Teamsters, Local No. 554

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 754 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Young and Hay Transportation
Company. Case 18-CP-149
November 24, 1975-
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On August 18, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Charging Party
filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's excep-
tions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, General Drivers
and Helpers Union, Local No. 554, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
1 On September 10, 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, m General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 554, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America [Young and Hay Transportation Company] v.
N.L.R.B, 522 F 2d 562 (C.A 8, 1975), enforced the Board 's Order in Young
and Hay Transportation Company, 214 NLRB No 39 (1974), cited by the
Adnunistrative Law Judge
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at Council Bluffs, Iowa, on June 17,
1975. The complaint, issued February 11, 1975, is based
upon a charge filed January 30, 1975, by Young and Hay
Transportation Company, hereinafter referred to as Young
and Hay or the Company. The complaint alleges that
General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554,
221 NLRB No. 122
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
hereinafter referred to as Respondent or the Union,
violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the National Labor Relations
Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
No testimony was heard herein; the parties agreed at
hearing to submit the facts to the above by stipulation, for
decision. Said stipulated facts are in the record as All Party
Exhibits (ALX) -1 through 15. Briefs, which have been
carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General
Counsel, the Charging Party (Young and Hay) and
Respondent.
Upon the entire record, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Young and Hay is a Minnesota corporation engaged in
business as a regular route motor common carrier
maintaining its principal office and place of business at
Worthington, Minnesota, and maintaining terminals at
Schuyler, Nebraska, and Council Bluffs, Iowa. During the
past year Young and Hay derived revenue in excess of
$50,000 from furnishing services in transportation of goods
and commodities shipped to and received from places
outside Iowa and Nebraska. I find that Young and Hay is,
and at all times material herein has been, an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
General -Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
Young and Hay purchased its Council Bluffs terminal in
1966, and since that date the Union has represented the
Company's employees at Council Bluffs. Although the
Company is not a member of any employer association, it
has regularly executed the National Master Freight
Agreement (National Agreement) and Central States Area
Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement since 1966.
The Company acquired its Schuyler location in 1972,
and on June 28 of that year the Union filed a petition for
election at the Schuyler facility. Pursuant to a stipulation
for certification upon consent election, an election was
held on August 17, 1972. The Board certified the Union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit at the Schuyler terminal on January 26,
1973.
The National Agreement between the Company and the
Union effective April 1, 1970, through June 30, 1973,
provides in relevant part:
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 554
When a majority of the eligible employees perform-
ing work covered by an Agreement designated by the
National Negotiating Committee to be Supplemental to
the National Master Freight Agreement (to which their
Employer is a prior signator), execute a card authoriz-
ing a signatory Local Union to represent them as their
collective bargaining agent at the terminal location,
then, such employees shall automatically be covered by
this Agreement and the applicable Supplemental
Agreements. In such cases the parties may by mutual
agreement negotiate wages and conditions, subject to
Conference Joint Area Committee approval.
The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all
accretions to the bargaining unit, including but not
limited to, newly established or acquired terminals, and
consolidations of terminals.1
After certification of the Union the parties met for
discussions , and the Union took the position that Council
Bluffs and Schuyler constituted a single merged unit, with
Schuyler being covered by the National Agreement. The
Company contended that Schuyler was a separate unit and
that the National Agreement did not apply to it. The
Company offered to negotiate a separate agreement
concerning Schuyler, but the Union refused the offer.
The Union filed a charge with the Board, alleging among
other things that the Company refused to bargain in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. A complaint was
issued, the controversy was heard and decided by an
Administrative Law Judge, and exceptions were taken by
the Company to the Administrative Law Judge's decision.
On October 24, 1974, the Board dismissed all allegations of
the complaint2 after deciding that, although the "after
acquired" clause in the National Agreement requires that
the agreement be applied to employees of the Schuyler
terminal , it does not require that Schuyler be merged into a
single multilocation unit of Young and Hay's employees;
therefore, the Union was demanding bargaining in a unit
different from both the certified unit and from any unit
described in or contemplated by the National Agreement,
and the Company had no duty to comply with such a
request.
On November 22, 1974, Local 554 filed a petition with
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia seeking review of the Order of the Board in
Young and Hay Transportation Company, 214 NLRB No.
39. On or about November 26, 1974, Young and Hay filed
a motion with-the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia to intervene in the case arising from
the petition for review of the, Board's Order. Young and
Hay also filed a motion- with the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking to transfer
the case involving Local 554 ?s petition ' for review of the
Board's Order from the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The motion was granted by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, and the case now is pending before the Eighth
Circuit.
755
On November 21, 1974, Young and Hay filed an
amended petition with the Board, seeking an election by
the Company's unit employees at Council Bluffs. On
December 24, 1974, the Board found the appropriate unit
to be all full-time and regular part-time employees
employed by the Employer at its Council Bluffs, Iowa,
terminal, including over-the-road drivers; excluding steam
cleaners, office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. An election
was directed, and it was held January 22, 1975. No ballots
were cast for the Union and three ballots were cast against
the Union, the only labor organization appearing on the
ballot. No challenged ballots were cast- No objections to
the election were filed. On January 30, 1975, the Board
certified the results of the election.
On June 25, 1974, the Union commenced a strike against
and picketing of Young and Hay. The strike and picketing
took place at both terminals and also was conducted on an
ambulatory basis by picketing of Young and Hay's trucks
at the premises of other employers in the Council Bluffs,
Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, vicinity.
Following Board certification on January 30, 1975, of the
results of the election, the Union continued its picketing at
Young and Hay's Council Bluffs, Iowa, terminal and its
ambulatory picketing described above. Young and Hay
filed a charge with the Board and after investigation,
Region 18 of the Board notified the Union that said- charge
was determined to be meritorious and that injunctive relief
pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act was being instituted.
Thereupon, the Union entered into a stipulation by which
it agreed, inter aha, to discontinue its picketing at the
Council Bluffs, Iowa, terminal and its ambulatory picket-
ing relating thereto pending final adjudication of the
charge. Pursuant to said stipulation, the Union discontin-
ued its picketing on February. 26, 1975. The picketing
resulted in the complaint filed herein on February. 11, 1975.
A. Allegation of Illegal Picketing
The complaint alleges a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of
the Act, which provides that it shall be an unfair labor
practice for a labor' organization or its agents -
(7) to picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to
picket or cause to be picketed, any employer where an
object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to
recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the
representative of his employees, or forcing or requiring
the employees of an employer to accept or select such
labor organization as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative, unless such labor organization is currently
certified as the representative of such employees:
(B) where within the preceding twelve months a valid
election under section 9(c) of this Act has conduct-
ed,...
The complaint states, inter alia, that an object of
Respondent's picketing was, and is, to force or require
I Art. 2, sec 3. 2 87 LRRM 1319; 214 NLRB No 39.
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Young and Hay to recognize or bargain with the Union as
the collective-bargamulg representative of a single unit of
Young and Hay's terminal employees at Council Bluffs,
Iowa, and Schuyler, Nebraska.
Respondent argues that its picketing was in protest of
unfair labor practices then existing and then in litigation.
Included among the All Party Exhibits in this case is
document 1, entitled "Stipulation of Facts." Items 12 and
23 of APX 1 read as follows:
12. On June 25, 1974 Local 554 commenced a
strike against and picketing of Young and Hay in an
effort to apply economic pressure upon Young and
Hay and to force Young and Hay' to agree to bargain
with Local 554 in a unit consisting of employees at the
Council Bluffs, Iowa and, Schuyler, Nebraska terminals
of Young and Hay3 in accordance with the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 18-CA-
3960 (JD-162-,74). The strike and picketing took place
at both of said terminals and also was conducted on an
ambulatory basis by picketing- of Young and Hay's
trucks at the premises of other employers in the
Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha, Nebraska vicinity.
Said picketing continued until February 26, 1975. At all
times picket signs used by Local 554 read as follows:
"EMPLOYEES OF YOUNG AND HAY TRANSPORTATION ON
STRIKE PROTESTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, GENERAL
DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 554. THIS STRIKE AGAINST ABOVE-
NAMED EMPLOYERS ONLY."
23. Following Certification of the Results of the
Election in Case No. 18-RM-918, Local 554 continued
its picketing at Young and Hay's Council Bluffs, Iowa
terminal and its ambulatory picketing for the purposes
described-above in paragraph 12. Young and Hay filed
the charge in ease No. 18-CP-149. After, investigation,
the Eighteenth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board notified Local 554 that said charge was deter-
mined to be meritorious and that injunctive retbief [sic]
pursuant to Section 10(1) of the Act was being
instituted. Thereupon Local-554 entered into a Stipula-
tion (made a part of the Record as APX 11) by which
Local 554 agreed, inter alia, to discontinue its picketing
at the Council Bluffs, Iowa terminal and its ambulatory
picketing relating thereto pending final adjudication of
the charge, Local 554's position being that it was
entitled to engage in picketing of the Council Bluffs,
Iowa terminal and in ambulatory picketing relating
thereto on the basis that the underlying decision of the
National Labor Relations Board in Young and Hay
Transportation Company, 214 NLRB No. 39 was
erroneous and was pending review by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Pursuant to
said Stipulation (APX 11), Local 554 discontinued its
picketing on February 26, 1975.
3 Description of the unit is onutted here It is shown elsewhere in this
decision.
4 See also National Packing Company, Inc v N L.R B, 377 F.2d 800, 803
(C A. 10, 1967).
5 214 NLRB No 39
6 5 U.S C, Sec 705, 2 Am Jur, 2d Administrative Law Sec 738 -
It is clear from the `stipulated facts that the allegation of
the complaint ,, and the contention of the General' Counsel,
that Respondent 's picketing objective was within the
proscription of the statute is well supported . Respondent's
objective undeniably was to ,force or require the Company
to "recognize or bargain with" the Union.
Respondent attempted to show, that its picketing was
directed to the Company 's alleged unfair labor practices
rather than , to bargaining or recognition.- That attempt
would be ineffective , even though an object of, the
picketing was to ,protest or publicize such . practices, since
an admitted object was to force or require recognition or
bargaining . As stated by the Board in United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 480, AFL-CIO,
209 NLRB 921, 922 (1974):
... as one of the union's objects ' is illegal, its
picketing is also illegal and it is immaterial that it may
also have other legitimate objects.4
B. Asserted Defense that this Matter Should be,
Stayed
Respondent contends that this matter should be stayed
pending decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit in Case No. 754101.5'
Respondent cites no law for this proposition. It may be
true, as argued, that the,Lighth Circuit will disagree with
the Board. But it is also true that the` Circuit may agree
with the Board. In either event, unless and until `the Circuit
Court `acts, by way of decision or order, Board law is final
and controlling for all purposes .6
Section 10(f) and (g) of the Act makes it quite clear that a
respondent must comply with a Board Order even though
the Board's decision ultimately" 'may be reversed by the
court. Possibly it, can be argued that those sections, as well
as the, cases cited by General Counsel,7 are not directly on
point and deal with compliance in a particular case on
appeal, whereas the instant, case arose collaterally. Howev-
er, the analogy is clear and forceful. If a stay "on appeal'of a
case can-, be obtained only by specific order of the Board or
a court, a fortiori,` such an order would be'required upon
appeal of a collateral, albeit related case.
It is found that this defense is without merit.
C. Asserted Defense that the Board Erred
Respondent contends that, when'the Board certified the
Union as representative of the Schuyler' employees, the
Schuyler terminal "automatically" was covered by the
National Agreement,'and that therefore, the Board erred in
its decision in 214 NLRB No. 39. Respondent goes further
with, this argument, and contends that two cases decided
since 214 NLRB- No. 398 cast doubt on the Board's
decision and increase the' likelihood' of reversal of the
Board by the Eighth Circuit.
7 Westville Homes Corporation, 196 NLRB 963 (1972); Porta-Kamp
Manufacturing Company, Inc, 1'89 NLRB 899 (1971)
6 Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Co v N LR B, 419 U.S 301
(1974), Retail Clerks International Association Local No 455 v. N L R B, 510
F 2d 802 (C.A D C , 1975)
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 554
The immediate and obvious answer to this argument, as
observed by counsel for the Charging Party, is that the Act
does not provide for review by Administrative Law Judges
of Board decisions- Only the Courts, have such review
authority. The Board decided in 214 NLRB No. 39 that the
two terminals, located at Council Bluffs and at Schuyler,
do not constitute a single bargaining unit. The Union
contests that decision, and has appealed to the Eighth
Circuit. Certainly that decision and its appeal are not
within the reach of any Administrative Law Judge's
authority. The instant case is a separate even though
related matter. It cannot be turned into a vehicle to review
a Board decision. This defense is without merit.
D. Asserted Defense of Contract Bar
Respondent contends that the election of January 22,
1975, is ". . . null and void because there was a contract
bar and contract in existence at that time ." No argument is
made, or law relied upon, to support this defense.
Respondent 's brief only states "careful analysis of the
collective bargaining agreement demonstrates the existence
of the contract even as of this time under all the facts of
this case."
The agreement by its terms was for the period April 1,
1970, through June 30, 1973. Article 39, section 1 of the
contract states:
ARTICLE 39.
Duration Section 1.
This Agreement shall be in full force and effect
from April 1, 1970, to and including June 30,
1973, and shall continue from year to year
thereafter unless written notice of desire to cancel
or terminate the Agreement is served by either
party upon the other at least sixty (60) days prior
to date of expiration.
A written "notice of desire to cancel or terminate" the
aforesaid agreement was timely given April 15, 1973, by
Young and Ha} to the Union. Paragraph 7 of stipulation of
facts, APX 1, states:
7. Meanwhile, the NMFA covering employees in
the Council Bluffs unit, was nearing its expiration date
of June 30, 1973. On April 15, 1973 Young and Hay
advised Local 554 of its desire to terminate the NMFA
and re-negotiate an agreement covering the Council
Bluffs terminal. On August 15, 1973 Local 554
responded by requesting Young and Hay to negotiate
an agreement covering employees at Council Bluffs and
at Schuyler on a single unit multi-terminal basis. Young
and Hay refused and continued to refuse to bargain
with Local 554 for a single unit consisting of employees
at both terminals.
The Union replied to the Company' s notice as follows:
Al Young, Secretary
Young & Hay Transportation Co.
9 Case 18-RM-918
Box 58, Route #3
Worthington, Minnesota 56187
Dear Sir:
757
You were previously sent copies of the National
Master Freight Agreement and the Central States Area
Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement and copies of
the National Master Freight, Agreement and the
Central States Area Over-The-Road Supplemental
Agreement. To date, we have not received the two
signed copies of each, as per our request. We would
appreciate your returning these to us as soon as
possible.
Before returning, please check to see that you have
signed both the Master Agreement (which signature
page is on page 85 of each Agreement), as well as the
Supplemental Agreement (which signature page is at
the end of each Agreement).
Yours very truly,
/s/ Albert S. Parker, Secretary-Treasurer
General Drivers & Helpers Union, Local #5
P. O. Box 27005, 4349 South 90th Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68127
It is apparent from the foregoing that Young and Hay
brought the agreement to an end by its notice given to the
Union April 15, 1973, pursuant to the terms of the
contract. It is also apparent that all the parties acknowl-
edged and recognized that the agreement was terminated.
Further, no reference is found in any document in the
record to existence of an agreement between the parties
after June 30, 1973; no court or agency among the several
who have acted herein has found an agreement between
the parties after that date.
It is found that the agreement of the parties, APX 15,
was terminated by the parties and ceased to exist June 30,
1973.
So far as validity of the election is concerned, that matter
long since has been put to rest. The election was,requested
by the Company and directed by the Board, and the Union
was certified, in accordance with appropriate provisions of
law and regulations. No objection to the election was made
by the Union pursuant to said law and regulations. The
contentions now being made by Respondent are the same
as those made during representation proceedings prior to
the election,9 and considered and rejected at that time.
Language of the Board in Westville Homes Corp., supra,
is appropriate in this case:
All issues raised in this proceeding were litigated in
the prior representation proceeding or could have been.
The Respondent does not offer to adduce any newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence nor
alleges any special circumstances that would require
the Board to reexamine the decision in the representa-
tion proceeding. We therefore find that the Respondent
has not raised any issue that is properly litigable in this
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant ORDER 10
the Motion for Summary Judgment.
IV. EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
Respondent's activities set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(7)(B) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Board enter a cease-and-desist order.
Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act proscribes picketing for a
period of 12 months following a valid election. The record
indicates the Respondent was picketing Young and Hay on
February 26, 1975, a little more than I month after a valid
election-was conducted. To effectuate the policies of the
Act, the 1-year ban against picketing shall run from
February 26, 1975, the last date on which the record
indicates the unlawful picketing occurred.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Young and Hay Transportation Company is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By picketing Yung and Hay Transportation Com-
pany on various dates subsequent to January 22, 1975, with
an object of foicing and requiring Young and Hay to
recognize and bargain with Respondent as the collective-
bargaining representative of a single unit of Young and
Hay's terminal employees at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and
Schuyler, Nebraska, or forcing or requiring those employ-
ees to accept and select Respondent as their collective-
bargaining representative in such a single unit, although
Respondent was not currently certified as such representa-
tive, and a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act
having been held within the preceding 12, months,
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
It having been found and concluded that Respondent
Union, General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No.
554, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
has violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act, said Union
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to
picket,, for a period of 1 year from and after February 26,
1975, Young and Hay Transportation Company at
Schuyler, Nebraska, and Council Bluffs, Iowa, an object
thereof being to force or require Young and Hay to
recognize or bargain collectively with Respondent, General
Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the collective-
bargaining representative of a single unit of Young and
Hay's terminal employees at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and
Schuyler, 1*1ebraska, or to force or require the employees of
Young and Hay to accept or select Respondent as their
collective-bargaining representative in such a single unit.
(b) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to
picket, Young and Hay for any of the above-mentioned
objects, where within the preceding 12 months a valid
election under Section 9(c) of the Act has been conducted
which Respondent did not win.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Post at its Council Bluffs, Iowa, place of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 11
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 18, after being duly signed by a
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
Its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
II In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO 554 759
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board has found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post
this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through a representa-
tive of their own choosing
To engage in activities together for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any such
activities.
WE WILL NOT for a period of 1 year from February
26, 1975, picket or cause to be picketed, or threaten to
picket, Young and :Hay Transportation, Company,
Schuyler, Nebraska, and Council Bluffs, Iowa, wherein
an object thereof is to force or require Young and Hay
Transportation 'Company to recognize or bargain
collectively with us, or its employees to accept or select
us as their collective-bargaining representative in a
single unit of Young and Hay's terminal employees at
Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Schuyler, Nebraska
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or
threaten to picket, Young and Hay Transportation
Company, Schuyler, Nebraska, and Council Bluffs,
Iowa, wherein an object thereof is to force or require
Young and Hay Transportation Company to recognize
or bargain collectively with us, or to force or require its
employees to accept or select us as their collective-
bargaining representative, where a valid election, which
we did not win, has been conducted by the National
Labor Relations Board among the employees of Young
and Hay Transportation Company within the preced-
ing 12 months.
GENERAL DRIVERS AND
HELPERS UNION, LOCAL
No. 554, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA