Teamsters Local Union No. 676

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 445 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676
Teamsters Local Union No. 676 and Shell Chemical
Company, a Division of Shell Oil Company. Case
4-CP-179
September 29, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
Upon a charge t and amended charge 2 duly filed
by Shell Chemical Company, a Division of Shell Oil
Company (herein called Shell), against Teamsters Lo-
cal Union No. 676 (herein called Respondent), the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by its Regional Director for Region 4, on Feb-
ruary 29, 1972, issued and served on the parties a
complaint alleging violations of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. In substance, the com-
plaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(7)(C) of the Act by engaging in recognitional
picketing at Shell's plant for more than a reasonable
period of time without filing a representation petition
for a Board election.
Respondent's answer admits certain factual alle-
gations of the complaint but denies the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Thereafter, on May 15, 1972, the parties entered
into a stipulation wherein they agreed that certain
documents shall constitute the entire record herein,'
expressly waived all intermediate proceedings before
a Trial Examiner, and submitted this case directly to
the Board for its decision and order, reserving to
themselves the right to file briefs. By order dated May
22, 1972, the Board approved the stipulation, transfer-
red the proceeding to itself, and set a date for the filing
of briefs. Thereafter, briefs were filed by the General
Counsel and by Shell.
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 entire record here-
in and the briefs, and makes the following:
The original charge was filed and served on Respondent on January 27,
1972.
1 The amended charge was filed and served on Respondent on February
1, 1972.
3 The stipulated record consists of the charges, complaint, Respondent's
answer, the stipulation with attached exhibits, and the transcript from a Sec.
10(l) Federal district court proceeding in this matter
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF SHELL
445
Shell, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture and nonretail sale of chemicals at its
plant located in West Deptford, New Jersey. During
the past calendar year Shell, in the course and con-
duct of its operations, sold and shipped chemicals and
related products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to customers located outside the State of New Jersey.
We find that Shell is, and at all times material has
been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. RESPONDENTS STATUS AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION
The parties stipulated , and we find that Respon-
dent is, and at all material times has been , a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Stipulated Facts
For the past 10 years, Catalytic, Inc., has per-
formed maintenance service at Shell's plant. In con-
nection with this work, Catalytic has employed
members of various labor organizations to work at the
Shell plant, including William Pollinger, a truckdriver
and member of Respondent. Catalytic is a party to a
collective-bargaining agreement with Respondent.
On December 9, 1971, Catalytic laid off 11 of its
employees, including Pollinger, because Shell had in-
creased the amount of maintenance work done by its
own employees. However, Catalytic still employs 14
or 15 employees to work at the Shell plant.
During his employment by Catalytic, Pollinger
drove a truck owned by Shell. After his layoff, the
truck was returned to Shell and, thereafter, at least
eight Shell employees have from time to time driven
the truck in performing the duties formerly performed
by Pollinger.
On December 13, 1971, Jackson, business agent
for Respondent, unsuccessfully protested to Catalytic
Pollinger's layoff. On December 21 Jackson wrote a
letter to Shell which stated, inter alia:
On behalf of Mr. Pollinger, we request that he be
permitted to remain on the job performing his
199 NLRB No. 70
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duties as before, and the terms of the Teamsters
Local 676 Agreement covering him be permitted
to remain in effect.
On December 29, Shell wrote Respondent sug-
gesting that it direct to Catalytic its request that Polling-
er be reinstated.
On January 20, 1972, Respondent began picket-
ing at the Shell plant. The pickets carried signs stating,
"Shell Unfair to William Pollinger/Unfair to Team-
sters Local 676."
However, within the week, on January 26, Respon-
dent wrote Shell a letter stating that it was not seeking
recognition from Shell as Pollinger's bargaining repre-
sentative, but it was merely requesting:
[T]hat you employ Mr. Pollinger under similar
conditions with similar duties to those he enjoyed
while employed by his former employer.
Respondent ceased its picketing activity on Feb-
ruary 11.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The arguments raised in the General Counsel's
and Shell's briefs are substantially the same, i.e.:
1. Respondent's picketing was for a recognitional
object.
2. On the basis of the Waterway Terminals 4 case,
such picketing violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act.
3. Respondent's 22 days of picketing activity went
beyond a reasonable period of time without a petition
being filed by it.
Respondent filed no brief. As an affirmative de-
fense in its answer, Respondent disclaimed a recogni-
tional object in the picketing, and it asserted that the
object of the picketing was "to provide work opportu-
nities for William Pollinger."
C. Discussion and Conclusions
In urging the Board to find that Respondent had
a recognitional object in its picketing, the General
Counsel and Shell rely heavily on our decision in
Waterway Terminals. Despite some similarities be-
tween that case and the instant matter, we find that
the facts involved herein make these two cases distin-
guishable.
Thus, in Waterway Terminals, the respondent la-
bor organization demanded as the price for withhold-
ing pickets an arrangement whereby its members
would effect a mass displacement of the employees of
Waterway who were represented by another labor or-
ganization. As the Trial Examiner pointed out in that
case:
4 International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union Local No 8
(Waterway Terminals Company) 193 NLRB No 65.
Viewed realistically, the immediate objective of
Respondent's demands and the inevitable conse-
quence of Waterway's acquiescence would have
been the establishment of [Respondent] as the
dominant voice in the representation of 60 or 70
employees affected by the change.
Here, however, Respondent was seeking the em-
ployment by Shell of only one employee at a time
when no labor organization represented any of its
employees. Shell's total workforce was in excess of
130 employees. Thus it is clear that Respondent
would not have had a dominant voice in the repre-
sentation of Shell's employees if Shell had hired Pol-
linger and reassigned those employees who had been
performing Pollinger's truckdriving duties.
In Fanelli Ford Sales, Inc.,5 a case more analo-
gous to the instant situation, the Board held that pick-
eting for the reinstatement of a discharged employee
was not per se picketing for a recognitional object.6
Rather, we there established that before the Board
will infer a broader objective, an affirmative showing
of such object must be made by the General Counsel.
We conclude that there has been no such show-
ing in this case. In its first written demand to Shell that
Pollinger be employed, Respondent requested that
the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement ne-
gotiated between Respondent and Catalytic on
Pollinger's behalf be permitted to remain in effect if
he were hired by Shell. Later, after picketing had be-
gun Respondent clarified this demand when it in-
formed Shell that it was not seeking to represent
Pollinger but only to obtain his employment by Shell
under the same wages and working conditions he en-
joyed during his employment by Catalytic. We find
that, by picketing to enforce these demands, Respon-
dent was merely attempting to obtain employment for
Pollinger with wages and working conditions similar
to those which he enjoyed under his former employer.
Accordingly, we find from the above the General
Counsel has not proven that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act and therefore we shall
dismiss the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Shell Chemical Company, a Division of Shell
Oil Company, is, and at all times material has been,
an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Local Union No. 676 is, and at all
s Local 259, International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultur-
al Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO (Fanelli Ford Sales, Inc),
133 NLRB 1468
r 'The Board thus expressly overruled Meat & Provision Drivers Union,
Local No 626, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers ofAmerica, AFL-CIO (Lewis Food Company), 115 NLRB
890
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 676 447
'material times has been, a labor organization within ORDER.
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing Shell's plant from January 20 to It is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be,
February 11, 1972, Respondent did not violate Sec- and it hereby is, dismissed.
tion 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act-