
day's wages.
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tires." As he sat in his car, about 40 to 60 feet away from the
Viking truck, he observed four to six pickets surrounding
the truck, a few of whom he recognized as belonging to the
Respondent Union, but only a "couple" had picket signs.
The picket signs, testified Bangham, had written on them
"something to the effect that Viking had substandard
wages . It did say Viking but it was not very prominent [at]
any distance at all. It had the word Viking written in
crayon, or pencil or grease pen... .
As he was sitting in his car, he recognized two of the
pickets as being John Cardinale and Henry Montano.
Bangham knew Cardinale, he testified, because he had had
an encounter with him about 2 years before when Bangham
was making a delivery to Airborne Freight. Cardinale had
followed in his car Bangham 's truck to the Airport and told
him that he could not make deliveries to Airborne because
Viking was nonunion. Bangham then identified himself as a
part owner of Viking and Cardinale told Bangham he could
make deliveries "but none of my drivers could."
Bangham 's testimony continues as follows: "I'd been
there for about two or three minutes and John Cardinale
removed a knife from his pocket and started picking his
fingernails and looking up at me.. . . He just looked at me
and looked at me ..." At this time, Cardinale was 40 to 50
feet away from Bangham. "He had a [picket] sign
previously [but] he handed it to somebody else and started
picking his fingernails ." The knife he held, testified
Bangham, was about 5 inches long. Bangham's testimony
reads as follows:
He kept looking at me. After a little bit, he put the knife
in his pocket and walked up to my car and asked .. .
what I was doing there. I told him I was sitting there
observing our trucks, just watching. . . . He asked me
to move on. There was no reason for me to be there and
I believe he asked me, I think, it was right at this time he
asked me if I saw anything wrong and I said, no,
nothing obvious at this point, and he told me to move
on and I told him I had a right to be there. I was on
Flying Tigers' property. First, I believe he asked me if I
had ever felt a fist in my face. I said I didn't feel that
was necessary, and then he asked me if I had a gun in
the car and I answered no, I wasn't foolish; I didn't
carry weapons around in my car. He told me to move
on again and then he walked back to the group. I think
he said that they would become antagonistic if I
remained in the area.
s s s s
I just said I had a right to sit there. Roughly three, four,
five minutes later he came back to my car again. I
stayed parked there. Another gentleman, I can't
remember the name of, he was carrying a picket sign.
He walked around the right-hand side of my car. John
Cardinale pulled the knife out of his pocket and handed
it to one of the pickets, I'm not sure which one, one of
the other gentlemen standing in the group.... Then
[Cardinale ] walked back to my car and asked me again
if I had a gun and if-. Again, I said no, I don't and
he-he asked if I was going to move and I said no, I was
6 Andrade testified Local 85 had picketed PAD until May 1, when the
Company signed a contract with the Union. When he was asked if PAD
observing [our] trucks and he invited me out of the car
... he asked me to move on or he told me that he was
getting upset and then he yanked the car door open and
grabbed me by the lapels of my suit ... and started to
pull me out of the car. My feet didn't come out all the
way, my feet were underneath me, I had a Mustang and
your feet are stretched out in front of you and he got me
halfway out and let go and I fell on my left side and
elbow and from about just above feet level, but mainly I
caught all my own weight on my own level.. . . [I fell ]
on to the pavement. I got up off the ground and stood
by the door and he invited me to take a swing at him
and I told him to cool down. I was standing by the open
door by my car seat with the door open, and he was
standing behind the open door. He got mad and threw
the door shut at me which I caught. I got back in my car
and sat there for a while, and he turned around and
walked back towards the pickets.
Bangham's clothes were torn and later that evening he
testified: "I went in for X-rays . . . and a doctor prescribed
a pain reliever, because my arm had stiffened up."
Adam Andrade, who has been business representative for
11 years of Teamsters Local 85, the Respondent Union,
stated that the Union's geographical area encompasses San
Francisco and San Mateo Counties but it has no authority
to organize in Santa Clara County where Viking Delivery
Service has its offices, garage, and freight terminal. He
testified that on May 1, 1969, his Union had no "dispute"
with Viking but did have a "problem" with Viking, which
was nonunion, due to their picking up and delivering
freight in Local 85's geographical area. Under the
International's constitution, continued Andrade, "no
outside local can go into another sister local's area, and
make a pickup in their jurisdiction, and also deliver in that
jurisdiction, and we found this to be what Viking Truck
Lines was doing." Moreover, Andrade stated, Local 85, can
only organize the employees of companies which garage
their trucks within the Respondent Union's geographical or
territorial jurisdiction.
It is undisputed that Local 287 of the Teamsters, a sister
union of the Respondent Local 85, has exclusive jurisdic-
tion for organizational purposes of Viking's truckdrivers. It
stands uncontradicted also that Local 287 picketed Viking's
terminal in Santa Clara County for about a week after the
Dow Jones May 1 incident and again for a month the
following September.
Andrade's testimony reads as follows: About 6 p.m., on
May 1, Andrade, Montano, and Rex Smith met in South
San Francisco and went to the Peninsula Air Delivery
Service, herein referred to as PAD, located in San Carlos.
They met with Ken Matson, an official of PAD, for the
purpose of executing a collective-bargaining agreement
with PAD.6 After the parties had signed the collective-
bargaining agreement, Matson, who formerly worked for
Viking, asked Andrade to see what he could do about
organizing Viking's employees and getting Viking to sign a
contract with the Union. Matson, according to Andrade,
said: "Now that we are a member of Local 85, I am going to
tell you about Viking Truck Lines" and Matson proceeded
signed up because of being picketed, Andrade answered: "I assume so."
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 85 469
to tell Andrade where Viking's customers were located with
the hope that Andrade would unionize Viking.? Andrade
explained this was not possible as Viking was within the
territorial jurisdiction of Local 287 of the Teamsters, a sister
Union. Andrade's testimony continued that Local 287 was
then picketing Viking's freight terminal in Santa Clara
County and he assured Matson, PAD's official, that he
would talk to Local 287's officers with a view of enlisting
their cooperation.
After leaving PAD's terminal, Andrade, accompanied by
Montano and Smith, arrived at the Dow Jones Palo Alto
plant between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. When Andrade was
asked on cross-examination whether it was his intention
originally when he left South San Francisco to go to Dow
Jones, he answered equivocally, argued with company
counsel, and resorted to purposeful obscurity, and finally
replied, "On,the way back from our initial trip, we turned
around and says, `while we're here, lets go over to Dow
Jones and see if there's any Viking trucks in there.' " At
another point in his testimony, Andrade said that on their
way back to San Francisco after Matson, on behalf of
PAD, signed the contract, he made a spur-of-the moment
decision to stop at Dow Jones.
When they drove into the Dow Jones' yard behind the
plant, where the loading dock is located, and which is not
visible from the street, they saw an Airborne truck being
loaded. Andrade's testimony continues as follows: 20 or 30
minutes after they arrived at Dow Jones, a Viking truck
drove up to the loading platform. Montano then placed a
picket sash over his shoulder and pinned it onto his lapel
and stood 7 to 10 feet from the Viking truck. See
Respondent's Exhibit 1. When Carl Jensen, who was the
driver of Airborne's truck and a member of the Respondent
Union, saw Montano don the picket sash, continues
Andrade's testimony, Jensen "got in his truck" and drove it
away from the loading ramp. It was then, states Andrade,
that the union steward of the Mailer's (Typographical)
Union, Whisenhaut, who represents Dow Jones' mailroom
employees, came over and asked Andrade "What was going
on and I told him that we had been following the Viking
truck and that we were going to picket the Viking truck.
I told him that we were not there to interrupt Dow
Jones' operation, that all we were interested in was Viking
truck lines. . . . About 2 or 3 minutes or maybe 5 minutes
later Phillips came out." See supra.
According to Andrade, Phillips inquired as to what was
the "trouble" and "I told him . . . that we were having a
problem with Viking; that we had no problem with them.
And he said, well, there's nothing that we can do." Phillips,
testified Andrade, asked him if it would be all right to finish
loading the Airborne truck, to which Andrade replied,
"There's no problem. Have him load. . . . I told Mr. Rex
Smith to tell Carl Jensen [the Airborne driver] to back his
truck up [to the dock] and finish loading." In answer to a
leading question by union counsel, Andrade testified he did
not originally order Jensen, Airborne's truckdriver, to pull
his truck away from the dock when the Viking truck arrived
at Dow Jones. This denial is not credited. When Andrade
was asked if he told Phillips that the Airborne truck would
not be loaded as long as the Viking truck was on Dow
Jones' premises, Andrade equivocally and evasively
answered: "I don't recall any conversation like that."
Andrade testified that when the Viking truck arrived at
Dow Jones, he placed a "picket sign" on his arm and he
took a position on the ramp, 10 feet from the truck.8
Montano then stood in front of the Viking truck. Andrade
testified as follows: Phillips told him that the newspapers
were scheduled to leave by plane and Greyhound and
asked Andrade what he could do and Andrade replied: "I
don't know, that's your problem," to which Phillips said:
"You won't lift the picket while the Viking truck is here?
... If I got Viking to leave . . . would you then pull your
picket? ... and I said ... If you get those goddamn
Viking trucks out of here. . . . There was a very good
possibility that if Viking came back in there, and we seen it,
that we would follow Viking with the pickets.... I told
Mr. Phillips at no time were we picketing Dow Jones.
There's no problem with them." Andrade stated that when
Phillips asked him what the Union "was picketing against,"
he told him "there was no problem with Dow Jones... .
We pulled off Hank's [Montano] banner and . . . We
wrote Viking Trucking on it."9 On rebuttal, Phillips
testified he never saw any writing "Viking" on Montano's
shoulder sash. Bangham, president of Viking, testified that
he was at Dow Jones on this occasion and the only union
person he saw with a sash was Montano and it did not have
"Viking" on it; all it read was "picket."
When Viking's counsel asked Andrade if he didn't tell
Phillips there was a possibility the Union would picket any
Viking trucks that came onto Dow Jones' premises,
Andrade answered: "My testimony was when Mr. Phillips
asked me if a Viking truck came in Sunday, over the
weekend, which there was no Saturday work, that there was
a very good possibility that there might be some pickets
following him, that is correct." The Viking truck then left
the premises of Dow Jones and immediately thereafter
Andrade, Montano, and Smith departed.
Andrade testified that around May 6, he informed Danny
Dodge, traffic director of Airborne Freight at its San
Francisco Airport terminal, that "We were having a
problem with Viking Truck Lines and . . . any time we
followed Viking to [Airborne's] platform, that we were
going . . . [to] picket Viking trucks. And in the interim that
there was a very good possibility that if our people were on
a platform while we had a picket line there, we would .. .
cease working." 10
Andrade's testimony continues that Dodge said to him:
"I don't want any of that . . . the minute that you put a
picket sign, an informational picket sign in front of Viking,
I'm going to tell them to get out of here. I'm not going to
receive their freight."" Andrade went on to testify that
Dodge relished the thought of settling past accounts with
r Andrade testified, when examined by Charging Party's counsel, that
Airborne Freight's official , Dodge, also requested him "to take action
against Viking ." See fn. 12.
8 Phillips credibly testified on rebuttal that he never saw Andrade
wearing a "picket sash or an arm banner."
9 When Andrade used the word "banner," he had reference to the
"shoulder sash" described above.
10 The reference to "our people" is the employees of Airborne who
worked on its loading dock and all of whom were members of the
Respondent Union.
11 This is an unmistakable reference to what Dodge proposed to do in
the event the Union picketed Viking trucks delivering freight to Airborne's
(Continued)
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Viking which he complained was taking business from
Airborne.12 The Charging Party's counsel cleared up this
ambiguity when he asked Andrade what Dodge said, in this
regard, to him on May 6. Andrade's testimony reads as
follows: "The Viking Truck Lines-was cutting their prices
and taking some of the work away from them, and that they
couldn't live with it and see what we could do about it."
The evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to Andrade's
denial that the Union ever instructed Airborne's receiving
clerks not to receive Viking freight and, therefore, is not
credited.1313 This is indicated when company counsel asked
Andrade if he informed Dodge that Airborne's receiving
clerks (members of Local 85), might cease working
whenever Viking delivered freight to Airborne's loading
dock and Andrade answered: "What I did tell him was if
Viking trucks backed in there, we were going to put an
informational picket line in front of Viking trucks period.
... He [Dodge] said it was a good possibility Airborne
would stop working." _
When Andrade was asked by counsel for the Charging
Party Company what he hoped to accomplish by picketing
Viking trucks as they picked up and delivered freight, he
answered: "Due to the fact that [Teamsters . Local] 287 had
an informational picket line at Viking, which is a sister
local, and they [Viking] were coming into our area .. .
which made it an awful sign 14 that Viking was picking up in
our area and delivering in our area without barning in our
area.15 ... The purpose of picketing against Viking as far
as Local 85 benefiting is concerned, is the fact that they
were making pickups and deliveries in our area." When
Andrade was asked in what way his Union's picket line was
informational, he stated: "Well, it's informational to notify
the public that they were nonunion and pay substandard
wages, that's what an informational picket line is about, it's
to notify the public, same as a newspaper, of what the
Company is doing." 16
Henry Montano has been an "organizer" for Local 85, the
Respondent Union, for approximately 5 years. Montano
testified that he and Cardinale were following Babcock's
truck on September 24, when they arrived at the Airborne
Freight terminal. He began picketing Viking's truck as it
backed into Airborne's receiving platform, and the sign he
carried read:
To the public, Viking Delivery Service pays its
employees substandard wages and conditions for this
area. Unfair to Local 85, Teamsters Union, San
Francisco, California.
Montano's testimony reads as follows: He picketed the
Viking truck for approximately 3 minutes and then walked
up and onto the loading platform. He saw an Airborne
receiving clerk, who was a member of Local 85, working on
some freight, whereupon Montano "whistled at him and
airport terminal . See above.
12 Andrade 's verbatim recital of his conversation with Dodge reads as
follows : "I [Dodge ] have been waiting for this for a long time , for simple
reason that this, we gave them an account-the account that we're talking
about- . . . They turned around and they took it all from us , and you'd
be doing me a favor if you turn around , and you get them to quit coming
over here." See fn. 7.
13 Andrade's cynical observation was that if the Airborne employees
saw fit "to walk off their jobs while we had an informational picket fine in
front of Viking [trucks], I couldn't stop them, this would be up to them."
held up the sign and he looked at me and waved back... .
Then I walked into the office carrying my sign, back to the
dispatchers office, see, he recognized me, I pointed to the
sign, I turned and walked back out to the street. Again back
to the truck."
Montano denied that he or Cardinale pulled Babcock's
arm out from underneath him as he was elevating himself
onto Airborne's receiving dock causing him to fall to the
ground or that they blocked Babcock's truck by driving
Cardinale's station wagon in front of Viking's truck, or that
he or Cardinale spit on Babcock.
With respect to the Loretz and Company incident on
September 26, Montano denied he told Linnehan, receiving
clerk for Loretz, that if Loretz allows Viking trucks to come
onto its property to transact business , "We'll picket you
next." Linnehan, on rebuttal, again testified, as he did on
direct, that Montano said to him: "If you guys keep letting
Viking come in here, we'll be picketing you next." See
above.
Montano testified on direct examination that he and
Cardinale were following Viking's truck when Babcock
drove to Airborne's loading platform but, when he was
asked by company counsel the same question, he denied it
then later he reversed himself and admitted it was so. He
stated that, "I've been chasing that Company [Viking] for
over a year," explaining he carries five picket signs in his
auto which have Viking's name upon them.
John Cardinale, organizer for Respondent Local 85 for 3
years, testified that on January 26, 1970, he and his
"partner" Frank Kelleher, another union organizer, by
chance, accidently saw a Viking truck stop at a traffic light
in San Francisco. He categorically denied that there was
any conversation between him and the driver of the Viking
truck; explaining he was no closer to the truckdriver than
30 feet. Cardinale stated that he "thinks I said something to
Frank about, I says, there's Viking there; we're trying to
organize them," but at no time did he direct any remarks,
curses, obscenities, or threats against the Viking truckdri-
ver. He did acknowledge, however, that his Union was
attempting to organize Viking's employees and during this
period of time "we picketed them a few times down at the
airport," at Airborne Freight. Cardinale's testimony reads
as follows:
Mr. Examiner, like I say, we had this organizational
picket line against Viking, and we followed the driver,
we were parked at United Airlines, and we see the
Viking truck come by. So, we follow him. When he
backed into Airborne, when he got to Airborne, Mr.
Montano and myself got out with our organizational
picket signs and we picketed the truck. While we were
there, somebody from management which I don't know
who it was, the name or anything, I could find out, came
14 It seems this is an error on the part of the reporter and that the
phrase "an awful sign" should read "unlawful."
]s The word "barning" as explained by Andrade means that Viking did
not garage any of its trucks within Respondent Local 85's jurisdictional
area . The record fails to reveal that Viking was picking up freight in
Respondent's geographical area and delivering that same freight within
Respondent 's geographical area.
16 The loading area at Dow Jones which Respondent picketed when
Viking's truck was there on May I is not visible from the public street on
which the Dow Jones plant is located , nor can the entranceway to their
property be seen from the dock area.
TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 85
down and wanted to talk to one of the organizers, find
out what the problem was with Viking. Mr. Montano
went up on the dock and he talked to somebody from
management there, and I stayed out in front of the truck
at the while, the whole time, and when the truck pulled
out, we followed him and we got back on the Bayshore
and we headed for the Bayshore, and then we came
back into the airport.
Cardinale admitted he drove a Ford green station wagon
but he denied that he used his auto to block the Viking
truck.
Cardinale then related an incident which occurred at the
American Airlines Freight terminal at the San Francisco
Airport on September 25. He testified that they followed a
Viking truck onto American Airlines' premises and "We
put our organizational picket line upon them" until he and
his associates were requested by American Airlines to leave,
which they did. "And when the Viking truck got through
unloading, and he left, we took our picket lines down."
Cardinale denied the Viking truck was prevented from
leaving American Airlines by blocking its means of egress.
See above.
Cardinale concluded his testimony by giving his version
of the alleged assault on Bangham, president of Viking
Delivery Service, on September 30, at the Flying Tigers
Freight Terminal. His testimony reads in pertinent part as
follows:
Well, the police department down there, we wanted to
put up an organizational picket line at the airport.
We're supposed to get a letter into them and explain
what we're picketing, and why, and so forth and so on.
The day Mr. Bangham came up we were picketing a
Viking truck and I thought it was-I thought he might
be one of the plainclothesmen from the police
department in the airport.
s s s s
So, he drove in the car, and he parked there, so we
continued with our picketing, and he set there for about
15, maybe 15 or 20 minutes went by, and by that time I
thought to myself, well, it's probably an inspector from
the airport police department. So, naturally, we have to
try and get along with these people so I approached the
car, and I wanted to-I walked up to Mr. Bangham and
I says, "Can I help you out in any way? Is there any
problem?" and if you'll excuse my language, ma'am, he
says, "Get away from me, you fat bastard." Well, with
this, I kind of lost my temper for a second and I reached
in and I put my hand on his shoulder, and then I got my
cool back and I turned around and walked away from
him.
So, we continued picketing the Viking truck. Mr.
Bangham stayed there through the whole procedures
and when the Viking truck left, Mr. Bangham left and
we left.
Cardinale admitted he was looking at Bangham and
cleaning his fingernails with a knife about 1 inch in length,
but he denies he made any gesture with the knife directed at
Bangham. Cardinale admitted he placed his hand on
17 See supra
's Counsel for Viking denies this alleging that Viking's wage scale is
471
Bangham's shoulder when the latter allegedly called him a
vile name, but denied he dragged him out of his car and
assaulted him, although he "felt" like he wanted to, but
stated Cardinale, "I got my cool back . . . and if he fell out
of the car, I didn't see him." He denied the truth of
Bangham's version of what occurred, but did recall that
Bangham informed him just before he cursed him that he
was one of the owners of Viking.17 He denies that he ever
met Bangham before the above-described incident, al-
though he acknowledged he had been assigned to picketing
Viking trucks for 5 to 8 months. When examined by
company counsel, Cardinale testified that during this
period of time, he had never spoken to any of Viking's
drivers about joining the Respondent Union. He admitted,
however, that he heard Babcock had tom up "a union card
in Local 287" of Respondent's sister union. He also
corrected his testimony, in answer to a leading question by
union counsel, stating that the picketing of Viking was not
organizational but informational "because Viking is 287's
jurisdiction, which is out of our jurisdiction in the first
place." Cardinale testified that he comes picket signs in his
car and whenever he sees a Viking truck, he pickets it.
When he was asked what was on the picket sign, he
answered: "it's an organizational picket sign. I can't state it
verbatim, but roughly it states that substandard wages, and
so on and so forth. What the Board calls for us to have on
our signs. . . . Well, this Company is unfair; it says unfair
at the top, this Company pays substandard wages, and so
on and so forth, like I say." He explained the sign was
printed but the words "Viking Inc." were inserted in
longhand with a pencil.
A. Contentions, Issues, and Credibility Resolution
The basic problem here with respect to the alleged
violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) is whether to credit
the General Counsel's witnesses that the Union's object was
to force a cessation of business relations between Viking
and Airborne Freight, Dow Jones, and Loretz; or to credit
Respondent's witnesses, who denied that this was the
Union's intent. Union counsel's stated reasons for picketing
Viking is because it is nonunion and pays its truckdrivers
substantially less in terms of economic outlay than the
legitimate wages paid employees within Local 85's
territorial jurisdiction who do work similar to Viking's
truckdnvers.18 This, argues Respondent's counsel, has
taken business away from trucking companies which have
collective-bargaining agreements with Local 85. Respon-
dent Union "sees this as a direct cause of diminution in its
own membership class of business employers with whom it
has contracts simply because of the unfair competition that
is seen through its eyes." Moreover, claims Respondent,
"the pressure for Local 85 to do something about this
situation comes from other trucking firms . . . who insist
that something be done about Viking because Viking is
taking away their business." Respondent's counsel's
"similar" to that called for in the Respondent Union's contracts it has with
other trucking companies
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
justification for such conduct is bottomed on the "Moore
Dry Dock type picketing" 19 and its right to protest Viking's
unfair competition.
The second facet of this proceeding concerns an alleged
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) by Respondent involving
assaults upon and threats of bodily harm to Viking
personnel which is flatly denied by the Union' s witnesses.
The burden of determining which side to believe rests
upon the trier of the facts. This Trial Examiner has
personally expatiated on this problem of resolving
credibility.20 Applying the test of plausibility to the conflict
of testimony in this case leads to the belief that the
witnesses for the General Counsel are to be credited. They
appeared to be forthright, sincere, and truthful witnesses
and gave the impression of being objective and honest in
their testimony. Andrade, the Union' s business agent,
whose testimony is a maze of contradictions, and Cardinale
and Montano, union organizers, who impressed me as
being averse to placing their duty to truth above self-
interest , are not credited. Moreover, considerable credence
has been placed upon the testimony of Phillips, Driscoll,
and Linnehan, all of whom were disinterested witnesses
and neither of whom stood to gain by their testimony.
Furthermore, the inherent probabilities in this litigation
preponderate in favor of the version testified to by the
witnesses for the General Counsel.
B. Discussion and Concluding Findings
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 158(b)(4), as
amended by the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. IV, 1963) Section
158(b)(4), provides in relevant part, that it shall be an unfair
labor practice for a labor organization or its agents:
(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any
individual employed by any 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 . . . perform any services; or
(ii) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person
engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce, where in either case an object thereof is:
s
(B) forcing or requiring any person . . . to cease
doing business with any other person, or forcing or
requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain
with a labor organization as the representative of his
employees unless such labor organization has been
certified as the representative of such employees under
the provisions of Section 9... .
The salient questions to be decided are whether it was a
violation within the meaning of the above-quoted section of
19 Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547.
20 Volume 147 , American Bar Association Journal, No . 6, at p . 580 (June
1961).
21 The American Airlines incident is not alleged in the complaint and
the General Counsel did not argue that this occurrence was violative of the
Act.
22 Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers, v . N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667, 672; N. L.R.B. v . Denver Building and
the Act for the Respondent labor organization to picket the
premises of Dow Jones, Airborne Freight, and Loretz.21
The impact of Section 8(bX4)(i) and (ii)(B) is directed
toward what is known as the secondary boycott "whose
sanctions bear, not upon the employer who alone is a party
to the dispute, but upon some third party who has no
concern in it." 22 Respondent had no primary labor dispute
with the said employers as they were neutral and entitled to
the protection afforded neutrals by Section 8(b)(4) of the
Act. Simply stated, Section 8(bX4) of the Act is violated
where a union engages in conduct which induces or
encourages employees of secondary or neutral employers to
engage in a work stoppage or to refuse in the course of their
employment to perform services , or which threatens,
restrains, or coerces such employers or their employees, in
each case with an object of enmeshing the neutral or
secondary employers in the primary dispute and thereby
pressuring them to cease doing business with another
person.23 It is found, therefore, that the effective picketing
by the Respondent at the premises of Dow Jones, Airborne
Freight, and Loretz, with the object to enmesh the
employees of these neutral employers in the Union's
dispute with Viking Delivery Service, was an unfair labor
practice. By its picketing, Respondent attempted to bring
sufficient pressure on those employers to cause them to
cease to do business with Viking Delivery Service with the
object of causing Viking Delivery Service to capitulate to
Respondent. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, and
upon the record as a whole, it is concluded and found that
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the
Act by inducing and encouraging the employees of the said
companies to engage in a concerted refusal to work with an
object of forcing said companies to stop doing business
with Viking Delivery Service, Inc.24
Respondent's reliance on the Moore Dry Dock concept is
misplaced. To assist in determining whether a union's
picketing at a common situs is directed at the primary
employer, and therefore permissible, or at a secondary
employer, and therefore violative of the statute, the Board,
in Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, 549, laid down
certain evidentiary standards for evaluating the objective of
the picketing. The standards so set forth, to warrant the
inference that the picketing is primary in nature, are the
following:
(a) The picketing is strictly limited to times when the
situs of the dispute is located on the secondary
employer's premises;
(b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer
is engaged in its normal business at the situs;
(c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close
to the location of the situs; and
(d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is
with the primary employer.
The Board and the courts have uniformly held that
Construction Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675, 692; International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers v. N.L.R.B., 181 F.2d 34, 37 (C.A. 2), affd. 341 U.S. 694.
23 See, e.g., S. Rept No. 105, 80th Cong., Ist Sess., 8, 22, 54; 1 Leg. Hist.
(G.P.O., 1948) 414,428,460; 93 Cong. Rec. 4198 , II Leg . Hist. (1947) 1106.
See also N.L.R.B. v. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 341 U.S. 675,
692.
24 Cf. Janesville Typographical Union No. 197, 173 NLRB No. 137;
Nashville Building and Construction Trades Council, 164 NLRB 280.
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 85
picketing at a common situs violates Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act if any of the requirements of Moore Dry
Dock are disregarded.25 However, its holding is not
applicable in the instant situation. The ultimate question in
the instant situations "is the Union's true object." Even
though the picketing itself may have conformed to the
Moore Dry Dock standards, that fact alone is not
determinative. In the instant situations, the evidence makes
it "unmistakably clear that the picketing was intended to
provide economic leverage" against Viking "by enmeshing
the secondary employers" with whom Viking was doing
business .26 Moreover, the Board and the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit have emphasized that Moore Dry
Dock standards are not to be applied on an "indiscriminate
per se basis." They are to be regarded merely as aids in
determining whether the picketing violates the law.27
It is clear that, when a union pickets a neutral employer's
premises with whom it has no dispute, it hopes even if it
does not intend that all persons will honor the picket line,
and that hope encompasses the employees of neutral
employers who may in the course of their employment
(deliverymen and the like) have to enter the secondary
employer's premises. Thus, some of the business relations
between the two employers would automatically cease. The
union knows this will be the result.
While the legend on Local 85's picket signs used might
suggest "standards picketing," the evidence establishes that
the legend on the picket sign was designed merely as a
pretext to cloak Respondent's true objectives. It is well
settled that the trier of the facts is not bound to accept such
signs and statements at face value, but is entitled to
consider the totality of the union's conduct. 28 It is further
found that the object of such picketing was illegal which
had the effect of not only inducing various individual
employees of the picketed secondary employers to cease
and refuse working, but also threatened and coerced them
and was not exclusively for the aims which the Union
professed on its picket signs 29
It is found that practically all of the acts or statements
alleged in the complaint, as amended, as violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, did occur substantially as
testified to by witnesses for the General Counsel. Under
that section of the Act, it is an unfair labor practice for a
union to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights to refrain from engaging in a strike or other
concerted activities.30
Based on Babcock's and Bangham's credited versions of
what occurred, it is found that Cardinale's and Montano's
threats and assaults, restrained and coerced said employees
25 Local 761, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
v NL.RB, 366US.667
26 Dissent in Teamsters Local 592 (Estes Express Lines), 181 NLRB No
121.
27 Electrical Workers, IBEW (New Power Wire Co), 144 NLRB 1089,
N L R B v. Northern California Hodcarriers, 389 F 2d 721, 725 (C A 9).
28 N L R B v. Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155, 403 F 2d 388,
390-391 (CA 2)
29 Teamsters, Local Union 563, 179 NLRB No 109.
30 ILWU, CIO (Sunset Line and Twine Co), 79 NLRB 1487
31 N L R B v Local 140, United Furniture Workers, 233 F 2d 539 (C A
2)
32 The courts have uniformly enforced Board orders without limitations
to time as a court of equity retains its power to modify a continuing decree
US v Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, System Federation No 91, Railways
473
in violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act. This conduct
of Respondent's agents, Cardinale and Montano, set out in
detail above, which was known to Viking's other employees
shortly after these incidents happened, clearly demonstrat-
ed to the Company's employees the risks they were running
in exercising their right to refrain from giving support to the
Respondent Union, a right expressly protected by Section
7, and, thus, restrained and coerced them in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.31
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist from engaging in such
unlawful activities without limitations as to time.32
Before doing so, however, the General Counsel's
recommendations in this regard shall be considered. He
contends that numerous instances of Respondent's conduct
in the past establishes its penchant for violating the Act,
particularly, its secondary boycott provisions. There have
been introduced in evidence Labor Board cases in which
Local 85 has been the Respondent.33 These include seven
cases of which four cases involved Board orders, three
formal settlements, and an adjudication and order of civil
contempt entered by the U. S. District Court for Northern
California.34 The General Counsel, who describes the
Respondent Union as "an inveterate violator of the Act,"
states that "only the broadest remedial order against
Respondent Local 85 will effectuate the policies of the
Act." Accordingly, he requests a broad cease-and-desist
order enjoining the Respondent from engaging in violative
conduct similar to that found herein against Viking and
also against any other employer with whom Viking does
business.
It should be noted that in the instant proceedings, the U.
S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a
10(1) proceeding issued a temporary injunction on October
28, 1969, a copy of which is attached to this Decision.
Nevertheless, Respondent by its agent, Cardinale, on
January 26, 1970,4 months later, threatened bodily harm to
Babcock, a Viking truckdnver. See supra.
Official notice is hereby taken of the cases cited by the
General Counsel in which Respondent was involved,
which, in turn, lead to the finding that Local 85 has a
proclivity for engaging in illegal picketing, threats of
violence, and actual violence.
Employees Dept AFL-CIO v Wright, 364 U.S 642 Such a decree, unless
modified, has unlimited future effect . The Board has the same power to
frame cease-and-desist orders as the courts do to issue injunctions in other
litigations May Dept Store Co. v N LR B, 326 U.S. 376, 390-392. The
Respondent is fully protected, for "If defendants enter upon transactions
which raise doubts as to the applicability of the injunction , they may
petition the Court granting it for a modification or construction of the
order " Regal Knitwear Co v N L.R B, 324 U S. 9,15; cf. N L.R B v. Bush
Hog Co, 405 F 2d 755, 759 (C A 5)
33 GC Exhs. 3 and 4
34 Although the General Counsel represented at the hearing that he
would submit all cases in which Local 85 was ever a respondent before the
Board and Federal courts, it appears that the exhibits he introduced into
evidence cover the period only from 1966 to February 1970.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is, of course, well settled that the Board has broad
power to determine the proper scope of orders 35 Included
in this power is the authority to tailor the remedy to fit the
circumstances.36 The Board's authority to issue orders to
remedy unfair labor practices is derived from Section 10(c)
of the Act. The latitude accorded the Board in framing the
affirmative part of the order issued under Section 10(c) has
been considered broader. The test laid down in the Act is
whether the affirmative action ordered by the Board "will
effectuate the policies of the Act," and the courts ordinarily
have not been inclined to disturb the Board's judgment as
to the proper remedy to provide in a particular case.
The outside limits of the Board's authority in this area
were indicated by the Supreme Court in a decision handed
down in 1938.37 The Board's authority, the Court said, does
not go so far as to confer a punitive jurisdiction enabling it
to inflict upon the respondent any penalty it may choose
because he has engaged in unfair labor practices, even
though it may be of the opinion that the law's policies might
be effectuated by such an order. Within these limits,
however, the Supreme Court has recognized a broad grant
of discretion to the Board in the selection of affirmative
remedies for unfair labor practices. In one case, the Court
stated that it is important for the Board to take into "fair
account . . . every socially desirable factor . . . to attain
just results in diverse, complicated situations." 38
In 1944, the Supreme Court had occasion to endorse one
of its prior decisions which held that an administrative
board may "express an intuition of experience which
outruns analysis and sums up many unnamed and tangled
impressions." It added that it was as true of the Labor
Board that "the Board was created for the purpose of using
its judgment and its knowledge." So in fashioning remedies
to effectuate the purposes of the Act, the Court concluded,
the Board "may utilize understanding and insight which it
gains from cumulative experience," even though its
conclusions can be neither supported nor validated
objectively by the particular record before it.39
With such uncircumscribed powers and discretion to
fashion remedies, which would in some rational manner
accomplish effectuation of the statutory policies and
purposes, with only one limitation-it must not be
punitive-it would appear that operative remedies might be
tailored to not only fit the circumstances but also to deter
flagrant violators who flout the provisions of the Act. Thus,
the statute's policies would be effectuated by eradicating
the resultant effects of a respondent's unfair labor
practices?°
In UA W v. Russel, 356 U.S. 634, the Supreme Court held
that the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 did not deprive an
Alabama State Court of jurisdiction by an employee to
recover compensatory and punitive damages from a union
for preventing him from engaging in his employment by
means of unlawful picketing in furtherance of a strike, even
if the union's conduct constituted an unfair labor practice
35 May Dept. Stores d/b/a Famous-Barr Co. v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376,
cf. Progressive Mine Workers Union v. N.LR.B., 187 F.2d 298 (C.A. 7);
Hinson v. N.L.R.B., 428 F.2d 133 (C.A. 8).
36 Coats & Clark, Inc., 113 NLRB 237; Duro Test Corp., 81 NLRB 976;
Kallaher & Mee, 84 NLRB 410; N.LR.B. v. Reed, 206 F.2d 184 (C.A. 9).
34 Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.LR.B., 305 U.S. 197. See also Republic
Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S, 7; Heinz Co. v. N.LR.B., 311 U.S. 514.
under the National Labor Relations Act and the Board has
jurisdiction to award backpay to the employee because the
employee's right in a state court is not preempted by the
National Labor Relations Act. In construing Section 10(c)
of the Act which "gives limited authority to the Board to
award back pay to employees," the Supreme Court stated:
If an award of damages by a state court for conduct
such as is involved in the present case is not otherwise
prohibited by the Federal Acts, it certainly is not
prohibited by the provisions of § 10(c). This section is
far from being an express grant of exclusive jurisdiction
superseding common-law actions, by either an employ-
er or an employee, to recover damages caused by the
tortious conduct of a union. To make an award, the
Board must first be convinced that the award would
"effectuate the policies" of the Act. . . . The power to
order affirmative relief under § 10(c) is merely
incidental to the primary purpose of Congress to stop
and to prevent unfair labor practices. Congress did not
establish a general scheme authorizing the Board to
award full compensatory damages for injuries caused
by wrongful conduct. In Virginia Electric Co. v. Labor
Board 319 U.S. 533, 543, in speaking of the Board's
power to grant affirmative relief, we said:
The instant reimbursement order [which directs
reimbursement by an employer of dues checked off for
a dominated union] is not a redress for a private wrong.
Like a back pay order, it does restore to the employees
in some measure what was taken from them because of
the Company's unfair labor practices. In this, both these
types of monetary awards somewhat resemble compen-
sation for private injury, but it must be constantly
remembered that both are remedies created by
statute-the one explicitly and the other implicitly in
the concept of effectuation of the policies of the
Act-which are designed to aid in achieving the
elimination of industrial conflict. They vindicate public,
not private, rights. For this reason it is erroneous to
characterize this reimbursement order as penal or as the
adjudication of a mass tort. It is equally wrong to fetter
the Board's discretion by compelling it to observe
conventional common law or chancery principles in
fashioning such an order, or to force it to inquire into
the amount of damages actually sustained. Whether
and to what extent such matters should be considered is
a complex problem for the Board to decide in the light
of its administrative experience and knowledge.
Congress intended by the enactment of the Taft-Hartley
Act of 1947 to stop , inter alia, illegal picketing and violence.
It is obvious that the Board's "broad" cease-and-desist
orders in previous cases have failed to discourage Local 85,
this Respondent, as evidenced by its repeated violations
and its adamantly continuing to flout the law by employing
illegal tactics in effectuating its organizational and
promotional objectives. However, the General Counsel has
38 Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 177. See Virginia Electric &
Power Co. v. N.LR.B., 319 U.S. 533; N.L.R.B. v. Fansteel Metallurgical
Corp., 306 U.S. 240.
39 N.LR.B. v. Seven-up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344.
40 See 51 Columbia Law Review at p. 515, and Eichleay Corp. v.
N.LR.B., 206 F.2d 799, 804-806 (C.A. 3); Monolith Cement Co., 84 NLRB
358.
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 85 475
not seen fit to suggest any remedy other than the prosaic
and orthodox "broad" remedy extant for over 20 years
which merely forbids the Union from engaging in
secondary activity involving not only the employers herein,
but all other neutral employers and their employees. Such
initiative leading to the formulation of effective remedial
orders to deter future violations must, in the first instance,
emanate from the General Counsel. He has offered no
guidance in his brief in this regard. The brief filed by him
fails to recommend any remedy other than those in effect
for many years.
The history of coercion, violence, and illegal tactics on
Respondent's part would seem to indicate that present
remedies are ineffective or defective to deter and prevent
this Respondent from repeatedly committing unfair labor
practices. The Union's cavalier attitude toward present
remedies indicates a reappraisal is warranted to determine
the powers of deterrence provided in the existing law. The
present remedy of a cease-and-desist order enjoining illegal
acts on a set of facts long extinct and long after the illegal
conduct has occurred would appear to be a meaningless
gesture which does nothing to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Stare decisis requires the trier of these facts to employ
existing remedies as precedent is to be followed and not
departed from in order to keep the scale of justice even and
steady. Innovation in this context is more properly within
the domain of a higher policymaking authority which has
the available facilities and means to devise a meaningly
effective remedy.41 Supreme Court stated in N.L.R.B. v.
Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 765-766 (1969):
"Adjudicated cases may and do, of course, serve as vehicles
for the formulation of agency policies which are applied
and announced therein. . . . They generally provide a
guide to action that the agency may be expected to take in
future cases."
It is believed that the Union's unfair labor practices
found above are potentially related to similar unfair labor
practices and that danger of future commissions of such
unlawful acts may be anticipated from its past conduct. The
preventative purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the
Order is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, it is
recommended that a broad cease-and-desist order shall
issue against the Respondent Union, encompassing all
employers and their employees within its territorial
jurisdiction over whom the Board would assert jurisdiction.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
41 See Progressive Mine Workers v. N.L.R.B., 187 F.2d 298 (C.A. 7),
enfd . in part 89 NLRB 1490; Taxicab Drivers Union Local 777, 145 NLRB
197, 205-206; and Midas International Corp., 150 NLRB 486, 492-493.
APPENDIX B
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROY 0. HOFFMAN, Regional Director of the
Twentieth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board, for and on behalf of the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner, ) Civil No. C-69-95R.F.P.
V.
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS & AUTO TRUCK
DRIVERS LOCAL NO. 85, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
This cause came on to be heard upon the verified petition
of Roy O. Hoffman, Regional Director of the Twentieth
Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on
behalf of said Board, for a temporary injunction pursuant
to Section 10(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended [29 U.S.C. § 160 (1)], pending the final
disposition of the matter here involved now pending before
said Board, and upon the issuance or an order to show
cause why injunctive relief should not be granted as prayed
in said petition. Respondent filed an answer to said
petition. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard thereon, and the Court, upon consideration of the
pleadings, affidavits, evidence, briefs and argument of
counsel, and the entire record in the case, has made and
filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding
and concluding that there is reasonable cause to believe
that Respondent Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
Drivers Local No. 85, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America (herein called Local 85), has engaged in and is
engaging in, acts and conduct in violation of Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii), subparagraph (B) of said Act [29 U.S.C. §
158(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)], affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2, subsections (6) and (7) of said Act [29
U.S.C. § 152 (6) and (7)], and that such acts and conduct
will likely be repeated or continued unless enjoined.
Now, therefore, upon the entire record, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that,
pending the final disposition of the matter here involved
pending before the National Labor Relations Board,
Respondent Local 85, its officers, representatives, agents,
servants, employees, attorneys, and all members, persons
and labor organizations acting in concert or participation
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with it, be and they hereby are , enjoined and restrained
from:
(a) Picketing at or in the vicinity of the entrances to the
plant of the Dow Jones Company (herein called Dow
Jones), at Palo Alto , California, as a signal or in a manner
so as to induce or encourage employees of Dow Jones,
Airborne Freight Corporation (herein called Airborne) or
other employers (other than Viking Delivery Service, Inc.,
herein called Viking), to refuse to pick up , deliver,
transport , or handle any goods or to perform services for
their respective employers at Dow Jones ' said plant; or
instructing, soliciting or appealing to truckdrivers em-
ployed by motor carriers (other than Viking) or employees
employed by other employers, to honor or respect such
picket line ; or maintaining in effect any such instructions or
appeals ; or halting or obstructing passage of such trucks at
Dow Jones' said plant; or
(b) Picketing at or in the vicinity of the entrances to the
terminal warehouse of Airborne at the San Francisco
airport , as a signal or in a manner so as to induce or
encourage employees of Airborne , or motor carriers or
other employers (other than Viking) to refuse to pick up,
deliver, transport or handle any goods or to perform
services for their respective employers at Airborne's said
terminal warehouse ; or instructing, soliciting or appealing
to truckdrivers employed by motor carriers (other than
Viking) or employees employed by other employers, to
honor or respect such picket line, or maintaining in effect
any such instructions or appeals; or
(c) Picketing or threatening to picket at or in the vicinity
of the entrances to the terminal warehouse of Loretz and
Co. (herein Loretz) at Harbor Way, South San Francisco,
California , as a signal or in a manner so as to induce or
encourage employees of Loretz or of motor carriers or other
employers (other than Viking) to refuse to pick up , deliver,
transport, or handle any goods or to perform services for
their respective employers at Loretz ' said plant; or
instructing, soliciting or appealing to truckdrivers em-
ployed by motor carriers (other than Viking) or employees
employed by other employers to honor or respect such
picket line , or maintaining in effect any such instructions or
appeals; or
(d) Engaging in, or by picketing, orders , directions,
solicitation , requests or appeals , howsoever given , made or
imparted, or by any like or related acts or conduct, or by
permitting any such to remain in existence or effect, or
inducing or encouraging any individual employed by Dow
Jones , Airborne or Loretz, or their carriers, or by any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting
commerce (other than Viking), to engage in, a strike, slow-
down, or refusal in the course of his employment to use,
manufacture , process , transport or otherwise handle or
work on any goods , articles, materials or commodities, or to
perform any service , or sanctioning, supporting or promot-
ing any such strike or refusal ; or in any similar manner or
by any other means threatening, coercing or restraining
Dow Jones , Airborne, or Loretz, or their carriers, or any
other person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce (other than Viking), where in either
case an object thereof is to force or require Dow Jones,
Airborne or Loretz to cease doing business with Viking, or
where an object thereof is to force or require Airborne, or
any motor carrier, suppliers or other person with whom
Dow Jones regularly or customarily does business , to cease
using, selling, handling, transporting or otherwise dealing in
the products of, or to cease doing business with , Dow Jones.
Done at San Francisco, California, this 28 day of
October, 1969.
Robert F . Peckham United States District Judge