Teamsters Local 745

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 537 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 745 537
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Dallas Gen-
eral Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 745
(Transcon Lines) and Archie Elliollt Brown. Case
16 CB 1246
February 5, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
By MFMBERS PENI .LO ML RPIItY. NNI) TRt i 5 l i
On December 7. 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed a supporting brief, and the International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters filed an amicus brief in support
of Respondent's position.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that the remarks made by Respondent's al-
ternate steward, Jack Henry, to employee Brown to
the effect that Brown would be killed if he continued
his dissident union activities on behalf of PROD
(Professional Drivers Council), an organization of
dissident Teamsters, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). The
record shows that upon transferring to the Employ-
er's Dallas terminal in September 1976 emplo ee
Brown sought to transfer his union membership from
Teamsters Local 886 to Respondent Local 745.
Brown contended that he was denied permission to
transfer into Local 745 because he refused to join
DRIVE (Democrat Republical Independent Voter
Education), the political arm of the Teamsters. As a
result, Brown joined PROD and began distributing
PROD literature which attacked Respondent's poli-
cies and criticized its leadership. It was under these
circumstances that Brown. in late February or early
March 1977. received a telephone call from Jack
Henry. Respondent's alternate steward at the Dallas
terminal, urging Brown to join Respondent local
745 and assuring him that the people at the union
hall were not mad at him. Brown, however. reiterated
his refusal to join Respondent ocal if he also was
required to join DRIVE. To this. Henry responded.
"Well, I can't help you then.... [Let me state, I
240 NLRB No. 69
circulate with some pretty rough people.... The
word is out." Brown asked. "Well, what word?" and
Henrv responded that he (Brown) was in danger.
Brown asked what kind of danger and was told.
"Well. PROD, they have done used you enough.
The, don't need you any more because you are going
too far and theN are going to get rid of you." Brown
asked Henry what he meant. and Henry said. "I
mean completely." When Brown asked, "You mean
kill me''" Henrv said, "Right." Henry further elabo-
rated by saying, "How about some morning would
,ou like to go out and our motor is missing out of
your car . .. ou start your car and blow \our car up
or maybe the side of our house might be blowed
out, or something like that."
Our dissenting colleague would find that Respon-
dent did not violate Section 8(b)(1I(A) by Henry's
statements because the} were couched in terms of
what PROD would do. rather than what Respondent
would do. Such a position ignores the obvious import
of Henr's message: namely. that Henry. and those
"rough" people with whom he circulated, would
make sure, through violence if necessary, that Brown
discontinued his anti-Teamsters activities. In this re-
spect. our dissenting colleague concedes that Henr
had no knowledge or involvement with PROD, and
that Brown himself, an active PROD member, knew
that Henry could not and did not speak for that or-
ganization. Thus. Brown could only have believed
that Henr., not PROD, was threatening him with
violence if he failed to join Respondent Local and
abandon his PROD activities. And, inasmuch as the
threatening statements were made by HenrN in an
effort to solicit Brown's membership in espon-
dent--an aspect of Henry's official responsibility as
alternate steward-the Administrative Law Judge
properly concluded that Respondent was vicariousl
responsible for Henry's coercive conduct. See. e.g.,
Interntlional Brotherhood of Teamntecrs. General Driv-
ers, Chat{lflr.s and Helpers Local Union No. 886 (l.ee
i'av Motor Freight, Inc.), 229 NLRB 832 (1977).
enfd. without opinion 589 F.2d 1116 (D.C. Cir.
1978).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act. as amended. the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
OrJer of the Administrative Law Judge and herebyh
orders that the Respondent. International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Dallas General Drivers. Ware-
housemen and Helpers Local 745., Dallas, Texas. its
officers. agents. and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 745 l _ . . - , .
538 I)Et(ISIONS OF: NA'IIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MI limi R Ma t i lt'o. dissentig:
Contrary to my colleagues and the Admilnistrative
law Judge. I conclude that alternate job steward
Henry's statements to Charging Party Brown did not
violate Section 8(h)( I )(A) of the Act. ('onsequently. I
would dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
With respect to the facts pertaining to the alleged
threat, the Administrative aw Judge found, and it is
essentially undisputed that Brown, a member of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters but not of
Respondent Local, was also a member of PROD,). the
Professional Drivers ouncil, a group of dissident
Teamsters. In a telephone conversation in early 1977.
Henry suggested to Brown that the latter go to the
union hall and Henry would get him a union card.
Brown responded. "Well, if it means that I have got
to join DRIVE. I'm not going to do it." According
to the Administrative Law Judge.
Henry then told Brown, "Well, I can't help
you then.... [Liet me state. I circulate with
some pretty rough people.... The word is
out." Brown asked "what word?" and Henry
told Brown that he was in danger. Brown asked
what kind of danger and was told, "Well PROD.
they have done used you enough. They don't
need you anymore because you are going too far
and they are going to get rid of you." Brown
asked Henry what he meant and Ilenrv told
him, "I mean completely." When Brown said.
"You mean kill me?" Henry replied, "Right."
During this conversation. Henry asked Brown.
"How about some morning would you like to go
out and your motor is missing out of your car
.... you start you car and blow up your car or
maybe the side of your house might be blowed
out, or something like that."
The Administrative Law Judge concluded, and my
colleagues agree, that Henry's statements constituted
unlawful threats. In reaching this conclusion. the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge found. inter alia, that it is not
significant that Henry spoke in terms of what PROD,
rather than Respondent, intended to do. I disagree.
The Administrative Law Judge cites no authority
and I know of none, for the proposition that a union
(or an employer) can be found to have interfered
with an employee's Section 7 rights by stating that
some third party would take violent action against
the employee because the latter exercised his statu-
tory prerogatives. Indeed, such a proposition is espe-
cially untenable under the facts in the instant case.
for there is no evidence whatsoever as to lenryV's
knowledge of or involvement in PROD. In these cir-
cumstances, Henry's comments cannot realistically
be viewed as a threat of physical harm to Brown if he
continued his activities on behalf of PROD. inas-
much as it is clear that the statements referred to
action potentially to be undertaken by that organiza-
tion rather than by Respondent. It also is clear that
llen rv wals not in position to speak with authority
as to what PROL) would do and that Brown, himself
as an active and vocal member of PROD. knew that
Ilenry could not speak for that organization. My col-
leagues infer from these facts that "Brown could only
have believed that Henry. not PROD, was threaten-
ing hilm with violence.... " lowever. as noted
above, because Henrv referred to PROD and on/i to
PROD. any inference that Henry meant that some-
one else would take violent action against Brown is
unwarranted. Consequently. Henry's statements can
only be construed as speculation about the results of
Brown's continued association with PROD-
speculation undertaken in an attempt to persuade
Brown to join Respondent. Accordingly, such state-
ments cannot be found to constitute restraint or
coercion of Brown's exercise of his Section 7 rights
within the meaning of Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act. I
would therefore dismiss the conplaint.
I)RIV1- i, an a.icron lll for l)emlocral Republican Independentl V,ter
[:dutlwll. [le I[c¢nistcr pltical aril
DECISION
SIAIMEFNI OF 1HiE ASit
MIcHAEtL O MILLER. Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge filed on April 14, 1977. by Archie Elliott Brown, an
individual (herein Brown). against the International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Dallas General Drivers. Warehouse-
men and Helpers Local 745 (herein Local 745 or Respon-
dent). a complaint issued by the Regional Director of
Region 16 of the National Labor Relations Board on May
27, 1977, and an answer timely filed by Respondent, a
hearing was held before me on August 15, 1977, in Dallas.
Texas. At issue was whether Brown had been threatened
by Respondent's assistant job steward and, if so, whether
Respondent was responsible for such threats.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and to cross-exam-
ine witnesses, and to argue orally. Briefs were filed by Gen-
eral Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record, including my careful observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor. I make the fol-
lowing:
FINI) IN(;S of FA('I
I RA NS(ONS Hi SIN t SS ANi) RI:SP(ONDN 'S ABOR OR(;ANIZA I ION
SI1AI S
The Charging Parts's emploer. Transcon l.ines. is party
to the National Master Freight Agreement. an association
TEAMSTERS' I.UCAL 745 539
collective-hargaining agreement withl the Internalional
Brotherhood of Teamsters. ('hauffeurs. WarehouseClnenll
and Helpers of America. Jurisdiction is not in ssue. I finm d
and conclude that Transcon is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act. as amended. herein he
Act.
The Teamsters ocal in the Dallas. Texas. area is I.ocal
745. the Respondent herein. The complaint alleges. Re-
spondent admits, and I find and conclude that local 745 Is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II 1 IF ll Al I iFD I N 1 R I ABOR PRAt 1 t fS
A. Bacground
Archie Brown is an over-the-road driver employed h
Transcon Lines out of its Dallas. Texas. terminal. ie is a
member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
and, at one time prior to June 1976. had been a member of
Local 745. Between June and September 1976. Brown
worked out of Transcon's Oklahoma C('it terminal, , here
he was a member of Teamsters Local 886. lie transferred
to Dallas in September 1976 and sought to return to .ocal
745. He contends that he was denied permission to transfer
back into that Local because he refused to join DRIVE
(Democrat Republican Independent Voter Education), the
Union's political arm. This case finds its genesis in that
contention.'
Immediately upon what Brown perceived as an attempt
to coerce him to support DRIVE.. he joined PROI), the
Professional Drivers Council. an organization comprised
essentially of dissident Teamsters, and began a campaign
of opposition to, and vilification of. the leadership of l.ocal
745. At his own expense, he prepared a series of letters and
pamphlets. These he distributed widely, at his own termi-
nal, other terminals in Dallas. and along the routes he trav-
eled. His first letter, describing the alleged attempt to force
him to support DRIVE. was dated December 30. 1976. His
second letter, in January 1977.2 urged fellow Teamsters to
resist pressure to support DRIVE and asked for their sup-
port for himself and for the reform of the Local. A l:ebru-
ary letter, in strong and intemperate language. accused the
Local of housing "Mafia Types. under-world people.
Filth, landl Scum," repeated his problem concerning
DRIVE, and solicited support for reform in the Union and
membership in PROD. Other distributions were made in
April and May.'
B. lhe A lleged 7rlreat.s
On an evening in late February or early March. Brown
received a telephone call from Jack Henry. one of l(ocal
745's alternate job stewards at Iranscon. In the course of
Rc.,pondcnil d1cic' tl t Bro n i ;I deJie Iii cirihIl lllp ii I ,..I '4S
hculc .f Mns reflllF to lupporl )RI I Rcs.,iilll f1 Ih, ,,ifIl, Is not
requtircd h, Ihe IM1ILe herein
l d.ates hlerclinafter are 1')77 lrll, ICh erhc1 at
l
c pc ilcd
In .I crilpali niIl . c CI ld ihll il C. II I ,,t,,l , I Itll%. ( ,rc IC . ( \
714l I found Ih dihrlbuhon ol th, th cittur , , to ,'II ilkllt' JM Iqc.'d -.(q
celtt'd i l" iln d the 11.lll/l
their telephone conversation, lienrs told Brown that the
"union hall" was not mad at hint and suggested. "Wh
don't ou go down there nd tallk `kith hem. Ihe, Alant to
help ou. I am going to get ou a union card." Brown told
lienrs. "Well. if II mneans that I hase to join D)RIVE. I'm
not going to do it."
[lenirs then told Brown. "'Well, I can't help ou then
.... [Let me state, I circulate with some prett rough
people. . . . he word is out." Bro n asked "What %kord'?"
and Ienr told Brown thlat he was in daner. Brown asked
whal kind of danger and was told. "'Well. PROD. the\
hlave done used you enough. hlie
x don't need ;ou ainmore
because ou are going too far and they' are going to get rid
of Yu." Brown asked lenr what lie meant and lenrs
told him. "I nieai complete."'' When BrosAnI said. "''oil
mnlan kill me'?" Henry replied. "Right." During this con-
versation. Ilenr asked rown. "low about some morning
would ou like to out and our motor is missing out of
,sor car. . .ou start sour car and hlow. uIp our car or
nliasbc the ide of our house might be bloed out. or some-
thing like that." '
Brown had been placing his distributions in lHenr's file
at the terminal and had received no response from hint.
Brown finally put a note on the bulletin board. in response
to hearsa reports to the effect that Henry was saing un-
kind things ahout hin. including that hlie (tllenr') uold
"nail" Brown. In that note Brown told lenrs. "lack. put
tip or shut up." Subseqoicntl\. on ;an e\tlling soilletille In
April. Broun and Henrs met at the terminal. tlenrs asked
Bron,. "Archie. do ou wuant a piece of m) hind end'?"
Brouw n replied. "'No. lack, if ) ou are Ir ing to provoke
me into a fight to get me fired ...it on't work. Ilenrs
then suggested that the go onto the parking lot. property
not oned hb I'ranscn. and Brown agreed. Thes faced
each other on the parking lot. lenry had his hand in his
pocket and Brolwn said. Well. Jack. go ahead. I feel that I
hae the advantage on ou You sin first . . . But ou
will probabl come out of our pocket with a knife.
'Io this. according o Bron . i lnr, replied. "No. Archie. I
don't need no knife." lie motionied to something under his
col which Brown described as looking like the butt of a
pistol, and said. "I h'ase ot a buddy right here. a hudd in
the chamber and eleven more
' to back him up." According
to Brown, other employees were present and came over when
they saw a fight developing, a few words were said, and the
putative combatants walked away without any further vio-
lence.
Henry denied owning any guns or ever having carried a
gun. It was his testimon that in the course of this colnver-
sation with Brown he did show Brown somiething undler his
coat. not a pistol but a small copy of the New Testament.
fie denied telling Broun that he had 12 helpers (allthough
that would not hae beenl an illogical biblical reference)
i-k Ilcrlu ,Ithi. I tc i lcd ,i s A ., lie tinll n Ret'lponden' [ i .,tit ,ll
t2l , ilki:d .1i-11 ,i111d did 11,1 drni1t Th l ttreeiil .il>ers.ll rl \'ddl iil .ll.
IJ[illkllX 1-11IN I1
.
xA.1', .irl h*1" , r.l ltd h. Ihat1 ,f h,, %11¢ h o. ,1it clCt t1,,
tIc htl llcid i 1 , 1 ll il t-d ]c 1.1 i l 1 ll I lml lb iTkll ,CL'rnilll n COilILtFll iI IlIC
po~.,1Ibll .f til11 1 1.al rI 'l, ht ,n ,,c 1hc 1, iIu ,A- '\t1lq11n\.
I fndJ t1.
ilt Con1t01XIll h [JtI kt ,t. } 1 d-. cIA ' i r hed I ,
., ot[ , c, r ' % \t'. 1' 4 1 Cl 1 (h,, ll
hIknrex
I hc ll~.[m rl l d, ' -didhff " t. hetrci -
I CtHICkk.' . Ol P :l '
TEAM TERS LO A 4
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and claimed that he referred to his "brother and four
helpers...i.e., Matthew, Mark. Luke. and John." Henry
did not further dispute Brown's testimony concerning this
conversation.
On the basis of the foregoing. I find that the conversa-
tion occurred as described by Brown only insofar as that
conversation was undenied by Henry. I do not credit
Brown's testimony that Henry threatened him with a gun.
In addition to being less favorably impressed with Brown's
demeanor than with Henry's. I note that Brown, who de-
nied familiarity with guns, claimed only to have seen what
he believed to have been part of a gun. He also admitted
having some problems in hearing and, considering the cir-
cumstances, could have misunderstood both what he saw
and what he heard. In this regard I note, too, that Brown's
testimony evidences a tendency to overstate or overly dra-
matize events, such as the number of times he had been
threatened and his claimed lack of concern for such
threats. In light of the earlier threat by Henry. the evidence
of which I have credited, it is understandable that Brown
disliked Henry; however, his references to Henry as a
"company snitch" and a "habitual liar," and his stated in-
tention to get Henry expelled from the Union, although
unaccompanied by internal union charges, indicate an ani-
mosity which reflects adversely on his credibility.
C. Henry's Agency Status
Respondent has one steward, elected, and two alternate
stewards, appointed by the steward and confirmed by the
Union, at Transcon. Jack Henry is one of those alternate
stewards. He has held such a position for about 3 years. He
is an employee of Transcon and receives no compensation
from the Union.
The role of the steward is not defined in the Internation-
al Union's Constitution. Local 745's bylaws provide that
"Stewards are not officers of the local union." The Na-
tional Master Freight Agreement provides in part:
ARTICLE 4.
Stewards The Employer recognizes the right of the
Local Union to designate job stewards and alternates
from the Employer's seniority list. The authority of
job stewards and alternates so designated by the Local
Union shall be limited to, and shall not exceed, the
following duties and activities:
(a) The investigation and presentation of grievances
with his Employer or the designated company rep-
resentative in accordance with the provisions of the
collective-bargaining agreement;
(b) The collection of dues when authorized by appro-
priate Local Union action:
(c) The transmission of such messages and informa-
tion, which shall originate with, and are authorized
by the Local Union or its officers, provided such
message and information:
(I) have been reduced to writing; or
(2) if not reduced to writing. are of a routine nature
and do not involve work stoppages, slowdowns. re-
fusal to handle goods, or any other interference with
the Employer's business.
Job Stewards and alternates have no authority to take
strike action, or any other action interrupting the
Employer's business, except as authorized by official
action of the Local Union. The Employer recognizes
these limitations upon the authority of job stewards
and their alternates, and shall not hold the Union lia-
ble for any authorized acts.
The job steward or his designated alternate shall be
permitted reasonable time to investigate, present and
process grievances on the company property without
loss of time or pay.
As alternate steward, Henry answers employees' ques-
tions about the contract, discusses employees' problems,
such as errors in their paychecks, with management, and
carries their grievances to the union offices. The grievances
themselves are usually written out by the employees and
are resolved by the business agents. Stewards transmit an-
nouncements from the Union to the membership and soli-
cit new members to execute membership applications.
They' do not collect union dues.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
As discussed above, I have found that Henry made the
late February-early March statements attributed to him by
Brown. I further find that those statements constituted
threats for which Local 745 must bear responsibility.
The principles governing this case were set out by the
Board in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, General
Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local Union No. 886 (Lee
Wa' Motor Freight, Inc.), 229 NLRB 832 (1977), and cases
cited therein. In that case, a steward with responsibilities in
regard to the processing of grievances threatened that an
employee would be discharged and that the union would
not represent him on a discharge grievance if he continued
to protest alleged irregularities in an election for union offi-
cers. The Board, noting that the steward had authority, as
the union's agent, to receive, process, investigate, and make
recommendations in regard to grievances, found that his
threat was within the scope of that authority. Similarly, in
the instant case. the steward's authority extended to solici-
tations of union membership. Henry's threat arose in the
course of a conversation regarding what Brown would have
to do in order to secure that membership and Henry's as-
sistance in regard to it.
I do not deem it significant that, as Respondent pointed
out, Henry was only an alternate steward, whereas the in-
dividual involved in Lee Way Motor Freight was the stew-
ard. Under the parties' contract, there appeared to be no
distinctions in the authority of the steward and his alter-
nate. Neither do I deem it signifiant that Henry's statement
was couched in terms of what PROD intended to do rather
than what Respondent would do. The object of the threat,
that Brown cease his pro-PROD activities, was the same,
and Henry professed to know what was in store for Brown
by virtue of his acquaintance "with some pretty rough peo-
ple." Not completely veiled was the implication that Brown
could influence the outcome, one way or the other. More-
over, whether the evil deed be done by Respondent or Re-
TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 745 541
spondent's opposition, the threat of it remains equally
coercive.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act through Henry's statements to Brown
in late February or early March 1977. As I have credited
Henrv's denial that he threatened Brown with a gun. and
find nothing else threatening or coercive in the April ex-
change. I recommend that the allegation in regard to that
incident be dismissed.
CONCI L:sioNs OF Lw
I. By threatening an employee with physical harm un-
less he ceased his dissident union activities, Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(I)XA) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
3. Respondent has not violated the Act in any manner
not expressly found herein.
THFE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practice in violation of Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act.
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom, and from in any like or related manner infring-
ing upon the statutory rights of employees and members,
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER
The Respondent. International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers
Local 745, Dallas, Texas. its officers, agents. and represen-
tatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with physical harm unless
they cease engaging in dissident union activity.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
employees or members in the exercise of their rights under
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office and meeting places copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 16, after being duly signed by its authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof. and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16 in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
it has taken to comply hereiwth.
Il tile eent nio exceptlion are filed as provided bh% Sec 10246 of the
Rule, anid Regulatins of the Nallonal Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conllu,,lio,,. and recommended Order herein shall. as pro,ided n Sec
102 48X f the Rules and Regulations. be adopted b (ihe Board and become
il' findins. conclusions. and Order. and all objeclions Iherelo hall he
deemed u.aied for all purposes.
,"1 he eenl Ihal his Order is enforced a Judgment of a L nited State,
Court of Appeals. he AIords in the noiice reading "Posted b Order of Ihe
Nailoal l.bhor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
IIneInt of he I nited States (Court of Appeals Enflorcing an Order of he
N.aiilII.rl abor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
Notr(ie To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
hearing, that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with physical harm
unless they cease engaging in dissident union activi-
ties.
WE Wn.L NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights un-
der the National Labor Relations Act.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS.
DAILAS GENERAI DRIVERs. WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HEL PERS LOCAL 745
TEAMSTERS' LOCAL 745 541