Teamsters Local Union No. 676

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 948 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters Local Union No . 676, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Tel-
lepsen Petro -Chemical Company ) and Thomas D.
Moore , An Individual . Case 4-CB-1369
July 2, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On March 12, 1968, Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 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 Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Teamsters Local Union
No. 676, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
MEMBER ZAGORIA, dissenting:
I would find no violation here. It is well-settled
that a union does not violate the Act when it seeks
the discharge of an employee for not proceeding
through the union hiring hall, where there is in ex-
istence an agreement, oral or written, for such a
hiring procedure between the union and the em-
ployer.' Apparently, this is based on the rationale
that the presence of an agreement between the
parties, providing for union referral, negates any
discriminatory impact on the employee, of the
Radio Officers3 variety, that might otherwise occur.
I believe a similar situation exists here. The em-
ployee, a long-time union member, was told by the
Employer, prior to his being employed, that he
should secure clearance from his own Union. The
Employer expressly told the employee that it
wanted to abide by the Local's contract. Nonethe-
less, the employee refused to seek or secure
clearance. The Union obtained the discharge of this
employee, still its member, for his failure to do so.
There is no intimation the Union was motivated by
other discriminatory considerations. In this situa-
tion , I do not see the materiality of the presence or
absence of a "meeting of the minds," in the formal,
contractual sense . I would find the General Counsel
has failed to establish unlawful purpose or en-
couragement of union membership,' and would
dismiss the complaint.
' In adopting the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2), we rely solely on the ground that there was no
contract, arrangement, or course of conduct which would establish a lawful
hiring hall agreement between the parties at the time Moore was hired We
do not rely on the Trial Examiner 's reasoning that even if the contract
signed by the Union on May 2, 1967, is held to have retroactive effect, it
would not constitute a defense We deem it unnecessary to pass on the ef-
fect of the contract since it was, in fact , signed after Moore was hired The
position of our dissenting colleague appears to us to be without support
under governing authority In demanding Moore's discharge because he
had not obtained union clearance for his job, the Respondent Union was
not seeking to enforce a contractual right-it had no contract with the Em-
ployer-but was seeking instead to enforce compliance by Moore with an
obligation of union membership The Supreme Court in the Radio Officers
Union case , which presented an analogous factual situation, specifically
held that encouragement of union membership is a natural and foreseeable
consequence of such coerced compliance with union obligations or prac-
tices Radio Officers' Union v N L R B , 347 U S 17, 52 In our view, the
Court's holding in that case is clearly determinative of the issue here
2 Hoisting Engineers , Local 302 ( West Coast Steel Works ), 144 NLRB
1449, Local Union No 106 (Otis Elevator Company), 132 NLRB 1444
3 Radio Officers' Union v N L R B, 347 U S 17
'NLRB v Local357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters [Los An-
geles-Seattle Motor Express ], 365 U S 667 See the discussion and cases
cited in Shield Radio & T V Productions, Inc , 153 NLRB 68, 81-84
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Trial Examiner: This un-
fair labor practice case came on to be heard and
was tried before me at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on January 15, 1968. It was instituted pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
herein called the Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(b), by a com-
plaint dated November 21, 1967, issued by the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board through the Regional Director for the
172 NLRB No. 58
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 949
Board's Region 4 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).
That complaint is based on a charge filed by
Thomas D. Moore on May 3, 1967, naming as the
Respondent, Teamsters Local Union No. 676, af-
filiated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America.'
In essence the complaint alleges that Respondent
has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2), and that
such conduct affects commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act. Respondent
has answered, admitting some facts but denying
that it committed any unfair labor practices.
At the trial all parties were represented at and
participated in the hearing, and they were granted
full opportunity to introduce evidence, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, submit briefs, and
offer oral argument. Briefs have been received from
Respondent and the General Counsel. Respon-
dent's Motion to Correct Official Record, filed on
February 5, 1968, is granted in the absence of op-
position thereto.
The issues in this case are:
1. Whether Respondent Local 676 caused or at-
tempted to cause Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Com-
pany, an employer, to discharge employee Thomas
D. Moore because Moore was not hired through
the hiring hall of Local 676; and
2. Whether a contract or arrangement existed
between Tellepsen and Local Union No. 676
requiring Tellepsen to hire exclusively through the
Local Union No. 676 hiring hall.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case,
and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. ON JURISDICTION
Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company, a Texas
corporation with its principal office located in
Houston, Texas, is engaged in the business of con-
structing chemical and oil refinery equipment. Dur-
ing the year next preceding the issuance of the
complaint, it purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from, and
performed services valued in excess of $50,000 at,
points outside the State of Texas. I find that Tellep-
sen is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will ef-
fectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion over Respondent in this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters Local Union No. 676, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
herein called the Union or Local 676, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Some time in 1966 Tellepsen was awarded a con-
tract by Texaco to construct for Texaco at its West-
ville, New Jersey, plant a turbine generator unit
with a cooling tower and a sealed boiler unit. Con-
struction thereof began in the spring of 1967. In the
latter part of April 1967, Tellepsen had need for a
truckdriver on this job. Glen D. Howard, Tellep-
sen's official in charge of this job, mentioned such
need to its pipefitter foreman. This information
somehow reached a driver for Roadway Truck
Company who inquired of Howard whether Tellep-
sen wanted a truckdriver. Howard replied in the af-
firmative and added that "we [are] going to have to
get hold of the Union and get one in a few days."
That driver for Roadway then mentioned to
Howard that he knew a member of Local 676 who
was out of work and asked if Howard desired to
have such person come to see Howard. Thereupon,
Howard said, "O.K."
Thomas D. Moore, a member of Local 676 since
1955, has been a truckdriver for about 27 years.
Learning that an opening existed at the Texaco job
for a truckdriver, Moore went there to apply for it
and told Howard that he, Moore, was the man who
was mentioned to Howard by the Roadway
truckdriver. At the time Moore was unemployed.
This was about April 27, 1967.2 Moore spoke to
Howard on that day and asked to be hired as a
truckdriver. During the conversation Howard told
Moore that this was going to be a "union job" and
asked if Moore belonged to the Union. Replying
that he did, Moore also produced documentary
evidence to support his statement. When Howard
asked Moore if he, Moore, "could have clearance
with the Union," Moore replied that he "had [his]
paid-up receipt." Howard also indicated that he
wanted Moore to "check out" with the Union, and
that Howard wanted to cooperate with the "Local
Union in the area." Shortly thereafter Howard
hired Moore, i.e., about April 27.
When Howard hired Moore he told Moore,
"Don't forget to clear with the Local and get the
contracts and stuff out there, it's all right with me if
you go to work here," and that, "if everything
cleared up" Moore could start the following Mon-
day morning, May 1. Moore did start on May 1.
Immediately after hiring Moore, Howard in-
troduced him to Tellepsen's timekeeper who, in
turn, gave Moore some papers to fill out and told
him to report for work on the following Monday,
May 1. Moore reported to work on May 1 and
' This is the name of the Respondent as disclosed by its answer and
agreed to by the parties at the hearing
2 All dates mentioned hereafter refer to the year 1967 except where
otherwise specified
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
worked all day as a truckdriver without incident.
While at work during the morning of May 2
Moore was requested by Tellepsen's timekeeper to
obtain "a contract from the union hall plus the trust
agreements for the health and welfare and the pen-
sion plan." Moore undertook to do so by telephon-
ing the Union's business agent at the union hall
having charge "of that particular field," i.e., Mr.
Greeley, or Mr. Moses Jackson, or Mr. Hap
Doman. None of them was in at the time. However,
Moore was able to speak to Mr. Hall, the Union's
secretary-treasurer. When Moore asked Hall for co-
pies of "the trust agreements ... and the contract,"
Hall instructed him to obtain the trust agreements
from Mrs. Daisey at the union hall but to see Mr.
'Greeley for "the contract." John P. Greeley is pres-
ident of the Union, Local 676.
On May 2 President Greeley of Local 676
learned from some complaining members of the
Union that Moore was working for Tellepsen
although he had not been registered on the Union's
construction list. This is a register or roster of appli-
cants for truckdriving work at area construction
jobs. Local 676 carries three different registers or
lists from which it dispatches or refers unemployed
members; one for work at construction jobs,' one
for work on tractor-trailers, and one for "straight
job drivers and helpers and warehousemen." An
unemployed member may sign to register on only
one of these three lists . On May 1 and 2 the con-
struction list carried names of unemployed mem-
bers who had signed it as applicants for employ-
ment.
Upon learning that Moore had obtained work
without signing the Union's construction list or re-
gister, Greeley called Tellepsen. The latter con-
firmed that Moore was employed there and had
been hired on May 1. Thereupon, Greeley directed
Jackson and Doman, business agents for Local 676,
to investigate how Moore got the job, because, if
Moore was actually working there, "it was in viola-
tion with the agreements with our Local Union,"
and instructed them that Moore was to be laid off
so that the next man on the construction list could
fill the vacancy.
On May 2, while Howard was away from the
area, Local 676 telephoned Howard. Before he
could return the call, Howard was visited by two
business agents of Local 676, one of whom was Mr.
Jackson. They told him "not to hire a man who did
not get clearance off [the] work list at the hall." At
this time Howard was not aware of the work list at
the hall. When Howard asked them for a contract
they gave him one and requested him to sign it. An-
swering that he had no authority to execute a con-
tract, Howard referred them to a Mr. Wilde and
gave them Wilde's address.
Continuing the conversation, the business agents
informed Howard that Moore had obtained the
truckdriver's job with Tellepsen "without getting
clearance from the Local," and that Howard, there-
fore, "would have to let [Moore] go." Howard did
not object to this because he had previously told
Moore "I [Howard] had to get clearance from the
Union to start out with," and "as a general rule,
that's something [1] have to do." Later that after-
noon Howard told Moore "the circumstances, that
he would have to leave." However, in response to
Moore's question, Howard replied that Moore's
work was satisfactory. Howard thereupon
discharged Moore and accepted a replacement sent
to him the next morning by Local 676.
When Moore returned from lunch on May 2, Su-
pervisor Howard spoke to him and informed Moore
that Greeley had protested by telephone that
Moore had been hired "without coming through
the union hall." As a result Howard asked Moore to
"get it straightened out right away" at the union
hall. Moore then went to the hall.
At the hall that afternoon Moore spoke to
Greeley and asked why Greeley "knocked" him off
the job. When Greeley asked him how he got the
job, Moore replied he obtained it himself. At this
Greeley told Moore that "you're not supposed to
do that ... particularly on construction [as] we had
men waiting around ... to go on construction." In
the same conversation Greeley told Moore that
Moore had not signed the construction list and that
he, Moore, was "knocked off," and that two busi-
ness agents had just gone to Tellepsen to knock him
off. However, Moore insisted that Greeley
"couldn't do it," that Moore had a right to go out to
get his own job, and that Moore "would see
[Greeley] in court."
As he left the union hail, Moore encountered
Business Agents Moses Jackson and Hap Doman.
When Moore asked them if they had knocked him
off the job, they replied affirmatively. So Moore
told them also that he would see them in court.
Thereupon, Moore returned to the construction
site.
When he arrived at the Texaco plant, Moore was
informed by Howard that business agents of Local
676 had visited him, that they bitterly complained
that Moore had been hired without being
dispatched by the Union, and that they demanded
that Moore be discharged. Thereupon, Moore
inquired if his performance had been satisfactory.
Assuring Moore that it was, Howard also allowed
Moore to finish the day but told him he, Moore,
was dismissed from further work. At the end of the
day Moore was paid for 2 days' work. He has not
been rehired by Tellepsen. Some time later Moore
If material, I find that Moore spoke in favor of a construction list when
a motion to adopt one was considered at a meeting of Local 676 about 4
years prior to 1967. That motion was carried
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 951
obtained "another union job" himself and has kept
it without protest from Local 676.
Upon arriving at Westville, New Jersey, in 1966
to take charge of the construction, Tellepsen's su-
pervisor and agent, Howard, had a meeting with of-
ficials of the Building Trades Council to get
acquainted with them and also to give them a
general "rundown" of the construction to be per-
formed. Local 676 is a member of this Council.
Later (but after May 1) Tellepsen and Local 676
executed a collective-bargaining contract "effec-
'tive" May 1, 1966 (Respondent's Exhibit 1), but I
find it had not come into force on May 1, 1966.4
Section 4 of Article 1 thereof, captioned "Hiring
Additional Men," provides that:
The Employer shall notify the Union when any
new employees are to be hired. The Union
shall have the right to send applicants for the
job or jobs, and the Employer agrees to inter-
view such applicants and give the same inter-
view considerations to Union sent applicants as
is given to applicants from other sources. This
provision shall not be deemed to require the
Employer to hire Union applicants or to
preclude the Employer from hiring employees
from other sources. After the probationary
period, the employee shall be placed on the
regular seniority list.
Howard's "general procedure" is to "call the Lo-
cals" when it becomes necessary to fill vacancies in
any classification. He also testified, and I credit
him, that he indicated to Moore, as well as "the
union agents," that he was "conducting union jobs
and ... wanted to adhere to the Local's contract."
There is testimony by Respondent's president,
John P. Greeley, which I credit, that an unem-
ployed member of Local 676 signing the "straight
truck list ... could solicit a job himself off the
streets ... on that particular list."
Concluding Findings and Discussion
It is undisputed, and I find, that Moore did not
register on the Union's construction list, and that
he was not dispatched, sent, cleared, or referred by
the Union for the truckdriver's job involved in this
proceeding. Patently Respondent Local 676 de-
manded or insisted on, and obtained, the discharge
of Moore because he had neither registered with
nor been cleared by Local 676. I so find. Also, I
find that Moore neither registered with nor was.
cleared by the Union. And I find that Local 676 at-
tempted to cause, and caused, Moore's discharge.
Martin Bros., 123 NLRB 1231, 1234. Accordingly,
I further find that Local 676 attempted to cause,
and did indeed cause, Tellepsen, Moore's em-
ployer, to discharge him because he did not sign the
construction list and was not referred or dispatched
to Tellepsen by Local 676.
This conduct by the Union manifestly violates
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act (Radio Of-
ficers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 52) unless it
can be salvaged or insulated by a nondiscriminatory,
collective-bargaining agreement obligating Tellep-
sen to use the hiring hall, and the hall is operated in
a nondiscriminatory manner. Local 357, Teamsters
v. N.L.R.B. (Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express),
365 U.S. 667. I find nothing in the record to in-
dicate that the hiring hall of Local 676 was
operated in a discriminatory manner. It follows that
the principal question is whether such a bargaining
agreement was in force on May 1 when Moore was
hired. Laborers Local 652 (Hood-River-Neill), 135
NLRB 43, 44.
Preliminarily it is desirable to observe that an
agreement requiring the use of the hiring hall, and
thus exonerating Local 676, may be in the form of
an arrangement , and that "such an agreement or
arrangement need not be written, but may be
established by evidence of an oral understanding or
of a course of conduct in which both parties mu-
tually assume the concomitant obligations imposed
by the necessity to use a hiring hall or referral
system." Hoisting Engineers, Local 302 (West Coast
Steel Works), 144 NLRB 1449, 1452; Local Union
No. 106 (Otis Elevator Company), 132 NLRB
1444, 1448.
But I find no arrangement or course of conduct
in existence on May 1 which would sanction the
discharge of Moore because he failed to be cleared
or referred by Local 676. Obviously no truckdriver
had been hired by Tellepsen before Moore was put
to work. Hence, no practice or course of conduct is
discernible in the record since Moore was the first
truckdriver who was hired by Tellepsen.
And I also find that no arrangement was made
which would require that Moore should be cleared
or referred by Local 676, and that the Union could
lawfully compel his discharge if he were hired
without pursuing such a course. In the first place, I
find that no arrangement resulted from the con-
ference between Tellepsen's representative,
Howard, and the Building Trades Council in August
or September 1966, because the evidence plainly
demonstrates that construction truckdrivers were
not discussed at this meeting . In the second place, I
find that no such arrangement arose on or about
April 27 when Howard told Moore that Howard in-
tended this to be a union job and that Moore
should clear with Local 676. This is because an ar-
rangement can emerge only by consensual agree-
ment, and there is nothing in the record to disclose
that on that date Local 676 had agreed to any ar-
rangement. International Hod Carriers' Local #300
' Although the parties stipulated that the contract was signed on May 2
by John P Greeley, I find that it was then mailed to Houston for the em-
ployer's signature . Greeley is Respondent 's president.
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(Martin Bros.), 123 NLRB 1231, 1235. Finally, I
find no arrangement arose on this occasion because
Howard's statement to Moore is equivocal and is
susceptible of more than one meaning: it could
mean that Moore had to be referred by Local 676
or it could connote only that Moore had to belong
to the Union. In such a situation it cannot be found
on a preponderance of the evidence that the minds
of the parties met on either interpretation , if they
met at all. Cf. Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 392
(Alco Products, Inc.), 136 NLRB 492, 493. Local
742, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 157 NLRB
451, 453-454, points to a similar conclusion. Iron
Workers Local 433 (Riverside Steel Construction),
169 NLRB 667, is distinguishable.
In addition, I find that no written contract had
been executed or consummated between Tellepsen
and Local 676 on or before May 1, 1967, whereby
Tellepsen committed itself to hire as truckdrivers
only those dispatched or referred to it by said Local
676. This is because I find that the only written
contract between the parties (Respondent's Exhibit
1) had not been signed by the Union until May 2,
1967, and by Tellepsen until May 2, 1967, or per-
haps shortly thereafter. Respondent is not aided by
the fact that said contract by its terms retroactively
became effective on May 1, 1966. This is because
third persons, such as Moore, cannot be deprived
of certain rights accruing to them prior to the ex-
ecution of the contract. Such rights include the
status of employees acquired on May 1, 1967.
Hence, it is not necessary to ascertain just which
other provisions of the contract became validly
retroactive to May 1, 1966.
Even if the contract in evidence as Respondent's
Exhibit 1 is held to have retroactively been in force
from May 1, 1966, nevertheless, it will not con-
stitute a defense. For section 4 of article 1 thereof
does not compel Tellepsen to consider only appli-
cants referred by the Union. Rather it explicitly
recognizes that "the Employer agrees to . . . give
the same interview considerations to Union sent ap-
plicants as is given to applicants from other
sources. This provision shall not be deemed to
require the Employer to hire Union applicants or to
preclude the Employer from hiring employees from
other sources." It follows that this contract cannot
immunize the Union from liability under Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) for its conduct in causing
Moore to lose his job.
On the basis of the entire record I conclude and
find that Respondent Local 676 transgressed Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by attempting
to cause and actually causing the discharge of
Moore. Radio Officers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S.
17, 52; American Pipe and Steel Corp., 93 NLRB 54,
56. Cf. Eichleay Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 206 F.2d
799 (C.A. 3). Nor does Section 8 (f) of the Act
release the Union from liability for its conduct. This
is because I have found that no contract or arrange-
ment. whether embodied in a writing or established
by a practice or course of conduct of the parties,
was in effect on May 1 when Moore was hired.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, found to constitute unfair labor prac-
tices, occurring in connection with Tellepsen's
operations 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 has engaged in
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent caused Tellep-
sen to discriminatorily discharge Moore , I shall
recommend that Respondent notify Tellepsen, in
writing , furnishing a copy thereof to Moore , that it
withdraws objections to Moore's employment by
Tellepsen and requests said Employer to offer
Moore reinstatement as a truckdriver or a substan-
tially equivalent position.
It will further be recommended that Respondent
make Moore whole for any loss of pay suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him. In making
Moore whole, Respondent shall pay to him a sum
of money equal to that which he would have earned
as wages from the date of such discharge to the
date of reinstatement or a proper offer of reinstate-
ment , as the case may be, less his net earnings dur-
ing such period . Such backpay is to be computed
on a quarterly basis as prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Company , 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at 6 percent calculated in the manner
adopted in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
Since the causing of the discharge of Moore is an
isolated instance and since the record is barren of
any evidence that Local 676 has displayed a
general disregard of the Act , I find that an Order
broad in scope is not warranted. Hence , I shall
recommend that the relief granted be limited to en-
joining similar or like conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
and upon the entire record in this case , I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 676 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company is an em-
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO . 676 953
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2), and is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7), of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause, and causing Tellep-
sen, an employer, to discriminate against its em-
ployee, Moore, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct Respondent has
restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record
in this case, it is recommended that Respondent, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Tellepsen
Petro-Chemical Company to discharge or otherwise
discriminate against Thomas D. Moore, or any
other employee of, or applicant for employment at,
Tellepsen because he has not been cleared,
referred, or dispatched by Local 676, except to the
extent that a lawful contract or arrangement
between Local 676 and Tellepsen authorizes the
same.
(b) In any similar or like manner restraining or
coercing the employees of Tellepsen Petro-Chemi-
cal Company in the exercise of rights guaranteed to
them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Tellepsen Petro-Chemical Company,
in writing, and furnish Thomas D. Moore with a
copy thereof, that they have no objection to the
employment of Moore and to his immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position.
(b) Make whole Thomas D. Moore for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against him, in the manner set forth in
the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Notify Thomas D. Moore if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Post at the business offices and meeting halls
of Local 676 copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.6
5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision
and Order "
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL
UNION No. 676, AFFILIATED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Tel-
lepsen Petro-Chemical Company to discharge
or otherwise discriminate against Thomas D.
Moore because he has not been referred to
said Employer by us.
WE WILL NOT in any similar or like manner
restrain or coerce the employees of Tellepsen
Petro-Chemical Company in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, ex-
cept to the extent that such rights may be af-
fected by an agreement authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL notify, in writing, Tellepsen Petro-
Chemical Company that we have no objection
to the employment of Thomas D. Moore and
to his immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position or one substantially equivalent
to it.
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make whole Thomas D. Moore for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of any discriminatory action by us against him.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION
No. 676, AFFILIATED WITH
THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above-named employee
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Ser-
vice Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If members have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building , Walnut
and Juniper Streets , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107, Telephone 579-7601.