Truck Drivers, Local 705

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 210 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Truck Drivers, OR Drivers, Filling Station and
Platform Workers Union , Local No. 705, an
affiliate of International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Gasoline Retailers Association of
Metropolitan Chicago and Paul J . Accurso, et al.,
Parties in Interest and/or Parties to Contracts.
Cases 13-CB-3571 and 13-CB-457
April 26, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 21, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
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 conclusions2 of the Administrative
Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.3
1. The Administrative Law Judge indicated that
"perhaps as many as 300 or more additional
instances" of improper conduct toward other gaso-
line dealers could be presented within the compass of
the general allegations of the complaint in the instant
proceeding given sufficient time and opportunity for
preparation. To protect the rights of these other
gasoline dealers and their employees, since new
proceedings would be barred by Section 10(b) of the
Act, the Administrative Law Judge recommended
that the Board retain continuing jurisdiction for the
purpose of entertaining ad hoc applications for
supplemental relief at the foot of the order herein
and for granting summary relief thereon as warrant-
ed.
We are sympathetic to the Administrative Law
Judge's concern as to the parties not named in the
complaint. However, it is the Board's general policy
to have all alleged violations litigated in one
proceeding. As we said in Peyton Packing Company,
Inc., 129 NLRB 1358, 1360:
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Respondent excepts to the Administrative Law Judge's conduct of the
hearing, alleging that the Administrative Law Judge had a closed mind and,
without even waiting to hear all the evidence , indicated by remarks and
demeanor that he was prepared to sustain all of the General Counsel's
allegations and to reject all of the Respondent 's defenses and arguments.
210 NLRB No. 58
Generally speaking, sound administrative prac-
tice, as well as fairness to respondents, requires
the consolidation of all pending charges into one
complaint. The same considerations dictate that,
wherever practicable, there be but a single
hearing on all outstanding violations of the Act
involving the same respondent. To act otherwise
results in the unnecessary harassment of respon-
dents.
We would note here that the Board does not
grant respondents second hearings to relitigate
allegations made against them because they may
have mishandled their defense in the original
presentation of the case. Only in the exceptional
instance, such as where evidence is newly discov-
ered, or where a hearing has been conducted in a
prejudicial manner, does the Board grant respon-
dents further hearings. The General Counsel's
status before the Board in these adversary
proceedings is no greater than that of any
respondent. In short, the General Counsel is not a
favored litigant, and he is not entitled to any
privileges not accorded any other litigant appear-
ing before the Board. [Footnotes omitted.]
Separate litigation of roughly concurrent alleged
violations has been held proper where the violations,
alleged in the second case "occurred after the
complaint issued in the earlier case, were not known
to the General Counsel at the time of the earlier
hearing, were independent acts, and were not the
type of alleged violation commonly known or readily
discoverable, even after an exhaustive investiga-
tion." 4 There is no reason to believe that this is the
case herein. In fact, the General Counsel merely
argued that he had insufficient staff and time to
prepare and present such additional instances. In our
view, this is not an adequate reason to depart from
our general rule.
Moreover, Section 10(e) of the Act provides that
upon the filing of a petition by the Board for
enforcement of its order "the court shall .. .
thereupon have jurisdiction of the proceeding." In
view of this provision, we have serious doubts about
our authority to add from time to time employers not
named in the complaint to the foot of an order which
is before a court of appeals for enforcement.
After a careful examination of the entire record , we are satisfied that these
allegations are without ment . In our opinion there is nothing in the record
to suggest that the Administrative Law Judge 's conduct of the hearing was
based upon bias or prejudice or that he had prejudged the case . Rather, we
think the Administrative Law Judge, in accordance with Sec . 102.35 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations , was concerned only with his duty "to
inquire fully into the facts to regulate the course of the hearing . . to
call, examine , and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce into the record
documentary or other evidence . "
3 Chairman Miller did not participate in the decision.
4 Neuhoff Bros, Packers, Inc., 159 NLRB 1710, fn. 1.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
Accordingly , in light of these reasons above, and
because we believe that our broad cease-and-desist
order , which prohibits the repetition by Respondent
of similar conduct and subjects Respondent to
contempt if it continues its unlawful conduct will
adequately serve the objectives of the Act, we will
delete from the recommended Order of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge the provision for retention of
jurisdiction.
2. The Administrative Law Judge recommended
a cease-and-desist provision withholding recognition
of Respondent as a bargaining agent at all Metropol-
itan Chicago gasoline stations except through secret-
ballot Board elections for a period of 5 years. He also
recommended that the Order contain a provision
requiring Respondent to cease and desist from
utilizing employers, owners, officials , supervisors, or
agents of an employer to organize employees. These
provisions have been modified to conform to the
Board's decision in Russell Motors, Inc., 198 NLRB
No. 58.
3. The Administrative Law Judge concluded,
inter alia, that Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(3) in regard to the two Dietzler
service stations , Whitehall and Perfection , by refus-
ing to recognize or deal with Gasoline Retailers
Association of Metropolitan Chicago (GRAMC) as
the known bargaining agent for Whitehall; by
refusing to bargain with the Dietzlers individually
regarding their Perfection station or regarding
Whitehall; by threatening to picket and stop deliver-
ies of gasoline and other merchandise to the two
stations unless they signed Respondent's proffered
agreement ; and by thereby coercing them into
signing these agreements without an opportunity to
bargain and to avoid a shutdown of their operations.
Respondent argues that it did not violate the Act,
even assuming that it refused to bargain with
GRAMC over the Whitehall agreement, because
there was no multiemployer bargaining relationship
between Respondent and GRAMC.
We have carefully examined the uncontroverted
evidence and conclude that the Administrative Law
Judge's findings are fully supported by the record.
However, even assuming arguendo the nonexistence
of a multiemployer bargaining relationship between
Respondent and GRAMC, Respondent clearly
violated Section 8 (b)(1)(B) and 8(b)(3) with respect
to both Whitehall and Perfection as this does not
affect the individual employer's right, under well
accepted agency principles, from selecting and
designating any party to act as its bargaining
representative . Thus , an employer may choose to
bargain through any individual , group , or association
when dealing with a union , and coercive conduct by
211
a union in derogation of this relationship violates
Section 8(b)(1)(B).
Applying these principles herein , Dietzler, in
exercising the right to select his own bargaining
representative, designated GRAMC. Contrary to
Respondent's inference that GRAMC was only a
multiemployer bargaining agent, Dietzler in testify-
ing about the conversation at the time he signed the
bargaining authorization card stated , without contra-
diction , "Well, they brought out the card for me to
sign and they said they would bargain for me with
Local 705." (Emphasis supplied.) Moreover , Respon-
dent not only refused to recognize or bargain with
GRAMC, thus coercing Dietzler to bypass his
bargaining representative, but also rejected Dietzler's
offer, as a last resort , to "bargain for himself" for
Perfection and Whitehall.
For all these reasons , we conclude that Respon-
dent's conduct towards Whitehall and Perfection
violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) by restraining
Whitehall and Perfection in the selection of their
bargaining representative.
4. The Administrative Law Judge recommended
that Respondent be ordered to reimburse each
employer herein who has paid any initiation fees
and/or dues or other exactions on behalf of any of
his employees or on behalf of himself, under or in
consequence of Respondent 's service station agree-
ment , or as a consequence of Respondent 's conduct.
Respondent argues that a dues reimbursement
remedy is inappropriate as 8(b)(1)(A) employee
rights are not involved when , as here , employers pay
dues for employees or where self-employed persons
pay dues.
Section 10(c) of the Act empowers the Board to
order violators "to cease and desist from such unfair
labor practices , and to take such affirmative action
... as will effectuate the policies of the Act." Here,
Respondent, through coercion on the employers, has
unlawfully used the employer as its instrument to
deprive the employees of their statutory Section 7
rights, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A). That the
employees ' Section 7 rights are violated when
Respondent forces an employer to sign its union-
security contract and to pay the union dues, should
his employees indicate that they do not want the
Union, is clear . For Respondent may later argue that
its contract is a contract bar, thereby preventing
another union from representing the station employ-
ees for 3 years. Or Respondent could picket the
employer and his employees, asserting that by virtue
of its signed contract it was a recognized union,
thereby pressuring employees to join the Union,
particularly in light of the union-security clause.
Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to reimburse the employers herein
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for initiation fees and dues paid by them, thereby
getting at the source or heart of Respondent's
unlawful 8(b)(1)(A) activities.
Furthermore, reimbursement of initiation fees and
dues to employers in addition to reimbursement of
health and welfare premiums to employers is
independently justified by Respondent's concurrent
8(b)(1)(B) conduct which deprived the employers of
any effective resort to the counseling or aid of their
bargaining representative, GRAMC. The employers
herein, and indirectly their employees, were victims
of Respondent's pattern of illegal conduct. For an
employer faced with Respondent's illegal demands
had to pay the dues or premiums, or force his
employees to do so when they did not select
Respondent, or face a siege of picketing and lose his
station lease and business and the employees, their
jobs.
Finally, such reimbursement by the Respondent is
necessary not only to effectively compensate the
employees and employers herein because of Respon-
dent's unlawful activities and to protect their
respective statutory rights, but also to effectively
discourage Respondent from continuing this type of
conduct in the future. To allow Respondent to keep
its gains would not only permit Respondent to be
unjustly enriched by its past illegal conduct, but
would encourage Respondent to continue such
conduct in the future.
5. The Administrative Law Judge has recom-
mended that the Order include a provision for
notifying those whose health and welfare payments
are current that they shall no longer be covered after
a 30-day period in order for them to obtain substitute
coverage if desired. We agree. However, in order to
avoid any inequities during this hiatus, we shall also
order that during this 30-day period contributions
shall be made by Respondent on behalf of any
employees at any employer herein currently covered
by Respondent's health and welfare plan, and that
any claims on the health and welfare fund presently
on file or filed during this period will be processed
and considered for payment as any other claim made
upon the fund. Due to Respondent's unlawful
conduct, the employers herein have never been
lawfully obligated under any valid contract to make
health and welfare contributions on behalf of any of
their employees. Accordingly, it is appropriate for
Respondent to make such contributions on behalf of
the employees now covered during this 30-day
period.
6. The Administrative Law Judge denied the
Charging Party's application for costs, renewed
before the Board, "with some reluctance" on the
ground that "the heavy laboring oar was plied by
General Counsel who does not seek costs," and on
the basis of Russell Motors, Inc., supra. We agree with
the Administrative Law Judge that costs should not
be awarded to the Charging Party. However, we do
so solely on the grounds that Tiidee Products, Inc.,
194 NLRB 1234, and 196 NLRB 156, is
inapplicable because we do not find Respondent's
defenses to be frivolous in view of the somewhat
substantial legal questions involved.
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, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers, Filling Station and
Platform Workers Union, Local No. 705, an affiliate
of International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as modified below:
1. Substitute the following paragraph for para-
graph A 1(d) of the recommended Order:
"Representing or purporting to represent, or
holding itself out as representative of, any employees
of the employers herein , unless and until said
Respondent has been duly certified by the National
Labor Relations Board to be such representative
following a Board election."
2. Delete paragraph A 1(e) and reletter the
following paragraphs accordingly.
3. Insert the following paragraph as paragraph A
2(b) and reletter the following paragraphs according-
ly:
"During the 30-day period after receipt of the
notice set forth in the previous paragraph, health and
welfare contributions should be made by Respon-
dent on behalf of any employees of any employer
herein currently covered by Respondent's health and
welfare plan, and any claims on the health and
welfare fund presently on file or filed during this 30-
day period should be processed and considered as
any other claim made upon the fund."
4. Delete Section B from the recommended Order
and reletter the following paragraph accordingly.
5. Delete "Honorable Elliot L. Richardson as"
from paragraph C of the recommended Order and
insert "the" in its place.
6. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705 213
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full trial at which we and all other parties had
the opportunity to call witnesses and present eviden-
ce, the National Labor Relations Board has decided
that Teamsters Local 705 has violated the National
Labor Relations Act and it has ordered us to post
this notice and to live up to its terms.
The National Labor Relations Act among other
things guarantees employees the right to be repre-
sented by labor organizations of their own free
choice, if they wish to be represented at all. The
National Labor Relations Board has decided that
Teamsters Local 705 violated the law through a
widespread pattern of unlawful activities affecting
the gasoline service station industry throughout the
Metropolitan Chicago area. The Board has found
that these unlawful activities included, for example:
(1) Local 705 induced gasoline station dealers to sign
agreements recognizing Local 705 as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of a majority of
station employees, although Local 705 did not really
represent those employees; (2) Local 705 required
employers to put station employees into the union
and to pay initiation fees and dues although the
employees were not properly members of Local 705
at all; (3) Local 705 coerced employers and station
managers to be members of Local 705-and in
certain stations to be the only members of Local 705;
(4) Local 705 did not negotiate with station dealers
about their employees' pay or other terms and
conditions of their employment, although Local 705
pretended to be their representative and although it
collected their dues; (5) Local 705 did not see to it
that they were paid the wages required by its
contracts, nor did Local 705 even inquire what wages
you were being paid; (6) Local 705 coerced station
dealers to pay dues on and take in as station union
members people who were not even employed at the
station; and (7) Local 705 told the employers that
they do not have to pay their employees the wages
required by its contracts with the employers.
WE WILL stop doing these things and we will
not do them again. Furthermore:
WE WILL stop giving effect to such contracts.
WE WILL stop collecting union dues, assess-
ments, health and welfare payments, or other
payments under such contracts or on dues
checkoff or other wage withholding or payment
authorizations signed by employees under or in
relation to such contracts.
WE WILL promptly refund to employees of the
82 employees involved in the National Labor
Relations Board proceeding, with interest, pay-
ments of union initiation fees , dues , assessments,
health and welfare payments, and other payments
made by those employees or on their behalf under
or in relation to such contracts, to the extent
required by the National Labor Relations Board
Order.
WE WILL NOT act or pretend to act for you
when we do not really represent you.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
exercise of his right to form, join, or assist any
labor organization; his right to bargain collective-
ly through representatives of his own choice; his
right to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection; or his right to refrain from any
or all such activities.
TRUCK DRIVERS, OIL
DRIVERS, FILLING
STATION AND PLATFORM
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL
No. 705, AN AFFILIATE
OF INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office , Everett McKinley Dirksen Building,
Room 881, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, Telephone 312-353-7572.
DECISION
1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUES
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Judge: Case 13-CB-3571 (82
combined cases),' a proceeding under the National Labor
I Parties added on unopposed application of G C at tnal
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Act as amended (29 U.S.C. § 151), et seq. (herein
called the Act),2 was, following pretrial held on May 18,
tried before me in Chicago, Illinois from May 22 through
August 3, 1972. Case 13-CB-44573 was, by my order of
October 17, 1972, consolidated with Case 13-CB-3571 in
which the record was by the same order reopened .4 By my
further order of December 7, 1972, granting joint motion
of all parties to receive proof by stipulation and exhibits in
lieu of further hearing, the record in Case 13-CB-4457 was
closed. Thereafter, briefs were received from the parties on
December 21 and 26, 1972, time for filing thereof having
been extended upon unopposed applications. (Subsequent
applications, not here material, were made and resolved in
late February, 1973.)
The complaint as amended alleges in essence that in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B), (2), and (3) of the
Act, Respondent Union (Teamsters Local 705) threatened
and coerced numerous employers into signing purported
collective agreements5 recognizing the Union as exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of their employees
(with mandatory union membership and union member-
ship maintenance, union dues checkoff and other pay-
ments requirements), although the Union was not the
authorized representative of the employees (Sec. 8(bXl)(A)
and (2)); the Union deliberately ignored and bypassed, and
threatened and coerced employers into deauthorizing or
not utilizing the services of, the employers' duly designated
collective-bargaining representative, Gasoline Retailers
Association of Metropolitan Chicago (the employers' trade
association, hereinafter "GRAMC"), but instead to bar-
gain on an individual basis and to execute individual
agreements with the Union under such threats and
coercion (Sec. 8(b)(l)(B)); and the Union through threats
and coercion restrained employees from freely designating
their own collective-bargaining representatives , thereby
vitiating employees' rights and aborting good-faith bar-
gaining as contemplated and guaranteed by the Act (Sec.
8(b)(3)). It is alleged that the foregoing activities were and
are so extensive in quantity and scope as to constitute a
pattern of illegal action on Respondent's part.
Although all of these allegations were denied in the
answer, at the trial, as will be shown, Respondent presented
no witnesses to controvert any of the proof adduced by. General
Counsel.
Upon the entire records and my observation of the
testimonial demeanor of the witnesses , I make the
following:
2 Based upon complaint issued by the Board's Regional Director for
Regron 13 on December 30, 1971, arising out of charge filed November 18,
as amended November 24 and December 10, 1970 The complaint was
amended numerous times prior to and during trial, near the conclusion of
which General Counsel's motion pro forma to conform pleadings to proof
was granted without opposition
At the outset of the trial, Respondent herein (Teamsters Local 705)
having withdrawn the charge it had filed on December 4, 1970, in Case
13-CA-10262 consolidated with the instant case for trial, Case
13-CA-10262 was, by my order, on unopposed motion of General Counsel,
severed from the instant proceeding and dismissed
Consolidated with above Case 13-CB-3571 by my order of October 17,
1972.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
II. PARTIES ; JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Teamsters Local 705
has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
At all of those times , numerous persons, being employers
within the meaning of the Act, more specifically identified
in the complaint as amended and also referred to
hereinbelow in section III, B and table I [all tables have
been omitted from publication] have been engaged in the
retail sale of gasoline , oil, and related and other products at
various locations in the city or metropolitan area of
Chicago, Illinois . Said employers fall into two categories:
(1) category 1, consisting of those employers , chiefly
identified in Appendix A of the complaint and as
hereinafter found in section III , B and table I , whose retail
sales of such products in the representative year 1970 or
1971 exceeded $500,000 per year at each such respective
location; and (2) category 2, consisting of those employers,
chiefly identified in Appendix B of the complaint and as
hereinafter found in section III , B and Table I hereof,
whose retail sales of such products in said representative
year were below $500,000 per year at each such respective
location. As hereinafter found in section III, B hereof, said
employers in both of said categories were , at times here
material, members of GRAMC and/or had respectively
designated GRAMC as their collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
As to the employers referred to above as being in
category 1, I find that each such employer was at all
material times an employer engaged in commerce and
whose operations affected and affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
As to the employers referred to above as being in
category 2, the complaint (paragraphs VI, VII, and VIII, as
amended) alleged that in view of the foregoing (supra ),
said employers (being also members of GRAMC) together
sold over $500,000 worth of the aforedescribed products
shipped directly in interstate commerce to Illinois; that
such employers (category 2) were employers engaged in
commerce and whose operations affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act; and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assertjurisdiction over them because
their operations are a part of the overall operations and
pattern of operations of the aforementioned gasoline
dealers in the city and metropolitan area of Chicago, and
because the unlawful activities of Respondent Local 705
toward them constitute a portion of an integrated pattern
of unlawful conduct by Local 705 toward all of said
4 Respondent's application to the Board for special leave to appeal from
my November 15, 1972 , order was denied by Board order dated November
30, 1972.
5 I.e., "Service Station Agreement" herein marked Joint Exh. 1, or
Carwash Station Agreement (e.g., G.C. Exh. 409).
6 Trial transcript as corrected in the respects set forth in General
Counsel's motion on notice of August 31, 1972, and also in his brief, to
correct the same , which is hereby granted without opposition. The
voluminous transcript contains numerous other obvious, typographical,
insubstantial, or not directly material errors which , for reasons of
practicality and in the absence of further application by the parties, have
been left uncorrected.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 215
gasoline dealers , with the same or similar object, and
because of the necessity to provide a meaningful and
effective remedy against such unlawful conduct.
With regard to these latter allegations of the complaint,
Respondent Local 705 moved prior to trial for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that
the "pattern of conduct" theory is novel and untenable as
matter of law to support assertion of jurisdiction (i.e., over
those employers in Category 2, supra ). Respondent's
application was opposed by General Counsel and was
extensively briefed. By order of my colleague Administra-
tive Law Judge Arthur Leff, dated March 27, 1972,
Respondent's motion was denied, for reasons set forth in
Judge Leff's order, including applicable Board precedent
(New Furniture & Appliance rivers, Local 196, Teamsters
(Biltmore Furniture Manufacturing, Corporation, ),'120
NLRB 1728). Respondent's application for leave to appeal
from Judge Leff's order was denied by the Board on April
14, 1972. The foregoing basis for assertion of jurisdiction
affecting employers in Category 2, as well as those in
Category 1, as alleged in the complaint, is thus the law of
this case.
The close geographical nexus of Respondent's illicit
operations in the Metropolitan Chicago area may be seen
from Figure 1 and table I; and their very substantial
impact upon commerce is shown in Table I. It is
overwhelmingly apparent and beyond reasonable dispute
that-as discussed and found in the 82 illustrative
instances described hereinbelow (section III, B, infra)
-Respondent Teamsters Local 705's) activities ; vis-a-vis
the Chicago gasoline service station dealers did in fact
comprise and constitute a wide-scale pattern of unlawful
conduct as alleged in the complaint. After hearing the case
and upon the entire record, I accordingly now find that
there has been established herein on the part of Respon-
dent Teamsters Local 705 a "pattern of conduct affecting
enterprises both within and without the jurisdictional
standards" I of the Board, such as to justify and require the
Board to "assert jurisdiction over both types of enterprise
in order to make the remedy coextensive with the reach of
the unfair labor practices,"8 and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over all the unfair
labor practices directed by Respondent Local 705 against
said Chicago gasoline dealers .9
III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES: INTERFERENCE,
RESTRAINT, AND COERCION
A. Background and General
This case involves a large number of gasoline service
stations in the Metropolitan Chicago area and activities of
Respondent Teamsters Local 705 in relation to them. The
7 Commission House Drivers, Helpers, and Employees Local 400 (Euclid
Foods, Inc), 118 NLRB 130.
R New Furniture & Appliance Drivers, Local 196, Teamsters (Biltmore
Furniture Mfg Corp ), supra at 1729 See also, N LR B v Reliance Fuel Oil
Corp, 371 U.S 224, quoting from Polish National Alliance v. N.LR B, 322
U.S. 643, 648, Iron Workers, Local 577 (Tri-State Steel Erectors ), 199
NLRB 37
9 Id.
io Respondent conceded at the pretnal that at the times here material the
various individuals hereinafter identified as its business agents or represent-
charge estimates 10,000 employees of those service stations
to be affected. It is conceded that at no time has Teamsters
Local 705 been certified as the representative of the
employees at any of these service stations.
The complaint alleged and the trial uncovered a broad-
scale pattern of improper and unlawful labor practices on
the part of Teamsters Local 705. No less than 82 specific
instances were presented to establish this pattern. As will
be seen, the typical picture was that of one or more of
Local 705's representatives 10 confronting a newly estab-
lished Chicago gasoline service station dealer with neither
evidence nor even claim of representing any employee, but
with a preprinted 3-year Local 705 "collective agreement"
calling for exclusive "representation" of unit employees by
Local 705, with union security and mandatory checkoff of
Union dues and other payments-all without negotiation
or pretense of negotiation, and with no ifs , ands, or
buts 11-upon threat of picketing and stopping all gasoline
deliveries to the station. It was stipulated at the trial that at
all material times Local 705 represented virtually all
truckdrivers carrying gasoline to these service stations. The
typical picture also involved a service station where Local
705 represented either none or at best only a minority of
the employees-even after these unnegotiated "collective
agreements" were signed. Throughout the "contract"
relationship period between Local 705 and the dealer as
well as before, during, and after the "contract" signing
-neither Local 705 nor its representative evinced any
interest in the number of employees or their work
categories,12 nor in the wages they were receiving or to
receive, nor in whether the "contract" terms were being
observed. Further typically, the Local 705 representative
aimed to persuade the dealer-whom he had thus, under
threat of stopping his gasoline deliveries without which the
station could not stay in business, coerced into signing the
unnegotiated "contract" covering employees whom Local
705 did not represent-to assign or "put into" the Union as
many persons as the dealer would agree to assign or "put
m." It mattered not who those persons were who were thus
assigned or "put in" as "members," so long as "Union
dues" were paid on them to Local 705. As will be seen, the
persons thus "put in" included station owners themselves
(in certain cases the owner was the only "Union member"
of Local 705) or close relatives or others not even working
at the station; and it was not unusual for the station owner
himself to sign the names of employees or others upon
Local 705 membership application and dues-checkoff
authorization cards, without consulting or even telling the
employees, and then the dealer himself making the
required "Union dues" payments to the Local 705
atives, as alleged in the complaint (paragraph X) were in fact such.
11 Furthermore, the dealers' designated collective-bargaining representa-
tive-GRAMC , their trade association-was ignored , bypassed, or even
actively sabotaged through direct solicitation by Local 705 representatives
of dealers ' signatures on preprinted "deauthorization" certificates.
12 Thus , for example , mechanics-in many cases enlisted or dragooned
into Local 705, as will be shown , by their employers on the urging or
suggestion of Local 705 or with its acquiescence-are not even within the
collective-bargaining unit purportedly represented by Local 705 under the
terms of its own "collective agreement."
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives who called periodically at the station for
the purpose of making "collections"13 and for no other
purpose (unless to present a new preprinted 3-year
"contract" for signature without negotiation, or to insist
that additional employees or persons be "put in" by the
dealer). Various permutations and embellishments of this
general pattern occurred, as will be seen in the 82 instances
about to be described-the illegality varying only in degree
and coloration. As to none of the 82 instances did
Respondent see fit to produce even a single witness to
controvert any of the testimonial or documentary proof of
the dealers, which was almost invariably of a high order of
credibility; nor did Respondent in any way explain its total
failure to call any 14 witnesses.
Events antedating the "10(b) period" were received and are
referred to only as background serving to explain or shedding
light on subsequent events, conversations, documents, or data
material to this proceeding; they do not form the basis for any
finding herein.
The gasoline service stations here involved, in the
specific instances to be described, are shown on figure 1
[omitted from publication] which is a photographically
reduced detail of Joint Exhibit 3, the numberings on which
correspond to the "Instance Nos." which follow here.
We proceed accordingly with an account of what the
proof - encompassing months of trial-showed at these
gasoline service station locations, findings of fact, and the
pattern thereby plainly and overwhelmingly established.
B. Facts Found
1. Instance 1: Accurso Service Station (4002 W.
Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
The complaint15 alleges that since at least October 1,
1970, gasoline station owner Paul Accurso has been
represented for collective bargaining by GRAMC; that in
October 1970 Respondent Union through its agent Daniel
("Danny") Ligurotus (Ligurotis) attempted to cause
Accurso to deauthorize GRAMC and deal with Respon-
dent directly, and, although Respondent did not represent
a majority of Accurso's employees, threatened Accurso
with picketing and stoppage of his gasoline deliveries if
Accurso did not sign a collective agreement containing a
union-security provision with Respondent, which Accurso
did because of such threats.
Uncontroverted 16 credited testimony of Paul Accurso
establishes that he has owned and operated the Shell Oil
gasoline Service Station at 4002 West Chicago Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois, since March 1966, currently under a 3-
year lease requiring 18-hour-per-day operation; and that
the station's gross operating revenue in 1970 was around
13 It was stipulated at the trial that the following schedule of required
union dues and other payments was in effect at the following times:
Monthly union dues per employee, 1967-70,-$6 00, 1970-73, 7 00
Weekly union health & welfare payments per employee, 1967-70,
$5 00, 1970-73, $6.50
Chart.
14 Other than an accountant testifying pro forma regarding certain record
procedures.
$400,000, 60-65 percent was from gasoline sales (the
remainder from sales of oil and miscellaneous other
merchandise, and minor repair work).
Accurso has been a member of GRAMC since July 1966,
with its emblem-a distinctive, large , and colorful decal
-prominently displayed in his station window.
In January or February 1968, "Danny" Ligurotus, a
"business agent" of Local 705, entered the Accurso service
station and indicated to Accurso that a union contract was
in course of preparation and would be presented to him for
signature. Accurso stated that he did not want to sign the
contract and that his employees did not desire to be in
Local 705. (At this time, Accurso was already paying his
employees the same wages as the union scale , with also
vacations and hospitalization benefits.) Ligurotus replied
that in that case Accurso would not get gasoline deliver-
ies 17 and that his station would be picketed. Ligurotus
added that "[You] will [have] to have at least two men in
the union." At that time, Accurso employed four regular
full-time and one regular part-time employees, in addition
to himself. In March, Ligurotus returned, in the company
of several others whom he introduced as his fellow
"business agents" and insisted that Accurso sign the union
contract. When Accurso again declined to do so, Ligurotus
reiterated his threats to stop gasoline deliveries and to
picket. Faced with these threats, Accurso entered into the
contract (a preprinted form "collective agreement") and
enlisted two of his employees to become "members" of the
Union after explaining "the situation" to them.18 At no
time did Ligurotus (or any other Local 705 business agent)
establish, offer to establish, nor even claim that he
represented a majority of Accurso's employees; nor did he
ask how many employees worked there. Accurso having
signed the "collective agreement" with Local 705 under the
described circumstances, Ligurotus visited the station each
3 months thereafter to collect from Accurso "Union dues"
and Accurso mailed in additional "health and welfare"
payments covering the employees thus inducted into
membership. In 1970, the employment level at the Accurso
station increased to four full-time and two regular part-
time employees, with never over two as "members" of the
Union.
In mid-October 1972-approximately 2 weeks after
Accurso had executed a current GRAMC collective-
bargaining authorization card-Ligurotus approached
Accurso to sign a preprinted statement, presented to
Accurso by Ligurotus, that Accurso had not authorized
GRAMC to bargain for him. When Accurso refused to do
so, indicating it was contrary to fact, Ligurotus warned
that "It wouldn't do [you] any good" since the Union did
not recognize GRAMC as a bargaining agent. Accurso
nevertheless refused to sign the "deauthorization" docu-
15 Throughout this decision, references to the complaint are to the
complaint in its final amended form.
16 Throughout, uncontroverted is used to mean uncontradicted or
unrefuted by other evidence , testimonial or documentary.
17 As mentioned above, it was stipulated at the trial that at all material
times Local 705 represented substantially all of the truckdrivers of the
gasoline suppliers supplying gasoline in the Chicago metropolitan and
surrounding areas to gasoline service stations, including all or substantially
all of the employers mentioned in the complaint as amended
18 There is indication that one of the men (Cleveland) had been a
member of the Union since 1961.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 217
ment presented to him by Ligurotus. Returning later in
October, Ligurotus informed Accurso that a new union
contract would be presented to him. Accurso indicated
that, upon advice of GRAMC, he would not sign it.
Ligurotus threatened that in that case he would be picketed
and receive no gasoline deliveries since his gasoline
supplier's truckdnvers-all members of Local 705-would
not make deliveries.
Returning again in November (1970), Ligurotus present-
ed a preprinted Local 705 form "collective agreement" to
Accurso for signature. Accurso again refused to sign it.
Ligurotus stated that Local 705 did not recognize GRAMC
as Accurso's bargaining representative; that GRAMC had
been "thrown out of court"; and again threatened that,
unless Accurso signed, Ligurotus would emplace pickets
and prevent Accurso from obtaining gasoline deliveries.
Faced with this threat, Accurso signed the preprinted
"collective agreement." At this time, Accurso had in his
employ four regular full-time and two regular part-time
employees, only two of whom were "in the union." 19 At
this time (November 1970), as well as on the former
occasion (1968) and at all intervening times , neither
Ligurotus nor any other Local 705 spokesman claimed to
represent any of Accurso's employees, nor was any inquiry
made as to how many persons were employed at the
station; nor was any observed ever to speak to any
employee.
After signing the 1970-73 "collective agreement" under
the described circumstances, Accurso continued paying the
union dues and health and welfare payments for two (i.e.,
less than a majority) of his employees himself and without
deduction from their pay (to Ligurotus' knowledge), until
around early March 1971, when he informed Ligurotus
-who had called for "collections"-that he had signed
the contract based upon Ligurotus' misrepresentation that
GRAMC had been "thrown out of court" and did not
represent Accurso. Accurso has made no payments to the
Union since then.
The foregoing testimony of Accurso, delivered with
impressive credibility and uncontroverted by Ligurotus
(who, without explanation, was not produced to testify) or
otherwise impeached, is credited.
I find that the described allegations of the complaint,
essentially . - there set forth, relating to Paul Accurso have
been established by substantial credible evidence.
2. Instance 2: Adams Service Station (48 E.
Garfield Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois)
The complaint allegations concerning the Adams Service
Station are substantially similar to those regarding the
Accurso Service Station, described above.
Uncontroverted credited testimony of Jimmy Adams
establishes that since 1954 (in corporate form since 1962)
he has owned and operated the Standard Oil gasoline
service station at the above address in Chicago, currently
19 One of the two was Tidwell, who around 1969 had replaced another
employee whom Accurso had enlisted into union membership as described
above. When Tidwell was hired by Accurso, Accurso explained to Tidwell
that he would "have to" join the Union since Accurso "had to have two men
in the union ." Tidwell did so, although he was unwilling and at first
demurred . It is further to be noted that Tidwell is Accurso's second shift (4
under a year-to-year lease requiring around- the-clock
operation; and that the station's gross receipts for 1970
were around $340,000, of which 75 percent is ascribed to
gasoline sales (of the 25 percent remainder, 20 percent to
carwashing to 5 percent to miscellaneous sales and
services).
Adams has been a member of GRAMC since 1954,
formally designated it as authorized bargaining agent on
August 14, 1970, and has prominently displayed its
membership emblem on the station's front door.
Adams first signed a "collective agreement" with Local
705 in 1954, when he opened the station, renewing it
trienially. At no time prior to the 1970 events to be
described did any Local 705 spokesman attempt to
establish nor even indicate or claim that he represented
any employee at the Adams station; nor was any Local 705
representative seen talking to any employee; nor was any
wage or other term, condition, or provision of any contract
discussed or so much as mentioned; nor did Adams ever
observe any provision of any such "contract." However,
from 1954 to 1968 Adams faithfully paid "dues" on behalf
of a "required" number (maximum three, of an average
total of nine) employees, to the union collector who came
around every 3 months and made collections in cash. At no
time was the union collection agent or any other union
representative observed to have any conversation or
contact with any employee; nor did any of them ever ask
Adams how many persons were employed at the station.
When the union spokesman notified Adams in 1968 that it
was "time to sign another contract," Adams signed another
3-year contract (1967-70) and continued his prior prac-
tices.
In late 1969 or early 1970, the previous union representa-
tive's activity at the station was taken over by its
representative, Jerry Spizzeri (Spizzinri). In September
1970 Adams observed Union Representatives (Reverend)
James Jackson and George Gilmore start to engage in
conversation with a station employee, who turned away,
followed by Jackson, who "grabbed him by his arm and
turned him around to him." When Adams approached and
interceded, Jackson warned that he would "put every man
that [you have ] in the union ... if [you ] didn't sign the
contract and ... cut [your] gas supply off." Adams
ordered him out of the station. Jackson and Gilmore left,
but indicated there would be a return. In December (1970)
Spizzeri visited the station twice, each time demanding that
Adams sign a contract, but Adams refused (on the stated
ground that he and other dealers had agreed not to sign).
When Spizzeri returned again in January 1971, on the same
mission , Adams signed the contract. At this time, Adams
had 10 employees (9 regular full-time and 1 regular part-time,
exclusive of himself, although not a single employee of Adams
was a member of Local 705, Adams was paying "Union
dues," as well as health and welfare payments, on three of the
employees and also on himself 20 At no time did any union
representative inquire of Adams how much he was paying his
p.m to midnight) or night manager and clearly a supervisor.
20 As in many other instances herein described , at various stations, the
indicated facts as to payment of "Union dues " on employees without their
apparent knowledge, or on employers themselves (or their relatives not even
employed at the station), or on previous employees no longer employed at
the station, are established by uncontroverted documentary proof consisting
(Continued)
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees. At no time did Adams observe any provision of the
19773 contract.21
Without explanation, no witness or documentary proof
was produced by Respondent to controvert any of the
foregoing testimony and proof, which I credit.22
I find that the complaint allegations, essentially as set
forth, concerning Adams Service Station, Inc. (James
("Jimmy") Adams), have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
3. Instance 3: Anderson Service Station (2201 S.
Kedzie Avenue, Berwyn, Illinois)
The complaint allegations concerning the Anderson
Service Station parallel those regarding the Adams and
Accurso stations, already described, and many others to be
described.
Anderson's uncontroverted credited testimony establish-
es that he has owned and operated the Shell Oil service
station at 2201 South Kedzie Avenue, Berwyn (Chicago),
since November 1966, at which time he hired an entirely
new crew of employees to work there.23 His gross volume
of business at the station in 1970 was $220,000, of which
70-80 percent was for gasoline sales . He has been a
member of and has prominently displayed on his station
door the distinctive emblem of GRAMC since 1968, and
also executed an express bargaining authorization to it on
September 2, 1970.
Early in 1967 a union representative approached
Anderson at the latter' s gasoline station and, stating that
"the station had always been in the Union," told him that
he "had to have one man in the Union." He did not claim
to represent any of Anderson's employees. When Ander-
son indicated that he could not afford to comply with this
demand, the union spokesman threatened that if he failed
to do so he would not obtain any gasoline deliveries
because the gasoline truckdrivers all belonged to the
Union. Anderson therefore acceded to the demand to
place one of his employees into the Union, for that purpose
selecting his brother-in-law, Nelson, a mechanic, whose
name Anderson signed to the union card and dues
checkoff authorization in the presence of the union agent
but without Nelson's permission or consent and without
Informing Nelson. From then until April 1969, Anderson
kept only one employee (i.e., Nelson; and, after Nelson
left, Jackson, likewise a mechanic, not in the "bargaining
unit") in the Union, although he had an average workcrew
of five employees during 1968 and 1969. In 1969, following
a conversation with a union business agent who insisted
that Anderson place three employees into the Union, a
compromise was effected under which Anderson enlisted
only one additional employee-Bates , for whom he
received a union dues-checkoff card from the union
agent-into the Union, thereby making a total of 2 (or, still
a minority) station employees "in" the Union.
In early 1970, when, in addition to himself and a partner,
Anderson had five regular employees (three full- and two
part-time) at the station, he was visited at the station by
Union Business Agent (Reverend) James Jackson (in
company with another individual), who "asked for the
whole service station" into the Union. Anderson declined,
pleading he could not afford it. However, when Jackson
returned a few days later and threatened to have the
station picketed if Anderson did not put another man into
the Union, Anderson placed himself into the Union, thus
comprising three (i.e., mechanic Nelson, Bates, and
himself) union "members" out of seven persons (including
himself and a partner; or, two-one of them a nonunit
employee-out of five nonowner employees) at the station.
Union Business Agent Jackson, again accompanied by
another individual, returned to the Anderson station in
December 1970 or January 1971, demanding that Ander-
son sign a new contract (also containing a union security
provision) with the Union. When Anderson refused,
Jackson warned him that he "had to sign it." Anderson
continued to refuse, pointing out that GRAMC was
fighting the union "in court," to which Jackson replied that
that was "a bunch of stuff" and that GRAMC had "lost
the case." When Anderson nevertheless refused to sign up,
Jackson threatened "he would picket me and he stormed
out," to return about a week later with renewed demands.
When Anderson persisted in refusal to sign the "contract,"
Jackson threatened that gas deliveries would be stopped
because "the truckdrivers were in the same Union and
wouldn't cross their picket line," and that Anderson would
have to put all of his employees into the Union or else
Jackson's "boss wanted $50 a month . . . to keep the rest
of the employees out of the Union," Anderson's opposition
caved in and he signed the preprinted form "contract"
which Jackson presented, but on the "compromise" basis
that Jackson would put only one additional man "into" the
Union if Anderson paid him $25 per month or $75 per
quarter "under the table," in addition to and etaausive of the
required union dues and health and welfare payments.
Anderson acceded and thereafter in fact did pay those moneys.
The proof establishes that Anderson made those "extra"
payments to Jackson not only in cash but also by checks
which Jackson agreed to take only if made payable to
"Cash." 24
of forms filed with the Union (in certain cases subpenaed from its own
records) or canceled checks.
21 It will be recalled that at no time, either, had Adams observed any
provision of any of the previous contracts with Local 705 since the very first
one in 1954.
22 Respondent discontinued cross-examination of Adams when I
sustained his plea of the 5th Amendment in response to Respondent's
question as to whether he had ever deducted from any employee's wages the
amounts he paid over to the Union on their "behalf." My reasons for
sustaining this plea of Constitutional protection against self-incrimination
are explicated in detail upon the record in connection with my sustaining of
a similar plea by General Counsel witness Frank Wintercorn (instance 80,
infra ), who testified early in the trial.
23 Although Anderson conceded on cross-examination that he does not
know whether the previous owner of the station had a union contract, even
assuming he did (not established by Respondent) it would be immaterial
here under NLRB. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc, 406 U.S.
272 (1972) Respondent concedes that in view of Burns its existing contracts
were not in any event binding upon subsequent service station owners.
24 The testimony of Anderson to this effect was so vigorously assailed by
Respondent on cross- or recross-examination, and because of its potentially
grave implications was even accepted by me with considerable reserve, that
I directed Anderson-who had brought with him no documentary proof to
corroborate his testimony-to return later in the day with any corroborative
documentation of such payments . He did so, returning with documentation
thoroughly supporting his earlier testimony-consisting of checks made out
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
Anderson conceded that he did not in fact deduct from
his employees' wages any of the sums he was paying to
Local 705 for their union "dues." 25 At no time did Anderson
pay his employees the wages called for by any Local 705
"contract ",- nor did Anderson negotiate, discuss, or even read
the "contract"; nor did Jackson or any union spokesman ever
inquire as to what wages were being paid or otherwise visibly
service the "contract" in any way on behalf of the employees.
Again without explanation-as in every single instance
without exception throughout the case-Respondent failed
to produce any witness to controvert any of the described
testimony, which I credit not only for that reason but also
because amply corroborated by documentary proof and
also based upon my demeanor observations impressively
persuading me of Anderson's credibility.
It is accordingly found that the complaint allegations
concerning Jeff Anderson (Jr.) have been essentially
established by substantial credible evidence.
4. Instance 4: Ashcraft Service Station (1427 S.
Harlem Ave., Berwyn, Illinois)
The complaint allegations concerning the Ashcraft
Service Station are substantially the same as those
involving other service stations which have been described,
except that it is not alleged that Ashcraft actually executed
a current (1970-73) contract with Local 705.
Once again, uncontroverted, credited testimony of
Treamon Ray Ashcraft-corroborated in part by that of
his former employee Neil Atkinson-establishes the facts.
Since November 1967 Ashcraft has owned and operated
the Clark Oil service station at 1427 South Harlem Avenue,
Berwyn, Illinois,26 a 3-shift, round-the-clock, no-mechani-
cal or repair work (the same as all Clark stations)
enterprise. The station's gross volume of business in 1970
was about $420,000, of which at least $350,000 represented
gasoline sales (the balance, other merchandise). He has
been a member of GRAMC since early 1968, prominently
displaying its distinctive emblem in his station window; on
September 17, 1970, he executed an express written
bargaining authorization to GRAMC.
In late 1967, when he had from six to nine (including
four regular part-time 27 employees, Ashcraft was visited at
his station by a Local 705 representative who told him he
would "have to sign a new [contract ]," and that it would be
acceptable to the Union for him to have only two
employees as union members initially but later three.
Thereupon, Ashcraft signed the preprinted contract tend-
by Anderson to "Cash" and indorsed by Jackson (G C Exhs. 509 & 510)
There can be no question that the foregoing "Cash" payments were for
something "extra" or apart from the regular union dues and health and
welfare payments, which were always made by check Thus, for example,
although the "extra" payment checks were made payable to "Cash" and are
indorsed by Jackson (G C Exhs 509 & 510), the Union dues and health and
welfare payment checks are made payable to Local 705 or its health &
welfare fund and are indorsed by the Union's deposit rubber stamp (G.C
Exhs. 512 & 511)
There was no cross-examination of Anderson when he returned with
these corroborating documents
25 He also testified that he made a claim, paid on behalf of a dependent,
upon the health and welfare fund, in the early part of 1970, prior to his
signing the 1970-73 contract It will be recalled that as a result of Union
Representative Jackson's insistence that he "put" more employees into the
Union, Anderson had placed himself into the Union in early 1970
219
ered to him, with himself and employee Mike Palos as the
"Union members ." When Palos left Ashcraft 's employ in
December 1967, he was succeeded as the "Union member"
by Ashcraft's cousin, Gleness McCoy, whose name the
union representative signed on a union dues-checkoff
"authorization" card .ms Ashcraft himself continued to
carry and pay for himself as one of his station's "Union
members" from 1967 to 1970, during which period his
usual complement was six to nine (three full and six part-
time, including himself), with never over three and usually
only two (always including himself) "in" the Union.
In 1968 , when Peter Alex took over as Local 705 business
agent, he informed Ashcraft that he "wanted me to sign up
another man" into the Union . To Ashcraft's rejoinder that
Ashcraft's stepfather was Chicago-bound, Alex replied, "I
don't give a damn . . . who it is.... I am going to have
three cards . . ." Thereafter, it was Alex who acted as
collector of "Union dues" at the station.
On November 17, 1970, Alex presented another preprint-
ed Local 705 contract to Ashcraft for signature. When
Ashcraft asked to wait a few days until he could ascertain
whether it had been negotiated for him (by GRAMC) and
whether Clark Oil would increase his margin , Alex replied
that although he would wait a few days, after that he
"wouldn't pussyfoot around." Thereupon , Ashcraft in
Alex's presence telephoned and inquired from and was
informed by Executive Director Albano of GRAMC that
the agreement had not been negotiated and not to sign it.
Alex then warned Ashcraft that he was "listening to the
wrong damn people and it [is] going to get [you] in trouble
. you got yourself to think about," adding that Ashcraft
should instead join "IGDA"29-a "rival" gasoline dealers
association headed by one "Bobby" Jacobs, a former
business representative of Local 705.30 Alex urged Ashcraft
to remove the GRAMC emblem from his station window,
but Ashcraft declined to do so and indicated he would not
sign the agreement with Local 705 unless he was fairly
represented. Alex then said that Ashcraft could negotiate
the contract himself and even through his attorney, and
inquired who Ashcraft's attorney was. When Ashcraft
replied, "Charles Porcelli" (i.e., the same attorney who
represents GRAMC), Alex remarked, "No f-ing good."
On the following day (November 18, 1970), Alex
informed Ashcraft on the telephone that Clark Oil District
Manager Stellings was "taking names of the dealers that
hadn't signed the union contracts." 31
Two days later (November 20, 1970), when union
representative Alex again visited the station and asked
26 Although when Ashcraft took this station over it was an existing
station having a contract with Local 705, with only a single exception
(Wright, not a union member) he installed an entirely new workcrew . See fn.
24, supra
27 Respondent conceded at the trial that part -time employees are
included in the Local 705 form contracts here in evidence and issue.
28 Although McCoy's name was apparently continued as one of the
Ashcraft station's "quota" of Local 705 members, it is to be noted that he
worked there only between December 1%7 and April 1968, while on
furlough from his usual construction work job , resuming at the Ashcraft
station from December 1%8 to April 1 , 1969, only, since when he has not
returned to the Ashcraft station.
29 1 e., Illinois Gasoline Dealers Association.
30 So stipulated at the trial.
31 Clark Oil, which has no legal control over its dealers ' labor force or
policy, is remunerated upon the basis of its dealers ' gross sales. It would
(Continued)
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ashcraft to sign the contract, other people-including an
attorney on behalf of the National Labor Relations
Board-were present. Ashcraft refused to sign the "con-
tract." Alex said, "You're listening to them guys again, you
are going to get in trouble ....the wrong f-ing guys
again." When Ashcraft identified one of the parties present
as an agent of the National Labor Relations Board, Alex
said, "I don't give a damn who he is, f-k him, too." At this
time, with a complement of six to nine employees, Ashcraft
had only two-himself and Gibson-"in" the Union; and
as to Gibson, it was Ashcraft himself who (on October 1,
1970) had signed Gibson's name, in Alex's presence, on
Gibson's Union "dues" checkoff "authorization" card and
paid Alex $25 and 3 months' "dues."
Between November 1970 and February 1971 Alex
revisited Ashcraft around a dozen more times to pursue the
matter of signing the preprinted Local 705 "contract." On
these occasions, Alex continued to press Ashcraft to sign,
insisting that he was listening to "wrong guys" and would
"get [yourself] in a lot of trouble"; and that Local 705
would picket his station and "shut off all [your] deliveries."
When ordered to leave the station, Alex refused to do so.
However, Ashcraft adamantly insisted he would not sign
an unnegotiated contract.
On February 22, 1971, Ashcraft was visited at his service
station by Union Business Agents "Eddie" Miller and
"Gene" Dicks, who asked why he was holding off on "the
contract" and who threatened to stop his gasoline
deliveries so that "you will have to close up." Ashcraft
continued to insist he would not sign an unnegotiated
contract. Thereupon Miller asked Ashcraft whether he
would go to the Union personally to negotiate the contract.
When Ashcraft replied that he would do so only with his
attorney, Miller asked who that was. When Ashcraft said it
was Porcelli, Miller responded, "No good" even though
Ashcraft stated he would pay him out of his own pocket.
Miller threatened to "organize your men 100%."
On February 25, 1971, 3 days later, Ashcraft was again
visited, this time by Union Representative Alex in the
presence of another union spokesman, Jerry Spizzeri-
whose name also figures prominently in numerous other
episodes already described and still to be described. They
informed Ashcraft that it was his "last chance .... to sign
a union contract," or else there would be pickets and no
gasoline deliveries and they would "force [you] out of
business." Ashcraft's answer was that he would haul his
own gasoline. Alex's rejoinder was that he would "fireball
the gas tank." Although they remained for 4 hours,
Ashcraft refused to knuckle under. Thereupon, the two
union spokesmen decked out Alex's automobile and
nearby poles and other objects with signs stating "Local
705 Teamsters Union on Strike, this station being picket-
ed." This continued until March 1, 1971, around-the-clock,
with from 2 to 10 union "business" agents and two to six
cars involved; the only pickets were Union "business"
agents-Alex, Spizzeri, Ligurotus, Jackson, and Miller.
Although Ashcraft's employees continued to work, he
received no truck deliveries of any merchandise or services
(i.e., gasoline, soft drinks, cigarettes, Armored Express
money pickups). On March 1 , massive picketing was
instituted, involving 20 to 30 or more chrs and 50 to 100
pickets, including Union Business Agents Alex, Spizzeri,
and Ligurotus, and truckdrivers, one of whom allegedly
accidentally "broke down" in the station driveway so as to
block the curbcut entrance but was moved on order of the
police. Later that morning (March 1), Ashcraft told Union
Agent "Danny" Ligurotus that he (Ashcraft) was going to
haul his own gasoline into his station . Ligurotus warned
him, "I hope to God you don't try it, son." When the
gasoline delivery truck (furnished through GRAMC) later
attempted to enter the station, the Local 705 business
agents milled into the station entrance and Union Agent
Alex moved his car so as to block the gasoline truck from
entering; two of the mob opened the gasoline delivery
truck gasoline valves, another pulled the linchpin connect-
ing the delivery truck cab to the trailer, and another
severed the gasoline. When Alex refused to move his car
out of the way of the delivery truck, challenging its driver
to "go over the son of a bitch," the driver did so and
thereafter delivered the gas-apparently under the eyes of
the police.
At no time did any of Ashcraft's employees participate in
any picketing, nor was any employee at any such time a
member of the Union. Ashcraft's former employee, Neil
Patrick Atkinson, testified that at no time during his 2
years of employment at the station did Union Representa-
tive Alex-whom he saw there regularly-so much as ask
him to join the Union. The picketing was discontinued a
few hours after the gasoline delivery and there has been no
sign of the Union since . Ashcraft never signed the 1970-73
"contract." During the preceding years when Ashcraft had
had a "contract" with Local 705 (i.e., prior to late 1970), he
had himself been paying Local 705 "dues" out of his own
pocket, without reimbursement from any of the employee
"members."
Once again-as in all other instances, already described
and to be described-without explanation Respondent
produced no witness to controvert any of the foregoing
proof, which is credited.
I find that the complaint allegations involving (Treamon)
Ray Ashcraft have been essentially established by substan-
tial credible evidence.
5. Instance 5: Barney Service Station (6040 W.
111th Street, Chicago Ridge , Illinois)
The complaint alleges that although Local 705 did not
represent a majority of the employees of David Barney at
his service station at 6040 W. 111th Street, Chicago Ridge
(a Chicago suburb), Illinois, and notwithstanding Barney's
having designated GRAMC as his collective-bargattnng
agent, Local 705 procured Barney to sign a collective
agreement designating Local 705 as the employees'
exclusive bargaining representative and requiring all
employees to join and maintain membership in Local 705
with a compulsory checkoff of dues to that Union.
As in all other instances, those already considered and
those to be considered, uncontroverted credited testimony
therefore directly stand to lose if a dealer's gasoline sales were prevented
through interrupted gasoline deliveries
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 221
of the service station owner concerned-in this case David
Barney-establishes the facts here found.
David Barney opened the Clark Oil service station at
6040 West 111th Street, Chicago Ridge (a suburb of
Chicago), Illinois, in September 1967, and has continued to
operate it since then as a round-the-clock enterprise doing
no mechanical or repair work. His gross volume of
business there in 1970 was $384,000 (85 percent ascribable
to gasoline sales, 10 percent to cigarettes, and the balance
to other merchandise). He has been a member of GRAMC
since October 1967, by express written designation of April
9, 1970, authorized it to bargain on his behalf, and for 8 or
9 months after the latter date prominently displayed its
distinctive emblem in his service station window.
In March 1968, Local 705 representative, James ("Jess")
Hall, visited the Barney station and, presenting a preprint-
ed form Local 705 "contract," notified Barney that he "had
to have three men in the Union," one for each shift, but
that for the time being he would "let [you, i.e., Barney] go
with two men." Although Hall did not claim to represent
any employee and none of the employees was a member of
the Union, Barney signed the contract, which was in no
way discussed. Subsequently, Barney himself distributed
the union cards which Hall had left with him, to station
employees Mouser and Murphy. After Barney told
Mouser, a part-time, day-shift employee, that he "had to
have two men in the union [and that] he was to be one of
them," Mouser reluctantly signed the card on Barney's
urging. When Barney informed his other designee for
union membership, Murphy, a full-time, second-shift
employee, that he "had to" join the Union, Murphy also
signed up only on Barney's insistence. At this time, Barney
had a crew of six regular employees (two full- and four
part-time).
In June or July 1970 Local 705 representative, Hall,
telephoned Barney from the service station-Barney was
out at the time-and demanded that Barney come to the
station "that minute" and put a third man into the Union
or else he would picket, stop deliveries, and audit Barney's
books. In consequence, Barney the next day procured his
temporary employee, Lord, to join the Union "rather than
causing [you, i.e., Barney] and trouble"; Lord even paid
the initiation fee out of his own pocket, unlike the other
employees, for whom Barney had paid or advanced it.
In December 1970, Union Representative Hall presented
Barney with a new preprinted contract with Local 705,
which he demanded that Barney sign. At this time, Barney
had a crew of seven or six employees (two full-time and
five part-time), with only two "in" the Union. Barney
signed up.
Hall visited the Barney service station every 3 months to
make "dues" and other payments collections. On several
occasions he advised Barney to remove the GRAMC
emblem from the station window, warning Barney that if
Hall's "boss" ever saw it there Barney would "have to put
every man in [your] employ in the union." Apparently
Barney acceded by removing the emblem around the end
of 1970 or beginning of 1971.
Unlike some of the other gasoline dealers here involved,
Barney deducted union dues from his employees' wages.
(He made health and welfare payments to the Union
without reimbursement from the employees.)
Again without explanation, Respondent produced no
witness to controvert any of Barney's testimony, which I
credit.
I find that the allegations of the complaint concerning
David Barney have been essentially established by sub-
stantial credible evidence.
6. Instance 6: Bennett and Dodaro Service
Station (2 West Harrison, Harrison & Austin, Oak
Park, Illinois)
The complaint allegations concerning Respondent Local
705's activities at the Bennett and Dodaro Arco Oil service
station at 2 West Harrison (at Austin), Oak Park (another
suburb of Chicago), Illinois, are again substantially the
same , namely, threats to picket and tie up the station's
operations unless an exclusive collective agreement with
union-security provisions was entered into with Local 705,
although the latter did not represent a majority of the
station's employees and although the station had designat-
ed GRAMC as its bargaining representative. And again, as
in all other cases , the facts are established through
uncontradicted and impressively credible testimony of the
station owner-operator, in this case Donald R. Bennett.
The service station in question-which grossed around
$270,000 (about 75 percent in gasoline sales) in 1971-was
acquired by Messrs. Bennett and Dodaro as 50-50
partners, under a year-to-year lease, on August 1, 1970.
That same month, they were visited at the station by Local
705 Representative "Gene" Dicks, who presented them
with its preprinted form contract which he asked them to
sign. Since Dodaro was then a member of Local 705
because his dues had been paid by the former owner of the
station while Dodaro had been an employee there , Dodaro
signed. Bennett, however, who then belonged to Teamsters
Local 734 (a bread, cake, and cracker drivers local) refused
to sign, even though Dicks offered to "put you down as an
employee of B & D ARCO," unless he obtained a
withdrawal and transfer card from Local 734. Although
Dicks was granted permission to solicit the station
employees to join Local 705, both employees whom he
approached refused to join. At that time there were two
station personnel "in" the Union-Dodaro, a 50-percent
owner, whose dues had been paid by a former owner while
Dodaro was an employee there, and nightshift employee
Sparks-or at most two, out of a workcrew of eight
(excluding Bennett and Dodaro) regular (three full- and
five part-time) employees. At no time was the contract
discussed, nor did Dicks display any membership, bargain-
mg, or other authorization card from any employee, nor
did he claim to represent any employee. Although Dicks
said he would be back in about 2 weeks, apparently he did
not return until late October (1970), at which time he
ascertained from Bennett that the latter had secured a
transfer card from Local 734 but that he did not wish to
join Local 705 since he was an employer and had joined
GRAMC (on September 18, 1970, at the same time
expressly designating it in writing as collective-bargaining
representative), pointing to its emblem on the station door.
Dicks warned that if Bennett refused to "sign the contract
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or join the Union" he would picket and "tie up the
station." Bennett nevertheless refused.
Dicks returned to the station on January 11, 1971, and
again demanded that Bennett "join the union," stating
further that "I want you . . . and all your employees ... .
full and part-time to join the union." Bennett continued to
refuse , pointing out among other things that part-time
employees belonged to another union or unions on their
other jobs, and that Bennett's partner (i.e., Dodaro) had
already signed a contract with Local 705. Dicks, however,
insisted that Bennett also sign it, threatening to picket
unless he did. When Bennett reminded him that he was
represented by GRAMC, Dicks laughed. Bennett told him
to leave . Dicks warned him, "Don't think you're playing
with kids ." At this time the station had six regular (one
full-time and five part-time) employees, with no union
members . At no time has the Bennett and Dodaro station
paid any money to the Union.
Upon the basis of the foregoing testimony, which stands
uncontradicted upon the record and is credited, I find that
the allegations, essentially as set forth in the complaint,
concerning Donald R. Bennett and Anthony Dodaro have
been established by substantial credible evidence.
7. Instance 7: Brooks Service Station (3951 W.
Harrison St., Chicago Ill.)
With substantially the same complaint allegations
referring to the Standard Oil service station of Joshua
Brooks, Jr., at 3951 West Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois,
Joshua Brooks' testimony, recounted below, likewise
stands uncontradicted.
The service station in question was acquired by Joshua
Brooks, Jr., a church deacon, as owner-operator and year-
to-year lessee, on November 1, 1968, from prior owner,
Hash, who had had four employees, of whom Brooks
retained only two (Williams and Hall), hiring two new
employees (Joshua Brooks, Sr.-Brooks' father, and
Willard Brooks-Brooks' nephew), all four being full-time.
The station's gross revenues in 1970 were approximately
$150,000 (80 percent from gasoline sales , the balance from
other merchandise and labor).
In the month after Brooks acquired the station (Decem-
ber 1968), he was visited by a Local 705 business agent,
who informed him that he would "have to have at least one
man into the union," whereupon Brooks signed the
contract presented to him and "suggested that we put
Nathaniel Hall into the union" and paid $18 for Hall's
union dues without ever having Hall sign a membership
card or even talking to Hall about it 32 The Local 705 agent
did not discuss the contract with Brooks, nor did he claim
to represent any of Brooks' employees, nor did he ask how
many employees Brooks had. At the time, Brooks had-as
has already been indicated-four employees, exclusive of
himself . Although the Union agent returned periodically to
make collections, at no time was he observed to talk to any
employee.
In the spring of 1969, the Local 705 Business Agent,
known as Reverend James Jackson, took over as collector.
As in the case of his predecessor, Jackson likewise at no
time inquired how many persons were employed at the
station. During 1969-70, Brooks employed four full-time
employees there, with only one (Hall) "in" the Union;
indeed the same one (Hall) was the only employee "in" the
Union during the period 1969-72. During the same period
(1969-70), Jackson visited the Brooks station about
monthly, only to make collections; on such visits he also
discussed religious matters which he and Brooks had in
common. On one occasion in 1970 Jackson told Brooks
that he "could make [you] take another man into the
union," but did not persist.
Brooks had joined GRAMC on January 21, 1969, and
has remained a member since, with its distinctive emblem
prominently displayed in his station window near the door.
On August 21, 1970, he executed an authorization card
expressly designating it as his collective-bargaining agent.
Around the end of November or beginning of December
1970 Union Business Agent Jackson presented to Brooks
"the new contracts ... come on and sign them. I am in a
hurry , I am a little bit late." When Brooks declined,
Jackson said, "You are trying to do like the rest of the guys
tell you to do . . . they only get you in trouble ... you
know," at the same time warning that "I don't like no guy
to get smart with me," that he had picketed nearby dealer
Preston Ford who "got smart," and that "one telephone
call ....and you know, a gasoline truck won't come
across your driveway." Under these circumstances , Brooks
-in his own word, "nervous"-signed the contract.
Jackson assured Brooks that he "wouldn't have to bother no
way" about the wages stipulated in the contract. At no time
had Jackson asked how many employees there were at the
station (at this time, Brooks continued to have four
employees-all full-time, with still only one-Hall-"in"
the Union), nor did Jackson at any time offer to negotiate
any of the terms of the contract. And at no time did Brooks
observe any of the provisions of any Local 705 contract. In
June or July 1971-i.e., shortly after inception of the
instant hearing-Brooks was visited by Jackson to collect
"dues." Brooks refused to pay. Jackson told him to mail
health and welfare payments in. This is the last Brooks has
seen of Jackson.
Again , as in all other instances, the station operator's
testimony stands, without explanation, totally uncontrad-
icted. It is credited.
I find that the allegations, essentially as set forth in the
complaint, concerning Joshua Brooks, Jr., have been
established by substantial credible evidence.
8. Instance 8: Brown Service Station (3803 W.
Roosevelt Rd., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon essentially the same pattern of complaint allega-
tions as in the other 81 instances here being described, and
again-as in all-without contradiction, the testimony of
James Edward Brown establishes that he acquired the
Standard Oil service station at 3803 West Roosevelt Road,
Chicago, in August 1967, and since then has been
operating that station with a completely new workcrew of
b A Local 705 membership card identified by Brooks as bearing Hall's
*nature carries the date January 2, 1969.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
his own from another service station he had operated at
16th and Drake .33 Brown became a member of GRAMC
on March 20 , 1968, authorizing it to bargain collectively on
his behalf, and has also been displaying its distinctive
membership emblem prominently in the station window.
The approximate gross revenue of the West Roosevelt
Road station in 1970 was $324,000 (around 80 percent
from gasoline sales).
In September 1967-about a month after he acquired the
West Roosevelt Road Station-Brown was visited by the
foregoing two Local 705 emissaries , who called to pick up
"the dues ." Although the Local 705 collectors called
regularly thereafter to collect and Brown made regular
payments (of both "dues" and health and welfare contrib-
utions), Brown was not asked to sign a contract nor was
any Local 705 representative at any time observed
speaking to any station employee . During a March 1968
visit to the station by the same two union representatives,
Brown signed a new preprinted Local 705 contract which
they presented to him with the admonition that it was
"time to [renew ]....the contract." At this time Brown
had 10 (8 full- and 2 part-time) regular employees at the
station, still with only the same two (i .e., Bernard Brown
and Joseph Brown) whom he (Brown) had enlisted into
Local 705 under the circumstances described. When
Brown discharged Joseph Brown in September 1968,
Brown placed himself into the Union as a replacement for
Joseph Brown after the union representative advised him
he could put himself in and paid on himself . Thereafter,
Brown and his brother, Bernard Brown , remained as the
only "Union members" at the station until June 1969.
In June and July 1969, Union Business Agent James
Jackson , who had supplanted Edward Miller and the other
Local 705 representative , notified Brown that "[You'll ]
have to put another man in the union ," the same as other
stations with the "same volume," so Brown "put [employ-
ee] Leroy Patten in." At this time, Brown continued to
have 10 (8 full- and 2 part-time) regular employees. At no
time did Local 705 Representative Jackson-any more
than his predecessors-indicate he or his Union represent-
ed any of Brown's employees, nor so much as inquire how
many persons were employed at the station , nor ask to nor
(so far as known) speak to any station employee . At no time
did Brown pay any of his employees the wages called for by
any of the Local 705 "contracts " nor otherwise observe those
contracts; on a number of occasions, in 1969 and 1970, Local
705 Representative Jackson told Brown that he did not care
what Brown paid the employees "as long as nobody squawked
about it." At no time did Brown deduct any union dues
from any employee's salary; he paid them (as well as health
and welfare payments) all himself . At no time did any
employee ask to see the "collective agreement," and at no
33 In June 1966 Brown had been visited at his former station at 16th and
Drake by two Local 705 representatives, including Edward Miller, who
informed Brown that he "would have to become a member of Local 705"
and that "the gas truck drivers were members of Local 705 and that if I
didn't sign a contract with them, that the drivers could-they could set up
pickets and the drivers wouldn't cross the pickets. It would cut off my gas
flow." These representatives also gave Brown two Local 705 membership
application cards and a preprinted form "collective agreement," telling
Brown that they "wanted two men to be put into the union" and that they
"didn't care what the salaries were as long as nobody squawked about it."
223
time did any employee indicate he was aware of the wage
scale purportedly required by that "collective agreement."
On the occasion of his November 1970 visit to Brown's
station, Local 705 Representative Jackson advised Brown
that it was "time to renew the contract ." This time Brown
said he did not want to sign it. Jackson responded , "There
[isn't] really too much [you can] do about it," warning him
that he had better sign it since "as long as the truck drivers
[are] part of the Local 705 there [ isn't ] anything [you]
could do about it," and, furthermore, that if Brown didn't
sign he (Jackson) "could talk" to the employees and "get
all of them put in and there would be even more burden on
[you] than [you] already [have ]." Faced with these threats,
Brown yielded and signed the proffered contract for
1970-73 . When Brown , noting the provisions in the
"agreement" governing wages and vacations remarked, "I
[don't] see how anyone can stay in business with [these]
wages . . . [and] vacation," Jackson reassured him that
these did not have to be paid or observed " as long as
nobody squawks about it [and] as long as the men are
happy." At this time, Brown still had 10 regular (8 full- and
2 part-time) employees , with only three (i.e., two shift
managerssupervisors and his brother, Bernard) plus Brown
himself "in" the Union. It is reiterated that at no time did
Brown pay any of the "contract" wage scales or otherwise
observe those "contracts"; he merely made payments to
Local 705 of "dues" and other moneys for the "required"
number of "employees," out of his own pocket.
The foregoing testimony of Brown is-as in all other
cases-without explanation uncontradicted . Crediting it, it
is accordingly found that the complaint allegations dealing
with James Brown (also known as James Edward Brown)
have been essentially established by substantial credible
evidence.
9. Instance 9: Buffa Service Station (6129 W.
North Ave., Oak Park, Ill.)
Substantially similar allegations are made in the com-
plaint as to the Clark Oil service station which has been
owned and operated at 6129 West North Avenue, Oak
Park, Illinois, since February, 1969 by Vito Buffa on an
around-the-clock basis, 7 days per week, under a year-to-
year lease, with a gross 1970 business of $462,000 (75
percent gasoline sales). When Buffa took that station over
at that time he hired an entirely new crew and there was no
indication to him from Local 705 that any of the employees
of the former station owner need be retained. In the month
when he took over (February 1969) Buffa was, however,
presented with a preprinted contract and told by Local 705
agent "Gene" Dicks that it was "a unionized station and
[you will] have to put three men in the Union." Buffa
signed the contract (1967-70), then and there paid union
Brown thereupon signed the "collective agreement" and gave the Local 705
emissaries a check to cover the initiation fees for two as yet undesignated
"members." None of Brown's employees belonged to the Union, nor did
either of the Local 705 emissaries so claim, nor did they ask how many
employees Brown had nor seek to speak to any of them After the Union
representatives left, Brown procured Bernard Brown (his brother) and
Joseph Brown (unrelated ) to sign the two Union cards the Local 705
representatives had left with him, explaining to them that "I had to put two
men in the union so I was taking those two in as members." At this time,
Brown had eight regular employees (seven full- and one part-time).
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
initiation fees and dues for three unnamed employees, and
Dicks left three blank union membership application
cards . Dicks did not claim to represent any employee nor
ask to see any employee, nor ask how many employees
there were . Buffa subsequently procured three of his
employees to sign the cards Dicks had left by telling the
employees they "had to join the Union." At this time,
Buffa employed eight (three full- and five part-time)
regular employees at the station, and in 1969 and 1970 his
work complement (excluding himself) was from six to nine
regular employees with at no time over three and at times
only two (including his father) in the Union. Dicks called
each 3 months in 1969 and 1970 to make collections of
"dues" and health and welfare contributions, but was
never observed speaking to any employee; on one occasion
he left union buttons for Buffa to distribute to the men "in
the Union."
In August 1969 Union Business Agent Sam Dibenardo
("Sammy DeBenarco") visited Buffa to make collections in
the absence of Dicks on vacation. On this occasion, when
Buffa informed him that he would only "keep one man in
the Union," Dibenardo countered by insisting he would
"have to have three men in the Union." When Buffa
refused, Dibenardo threatened to "put an investigator
here" and "put them [employees] all in the Union." When
Dicks called for collections in September, there was a
replay between Buffa and Dicks of the Buffa-Dibenardo
conversation of August, with the upshot that they compro-
mised on putting only one more employee "in the Union,"
thus making two, for whom Buffa made payments (dues
and health and welfare-which he deducted from their
wages) throughout 1969 and most of 1970.
Buffa has been a member of GRAMC since February
1969, and has at all times prominently displayed its
distinctive emblem in the front window of his station; on
August 21, 1970, he formally in writing designated it as his
collective-bargaining representative.
When Local 705 agent Dicks called for collections at the
Buffa Station on November 15, 1970, Buffa indicated he
was paying only up to October 31, the expiration date of
the "contract." Insisting that the old contract was still in
effect, Dicks threatened to "strike and close you out" if
Buffa failed to pay up. Thereupon, to avoid trouble, the
two employees then present-Buffa's father and Cardo-
ne-offered to pay their own dues and Buffa to pay their
health-welfare contributions. When Dicks returned in
December (1970) with a "new contract" for 3 years which
he told Buffa the latter "had to sign," Buffa declined to
sign. Dicks thereupon took out a little black book and
visibly wrote the word "STRIKE" in it. When Buffa
informed Dicks that GRAMC represented him and was
negotiating for him, Dicks replied that GRAMC "isn't big
enough to fight the Unions" and that the Union had
already "shut down" some large Clark Oil Stations. So
Buff a signed the "contract."
At no time has Buffa paid any employee the wages called for
by any of his "contracts" with Local 705, nor has he observed
the provisions of those contracts, nor did Dicks ever ask him
about it.
When Dicks called for collections on April 14, 1971,
Buffa refused to pay, informing Dicks that he had filed
charges against the Union with the National Labor
Relations Board . Dicks demanded to know who had
advised Buffa to file charges against the Union, adding "I
hate to tell you this, but you' re making one of the biggest
mistakes in your life."
The foregoing testimony of Buffa, which , again, without
explanation, was in no way contradicted by Respondent, is
credited.
It is accordingly found that the allegations of the
complaint concerning Vito Buffa, essentially as set forth,
have been established by substantial credible evidence.
10. Instance 10: Butler Service Station ( 1725 S.
Clark St., Chicago, Ill.)
Similar complaint allegations are made concerning the
Standard Oil service station at 1725 South Clark Street,
Chicago, owned and operated since its opening in April,
1969 by Isaac Butler with six employees (three full- and 3
part-time, all regular) in addition to himself. This station
grossed around $235,000 in 1970 (about 75 percent in
gasoline sales).
In May 1969 Butler was visited at the station by Local
705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri ("Spizzirri") who asked
him how many employees he had and who were in the
Union. Butler replied five (excluding himself), with
two-himself and employee Singleton-in the Union.
Although Spizzeri did not claim to represent any employee,
and in any event did not represent a majority of employees,
he presented the usual preprinted Local 705 contract,
which Butler signed. Thereafter Spizzeri visited the Butler
station each 3 months throughout 1969 to make "collec-
tions," but although Butler's hours were from 6 a.m. to 10
p.m. he never saw Spizzeri talk to any employee. Nor did
Butler at any time pay any employee the wages called for by
the "contract" he had signed with Local 705. At no time in
1969 was more than one station employee (Singleton) and
Butler himself, a member of the Union, although the
station had six employees exclusive of Butler.
In January or February 1970, Butler was visited by
"Reverend Jackson, a business agent for Local 705," who
asked him how many employees he had and how many
were "in" the Union . Butler replied five , with two , himself
and Singleton, "in." When Jackson told Butler, at this
time, that Butler could not be in the Union but "had to put
another man in," Butler "put" employee Clayton in;
however, since Singleton was no longer employed there,
this left Clayton as the only employee, out of five, "in" the
Union.
In March or April, Local 705 Representative Gilmore
visited the station and asked Butler how many employees
he had and how many were in the Union. When Butler
replied five and one, Gilmore said, "That's not enough,
you have to have at least two men in the union."
Accordingly, at Gilmore 's suggestion, Butler "rejoined" the
Union, thereafter paying "dues" and health and welfare
contributions on himself as well as Clayton (the latter
being the only mechanic at the station). From 1970-72,
mechanic Clayton and Butler himself were the only
persons at the station "in" the Union.
Butler had become a member of GRAMC on April 29,
1969, and had since then prominently displayed its
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705 225
distinctive emblem on the station's front door; on October
18, 1970, in writing he expressly designated GRAMC as his
collective-bargaining representative.
On November 16, 1970, Butler was presented by Local
705 Representative Gilmore with a new preprinted 3-year
contract to sign. Butler refused until "assured everyone else
had signed." When Gilmore assured him he (Gilmore) had
had "no trouble," Butler asked him pointedly about Vito
Partipilo 34 and declined to accept Gilmore's reassurance
that there had been "no trouble" with Partipilo, stating
that he wished to check personally with the latter. When
Gilmore returned a few days later, Butler refused to sign
the current (i.e., 1970-73) contract because "no one else
had signed." Gilmore thereupon remarked that he had
`.only had trouble with one man . . . . And as soon as [I]
.... fimsh tying him up .... [I'11] come back to tie
[you] up . . . . without any gas [you] couldn't operate
.... wouldn't [be] no trucks cross the [picket] line." With
this, Gilmore left.
At no time did Gilmore claim to or actually represent a
majority of Butler's employees; nor was Gilmore ever
observed to talk to any employee.
As in all of the other instances presented, Respondent
saw fit to provide no contradicting or countervailing
testimony; indeed, Butler was not even cross-examined.
Crediting his testimony, I find that the complaint allega-
tions concerning Isaac Butler have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
11. Instance 11 : Carter Service Station (7756 W.
Madison Street, River Forest, Ill.)
Upon like complaint allegations, David Carter testified
that he has owned and operated, as year-to-year lessee, the
Clark Oil service station at 7756 West Madison Street,
River Forest (a suburb of Chicago), Illinois, since May
1969, when he took over from a prior lessee (Earl Miller,
whom he never met), joined GRAMC (posting and
continuously since then maintaining) its emblem promi-
nently in the station window),35 and retained two (one full-
time and one part-time) and hired two new (both full-time)
employees. The gross revenue of Carter's station in 1970
was about $290,000 (85 percent gasoline, 10 percent
cigarettes, balance other merchandise).
A little over a month after he took over, on June 19,
1969, Carter was visited at his station by Local 705
Business Agent Dicks, who told him he "had to put [your]
employees in the union." When Carter refused, Dicks
warned him, "You have to join it or I can't let your
employees work." Carter and Dicks thereupon approached
Carter's employee Chow and informed him he had to join
the Union. Chow refused. Dicks said to Chow, "You have
to join or I can't let you work." Chow then assented. Then
Carter signed a preprinted Local 705 contract which
already bore the signatures of that Union's officials, and
thereafter Chow signed a union membership card. Dicks
did not ask how many employees there were nor who they
were, nor did he state he represented any employee. At this
time (as well as throughout 1969) Carter had four (three
full-time and one regular part-time) employees, with none a
union member when he signed the Local 705 contract. (As
stated above, employee Chow signed a union card after
Carter had signed the contract.) In July 1969, Dicks
informed Carter, "I might need more employees in the
union . . . . you got a big station, you are suppose to have
four and I will be a nice guy and let you off with two."
Thereupon Carter "put" his employee Stark "into" the
Union. Carter paid union scale to only the two employees
"in" the Union. In 1970, Carter's employee complement
averaged six (two full- and four part- time) employees, with
never over two "in" the Union. Although Dicks visited
each 3 months to make collections of moneys (dues and
also health and welfare contributions) for the Union, he
never asked how many employees there were nor was he
seen to talk to any employee (except, as above described,
with employee Chow on his initial visit).
On November 18, 1970, Local 705 Business Representa-
tive Dicks presented a new 3-year contract to Carter for
signature. Carter declined to sign it, upon the expressly
stated ground that GRAMC was negotiating on that
subject for him. Dicks said, "I will leave it here and you
can sign it." Dicks returned on the following day for the
signed contract. When Carter informed him he had not
signed it because he had not yet heard from GRAMC (his
bargaining representative), Dicks threatened him with the
same treatment accorded to another neighborhood dealer
who had failed to sign up. When Carter continued to
decline to sign unless another GRAMC dealer did, Dicks
replied that the Union did not recognize GRAMC as a
bargaining agent and insisted that Carter sign up, under
threat that "If you don't sign the contract, I am going to
close you up .... picket [your] station ." Carter neverthe-
less continued to refuse to sign, and the following day
reported the foregoing not only to GRAMC but to a
National Labor Relations Board agent . Later that day,
Dicks returned to the Carter station and warned him, "It's
going to be your last chance." When Carter persisted in
refusing to sign up, stating as his reason that he had not yet
heard from GRAMC, Dicks handed him an IGD36
pamphlet and urged him to affiliate with that "organiza-
tion" instead of GRAMC. When Carter declined to do so,
Dicks threatened, "We are going to beat you . . . . we will
get you to sign a contract and when you do, I am going to
make it rough. I am going to make you put four men in
and not just two." Dicks returned to the station again on
November 23, 1970, calling out to Carter from a rolled-
down car window, "This is the last chance, you going to
sign this contract or not?" When Carter again declined,
Dicks sped off. At this time , Carter had six employees, with
only two (Chow and Glass, the latter a part-time employee
working only about 8 hours per week) "in" the Union. At
no time did Dicks ask how many employees Carter had,
nor claim he represented any, nor offer to discuss any
contract provision.
As in the case of all other station owners, Respondent
34 1 e , instances 58-59, infra
35 Carter executed an express bargaining authorization to GRAMC on
September 9, 1970
36 See fns . 29 and 30, supra
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
without explanation failed to produce any controverting
witness 37 Upon the record as a whole , including evalua-
tion of testimonial demeanor,38 I credit Carter's described
testimony and find that the complaint allegations concern-
ing David Carter have essentially been established by
substantial credible evidence.
12. Instance 12: Cataldo Service Station (851 S. Elm-
hurst Rd., Des Plaines, Ill.)
The complaint contains similar allegations concerning
the Clark Oil service station of Michael Cataldo at 851
South Elmhurst Road, Des Plaines, Illinois. Regarding this,
it is alleged that on or prior to January 1, 1971, Cataldo
had joined and/or designated GRAMC as his bargaining
representative; and that in January-February 1971, Local
705 demanded that Cataldo execute an agreement recog-
nizing Local 705 as the exclusive bargaining representative
of his employees although it did not represent a majority of
them, and coerced Cataldo into signing the agreement by
threatening to cut off his gasoline supplies.
As all other station owners, Cataldo testified without
contradiction. He swore that he owned and operated the
station in question from December 31, 1970, to March 13,
1972. At the time he took the station over from another
dealer (December 31, 1970), in partnership with Chuck
Scott, he took over only one employee (Van Diggelen), and
had a total of six (three full- and three part-time)
employees exclusive of himself and Scott. He joined
GRAMC, authorizing it to bargain for him, on January 6,
1971, since which date he has remained a member and
prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his station
window. In 1971, the station had a gross business of
$272,000, 90 percent of which was gasoline sales.
In late January or early February 1971, Cataldo was
visited at the station by Local 705 Business Agent Tony
Lapiana, who announced he was "going to unionize the
station" and asked how many employees he had. Cataldo
replied five full-time (he also had three part-time). When
Lapiana mentioned the wage rates, Cataldo said he "wasn't
interested." Thereafter Lapiana spoke to the station
employees (including Van Diggelen, a part-timer) about
the Union, indicating it was up to them. The employees
stated they were not interested; one or more threatened to
quit rather than join.
About 2 or 3 weeks later Lapiana returned, with the
same objective and the same result. Displaying his
checkbook for Lapiana to see, Cataldo said, "All you're
trying to do is legally extort money out of me here," and
asked Lapiana to leave. Lapiana demanded that all five
employees be put into the Union and threatened to picket
the station.
In early February 1971, Lapiana again returned, this
time displaying to Cataldo a preprinted Local 705 contract,
which he demanded that Cataldo sign. Cataldo refused.
31 In Carter's case , as well as a few others , during cross-examination
Carter refused upon constitutional grounds to answer questions as to
whether he had deducted Union dues from has employees' wages . Sustaining
the constitutional plea, for reasons explicated by me at length in the record
in connection with the testimony of General Counsel witness, Wmtercorn
(instance 80, infra ), I denied Respondent' s motion to strike out all of
Carter's testimony.
38 Consideration has also been given to the contents of Carter's pretrial
Lapiana threatened, "We're going to picket your place and
be out here with our attorney and the rest of the boys."
Cataldo ordered him off the premises . About a week later,
Local 705 Representative John Parise visited Cataldo,
explaining that he wanted to "help you out " by limiting the
number of employees to be placed into the Union to three
instead of five . When Parise instructed Cataldo to mail in
payments to the Union, Cataldo indicated that the Union
would have to find them if they wanted them . A week later
Parise returned, informing Cataldo that the Union was
about to picket a nearby station and "shut the gasoline off
and put that man out of business so I advise you to sign
[the contract ]" and he (Parise) would be willing to "settle
for two men" of Cataldo in the Union . This time Cataldo
signed the contract , without discussing or reading it, and
subsequently mailed the Union a check for $64 for
initiation fees and dues for Scott (Cataldo's 50-percent
partner in the station) and part-time employee Van
Diggelen . At the time Cataldo signed the contract there
were-exclusive of himself and Scott-six employees (three
full- and three regular part-time) at the station . At no time
had or did Lapiana or Parise display any signed union card
or claim to represent any employee . (However, one or the
other left something for employees to sign, which they
never did.)
Crediting the foregoing testimony ,39 which, as stated,
was uncontradicted by any other testimony , Respondent
again having failed-without any explanation-to produce
any witness to controvert it in any way, I find that the
complaint allegations concerning Michael Cataldo have
been established by substantial credible evidence.
13. Instance 13: Coghill Service Station (5836 S.
Harlem ;Ave., Summit, IIll.)
Upon similar complaint allegations, James Coghill (also
known as James Bryant Coghill) testified that he has been
the owner-operator of the Clark Oil service station at 5836
South Harlem Avenue, Summit (a Chicago suburb),
Illinois, under a year-to-year lease since July 1960. He had
formerly been the manager of that station for the Clark
Company itself, which had had seven employees (including
Coghill) there, of whom Coghill retained only two
(Chapman and Watson), who remained only about 3 years,
i.e., to about 1963) and hired four (two full - and two part-
time) additional employees . As required by this (and other)
Clark lease, the station is open and operated around the
clock. Coghill has been a member of GRAMC since May
1961; has displayed its distinctive emblem prominently
since at least around 1968; and on August 5, 1970,
executed to it an express bargaining authorization designa-
tion.40 The gross revenue of Coghill 's station in 1970 was
approximately $380,000, 75-80 percent from gasoline sales.
In September 1967 Coghill was visited by Local 705
Business Agent James Hall and a colleague, and signed a
statement and his credited and undisputed description of the circumstances
under which it was supplied in the course of waiting upon customers at the
station.
39 In so doing, consideration has been given to Cataldo 's pretrial
statement.
40 Coghill conceded on cross -examination that he never , expressing
orally, told Hall of this authorization.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
union contract. In March 1968-when Coghill had seven
or eight (four full-time and the balance regular part-time)
employees , Local 705 Business Agent Hall presented
Coghill with a new contract for signature. When Coghill
asked how it differed from the previous contract, Hall
informed him that it called for more pay as well as health
and welfare contributions. Hall added that if Coghill
signed, two employees "in" the Union-would continue to
be sufficient even though there should be more. So Coghill
signed. At this time, Coghill had seven or eight (four full-
time and the balance regular part-time ) employees, with
only two (Traylor and Keeble) "in" the Union. At no time
did Hall ask how many employees Coghill had, nor did
Hall say any employee was a member of the Union, nor
that he represented any employee, nor did he discuss any
proposed contract provision , nor (with a single exception,
later, in 1970), was he at any time seen talking to any
employee. However, after Coghill signed the "contract,"
Hall called at the station about monthly for collections. At
various tunes during these occasions, from 1968-70, Hall
told Coghill that he was aware that there were more
employees working at the station than were in the Union,
but that Coghill should advise them that if they were asked
by other union representatives whether they were in the
Union to have them say they had just been hired, and that
Coghill should notify Hall of any such episode. In March
1970 Hall pointed out to Coghill that he had only one
employee in the Union and that since Coghill would "have
to give him another one" suggested to him, "Why don't
you put yourself in and take advantage of the health and
welfare?" Coghill complied (G.C. Exh. 285).
In mid-November 1970, Hall presented a new 3-year
contract to Coghill for signature. When Coghill said he
wished to take it home to read over , Hall refused to allow
this. Accordingly, Coghill looked it over then and there;
when he saw the wages and health and welfare contri-
butions stipulated therein, he told Hall that"There is no
way I could live with the contract and why should I sign
something I could not live with, live up to?" Hall reminded
him that the Union had never insisted on contract
observance and that he could continue with only two
(including himself as one of the two) "in" the Union. In
answer to a question by Coghill, Hall warned that he
would be picketed and have his gasoline deliveries cut off if
he did not sign the "contract," showing him picket signs in
the trunk of his (Hall's) car and pointing out "Those are
made up for the guys that don't sign the contracts... " So
Coghill again signed up. At this time (as well as from April
1970 to date) Coghill had seven or eight (five full- and the
rest regular part-time) employees, excluding himself, with
only one (Traylor), plus himself, "in" the Union. That
Union Business Agent Hall was well aware of this is
established not only by Coghill's uncontradicted testimony
but is attested by Hall's written reports to that effect in his
own handwriting (G.C. Exhs. 281 and 282). At no time did
Hall even claim that the Union represented a majority of
Coghill's employees, nor did Hall ever offer to negotiate
any contract provision.
Between April and July 1971, Coghill withdrew from
union "membership." His remittance form covering union
health and welfare contributions for that period lists
227
employee Traylor only and is in Local 705 Business Agent
Hall's handwriting.
Coghill was visited at his station in April 1972 by Hall,
who told him, "I understand that you have signed a
statement against [me and Local 705 ... with the NLRB].
I have ways of finding out . . . . [Another] man had
withdrawn [his] statement and .... would [you ] consider
withdrawing [yours]?" Coghill declined to do so.
Upon the basis of James Coghill 's foregoing totally
uncontradicted testimony , which I credit, I find that the
complaint allegations concerning him have been estab-
lished by substantial credible evidence.
14. Instance 14:' Conway Service Station 1(6704
IRoosevelt^Rd., Oak Park, Ill.),
On similar allegations , General Counsel witness Gary
Brian Conway testified that he has been the owner-
operator of the Clark Oil service station at 6704 Roosevelt
Road, Oak Park, Illinois, on a round-the-clock basis since
October 17, 1968, prior to which he had been manager of
that station for Clark Oil Company. When Conway took
the station over, he retained or rehired only one employee
(Mustain or Lestain), at a lower wage. The gross revenues
of Conway's station in 1970 were $494,000 (65 percent
gasoline and 30 percent cigarette sales).
Within 2 weeks after taking the station over, on October
29, 1968, Conway was visited by Local 705 Business Agent
Edward Miller in the company of Miller 's colleague
described as around 6' 4" in height and weighing about 300
pounds, with a "very raspy voice-it sounded like he was
talking from-in his shoes." Miller announced to Conway,
"This [is] a union station" and demanded that Conway
sign a Local 705 "contract" which he presented to Conway.
When Conway asked his employee Mustain (Lestain),
"Joe, you want to join the union," Mustain said, "No."
Thereupon Miller's husky companion remarked in his
"raspy voice," "I didn't ask you if you wanted to join the
union, I said you have to join the union if you want to
work here." So Mustain "joined." Conway explained that
he had just opened the station and could not afford to
contribute to the Union. Miller reassured him that he
would "take it easy on [you] .... but later on [you will ]
have to put two men in the union ." Under these
circumstances , Conway signed the preprinted Local 705
contract presented to him. At that time, Conway had five
(three full- and 2 regular part-time) employees . At no time
did Miller or his companion claim the Union represented a
majority nor indeed any employee, nor that any employee
(other than Mustain, who "joined" as has been described,
when the "contract" was signed) belonged to the Union,
nor did they inquire as to how many employees Conway
had. During the described episode , Conway had informed
Miller that he (Conway) was a member of GRAMC.
When Miller returned to the station in the first week of
November (1968), Conway paid him the required union
initiation fee, membership dues , and health and welfare
contributions for Mustain. (At this time, Conway had five
regular employees .) He later deducted from Mustain's
salary the union initiation fee and dues. It is to be noted,
however, that although Conway continued to pay Local
705 health and welfare contributions on Mustain in
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
December 1968, Mustain was already gone from his
employ on that date, as shown by a union receipt in
Business Agent Miller's own handwriting (G.C. Exh. 43).
From 1968 through at least part of 1971, Miller visited
the Conway station about monthly for collections. During
this period, Conway had from seven to nine (three to four
full- and three to five regular part-time) employees, but
never over two "in" the Union.
When Miller visited the station in November 1971 he
presented a new, preprinted 3-year Local 705 contract to
Conway for signature, informing him, "I have your new
contract for you." When Conway indicated he wished to
look it over, Miller told him, "What [is] to look at? . . . it's
the only contract." To Conway's reminder that his
bargaining agent was GRAMC, Miller responded that this
was the contract and that Conway "had to sign it" or
Miller would "close the station up and turn it into a
parking lot." At this time, Conway had eight or nine (four
full- and four or five regular part-time) employees, with
only one (Curran) "in" the Union. About a week later,
Miller returned to have the contract signed; when told by
Conway that he couldn't afford it and wanted to await
action by GRAMC, Miller warned him, "You are not
going to beat us . . . you don't have enough money to beat
us .... things will go rougher if [you] don't sign right
away." When Miller returned in mid-January 1971, he told
Conway, "I want you to sign this contract because I can't
be responsible for what happens here after this . . . . after
today." When Conway said he was not ready and would
take his chances, Miller threatened to throw a picket line
up and stop gasoline deliveries to the station. Returning
again later in January or early February (1971), Miller
warned that "We just struck Martin [Service Stations] and
got all of them all signed and . . . . Clark is next." Conway
signed the Local 705 preprinted "contract" the next day.
At that time, Conway had seven or eight (half full- and half
part-time, all regular) employees, with only one (Curran)
"in" the Union. At no time had Miller asked how many
employees Conway had, nor had Miller ever indicated he
represented a majority or indeed any of them.
Crediting the foregoing uncontradicted testimony of
Gary B. Conway (also known as Gary Brian Conway), I
find that the complaint allegations concerning him have
been established by substantial credible evidence.
15. Instance 15: Cook Service Station (3943 E.
106th St., Chicago, Ill.)
Again on like allegations in the complaint, Clark Oil
products dealer George Cook testified that he has been its
dealer-lessee-owner at 3943 East 106th Street, Chicago,
since June 29, 1969, when he took over the station from its
former owner (John Perry, Jr.), retaining all employees
there. Promptly thereafter, on July 11, 1969, Cook was
visited by Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri, who
informed him that he would "have to sign the contract"
and pay dues on all men in the Union. Cook signed up and
paid $36 dues 18 for each of two employees (John Perry,
Sr. and Marty [Mario] O'Lashety,41 who Spizzeri (as well
as the former dealer) said belonged ; 42 at this time, Cook
had seven (four full- and three part-time employees, and
Spizzeri made no claim that he represented a majority.
Returning in October 1969, Spizzeri told Cook, "I need
an application for John Perry, Sr. [and] initiation fee."
Cook complied, paying $25 initiation fee and dues as well.
Each 3 months from 1969-71, Spizzeri called at the station
for the sole purpose of making collections from Cook of
union dues and health and welfare contributions. Although
on those visits Spizzeri also invariably asked Cook whether
he was going to "put" more men into the Union, Cook said
he would let him know when he wanted to "put" another
man in the Union, but at no time did Cook have over two
employees "in" the Union. At times, Union Business Agent
Jackson also visited the station.
Around Christmas 1970, Spizzeri brought with him a
new Local 705 contract and told Cook to "sign it." When
Cook said he "wasn't going to pay any one $3 .45 an hour
to run a driveway," Spizzeri threatened to "put picket up"
if Cook did not sign up, and that the Union was going to
picket the neighboring CITGO station. Cook replied that
he would sign up when he saw the pickets at the CITGO
station. In January and February 1971, Spizzeri returned
on several occasions , each time demanding that Cook sign
the new contract but each time meeting with a refusal by
Cook to do so. When, in February, Spizzeri warned Cook
that "Louis Pieck" (i.e., Spizzeri's boss, Louis Peick,
secretary-treasurer of Local 705) was "getting hot," Cook
signed up. At no time was any provision of the "contract"
negotiated and at no time has Cook paid the wage scale called
for by the "contract." At this time, Cook had 7 to 10 (two
full- and the rest mostly regular part-time) employees, with
then (and since March 1970 and to date) only one "in" the
Union. Neither Spizzeri nor Jackson asked him how many
employees he had, nor how many union members nor
indicated a majority were such.
Cook had become a member of GRAMC in December
1969, since which time its distinctive emblem has promi-
nently been displayed on his station window or main door;
and on August 5, 1970, he additionally executed to it an
express bargaining authorization designation . In 1970, the
Cook station had gross revenues of $360,000 (around 75
percent for gasoline and 15 percent for cigarette sales).
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted and credited testi-
mony of George Cook, I find that the complaint allega-
tions relating to him have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
16. Instance 16: Crespo Service Station (1721 S.
Paulina St., Chicago, Ill.)
Substantially similar allegations are made concerning the
Clark Oil service station at 1721 South Paulina Street,
Chicago, which was opened and has been owned and
operated by Luis Crespo since November 1969.
In early 1970, Crespo was visited by Local 705 Business
Agent George White, who asked him how many employees
41 O'Lashety remained as an employee for less than 2 months.
42 Cook deducted dues out of these employees' wages
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 229
he had. Crespo told him he had seven. White said he
"needed at least four men in the union because the boss
was on [my] ass." Crespo pointed out that he had just
opened the station. White said, "I will give you a chance,"
and returned about 3 weeks later, this time informing
Crespo that "I need more men in the union to keep the
boss happy . . . I need one man." Crespo thereupon
referred his employee Sanchez to White, and Crespo signed
Local 705's preprinted 3-year contract (1967-70). At this
time , Crespo had seven (four full- and three regular part-
time) employees, excluding himself. White did not even
claim to represent any employee. From then on, Crespo
began paying to Local 705 dues on Sanchez, who quit his
employ in March (1970), about a week after he joined
Local 705 under the described circumstances. Crespo
informed White-who had come in to collect money-that
Sanchez was leaving and that he (Crespo) intended to place
his (Crespo's) father "in" in place of Sanchez. (Crespo's
father was the recipient of a weekly stipend regardless of
whether or when he worked.) White said, "It don't make
no difference as long as I have somebody else in there."
In September 1970 White presented a form to Crespo for
signature deauthorizing GRAMC-which Crespo had on
August 24 designated as his bargaining representative-to
act on his behalf. Crespo refused. White warned, "[You]
will be sorry if [you] didn't sign it . . . later on-you
know-[you are] going to be sorry." Pointing to the
IGDA43 as well as GRAMC emblem on the station
window, White said the IGDA "guys are all right ... .
good guys," but that the GRAMC "are no good, a bunch
of a-holes."
On November 18, 1970 White presented to Crespo a
"new contract to sign." When Crespo refused, White
threatened, "You got to" and that "All you guys are a
bunch of fools, all you guys that don't sign the contract.
We are going to stop the gas delivery. We are going to close
your station. We are going to strike it." Demanding that
Crespo sign the "new contract," White made no attempt to
explain or in any way to discuss it, nor did he claim to
represent Crespo's employees. At this time, although
Crespo had seven (four full- and three regular part-time)
employees, only one- Crespo's father, as described above-
-was "m" the Union. This station's gross receipts in 1970
were $351,000, of which 70 percent consisted of gasoline
sales.
As in the case of all other testifying dealers, no
countervailing testimony whatsoever was adduced by
Respondent. Thus, Crespo's testimony stands undisputed.
Crediting his testimony, I find that the complaint allega-
tions concerning Luis Crespo have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
17. Instance 17: Doskal Service Station (9618 N.
Milwaukee Ave., Niles, Ill.)
On similar complaint allegations, Jordan Doskal's
(Daskal's) uncontradicted testimony establishes that he has
operated the Clark Oil service station at 9618 North
Milwaukee Avenue, Niles (a Chicago suburb), Illinois,
since October 1970, at which time he hired an entirely new
crew and around which time he joined GRAMC, display-
ing its emblem prominently in plain view on the station's
front door. Around the last week of November (1970),
Local 705 Business Agent Tony Lapiana visited Doskal's
station and advised him, "Join the Union . . . Most of the
Clark dealers [are] members." When Doskal asked
Lapiana, "What benefits there would be to me," Lapiana
replied, "None, that the Union was there to represent
[your] employees." When Doskal inquired what if he
didn't, Lapiana pointed out that his station "might be
picketed" and that he would not receive deliveries of
gasoline . Doskal said he couldn't afford the Union, and, in
response to Lapiana's question, Doskal told him he had
only two full-time employees-including himself as one
(although he may not have mentioned this to Lapiana).
Lapiana said, "[I will] only charge [you] for one employee
in order to cut the cost down." Thereupon Doskal signed
the preprinted contract presented to him. Lapiana did not
claim to represent any employee, and nobody working at
the Doskal station belonged to or had signed any union
card. At this time , Doskal had-excluding himself-five
(one full- and four regular part-time) employees. Lapiana
left no union card for any employee to sign, and to
Doskal's knowledge his full-time employee (John Brotan)
never became a member of the Union.
February 1971 was the first and only time that any of
Doskal's employees became a member of the Union. At
this time his employee Andrew Pope signed a card.
Respondent has stipulated that Pope's card is the only
record in its possession of any employee of Doskal as a
union member. Doskal's employee complement remained
around five (one full- and four regular part- time), exclud-
ing Doskal himself.
Although Doskal informed Lapiana on the latter's
monthly visits that the station was running in the red and
he could not afford to pay, Lapiana returned to collect
health and welfare contributions, which Doskal paid on
Pope (only). At no time did Doskal-whose station grossed
$187,000 (around 75 percent gasoline sales) in 1971-pay
union scale or observe other provisions of the "collective
agreement" he had signed with Local 705 under the
circumstances described.
Crediting Jordan Doskal's uncontroverted testimony, I
find that the complaint allegations pertaining to him have
been established by substantial credible evidence.
18. Instance 18: Dietzler Service Station (161 S.
Harlem, Forest Park, Ill.)
In the case of the two Dietzler service stations, the
complaint (par. XVII ) allegations are somewhat different.
In this case it is alleged in substance that although
Respondent was the collective -bargaining representative of
the employees in each of those stations, Respondent
refused to recognize or deal with GRAMC as the known
bargaining agent for one of those stations ("Whitehall");
Respondent failed and refused to bargain with the
Dietzlers individually regarding their other station ("Per-
fection") or regarding "Whitehall"; Respondent had no
intention of engaging in good -faith bargaining ; Respon-
43 Crespo had made only a single payment to IGDA
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent, through its agent John Parise, threatened to picket
and stop deliveries of gasoline and other merchandise to
the Dietzler service stations unless they signed Respon-
dent's proffered (preprinted) agreement; and the Dietzler
service stations were thereby coerced into signing those
agreements without opportunity to bargain and in order to
avoid shutdown of their operations through Respondent's
threat to prevent gasoline and other merchandise deliver-
ies.
General Counsel witness Michael Dietzler testified that
he and his father (Gordon Dietzler) as principals own and
operate two leased service stations; namely,(1) a Mobil
station at 161 South Harlem, Forest Park (a Chicago
suburb), Illinois , under the name of Whitehall Super
Service , Inc., doing business as Whitehall Car Wash, Inc.
("Whitehall" herein), an automatic car wash, gasoline
sales , and service center, and (2) a Standard station at 7405
West Roosevelt Road, Forest Park, under the name of
Perfection Automobile Laundry, Inc. ("Perfection" her-
ein), an automatic car wash and gasoline station. The only
difference between the two stations, which are about 3
miles apart , is that at Whitehall (only) repairs are also
done. Both companies were incorporated around 1969,
with father and son each a 50-percent owner, following
their equal partnership at Whitehall from 1957 to 1969.
From 1957 to 1966 they had collective agreements with
Local 705; car washers were first included in 1967. For
purposes of the instant proceeding it is immaterial whether,
and it will be assumed that, as provided in the collective
agreement and as alleged in the complaint, the car washers
are properly included as members of the appropriate
bargaining units at Whitehall and at Perfection.
Michael Dietzler is president of Perfection and vice-
president of Whitehall; Gordon Dietzler is president of
Whitehall and vice-president of Perfection. Getler is vice
president and secretary of Whitehall. Gross revenues for
1970-71 of Whitehall were $480,000 (about 50 percent
gasoline sales) and of Perfection were $320,000 (70 percent
gasoline sales). Each is an Illinois corporation. For
practical purposes, the Whitehall location has at all times
been and is the operational headquarters for the entire
enterprise, it being clear that the two stations have at all
times been commonly owned and centrally controlled and
operated, with a common labor relations policy (including
employee transferability from station to station as neces-
sary or appropriate); and I find that both stations have at
all material times constituted a single employer for
jurisdictional and other purposes. The manager at White-
hall is Getler (Guetler); at Perfection, Evans (formerly a
serviceman at Whitehall). Neither has power to hire or fire.
In 1966, three cars entered Whitehall and four men out
of one car announced, "[We are] from Local 705 and [are]
going to unionize the car washers," stopped the operations,
and notified the employees they would have to join the
Union if they wanted to work. Under these circumstances
all signed up, and Michael Dietzler paid initiation fees and
dues on them. Since the existing contract with Local 705
did not cover car washers, subsequently a rider was
executed including them. The 1967-70 collective agree-
ments, including therein car washers, were merely present-
ed by Local 705 Business Representative Parisi (Parise)
and signed without any negotiations. The provisions of the
1967 and 1970 collective agreements between the Dietzler
stations and Local 705 have been observed by the
employer, except that at Whitehall-with the knowledge of
Local 705-Blue Cross is maintained instead of health-
welfare payments to Local 705. The majority of the
employees at each station (in 1970 the total regular
complement at Whitehall was 12-15, and at Perfection
7-10) have been union members within 30 days of being
hired. From 1969 to date, the employer has paid all union
dues on all employees at both locations, to Parisi as
collector.
Although Perfection has not been a member of
GRAMC, Whitehall has belonged since the 1950's and has
since at least 1969 prominently displayed its distinctive
emblem and on September 18, 1970, executed to it a formal
bargaining representation designation. In October 1970,
Parisi presented a form for Michael Dietzler's signature at
Whitehall, deauthorizing GRAMC as bargaining repre-
sentative. Dietzler refused to sign it. When, also that month
(October 1970), Parisi visited Whitehall for collections,
Michael Dietzler told him that he would not pay or sign a
new contract without GRAMC. Parisi thereupon informed
Dietzler that Local 705 "[does not] recognize the GRAMC
as a bargaining agent to do the bargaining for [you]."
When Parisi suggested or mentioned an "[Automatic] Car
Wash Association," Dietzler said he did not belong to it
and inquired if he could bargain individually. Parisi said,
"No, we don't do things that way." Dietzler then stated he
was going to meet with GRAMC and would let Parisi
know the outcome. Parisi thereupon remarked that it
would make no difference, that Local 705 did not
recognize GRAMC, and that Dietzler's station would be
picketed and his gasoline deliveries cut off.44 Thereafter,
Dietzler made it clear to Parisi that he would sign the
1970-73 contracts with Local 705 only because Parisi "had
me over a barrel" and he (Dietzler) had been advised (by
GRAMC attorney Porcelli) that gasoline deliveries could
not be guaranteed otherwise. Dietzler therefore signed both
1970-73 contracts, one for each station, under these
circumstances. The preprinted Local 705 contracts bear
rubber-stamped facsimile signatures of the union officials.
As in the case of every other dealer who testified in this
proceeding, Dietzler's testimony is wholly uncontradicted
by any countervailing testimony, Respondent without
explanation not producing any witness. Crediting Michael
Dietzler's described testimony, I find that the allegations
concerning the Dietzler service stations, essentially as set
forth in the complaint, have been established by substan-
tial credible evidence.
19. Instance 19: Dominici Service Station (5300 S.
LaGrange Road, La Grange, Ill.)
The complaint allegations concerning the Dominici
service station at 5300 South LaGrange Road, LaGrange
44 In connection with the foregoing , it is noted that although GRAMC with each of those enterprises and had also been serving as collector for each.
represented only the Whitehall and not the Perfection operation , Parisi had Pansi's1 refusal^ to negotiate with Dietzler individually at all-with regard to
presented and procured the employer 's signature on the Local 705 contracts either Perfection or Whitehall-wiU be recalled.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 231
(a Chicago suburb), Illinois, are again substantially the
same as those previously dealt with herein, prior to those
pertaining to Dietzler.
In support of those allegations, General Counsel witness
Anthony Dominici testified that he has owned and
operated the Clark Oil Service Station at the foregoing
address for over 5 years, on a year-to-year lease ; and that
he has been a member of GRAMC since 1967, at all times
displaying its distinctive emblem, and on October 14, 1970,
signing an express bargaining authorization designation to
it. The station's gross revenues in 1970 were approximately
$570,000 (65-70 percent gasoline sales). When Dominici
took the station over from the previous owner (John
Lafave), he retained the existing employees, two of whom
were union members under a union contract. In early 1967
he was visited by union representative Adams, who told
him, "As long as you give me three men, everything will be
okay and there will be no trouble." Adams did not claim to
represent a majority of employees nor did he inquire as to
how many employees there were. Although Dominici told
Adams he had only two employees in addition to himself,
in fact Dominici then had five to seven (three full- and the
rest regular part-time) employees.
In March 1968, Dominici was visited by union represent-
ative Ray ("Red") Kolb, who presented a preprinted
contract and told Dominici that there were "not much
changes; dust give us three men and everything will remain
the same." Kolb neither showed any authorization to
negotiate on behalf of any of the employees nor did he
claim to represent a majority. At this time (as well as
generally from 1968-70), Dominici had eight or nine (four
or five full- and the rest regular part-time) employees in
addition to himself, with only two employees (Kenny and
Jerry Hansen) -as well as Dominici himself-in the
Union. Although Kolb called regularly thereafter, around
every 2 months, to collect dues and health-welfare
payments, he was never observed talking to any employee.
During his mid-October 1970 visit to the station, Local
705 Representative Kolb told Dominici, concerning the
upcoming new (1970-73) contract, "Don't worry about it
You and I always got along . . . . you are not like
those f-ing buddies of yours . . . they are getting tough
with the wrong person . . . we can get tough, too . . . . if
they keep giving us trouble, we will hit them and close
them up." At around the same time, Dominici was warned
also by Local 705 Business Representative Peter Alex, "All
the trouble makers we will get," that GRAMC (pointing to
its emblem in Dominici's window) was a "bunch of f-ing
trouble makers" and that a better outfit was IGDA; 45 that
"trouble don't worry me" and that "once we organize we
are going to hit all the trouble makers and picket them." A
few days later, Dominici was visited by IGDA representa-
tive Gentile, who-displaying a photograph of himself with
Local 705 representative Alex-told him that he (Gentile)
had been informed by Alex that Domimci was ready to
sign up; that GRAMC consisted of "just a bunch of
trouble makers"; that Dominici should join IGDA; and
that Dominici should not fight Local 705 but go after "the
company" (i.e., Clark Oil Company).
In November (1970), when Kolb presented the new
contract to Dominici for signature and Dominici told him
he wanted to "wait awhile," Kolb insisted he sign it then
and there, remarking to Dominici , "You are going to turn
out just like your f-ing buddies" and warning him, "If
you don't sign the contract now, we will throw up a picket
and close you up ." When Dominici persisted in indicating
he wished to wait awhile, Kolb stated that in that case
there would be "no more favoritism . . . you'd have to put
all your men in the union . . . I don't give a f-k how long
they work, I want them all in the union . . . . what do you
want to cause trouble now for. You and I have always been
getting along .... If [you] sign it now, everything will
remain the same ." So Dominici signed up . At no time had
Kolb indicated how many employees were in the Union,
nor that he represented any; nor was any contract
provision in any way negotiated ; nor did Dominici observe
the pay scale or other contract requirements (nor did Kolb ever
inquire). At the time (November 1970) he signed this
preprinted Local 705 contract (1970-73), Dominici had
seven to nine (three to four full- and the balance regular
part-time) employees, excluding himself ; and although
only one employee (Showalter), as well as Dominici
himself , was "in" the Union, Dominici was making
payment of "health and welfare" contributions to Local
705 on two employees (not merely on Showalter, but also
purportedly on Freely, who had not been working at the
station since August) as well as on himself.
After Dominici signed the 1970-73 contract, Local 705
Business Representative Kolb continued calling at the
station to make collections . During such a visit in late May
or in June 1971, Dominici told Kolb that he was "tired of
living in fear [and] . . . . tired of your threats . . . about
picketing and closing me up" and that he was "going to
drop out of the union [and] . . . I am not going to pay."
Kolb replied that in that case there would be "no more
favors and we will picket your station and close you up."
On this occasion , nevertheless, Dominici refused to pay
and ordered Kolb out of the station . In July or early
August (1971) Kolb returned, stated to Dominici that
GRAMC had "lost," and informed Dominici that if he
would "pay up the union dues that all will be forgotten and
everything will remain the same, that [I ] won't enforce the
contract and we will start getting along again." But
Dominici refused to pay. Kolb then said that he "will have
to picket." Dominici has not seen Kolb since.46
Again, as in all other cases , Respondent Local 705
without explanation presented no witness to contradict the
testimony of Dominici in any way. Crediting that testimo-
ny, I find that the complaint allegations concerning
Anthony Dominici have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
20. Instance 20: Domin & Ellison Service Station
(4756 W . Armitage Rd., Chicago, Ill.)
On like allegations , the uncontradicted testimony of
General Counsel witness Andrew Ellison establishes that
with his 50-50 partner, Edward Domin, he has owned and
46 See fns . 29 and 30, supra.
46 The original charge in the instant proceeding was filed in November,
1970, and the complaint issued in December 1971.
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operated, under a year-to-year self-renewing lease, the
ARCO service station at 4756 West Armitage Road,
Chicago, since July 1, 1967. When Ellison and Domin
opened this, a new station, they took with them their five
(three full- and two part-time) employees, none known to
be a Local 705 member, from a previous location.
Mechanical work at the station is done by Ellison and
Domin only. The gross volume of the new station's
business in 1970 was $211,000 (80 percent in gasoline
sales).
On opening the station, in July 1967, Ellison was visited
by Local 705 Business Agent "Danny" Ligurotus (in the
company of another individual), who stated he had come
to collect union dues for Domin (Ellison's partner). Ellison
told him he would have to collect from Domin. In early
1968 Ligurotus and his associate returned, this time
proffering a Local 705 "contract" for Ellison to "sign."
Ligurotus and his companion did not claim to represent
any employee. Ellison declined to sign. In March (1968),
Ligurotus and his associate again returned. This time, after
another turndown by Ellison but a stormy private session
between the Local 705 agents and Domin, with Ligurotus
threatening that "If one [of you doesn't] sign the contract,
[we will] picket the station and probably stop the gas
deliveries," the Local 705 agents were ordered to "get the
hell out" of the station. When they once again returned
around the end of March (1968), once more to be met with
a turndown by Ellison, Domin signed the contract. At this
time, the station had five (three full- and two regular part-
time) employees, exclusive of Ellison and Domin, with no
employee but only half-owner Domin a member of the
Union. Ligurotus and his associate did not ask how many
employees there were nor even claim to represent any
employee.
From 1968 to 1971, Ligurotus visited the station
regularly, only for the purpose of making collections. At no
time was he observed talking to any employee. During this
period the station's complement of employees continued to
be five, with none in the Union; only half-owner, Domin,
was "in" the Union, with dues and health and welfare
contributions paid on him alone.
The Ellison-Domin service station had been a member of
GRAMC since December 17, 1968, with its distinctive
emblem prominently displayed at all times since then; and
on September 16, 1970, additionally a formal bargaining
authorization designation was executed to GRAMC.
Around November 1970, Ligurotus presented to Ellison a
new (1970-73) Local 705 contract for signature. Ellison
refused to sign, indicating that GRAMC would do the
bargaining for the station. This scene was replay-_ and
repeated in December (1970) and January (1971). On the
latter occasion, when Ligurotus indicated that there should
be "put another member in the Union," Ellison said his
partner (Domin) was enough, but Ellison signed the
contract on Ligurotus' insistence that Domin's signature
would not be valid since he (Domin) was a union member.
After Ellison signed up, Ligurotus dropped his demand to
"put another member in the Union." At this time, there
continued to be five employees at the station, as previous-
Iv, with none in the Union . Again, as at all times, Ligurotus
did not ask how many employees there were , nor claim to
represent any employee, nor offer to negotiate any contract
provision.
At no time has this station observed or applied any term of
its "contracts" with Local 705. Ellison is unaware of
whether his employees ' wages meet the Union scale; he has
simply ignored and not even bothered to read the
"contract." At no time has any employee been told about
any "contract." Nor has Ligurotus at any time inquired as
to whether the "contract" was being observed.
Upon the foregoing credited and uncontradicted testi-
mony of Andrew Ellison, I find that the complaint
allegations concerning his service station have been
established by substantial credible evidence.
21. Instance 21: Duck Service Station (3552 W.
North Avenue, Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness, Billy
Duck , testified that he owned and operated the Martin Oil
service station at 3552 West North Avenue, Chicago, from
March 25, 1970, to November 8, 1971. Prior to taking the
station over, Duck had managed it for 3 years and was a
member of the Union. The previous owner had had a
contract with the Union47 Around March 1, 1970-while
Duck was still manager of the station under its previous
owner-Local 705 Business Agent "Danny" Ligurotus
visited the station to "see how many employees were in the
Union." This was Duck's first experience with Ligurotus.
Duck displayed the station payroll sheet, which Ligurotus
compared with a black notebook he had in his possession.
At this time, there were approximately 12 (8 full- and 4
part-time) employees, including Duck , at the station.
Around April 1, 1970, right after Duck took over
ownership and operation of the station, keeping all former
employees, he was visited by Ligurotus, who asked him if
he intended to pay Union wages . Duck said he would (and
he has). Ligurotus said that if Duck signed a contract with
Local 705 he would "let me off with five men . . . . let me
out with just five men in the Union ." At this time,
excluding himself Duck had 12 (7 full- and 4 regular part-
time) employees , including two assistant managers. Duck
did not sign any agreement with Local 705.
At or about the same time (April 1970) Duck became a
member of GRAMC, and has since then continued to
belong and prominently to display its distinctive emblem,
and has additionally expressly authorized it to bargain on
his behalf . When Ligurotus revisited Duck around the end
of June ( 1970), Duck informed him that he had become a
member of GRAMC and asked for a withdrawal of his
personal union membership in view of his ownership of the
station, but Ligurotus did not accede to this, stating that
"managers has always been in the Union."
Ligurotus returned to see Duck around mid-July (1970)
and told him he would "let [you] off with no more than
five men in the union" if Duck signed a preprinted Local
705 contract which Ligurotus proffered . Duck thereupon
47 See fa. 23, supra
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 233
signed it . At this time , Duck had in his employ, aside from
himself, 12 (8 full- and 4 regular part-time) employees48;
and a total of five persons (including owner Duck himself
and two supervising assistant managers , Richard Duck and
Jim Monroe), but of these only three rank -and-file
employees , were in the Union.
In November 1970, Ligurotus presented a new 3-year
(i.e., 1970-73) Local 705 contract for Duck to sign, again
stating that he "would let [you] off with five men and no
more than five men if [you] would sign the contract," but
at the same time threatening that "if [you ] didn't sign the
contract [I] would close [you] down." Under these
circumstances , Duck again signed the contract . Although,
at this time, Duck continued to have 12 (8 full- and 4 part-
time) employees , excluding himself and two supervising
assistant managers (as aforedescribed) there was only one
rank-and-file employee (Harvey) in the Union.
On Ligurotus' visit to the station in January 1971, he told
Duck that he had to have all of the station employees in
the Union . Duck said he could not afford it. Ligurotus
answered that he would "get [you] eight or nine cents a
gallon more , like Standard Oil is getting." Duck replied
that if Ligurotus did that, Duck would "put every man in
the Union ." Ligurotus displayed a list of seven employees
not in the Union and said he would be back the following
day. Ligurotus returned on the following day, with an
individual he described as a union official "from Washing-
ton to straighten up this ." Apparently making no headway
in the ensuing conversation , although he insisted he could
not afford to "put" all of his employees into the
Union-and despite the further fact that his employees
present there themselves told Ligurotus that they did not
desire to become members of Local 705-Duck asked
Ligurotus and his associate "from Washington" to leave.
When they refused to do so , Duck called the police. After
Duck explained the situation to the police and they spoke
to Ligurotus and his associate , the latter left, police
apparently taking no further action.
Gross revenues of the Duck service station in 1970 were
$754,000 (75 percent for gasoline sales).
Again, the testimony of Billy Duck is wholly uncontrad-
icted . Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations
concerning him have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
22: Instance 22 : Eringis Service Station (4824 S.
California Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations , the uncontradicted testimony
of General Counsel witness Kazys Eringis establishes that
he has owned and operated the Texaco service station at
4824 South California Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, since
1958, from which year until 1967 he had a succession of
"agreements" with Local 705 under which he made
payments of various amounts which were collected from
him regularly by Local 705 although he never paid the wage
scales required by or otherwise observed provisions of those
"contracts " (which he never so much as read), and the Union
never so much as inquired.
After Eringis signed his first "contract" with Local 705
(1958), the only employee in the Union from then until
1967 was Bitner (a mechanic), although Eringis had four
other (2 full- and 2 regular part-time) employees during
that period . And, when Bitner left Eringis' employ in 1967,
Eringis placed himself (owner of the station) "in" the
Union in place of Bitner ; and none of his four employees
was then or thereafter a member of the Union. Union
Business Agent Hall called at the station regularly for
collections during 1967-68 , in the latter year presenting
another "contract" which Eringis signed , while continuing
to be the only person at the station "in" the Union and
while continuing to pay no attention to the "contract"
provisions . During this period , Eringis continued to have
four employees , none of whom the Union even claimed to
represent. In response to a question by Hall , Eringis told
him that he had four employees . When Hall asked, "How
come they are not in the union ," Eringis replied , "Go talk
to the men, if you can sign them up , go ahead." After
speaking to the employees, Hall left . Thereafter, Hall
returned regularly , but only to collect from Eringis.
In the latter part of 1968 , George White took over from
Hall as Local 705 business agent and collector . Eringis
continued to pay off only on himself . In response to
White's questions on various occasions from 1968-70,
Eringis told him he had four employees , two full- and two
part-time ; and when White asked why no employee was in
the Union, Eringis invited White to speak to the employees
and perhaps they would join since it was up to them.
Although White spoke to the employees , none joined.
Eringis himself asked his employees , on various occasions
in 1968-70, whether they desired to join Local 705, and
they said no . At no time was any employee of Eringis a
member of the Union and at no time did White even claim
to represent any employee . Although Eringis had a series
of "contracts"-none of which was adhered to or obser-
ved-with Local 705, since 1967 it has been only Eringis
himself who has been a member of the Union. When
Eringis signed a new 3-year "contract " (1970-73) with
Local 705, which White presented to him in December
1970, the situation was and has since remained the very
same. On that occasion, too, with four employees at the
station to White's knowledge , none was a union member
and White did not claim to represent any; again invited by
Eringis to speak to the employees , White did so but failed
to enlist any into membership.
Eringis , who has been a member of GRAMC since
October 30 , 1958, has displayed its emblem in his station
window since 1969. On September 17, 1970 , he executed a
bargaining authorization designation to GRAMC. He
stopped making payments to the Union in early 1972.
During the representative year of 1970, his gross station
revenues were $ 170,000 (80 percent from gasoline sales).
Upon the foregoing credited and uncontradicted testi-
mony of Kazys Eringis , I find that the complaint
allegations concerning him have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
48 All had been retained from the employ of Martin Oil Company.
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
23. Instance 23: Fehsel Service Station (12000 S.
Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
The complaint contains like allegations concerning
Walter Fehsel , who it is stipulated was unable to testify in
person herein because of a disabling stroke which he
suffered in March 1972 , his testimony being stipulated 49 as
follows.
Fehsel has been the owner-operator of the Union 76
service station at 12000 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago,
since around 1945, with his son Thomas as a partner since
1%9.
Although Fehsel has signed collective agreements with
Local 705 since 1950, from at least 1%8 to date (1970-73
agreement) he himself (i.e., Fehsel, the station owner) has
been the only individual at the station in Local 705,
notwithstanding the fact that for that entire period (as well
as prior thereto) he has had-exclusive of himself and his
son-five (three full - and two regular part-time) employees
there . Local 705 Business Agent George White, the only
representative of that Union to the Fehsel station since at
least August 1967, has never been observed speaking to
any of the station's employees, nor did he at any time up to
1971 ask Fehsel how many employees he had nor even
claim to represent a majority or indeed any of those
employees nor that any of them wished to belong to or be
represented by Local 705.
When Fehsel signed the 1970-73 preprinted Local 705
contract, at White's behest, on or about November 9, 1970,
the foregoing situation was and has since remained
unchanged. At no time has Fehsel to his knowledge
"observed, followed or enforced any of the provisions of
the 1967-70, or 1970-73 agreements" with Local 705.
Fehsel has since around 1946 continued to be a member
of GRAMC, has since at least 1969 prominently displayed
its distinctive emblem in the station's front window, and on
or about August 21, 1970, executed to GRAMC an express
bargaining authorization designation . Fehsel's gross reve-
nues in 1970 were about $124,000 (around 70 percent from
gasoline sales).
Upon the basis of the foregoing stipulated testimony,
which stands uncontradicted and is credited, I find the
complaint allegations touching Walter Fehsel to be
established by substantial credible evidence.
24. Instance 24: Flores Service Station (4257 W.
26th St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon substantially similar complaint allegations, Alfre-
do Flores testified without contradiction that since
September 8, 1969, under a year-to-year lease with an
automatic renewal provision, he has owned and operated
the Standard Oil service station at 4257 West 26th Street,
Chicago. Flores also operated a service station at 4245
South Western Avenue from June 1, 1%7, to February,
1970.
In June 1968 Flores received a visit at his Western
Avenue station from Local 705 Business Agent Jerry
Spizzeri and a companion, who informed Flores that he
was "suppose[d] to join" that Union. Flores said he had
withdrawn from membership in the Teamsters Union in
Gary, Indiana, but Spizzeri insisted Flores had to join.
Flores asked Spizzeri to explain why, since Flores was an
employer and the Union was for employees . Spizzeri
nevertheless said that regardless of this Flores would "have
to belong" that the only thing Flores would have to do
would be to sign a contract, pay dues for himself, and
"forget about the employees," and that in this way
"nobody [will] bother [you]." Spizzeri said the dues were
$18 every 3 months. When Spizzeri asked how many
employees Flores had, Flores said he had two, one a
gasoline attendant and the other a mechanic. Spizzeri and
his companion returned to the Western Avenue station
soon thereafter (July 1%8) and told Flores he would have
to sign a contract and pay dues . Flores refused, stating that
he was an employer and not an employee. Spizzeri warned
him, "If you don't want no trouble here because we
can-you know-make trouble for you , you better sign the
contract and pay the dues." So Flores signed up. When
Spizzeri then asked for health and welfare payments in
addition, Flores told him he already carried sufficient
insurance. Spizzeri thereupon told Flores he need not
worry about the employees at the station. At no time did
Spizzeri claim to represent any employee, nor inquire as to
what their wages were , nor discuss any contract provision;
nor did Flores at any time observe any provision of the
"contract" he was required to sign . Thereafter Spizzeri
visited the station each month, for the sole purpose of
making collections ; at no time was he seen talking to any
employee.
In January 1970, Spizzeri visited Flores at his new-i.e.,
West 26th Street-service station, where he told Flores, "I
see you got a new station . . . . You have to sign another
contract here in this station ." Again Flores asked why, and
Spizzeri told him he had to sign a contract for the new
station and pay dues on himself (Flores) at the new station
as well as at the old station . Flores refused . The next month
(February 1970) Spizzeri again called on Flores at the new
(West 26th Street) station, demanding that he sign a
contract and pay dues so that Spizzeri would not have to
"make . . . . trouble . . . picket and stop the gas delivery."
Flores again refused. Spizzeri nevertheless returned to the
West 26th Street station in mid-March, renewing his
demands. While Flores was busy with a customer, Spizzeri
spoke to Flores' wife, Rosemary Flores, who was there at
the time , and succeeded in obtaining her signature to the
Local 705 "contract." Although the word "partner"
appears near her signature , it is not in her handwriting, nor
was or is she a partner. At this time, Flores had three
employees (excluding himself) at the West 26th Street
station-two full-time and one sporadic part-time. At no
time did Spizzeri ask how many employees worked there,
nor did he claim to represent any employee , nor discuss
any contract provision; nor did Flores observe any
contract provision . Flores ran both stations for a 3-month
period, during which he paid "dues" to Local 705 on
himself only at the Western Avenue (old) station ; when he
terminated his operation of that station (Western Avenue),
he continued paying "dues" to Local 705, but only to
November 1970. In that month (November 1970) Spizzeri
0 G.C. Exh 503.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
presented Flores at the West 26th Street station with a new
preprinted Local 705 3-year (1970-73) contract for signa-
ture by Flores, who refused to sign and referred Spizzeri to
GRAMC as his bargaining agent. (Flores had signed a
bargaining authorization to GRAMC on September 22,
1970, prominently displaying its distinctive emblem in his
station window since then.) Spizzeri' s response was, "This
is something that is different, it have nothing to do with the
union . . . . [You ] have to pay the dues and sign the
contract." Spizzeri also warned of picketing and stopping
gasoline deliveries.
Spizzeri returned to the West 26th Street station in
January 1971, to secure Flores' signature on the Local 705
contract, again warning him, "You better do it , amigo,
because we going to start picketing your station." Flores
referred Spizzeri to GRAMC. In mid-March-when Flores
employed three (two full- and one part-time) employees at
West 26th Street-Spizzeri once more returned there and
again warned Flores that unless he signed up picketing
would start. Flores again refused, and notified GRAMC
and his gasoline supplier. Flores' station was never
picketed.50 At no time did Spizzeri display any evidence of
representing any employee, nor did he claim to represent
any employee, nor did he inquire what wages were being
paid, nor discuss any proposed contract provision, nor was
he observed to talk to any employee.
Flores' West 26th Street service station grossed $125,000
(60 percent gasoline sales, 20 percent other merchandise
sales, 20 percent labor) in 1970.
The foregoing account, extremely impressively recounted
by Flores, was not only totally uncontradicted but also
totally uncross-examined. Crediting it, I find that the
complaint allegations pertaining to Alfredo Flores have
been established by substantial credible evidence.
25. Instance 25: Floress Service Station (5130 S.
Lake Park Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Again upon substantially similar complaint allegations,
and again without contradiction, General Counsel witness,
Robert E. Floress, testified that he was formerly the sole
owner-operator of the Standard Oil station at 5130 South
Lake Park Avenue, which he opened on December 16,
1968, and operated under the name "Lake Park Service,
Inc."; on January 1, 1972, he took in a full co-owner or
partner. When he first opened the station, Floress had
three employees in addition to himself, but within 6 or 7
weeks he went up to eight (six full- and two part-time)
employees.
In early January 1969, Floress was visited at his service
station by Union Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri, who
informed him that he "wanted" 11 men "in" the Union.
Spizzeri did not state or claim that he represented any
employee. Explaining that he had just opened the station
and wanted a chance to get started, Floress suggested that
Spizzeri return later. About 2 or 3 weeks later Spizzeri
retuned, this time accompanied by two associates, again
demanding 11 men "to belong to" the Union in view of the
station's size and the alleged number of union members in
235
nearby stations. Spizzeri, not claiming to represent any
employee, pointed to a man, who Floress explained did not
even work for him but had leased out some space for front-
end work. Spizzeri said it made no difference , to "put him
in the Union." Spizzeri threatened that he could stop
gasoline deliveries and picket , which would stop the station
from operating.
A few weeks later Spizzeri returned and renewed his
demand for "eleven union men" and to "put yourself in, of
course." Floress thereupon "put" himself and four employ-
ees, out of a crew of eight or nine (six or seven full-time),
"into" Local 705. Spizzeri then sought to get employee
Ferguson (Fergeson) to join Local 705. Ferguson refused,
telling Spizzeri heatedly that it was "crooked and all they
wanted to do was make money off of poor people."
Thereupon Spizzeri said to Floress, "That man [i.e.,
Ferguson ] has to be in the union .... I want that man in
the union." Ferguson said he would rather quit than be in.
Nevertheless Floress "put" Ferguson into the Union. It is
to be noted that the signature on Ferguson's union dues-
checkoff "authorization " (G. C Exh. 27), undated, is not the
signature of Ferguson. Spizzeri supplied Floress with union
cards and Floress "figured out" which other employees to
"put in" the Union. Floress himself paid their union "dues"
(as well as health and welfare contributions for them) without
pay deductions. Spizzeri (or another Local 705 agent, known
as The Reverend) visited the station regularly to make
collections ; at no time did they inquire about any new
employees. After Floress' employee Warren left his employ
around March 1969, Floress continued paying Local 705 his
"dues" as if he were still employed at the station; 3 or 4
months later, when he told Spizzeri that he did not want to
continue paying "dues" on somebody who was no longer
working there, Spizzeri suggested that Floress "put your
son in" (i.e., Floress' son) instead . When Floress pointed
out that his son (who pumped gas at the station) was only
15 years old, Spizzeri said it made no difference . Floress
replied that he would prefer to "get somebody else for
you." When employees Grace and Ray subsequently also
left his employ, Floress continued reporting and paying
their "dues" to Local 705 as well, by check.
Upon demand of Spizzeri, Floress also signed a 1970-73
contract with Local 705, without bargaining. At this time,
excluding himself, Floress had 10 or 11 (eight or nine full-
and two part-time) employees, with only three (plus
himself) "in" the Union. Local 705 business agents'
reports, listing employees, were filled out in Floress'
presence by Spizzeri (or, sometimes, by the other Local 705
representative known as The Reverend); such a report for
October 1970 (G.C. Exh. 28) lists Grace and Ray as
employees although neither was then employed at the
station.
Floress has been a member of GRAMC, to Spizzeri's
knowledge, since about the time he opened the station (i.e.,
December 16, 1968), with its distinctive emblem promi-
nently displayed in the station window since then . Floress
also executed an express bargaining authorization designa-
tion to GRAMC on April 17, 1970. His station's gross
revenues in 1970 were approximately $600,000 (about 70
50 As has been stated , the original charge herein was filed on November
18, 1970, and the complaint issued on December 30, 1971.
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
percent gasoline sales); for 1971, on monthly sales of
$85-$90,000, they are projected around a million dollars.
As in all other instances, the testimony of Robert E.
Floress was in no way contradicted , Respondent electing
-without explanation-to produce no witnesses . Crediting
Floress ' testimony, I find the complaint allegations
concerning him to be established by substantial credible
evidence.
26. Instance 26: Ford Service Station (600 S.
Homan, Chicago, Ill.)
As like allegations, the uncontradicted testimony of
General Counsel witness , Preston Ford, shows that he has
owned and operated the Sunoco Service Station at 600
South Homan, Chicago, since December 23, 1969, when he
acquired it from former owner, Willie Harrell ("Harold"),
who did not have a contract with Local 705. Ford retained
Harrell's three employees, as well as Harrell himself as
station manager with full supervisory authority. I find that
Harrell who at the time of the instant trial was still
employed by Ford in the same capacity, has at all material
times been a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, at
the Ford station. Ford hired about four (three full- and one
part-time) additional employees. With Harrell in full
charge as station manager, Ford himself-a college
instructor-is at the station only on some evenings and
weekends.
In January 1970 Ford was approached by Local 705
representative , James Jackson, who informed him he
wanted him to become associated with the Union. Ford
said he was not interested, had just started the business,
and could not afford to pay union wages or health and
welfare moneys. Jackson replied that Ford "had to join the
Union" and "put" one or two of his employees "in"; that
he realized Ford could not afford to "put" into the Union
more than "one or two men that [you] can trust" and that
then "I [Jackson] won't bother to tell the rest of the men
and they won't know the difference." When Ford still
declined, Jackson said he would be back. At no time did
Jackson ask how many employees Ford had.
Later that month (January 1970) Jackson returned,
accompanied by Local 705 representative, George Gil-
more , on the same mission . Ford again pointed out that he
could not afford to affiliate with the Union. Saying he
would "have to have [this] station," Jackson placed a
preprinted Local 705 contract down on the table for Ford
to sign "if you know what's good for you." When Ford
asked what Jackson meant by that, Jackson replied, "We
had a fellow same as you, hardheaded.... so I put him
out of business and caused him to lose about $15,000. He
had to go to a mental institution." Jackson then likewise
threatened Ford to "cut your gas off and put you out of
business," and advised Ford to talk it over with some
friends before Jackson returned.
A few weeks later (February 23, 1970) Jackson again
returned on the same errand, again insisting that "you
[Ford] have to join the union [and] give me the name of a
couple men" and that "I warn you, if you don't sign it, we
are going to tie you up and put you out of business." When
Ford continued to refuse, Jackson yelled, "All right, men,
let's go," proceeding out the station accompanied by two
of the station employees (Russell and nightman Rayford).
Jackson then pulled his automobile in front of the station,
put a sign on the car, and he and Russell began picketing
with signs stating that the station was unfair to employees
and that Local 705 was on strike. Later, Rayford's car was
also placed near the station with such a sign ; still later,
employee Douglas' car replaced Jackson's with the sign.
Around 11:30 a.m., a heating fuel truck arrived to make a
delivery. Rayford, with a visiting relative, approached the
driver and instructed him not to make the delivery. When
Ford told him to complete the delivery, Jackson ran over
from across the street and, telling the truckdriver that "the
station [is ] on strike by Local 705" and that the driver
belonged to the same Union, warned the driver, "Don't
drop the fuel oil if you know what is good for you." So the
driver left without making the delivery.
Around noon, a gasoline tanker pulled into the station to
deliver gasoline. Jackson stopped the tanker with his hand
and told the driver that "Local 705 [is] striking [this]
station and [you] could not dump the gasoline . . . You a
truck driver, you a member of the same union so you have
to honor the picket sign or be fined." This driver also left
without making a delivery. About a half-hour later, a milk
delivery truck pulled in. Jackson approached the truck and
told the truckdriver, "You can't drop the milk-you know
you belong to a union, too." This driver likewise left
without making the delivery. Thereupon Ford summoned
the police, who arrived with five squad cars. After Ford
explained the situation and requested the police to keep
Jackson off his property, the police directed Jackson and
the other pickets to remove themselves from the station
and not to block the entrances. When employee Faulks
("Faust") reported to work as usual around 4 p.m., he
refused to go on strike when asked to do so by a picket.
When part-time employees Thomas and Travis appeared
for work that evening, the pickets at the curb persuaded
them not to resume work. Shortly before midnight, a
gasoline delivery truck again arrived to make a delivery;
but, after the truckdriver had already removed the receptor
caps to make the delivery, he was approached by a picket
(Rayford) and urged not to make the delivery. After
making a telephone call, the driver left without making a
delivery.
By the end of the day (February 23), five of the station
employees were not working. At no time prior to this had
Local 705 agent Jackson or anybody else indicated that
any employee was a member of or wished to belong to
Local 705. At this time, the station had 12 or 13 (8-9 full-
and the balance regular part-time) employees: of the five
who did not work or were "on strike," three were full-time
and two part-time employees; except for those five, all
others continued to work.
On the next day (February 24), Ford called Local 705
agent Jackson in to "try to work something out."
Reminding Ford that he had warned him, Jackson said
Ford would have to sign the (preprinted) contract and
"put" all of his employees "in" the Union and pay each
"strike[r] ... backpay" at the union scale dating back to
his first employment date, amounting to some $4,000 for
such "backpay" alone. When Ford said he did not have
such money, Jackson continued to demand it, stating that
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 237
the "men were entitled to the money whether there was a
union there or not." Ford continued to insist he simply did
not have that much money. Finally, Jackson said that if
Ford signed the contract and "put" all of his employees
"into" the Union and paid the $4,000, he could eventually
reduce his union employees to only four.51
By the fifth or sixth day after the picketing started-i.e.,
by March 1, Ford had laid off all but two employees, since
he had exhausted his supply of gasoline and was unable to
obtain any deliveries. On March 2 or 3, Local 705 Business
Agent Jackson telephoned Ford at his home and arranged
a meeting at the station . There Jackson (with his associate
Gilmore) renewed the same demands which have been
described. Ford assented to all except the "backpay,"
which he simply did not have. Gilmore offered to
"bargain" after Ford signed the contract, but Ford pointed
out he would then have no negotiating power. Gilmore
thereupon suggested that if he signed up and "put" all of
his employees "in" the Union, they could give him a
"break" on the backpay around $1,400, but Ford insisted
he did not have and could not raise $1,400. That evening,
after a further talk with Jackson, the latter dropped the
"backpay" ante to $600-$700 and again assured Ford that
he could later reduce the number of his union employees to
four. With Jackson's "permission," Ford spoke to his three
striking employees Russell, Rayford, and Douglas directly,
and they agreed to return to work. When the employees
informed Jackson, however, Jackson started "screaming
and yelling," accused Ford of "[taking] advantage of the
guys," insisted that he (Jackson) would "not [going to ] let
the men call off the strike, and excoriated the men that
they were members of Local 705 and that they could not
"call off the strike" or they would be fined and have to
return strike money to the Union. When Jackson yelled at
the three employees, "Let's go," they left with Jackson.
This was the first intimation Ford had that any of his
employees was a member of the Union.
On March 4, Ford called Jackson to the station,
exhibited his checkbook to Jackson, and told him he would
have to close the station if he could not settle. At this,
Jackson said he would "have" to sign "the contract," "put"
all of his employees "in" the Union, and pay $600; and
later reduce his union employees to only four. But when
Ford pleaded that he did not have $600, Jackson said he
could pay each full-tune employee $200 and each part-time
employee $50 by checks to be held by Jackson for 60 to 90
days. Ford then did so, for seven employees, and signed
the preprinted Local 705 contract; and he thereafter began
deducting Union dues from his employees' checks.
When Jackson visited the station in August 1970 to
collect Union dues and health and welfare contributions,
Ford pointed out to him that only one of his' employees
-Harrell, the station manager -was in the Union, and
Ford reminded Jackson of the latter's agreement to reduce
the number of employees required to be "in" the Union.
Acknowledging this, Jackson instructed Ford to "put" only
one additional employee "in" the Union. Accordingly,
51 Later that day, Ford visited the NLRB regional office and filed an
election petition, but was subsequently informed that the Board would not
take jurisdiction because his gross annual revenue was only $300,000 and
not $500,000 He subsequently went to the Illinois State Labor Relations
Board, which also turned him away.
Ford "put" into the Union the station mechanic (Smith),
who signed a union card only because Ford told him to. At
this time, Ford had at least eight (six full-time, including
station manager Harrell and mechanic Smith, and two
part-time) employees ; and from then (August 1970) to
December 31, 1970 , only two of the eight employees (i.e.,
Station Manager Harrell and Mechanic Smith) were "in"
the Union. At no time during 1970 did any union
representative inquire how many employees Ford had.
Ford has been a member of GRAMC since March 9,
1970, and on that date also expressly designated it as his
bargaining representative . He has likewise since that date
prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in his station
window . In September 1970, on his visit to the station for
collections , Jackson presented Ford with a letter for
signature by Ford, deauthorizing GRAMC to act as his
bargaining representative. Jackson told Ford that
GRAMC was going around trying to get dealers to
disaffiliate from Local 705 although Local 705 had not
forced any dealer "in." In October 1970, Jackson again
asked Ford to sign the letter deauthorizing GRAMC, as
well as a new 3-year contract with Local 705 "so that no
attention would be drawn to [your] station." When Ford
said he wanted to read it and asked who negotiated it,
Jackson replied that "it's just a standard contract ... .
We don't negotiate individual contracts." Jackson returned
later that day for the signed contract, telling Ford, "Just
sign it . . . . I don't want any problems over here . . . . I
don't want anything to happen when the union starts tying
up stations .... Don't worry about it, it's a standard
contract." So Ford signed it. At this time he had eight or
nine (six full-time, including Station Manager Harrelland
Mechanic Smith, the balance, regular part-time) employ-
ees, with only two (Station Manager Harrell and Mechanic
Smith) "in" the Union. Jackson had been told and knew
that Harrell was the station manager and supervisor, and
that Smith was the mechanic 52
Jackson did not ask how many employees Ford had nor
even claim to represent a majority. At no time did Jackson,
Gilmore, or any other Local 705 representative claim that
Local 705 represented a majority of the employees of the
Ford station.
The gross revenue of the Ford station in 1970 was
around $320,000 (70 percent gasoline sales).
Ford's testimony is totally undisputed by Jackson or any
other witness . Crediting it, I find that the complaint
allegations concerning Preston Ford have been established
by substantial credible evidence.
27. Instance 27: Garst Service Station (2437 S.
Laramie St ., Cicero, Ill.)
Upon kindred allegations, General Counsel witness
Edward Garst testified without contradiction that after he
opened up the Clark Oil service station at 2437 South
Laramie Street, Cicero, Illinois, in October 1968, he
received a visit in January 1969 from Local 705 Business
52 Ford had informed Jackson on the latter 's very first visit to the station
that Harrell was the station manager . Smith succeeded Portay as station
mechanic ; although Jackson was informed by Portay as well as Ford that
Portay was a member of a mechanics union , Jackson nevertheless insisted
that Portay be put into Local 705 as well
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Agents "Eddie" Miller and "Eddie" Dicks, who told him,
"All the Clarks [i.e., Clark Oil service stations ] are in the
union" and asked him if he would "put" two of his
employees "in" Local 705. When Garst refused, Miller
said, "We will fix you if you don't put two men in the
union . We can make you put all your men in the union and
the gasoline drivers belong to us ," at the same time
physically grabbing Garst 's employee Sebesta and thrust-
ing a Local 705 card at him and exclaiming, "Buddy, you
are joining the union, sign this ." Sebesta refused . Leaving
some Local 705 membership cards , Miller and Dicks
promised to be back the next day. After they left, Garst
asked two of his employees-Sebesta Sebesta and Grevis
-to sign the Local 705 membership cards, and they did.
At this time , excluding himself Garst had five (three full-
and two regular part-time) employees at the station. On the
following day (January 29, 1969) Miller and Dicks
returned and asked about the union cards they had left at
the station the day before . Saying he had changed his
mind, Garst turned over to them the Local 705 cards
signed by Sebesta ("Secasta") and Grevis ("Gregas") under
the circumstances described , together with a copy of the
preprinted Local 705 "contract" which Garst had also
signed . At no time had Miller or Dicks asked how many
employees Garst had, nor indicated they represented a
majority or indeed any of the employees ; nor was either
observed to speak to any employee (other than to Sebesta
when he was manhandled as aforesaid).
Thereafter Miller visited the Garst service station each 3
months or so to make collections of "dues" and also health
and welfare contributions . Garst had five to seven (four
full- and three regular part-time), and during 1970 six to
eight (half full- and half regular part-time) employees, but
never over two "in" the Union . Some of the "employees"
upon whom Garst paid, and Miller collected , "health and
welfare contributions ," and listed on the Local 705
"report" sheets were no longer employed by Garst (an
example is Sebesta, who left Garst's employ in March or
April, 1969). At no time did Garst pay the wages called for by
his "contract" with Local 705, nor did any Local 705
representative ever inquire whether he was doing so.
Garst has been a member of GRAMC since February
1969, executed an express bargaining authorization desig-
nation to it on August 5, 1970 , and had prominently
displayed its distinctive emblem in his service station
window since October 1970.
Toward the end of November 1970 (i .e., about a month
after the 1967-70 "contract" had expired), Miller handed
Garst a new 3-year preprinted contract, for 1970-73,
remarking to him, "What is your excuse going to be for not
signing the contract? ... You guys can't win." In
December 1970, Miller returned to see Garst three times
for the signed new contract . Although he told Garst, "You
can't win," Garst continued to refuse to sign up. On his last
visit in December, Miller became incensed and yelled at
Garst , "We are going to shut all you guys dawn and put
you fellows out of business who didn't sign the contract
and the sh-t is going to hit the fan ... after the holidays
.... the gasoline drivers belong to us." Garst told Miller
to leave . But Miller returned again in January ; indeed,
three times in one week , repeating to Garst , "You can't win
. you are wasting your time ." Miller also brought with
him his associate Dicks , who yelled threats to put Garst out
of business . When they (i.e., Miller and Dicks) again
returned thereafter , Garst finally signed the "contract."
Miller said Garst had "made a wise decision" and that he
(Miller) would be back in a few days to collect but that
henceforth although Garst would be "lucky" and have the
"same deal" as before , Miller now wanted three men "in"
the Union . At this time-as well as since November
1970-although Garst still had seven or eight employees,
only one -Tim Rust, the station manager-supervisor-was
"in" the Union. At no time had Miller, Dicks, or any other
Local 705 representative asked Garst how many employees he
had nor displayed any evidence that any employee belonged to
Local 705, nor claimed to represent any employee. Within a
week following Miller's demand in connection with Garst's
signing of the "new contract" (1970-73), under the circum-
stances described that Garst 'put" three men into the Union,
Miller `put" two employees "into" Local 705-one of them
was Witsel, who had not been working for him since mid-
1970. At no time was Garst asked who his employees were.
The gross revenues of the Garst service station in 1970
were about $469,000 (about two-thirds gasoline sales).
As already indicated , Garst's testimony was wholly
uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint
allegations concerning Edward Garst have been estab-
lished by substantial credible evidence.
28. Instance 28: Gordon Service Station (7059 S.
State St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon like allegations , General Counsel witness, Morris
Gordon , testified-again without contradiction-that he
opened the Standard Oil service station at 7059 South State
Street, Chicago, in or around 1965, with six new , full-time
employees . In April 1968 , he was visited by Local 705
Business Agent Spizzeri, who indicated that Gordon
"could put [only ] four in the union ." Gordon thereupon, in
the presence of Spizzeri and with Spizzeri filling in part of
each card himself printed at least three employees ' "signa-
tures" (i.e., those of Gaus [Goss], Locket, Elmore, and
Chapman 53) on Local 705 "membership " cards, without the
employees ' authorization, consent or knowledge then, before,
or after; and Gordon then signed the usual Local 705
preprinted form contract . Upon this basis the employees-
were "listed on the [Union's l books" as members. At no
time did Spizzeri so much as claim to represent any
employee . And at no time did Gordon pay any employee the
union scale wages calledfor by his "contract" with Local 705,
nor did he observe any other provision of the "contract"- -oth-
er than to make payment of `flues" and health and welfare
"contributions" on behalf of the employees without their
knowledge-even in 1970, when none was any longer in his
employ.54
In October 1970, Gordon pointed out to Spizzeri-the
collector-that he had been making payments to Spizzeri
for years on four employees no longer in his employ.
53 Three of those cards were produced at the instant teal by Respondent 54 Goss later returned from the Navy.
Union pursuant to subpena.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 239
Spizzeri thereupon allowed Gordon to reduce the number
from four to three, to consist of Station Owner Gordon
himself (see G.C. Exh. 386), Gordon's son Paul (see G.C.
Exh. 387) who was not then working for him and did not
start working for him until the spring of 1971, and Calvin
Long (See GC Exh.388) without asking or telling Long;
Gordon himself filled in and signed Long's name and his son
Paul's name on the Local 705 "membership" cards, in
Spizzeri s presence and with Spizzeri filling in part of the
cards. The Local 705 union business agent's reports (G.C.
Exhs. 389 & 390) of Spizzeri himself in part corroborate the
foregoing.
Around November 1970, when Spizzeri presented a new
3-year (1970-73) Local 705 preprinted contract to Gordon
for signature, Gordon complained that he could not afford
"to pay for four men any more" and that he "couldn't
afford to pay union wages" (as called for by the new
"contract"). Spizzeri agreed to cut back the required
number of "members" on whom he was making collections
from Gordon, from four to three; and he reminded
Gordon that "Nobody [is] asking [you] to pay union
wages . You pay what you want." Gordon thereupon signed
the "contract." At this time, Gordon had-excluding
himself-five full-time employees, of whom only one (i.e.,
Long) was-without Long's authorization or even knowledge,
"in" Local 705, his membership authorization card having
been signed by Gordon in the presence of Spizzeri; the other
two required "memberships" consisted of Gordon himself
and Gordon's son Paul who was not employed at the
station (and whose name Gordon had likewise signed).
Except for paying collections to Spizzeri, Gordon at no
time observed any provision of any of his "contracts" with
Local 705. When Gordon received Long's union "member-
ship" card he "buried it somewhere" and never gave it to
Long-thus keeping Long in utter ignorance of his union
"membership." At no time did Gordon's employees know
about the 1967-70 or 1970-73 "Union contracts," which
Gordon on cross-examination characterized as a "private
deal" between himself and Spizzeri.55
Subsequently, when Gordon informed Spizzeri that he
"couldn't afford to pay for three men anymore .... if he
wanted me, I'd have to sign for two only . . . . otherwise I
gQ out of business," the only "two" on whom Gordon
continued to make payments to Local 705 were Gordon
himself and his son Paul (see G.C. Exh. 393).
Gordon has been a member of GRAMC (as he
specifically informed Spizzeri) since December 1967, with
its distinctive emblem prominently displayed on his service
station's front door. On August 26, 1970, he signed an
express authorization designating it as his bargaining
agent . The gross volume of business of his station in 1970
was $373,000 (over 80 percent gasoline sales).
As has been indicated, none of this was in any way
disputed by Spizzeri or any other Local 705 witness or
proof; nor was Local 705's failure to produce Spizzeri, or
any other witness or proof, at the trial in any way
explained.
I find that the complaint allegations pertaining to Morris
Gordon have been established by substantial credible
evidence.
29. Instance 29: Gregory Service Station (1810 W.
35th St., Chicago, Ill.)
On like allegations , General Counsel witness , Bonard
Gregory, testified-also without contradiction-that he
has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at
1810 West 35th Street, Chicago, since June 28, 1969, when
he took it over from the prior owner (Richard De Maro [?],
none of whose employees he retained) and hired four new
employees to run the station on the required round-the-
clock basis.
On July 21, 1969-within a month after going into
business-Gregory was visited by Local 705 Business
Representative Spizzeri , who presented him with a pre-
printed Local 705 contract , which Gregory signed. After
Gregory signed this "contract " purporting to recognize
Local 705 as the exclusive bargaining representative of his
employees, Spizzeri informed Gregory that he "wanted
three men in the union"; when Gregory told Spizzeri that
he was a member, Spizzeri limited the number to two.
Gregory told Spizzeri he had only one man , Maynard; on
Spizzeri's instructions Gregory filled in and signed Maynard's
name on the union card which Spizzeri completed Gregory
also signed a card for himself , and paid the required union
initiation fees, "dues," and health and welfare `contrib-
utions" for a 3-month period. At this time, Gregory had
four (three full- and one regular part-time) employees. At
no time did Spizzeri claim to represent any of them, nor
even ask how many employees Gregory had.
Although Spizzeri called at the station regularly each 3
months thereafter to make collections, at no time was he
observed to speak to any employee; nor did he ever ask
how many employees Gregory had . From September 1969
to December 1970, the Gregory service station had from
seven to nine (five-six full- and the balance regular part-
time) employees , exclusive of Gregory ; during the same
period, the highest number of employees "in" (as aforede-
scribed) the Union was two (exclusive of Gregory himself
until November 1970, when he dropped out). In the same
way as he had to employee Maynard, Gregory also-again
upon advice of and in the presence of Spizzeri-in 1970
filled out union cards for his employees Kraus and Doolan
(G.C. Exh. 89-90), later telling them (as well as Maynard).
Save for the "collections" paid to Local 705, at no time did
Gregory observe any of the provisions (including wage scales)
of his "contract" with Local 705, nor did he so much as read
the "contract ",- nor did Spizzeri ever inquire whether the
contract was being observed.
In August 1970, Gregory executed a bargaining authori-
zation designation to GRAMC, which he joined in
November 1970, and has since prominently displayed its
distinctive emblem in his station window.
On November 15, 1970, Spizzeri presented to Gregory
..your new contract." When Gregory refused to sign it,
Spizzeri pointed to the GRAMC emblem on the station
window and said, "That is the damn reason you are not
ss I sustained Gordon's constitutional plea of self-incrimination concern-
ing his payments to the Union See Instance 80 (Wmtercorn), infra
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signing it." Gregory replied that he could not afford it.
Spizzeri thereupon threatened, "If [you don't] sign it things
could get awful hot around the station," pointing out "that
they'd run a station on River Road out of business and
they'd do the same to me, said they cut the guy's gas
supplies off and in a few days he was out of gas and he had
to go out of business ." Gregory nevertheless refused to sign
up. At this time, Gregory had seven to nine (five full- and
four part-time) employees, with only two (plus himself)
"in" the Union.
When Spizzeri returned in December (1970) concerning
the new (i.e., 1970-73) Local 705 "contract," Gregory still
refused to sign it. Spizzeri indicated that although he could
not picket "right now because [I am] too busy," he would,
and warned that he would "run [you] out of business" if
Gregory did not sign up, adding that "[I've-i.e., Spizzeri ]
always been straight with [you] . . . . let you get by with
two or three guys in the union, [I ] never give [you ]
trouble," and that this deal could continue if Gregory
signed up. Gregory replied that Local 705 did nothing for
the employees and that Gregory didn't like it. Spizzeri's
response to this was that Gregory was "crazy" and that he
would go broke if he had to pay for all employees. Gregory
agreed that if he were required to do so, he would have to
go out of business . The following colloquy ensued:
[Spizzeri]: If you don't sign it we are going to run
you out of business .... [like we ] run the station out
of business on River Road . . . . because the owner got
smart with us . . . . the Gasoline Retailers Association
[i.e., GRAMC] didn't give the guy on River Road a
damn thing . . . . it was no good... .
[Gregory]: I [have] never negotiated a contract.
[Spizzeri]: It [is] not your place to negotiate ... .
[The] major oil companies . . . . negotiated a contract
and okayed it and it [is] up to [you] to sign it . . . . If
[you don't] sign, [we'll] put the pickets up and run
[you] out of business . . . . The major [oil] companies
will absorb the increase... .
[Gregory ]: When I [get] an increase in my money
[from the oil company], I'd consider signing the
contract.
Spizzeri returned a number of times in January 1971,
continuing to press Gregory to sign the new contract, but
Gregory persisted in his refusal. Spizzen informed Gregory
that Spizzeri's boss , Peick, had sent him and warned that if
Gregory did not sign up Local 705 would picket and "run
[you] out of business-[you] wouldn't have nothing to
sell." When a nearby employee asked Spizzen why he
didn't get out and leave Gregory alone, Spizzeri told him to
"Shut up, [you have] nothing to do with it." When Gregory
refused to sign a contract unless his employees signed union
cards, Spizzeri informed him that his employees "had nothing
to do with it," it was only between Gregory and Spizzeri.
When Gregory reminded Spizzeri that his employees had
never wanted to belong to the Union and that he had put them
"in" only at Spizzeri's insistence, Spizzeri threatened
"[We'll] spend a zillion dollars to run [you] out of business"
and that if Local 705 picketed Gregory would have
"nothing to sell," and would meet the same fate as service
station owner Elijah McCoy.56 Gregory nevertheless
refused to sign up and stopped making payments to Local
705 thereafter. (At this time, Gregory had seven to
nine-five to six full- and the balance regular part-
time --employees.)
Gross revenues of the Gregory station in 1970 were
$442,000 (70 percent from gasoline sales).
Again, Respondent without explanation failed to, pro-
duce any witness to contradict any of Gregory 's testimony,
which I credit. I find that the complaint allegations
concerning Bonard Gregory have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
30. Instance 30: Guglielmino Service Station
(1213 N. Central Ave., Chicago, III.)
Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness, John
Guglielmino (Gugliemino), whose Shell Oil service station
at 1213 North Central Avenue, Chicago, grossed over
$400,000 in 1971 (80 percent in gasoline sales ), testified
that he opened that station on and has owned and operated
it since October 1, 1970, with seven (six full- and one
sporadic part-time) employees in addition to himself. Also
in October 1970, he joined and has since belonged to
GRAMC and designated it as his authorized bargaining
agent, and has prominently displayed its distinctive
emblem in his station window.
At the trial, it was admitted by Respondent by
stipulation upon the record that in November 1970, as well
as January and February 1971, Local 705 through various
of its agents "threatened Employer John Guglielmino at
his business location in Chicago, Illinois . . . . in that the
agents made statements to the effect that if Guglielmino
did not sign a collective bargaining agreement with
Respondent [Local 7051 the service station Guglielmino
was operating at the time would be picketed and would not
receive any gasoline deliveries." It was further stipulated
by Respondent that the agreement referred to was its
preprinted form 1970-73 agreement (Joint Exh. 1); and
that in connection therewith Respondent's agent stated to
Guglielmino in January 1971, "You don't have to put all
your men in the Union. Just put one in, and then no one
will bother you."
Guglielmino never signed a contract with Local 705, nor
did any of his employees become a member of that Union.
The testimony of Guglielmino was in no way disputed;
he was not cross-examined. Upon the basis of his
testimony and Respondent's described stipulations, I find
that the complaint allegations concerning John Guglielmi-
no have been established by substantial credible evidence.
31. Instance 31: Halliburton Service Station (50
E. North Ave., Villa Park, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness
Thomas Edward Halliburton, whose former Martin Oil
service station at 500 East North Avenue, Villa Park (a
Chicago suburb), Illinois, grossed $588,000 (90 percent
gasoline sales) in 1971, testified that he operated that
station from July 31, 1970, to February 9, 1972. Hallibur-
56 Infra, instance 51
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 241
ton took the station over from former owner Al "Gold-
berg," retaining all five of the latter's employees and
adding two more (his father, Edward Halliburton, and
Jerry Cass). Goldberg had no union contract nor were any
of his employees Local 705 members.
In October 1970, Halliburton was visited at his new
station by Local 705 Business Agent Peter Alex, who said
that when the station had been "company-operated" it had
some union members , and read off some names of alleged
members, none of whom Halliburton knew anything
about. Alex told Halliburton that he would "have to join
the Union and put your employees in the Union."
Halliburton said he was new and could not afford it. Alex
asked how many employees Halliburton had and Hallibur-
ton said seven . Alex left after saying he would look into the
situation. A few days later, Halliburton was informed by
several of his employees that they wanted nothing to do
with Local 705, would not pay initiation fees or dues, and
did not need its health and welfare program.
During the next month (November 1970), Alex returned,
again asking Halliburton to "sign up" with Local 705, but
this time warning that if he did not do so he could set up a
picket line and stop gasoline deliveries to the station.
Halliburton asked Alex to leave the contract so that he
could look it over. Alex replied that he could not leave the
contract but would (and did) leave six or seven Local 705
union dues-checkoff authorization forms and told Halh-
burton that he "wanted me [Halliburton] to put two guys
in the Union right now, me and Jerry Cass [the full-time
assistant manager of the station and a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act] . . . . and have them ready for [me]
when [I , Alex] come back." After Alex left, Halliburton
gave Cass the Local 705 card; Cass wrote on the card,
"Don't want no Union." The other cards were distributed
among the rank-and-file employees.
On November 30, 1970, Alex returned. Halliburton gave
Alex the Local 705 cards which Alex had left for signature;
the employees had written thereon, "Don't want Union,"
"Union not wanted," or "Get lost." Nevertheless, Halhbur-
ton signed the Local 705 "contract" put before him by
Alex when the latter (1) threatened that if he failed to sign
it his gasoline supplies would be "shut off," and (2)
reassured him that if he signed it then and there, only he
himself (owner Halliburton) and Cass (assistant manager
and supervisor) need be "in" the Union and that they
would be "all it would be enforced on." When he left,
however, Alex left more union authorization cards. At this
time, Halliburton had eight (five full- and three regular
part-time) employees. At no time did Alex so much as
claim to represent any employee, nor did he inquire as to
wages being paid, nor did he discuss the "contract"; nor
has Alex ever been observed talking to any of the
employees other than Assistant Manager Cass, who-al-
though he made it clear to Alex that he wanted no part of
Local 705-was told by Alex that "sooner or later" Cass
..was going to sign up."
Notwithstanding his signature oil the "contract" with
Local 705, at no time did Halliburton pay any dues,
initiation fees, or health and welfare contributions on
anybody; nor did he in any way observe any provision of
the "contract." When Alex returned again in January 1971
for the "authorization cards," Halliburton informed him
that his men "didn't want the Union." Alex again
threatened that Halliburton would "have to join the Union
and have [your) men sign up ; otherwise, [your] gas
deliveries would be stopped." Alex again revisited the
station in March (1971) on the same mission . Halliburton
again told him that he was unable to give him any signed
union cards because his men did not want the Union. At
this time , Alex told Halliburton that the Martin Oil
Company would make it possible for three or four men to
be in the Union by increasing Halliburton's margin on the
gasoline; Halliburton replied that if this were done, it
might be possible.
When Alex returned on the same errand in April (1971),
essentially the same scene was replayed, as it was again in
July (1971), except that on the latter occasion Halliburton
told Alex he wanted nothing to do with his Union.
Halliburton had joined GRAMC and executed express
bargaining authorization credentials to it on August 3,
1970, with two of its distinctive emblems prominently
displayed on each of his station's doors at all times . During
one of Alex's early visits to the station, Halliburton pointed
out to Alex that he (Halliburton) had designated GRAMC
to bargain for him.
Halliburton's testimony, which, again , stands uncontro-
verted, is credited . I find that General Counsel has
established the allegations of the complaint pertaining to
Thomas Edward Halliburton, by substantial credible
evidence.
32. Instance 32: Andrew Hamblen Service Station
(2500 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Ill.)
On similar allegations , General Counsel witness, Andrew
Hamblen , testified that after he had been manager of the
Martin Oil service station at 2500 West Peterson Avenue,
Chicago , he took over its ownership and operation in
March 1970 with Ronald Cook as partner , retaining three
out of the nine existing employees and hiring some new
employees. In November (1970) the partnership was
dissolved, leaving Hamblen as sole owner-operator, with 10
(7 full- and 3 part-time) employees . Meanwhile, Hamblen
had joined GRAMC in May 1970, since then its distinctive
emblem has been prominently displayed at the station.
On January 13, 1971, business agents of Local
705-identified by their distinctive "705" automobile
license plates-visited Hamblen 's station to obtain his
signature on a contract with that Union . Hamblen
declined, stating that he could not pay union scale wages
or would have to go out of business . When he also said he
would call GRAMC, he was told by the Local 705
representative, "Gasoline Retailers is not the ones that
brings your gas. 705 is!" At this time, displaying a list of
names-but without displaying any union cards or other
authorization credentials , or in any way even claiming to
represent any of the listed individuals-the Local 705
representative asked Hamblen how many on that list were
employed at the station . Hamblen said three . At no time
did any Local 705 representative indicate he represented
any of the three; nor did any of the three, or any other
employee , ever tell Hamblen he belonged to Local 705.
Early the next month (February 1971), Local 705
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Business Agent Harty, accompanied by an associate,
visited Hamblen and instructed him to just "put your key
man in." Under these circumstances, Hamblen signed the
Local 705 preprinted "contract." Harty left additional
union cards, stating, "Pick out the employees you want in
the union and have them sign. Your representative will be
back in 30 days to pick it up." At this time Hamblen had
nine (seven full-time , including Station Manager McDan-
iel, and two regular part-time) employees. At no time did
Hamblen obtain a signed union membership or application
card from even a single employee.
In early April 1971, the Local 705 business agent who
had accompanied Harty returned and asked for signed
union cards and dues . Hamblen refused . The Local 705
representative then reminded Hamblen , "You've got a
contract now." Hamblen telephoned GRAMC and re-
ferred the Local 705 representative to GRAMC; immedi-
ately thereafter the Local 705 representative was observed
speaking to Hamblen's employees . He left soon thereafter
and has not been seen at Hamblen 's station since. At no
time has Hamblen paid any employee the wage scales
called for by the "contract" he signed with Local 705, nor
has he paid any money to Local 705. At the trial,
Respondent Local 705 stipulated on the record that it had
not received any application for membership (nor other
evidence of desire for union membership or bargaining
representation) from any of Hamblen 's employees at least
during any time here material (January 1, 1970-July 31,
1971), nor any dues, health and welfare, or any payments
pertaining to any of them.
The gross revenues of Hamblen's station in 1970 were
around $790,000, about 80 percent from gasoline sales.
Again, Hamblen's testimony is uncontradicted. Crediting
it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning Andrew
Hamblen have been established by substantial credible
evidence.
33. Instance 33: John Hamblen Service Station
(6256 N. Harlem Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
On like allegations, General Counsel witness John R.
Hamblen (also known as Richard Hamblen ) testified that
he opened the Martin Oil service station at 6256 North
Harlem Avenue, Chicago, in July 1966 and owned and
operated it until May 1972. In the fall of 1967, Hamblen
was visited at his station by Local 705 representative
Donald Heim , who asked hun, "How long you been here?"
When Hamblen told him since July 1966, Heim said, "How
did you get away from us this long? ... You got to sign a
union contract and we have to have three men out of your
station .... We have to have three men." When
Hamblen inquired as to how it was that other service
station dealers could "get by" with it, Heim indicated they
were paying off "the union dues" to Local 705 out of their
own pockets.
Soon after the foregoing episode , in September 1967,
Heim returned on the same mission , this time accompanied
by Local 705 representative "Danny" Ligurotus and
another. When Hamblen argued that his employees had
not been employed at the station long enough to be "put
in" Local 705, Ligurotus suggested he place himself (i.e.,
owner Hamblen) "in" along with his brother Andrew (who
never worked for him and was not even there), and he
placed one employee "in"-Dawson. Thereupon, Hamblen
himself signed the name of his employee Dawson on the Local
705 membership application card without ever obtaining
Dawson's permission or telling Dawson about it. Hamblen
then began paying Local 705 "dues" on the foregoing three
persons "in" the Union (i.e., himself, his brother Andrew
who did not work there, and his employee Dawson without
Dawson's consent or knowledge); however, Hamblen
signed no contract with Local 705. At this time, Hamblen
had seven (five full- and two regular part-time) employees,
exclusive of himself. At no time did the Union inquire how
many employees he had nor what wages he was paying,
nor claim to represent any employee, nor discuss any
proposed contract provision; nor did Hamblen pay union
scale. At the instant hearing, Respondent Local 705
produced, under subpena, a union card with the name
John Hamblen on it, but Hamblen swore without contradic-
tion that the "signature" on it was not his and that he had at
no time signed it or any other such card
In April 1968, Local 705 Business Agent Ligurotus
presented a preprinted Local 705 contract to Hamblen,
with the Local 705 officials' signatures already on it, and
told Hamblen that he "had to sign" it. Although Ligurotus
did not ask how many employees Hamblen had, nor claim
to represent any, nor ask what wages Hamblen was paying
any of them, nor discuss any proposed contract provision,
Hamblen signed the preprinted exclusive bargaining agent
recognition contract containing the union-security provi-
sion. However, at no time did Hamblen observe any
provision of that "contract," although he paid to Local 705
"dues" on himself and the aforedescribed two other
individuals, neither of whom belonged to the Union.
Ligurotus was never observed to talk to any employee.
In March 1969, Hamblen informed Local 705 represent-
ative Heim that several other Local 705 agents had called
at the station and insisted that all employees be "put in"
the Union. Heim told Hamblen, "Forget about it ... .
Give me one more [man ] and we will forget about it."
Thereupon, in Heim's presence, Hamblen signed the name
of another employee-Kyle-to a Local 705 card and paid
Local 705 its "dues" on him. At no time did Hamblen
obtain Kyle's permission to sign his name on the card nor
did Hamblen ever inform Kyle he had done so. At this
time, Hamblen had seven (five full- and two regular part-
time) employees, exclusive of himself.
In late November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent
Ligurotus presented a new preprinted 3-year (1970-73)
exclusive bargaining-recognition "contract," with the
Local 705 officials' signatures already on it, to Hamblen
for signature. Hamblen pointed to the distinctive emblem
of GRAMC-which he had joined and designated as his
bargaining agent on October 10, 1970-in his station
window. Ligurotus exclaimed, "These are a bunch of
a-holes." At this time, although he continued to have
seven (five full- and two regular part-time) employees,
exclusive of himself, Hamblen was paying Local 705
"dues" and health and welfare "contributions" only on
himself and on none of his employees. Ligurotus did not ask
how many employees Hamblen had, nor ask what wages
they were receiving, nor claim to represent any, nor discuss
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 243
any proposed contract provision. Hamblen signed the
1970-73 "contract." However, he never observed any of its
terms . Nor was Ligurotus ever observed talking to any
employee.
In January 1971, Ligurotus informed Hamblen, in the
presence of station employee Gramse, that he was "going
to put pickets up." Hamblen told him to go ahead.
Ligurotus asked Gramse if he worked there. When Gramse
said yes, Ligurotus told Gramse he could not work there
unless he joined the Union. Gramse refused to join.
Ligurotus returned to the station later that month
(January 1971) and informed Hamblen that he "had to
carry four union cards." (At this time, Hamblen was still
making payments to the Union only on himself. ) Hamblen
told Ligurotus he could not afford it. Ligurotus asked
whether he could do so if Martin Oil Company increased
his gasoline profit margin by I cent a gallon. When
Hamblen said he could do so in that event, Ligurotus
stated to Hamblen that Local 705 official Peick was at the
Martin Oil Company office right then negotiating that very
thing . Under these circumstances , Hamblen himself signed
three of his employees' names on Local 705 cards. This time,
however, he told the employees he was doing so--employ-
ee Pick (Pike), who refused to pay dues, and whom
Hamblen promised he (Hamblen) would pay his "dues";
and employees Forshee and Gramse, after each of them
had first said, "P-ss on the union."57
The John R. Hamblen service station had a gross
revenue of approximately $776,000 (80 percent gasoline
sales) in 1970.
Once again , as in all other cases, the testimony of John
R. Hamblen is wholly uncontroverted, Respondent having
failed-without explanation-to dispute it in any way.
Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concern-
ing John (also known as John R. and as Richard) Hamblen
have been established by substantial credible evidence.
34. Instance 34: Hooks Service Station (3357 W.
Harrison St., Chicago, Ill.)
On like allegations, Rev. James C. Hooks testified that he
has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at
3357 West Harrison Street, Chicago, since February 29,
1968, when he hired an entirely new crew of nine (six full-
and three regular part- time) employees in addition to
himself . In March 1968, within a month after opening,
Rev. Hooks was visited by a Local 705 representative 58
who announced to him, "This is a union station and
[you'll] have to put three men into the Union," handing
him a preprinted Local 705 contract and three blank union
membership application dues-checkoff authorization
cards. Rev. Hooks gave the cards to three of his employees
in the presence of the Local 705 representative, who had at
no time even claimed to represent any employee. Rev.
Hooks instructed the three employees-one of whom was
his brother, the assistant manager of the station and a
sr Hamblen testified on cross-examination that he made a claim against
the union health and welfare plan on his own behalf or for a family
member ; and that he deducted Local 705 "dues" from the wages of only
those employees who would " let me."
se Although Rev Hooks was unable to identify him by name, it was the
same individual who subsequently called to make "collections" on behalf of
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, "[You are] going
into the Union," so they signed the cards . (At this time,
Rev. Hooks continued to have nine regular employees as
aforesaid.) Each month thereafter , the union business
agent called to make "collections" of "dues" and health-
welfare "contributions ," which Rev. Hooks paid. When the
Local 705 business agent subsequently informed Rev.
Hooks that an "operation of [your ] size . . . requires four
men in the Union," Rev. Hooks "put into" Local 705 his
employee Willie Hawkins; when employee Walker left
Rev. Hooks' employ, Rev. Hooks "put" himself "into"
Local 705.
Rev. Hooks joined GRAMC on or about April 25,
1968, since then he has prominently displayed its distinc-
tive emblem in the front window of his service station. On
August 5, 1970, he executed an express formal authoriza-
tion to GRAMC to bargain for him. In November 1970,
Rev. Hooks was visited by three individuals who asked him
if he was ready to sign a new , preprinted Local 705
contract which they presented to him . Inquiring who had
negotiated it, Rev . Hooks declined to sign it. Later that
month (November 1970) four Local 705 representatives
called on Rev . Hooks, again displaying the same 3-year
preprinted Local 705 contract. When Rev. Hooks again
demurred , he was warned, "I'd hate to see you tied up .. .
[which ] means picketed where you cannot get gasoline." At
this time, Rev. Hooks still had nine regular employees, but
was paying Local 705 "dues" and health and welfare
"contributions" on only one rank-and-file employee, Hearn
(in addition to himself and supervising Assistant Manager
Sweeny Hooks-Rev. Hooks' brother). When Local 705
Business Representative James Jackson visited Rev. Hooks
in December 1970, again with the "new contract" for Rev.
Hooks to sign, Rev. Hooks again inquired who had
negotiated it, pointing out that GRAMC had not. Again
Jackson warned him, "I hate to see you tied up." When
Jackson returned again on the same errand in January
1971 and Rev. Hooks continued to refuse to sign up,
Jackson told him, "Gasoline Retailers [i.e., GRAMC]
[doesn't] represent [you]." Meanwhile at or around this
time Jackson and others were picketing a Sunoco station
across the street; and Rev . Hooks also saw two other
nearby stations (the Jervier service station and, later, the
Ashcraft service station) being picketed by Jackson and
others.
When Jackson persistently revisited Rev. Hooks in
February, March, and April 1971 , insisting upon his
signing the "new contract" with Local 705 and continuing
to warn him that "[I'd] hate to tie [you] up, "Rev. Hooks,
observing the neighboring service stations being picketed
by Jackson, finally signed up in April (1971). At this time,
although he had around 10 (6 full- and 4 part-time)
employees, only two (and he himself) were "in" the
Union.59
Rev. Hooks' service station had a gross business of
over $750,000 (around 80 percent gasoline sales) in 1970.
Local 705, which were paid by checks of Rev Hooks which cleared the
bank account of Local 705.
59 Rev. Hooks deducted Local 705 "dues" from these employees ' wages.
He himself paid to Local 705 the -required health and welfare "contri-
butions" on them.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rev. Hooks' testimony, again wholly uncontroverted, is
credited . I find that the complaint allegations concerning
Rev. James C. Hooks have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
35. Instance 35: Iverson Service Station (7781 W.
Lake St., River Forest, Ill.)
On like allegations, General Counsel witness , Raymond
J. Iverson, testified that he has owned and operated two
service stations in River Forest (a suburb 12 miles west of
Chicago), Illinois-(l) a Shell Oil service station at 7781
West Lake Street, since August 1953 , and (2) a Standard
Oil service station at 8001 West Lake Street, only from
February 1 , 1%8, to February 1, 1971. The stations are
three blocks apart and Iverson, as sole owner , shifted
employees from station to station as required. The
Standard station was opened on February 1, 1%8, with a
complement of seven (three full-time , including Mike
Konwinski , formerly a full-time employee at the Shell
station , who was made manager of the Standard station
and was a supervisor there within the meaning of the Act ; 60
and four regular part-time) employees ; at that time, the
Shell station had a complement of eight (five full- and
three regular part-time) employees.
Around February 1 , 1%8, Local 705 representative
Dicks informed Iverson that since he would "have to have"
another man "in" the Union, "You [Iverson ] might as well
go in as anybody else to get the benefits from the health
and welfare," 81 and at the same time to keep Konwinski
(who had been promoted to the job of supervising manager
of the Standard station) "in" at the Shell station,
notwithstanding the fact that Konwinski was no longer
employed at the Shell station . Accordingly, Dicks' sugges-
tions were carried out by Iverson . In 1%8, the Shell station
actually had eight (three full- and five regular part-time)
employees, excluding Iverson, and of course excluding
Konwinski who was no longer employed there ; at the same
time, the Standard station had six (two full- and four
regular part-time) rank-and-file employees plus Supervisor-
Manager Konwinski.
Around November 1970 , Local 705 Business Representa-
tive Dicks presented Iverson with two new Local 705
preprinted 3-year contracts (one for each station) for
signature. When Dicks returned on the same mission about
2 weeks later, Iverson asked him about his bargaining
representative GRAMC.62 Dicks said , "In no way are we
affiliated with those bums." When Iverson told Dicks he
did not think he wanted to sign the contracts, Dicks
warned him, "Quit loafing or quit holding back, [you]
know [I] can stop the gasoline" and to have them signed
when he returned . Iverson did. However, although at this
time exclusive of himself Iverson had eight (three full- and
five part-time) employees at his Shell station , not a single
employee there was in the Union; only Iverson.timself was
"in" the Union . At the same time , of a total of seven (two
full-time rank-and-file , four regular part-time, and Supervi-
sor-Manager Konwinski ) employees at Iverson's Standard
station, not a single employee there other than Supervisor-
Manager Konwinski was "in" the Union . (The only Local
705 membership application produced by it, pursuant to
subpena , at the instant trial, was that of Konwinski.) At no
time since February 1, 1968, has any individual at the Shell
station other than Iverson himself been "in" the Union.
Around December 1970, Iverson told Local 705 Repre-
sentative Dicks that it would be a good idea to straighten
out the situation of union membership at the "wrong"
station (i.e., involving Standard station Supervisor-Manag-
er Konwinski being carried as a rank -and-file employee at
the Shell station). Dicks advised him not to worry about it,
since if anything "came up ," he (Dicks) would "straighten
it out." And Dicks continued to make "collections"
regularly on this basis . When the Standard station closed
on February 1, 1971, and Konwinski left Iverson's
employment, Iverson thereafter carried himself as the only
"Union man" at the Shell station.
In April or May 1971, Iverson informed Local 705
Representative Dicks, at the service station on his regular
collection call, that he (Iverson) had been advised by
GRAMC not to make further payments to Local 705.
Dicks exclaimed, "[Are you] going to be a stupid jerk like
the rest of these guys and not pay ?" Iverson indicated he
would await the outcome of proceedings before the
National Labor Relations Board . Dicks threatened him
that "When this [is] all over and when [you] lost the suit
... [I am] going to come back and put everybody in
[your] station in the union and [I am] going to bury [you]
people."
In 1970, the approximate gross volume of business at
Iverson's Shell station was $250,000; at his Standard
station, $175,000.
Upon the basis of Raymond J. Iverson 's uncontradicted,
credited testimony I find that the allegations of the
complaint concerning him have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
36. Instance 36: Ivy Service Station (7100 [South]
King Drive, Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness, Jeff
Ivy-again , as invariably-without contradiction-testi-
fied that he acquired and has owned and operated the Arco
(i.e., Atlantic-Ridgefield; formerly Sinclair) service station
at 7100 [South] King Drive , Chicago, since August 28,
1968. When he took the station over from the previous
owner (Robinson, who had had a contract with Local
705),63 he retained two of the tatter's employees (Strong
and McDougall [McDougle]), but they stayed only
temporarily (McDougall for only about a month and
Strong until March 1969). Ivy also brought in his two
brothers , Lawrence and Fred , as equal partners; all three
brothers thus owned and operated the station as equal
partners.
In or about September 1968-within a month after Ivy
so Konwmslu authoraedly gave station employees orders; and, although paid it dues and has prominently displayed its distinctive emblem in that
he had no power to hire and fire , his recommendations on that score carried station's front window since at least 1969, and signed a formal, express
considerable weight. bargaining authorization designation to it on September 21, 1970.
Si Iverson had been a member of Local 705 for 15 or more years. ss See fn. 23, supra
82 Iverson had first joined GRAMC at his Shell station (only) in 1%3,
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705
acquired the station-he was visited by Local 705 Business
Agents Jackson and Gilmore, who urged him to sign up
with that Union. Ivy asked for "time." The two returned a
week later, telling Ivy it was time or else they would "stop
the gas trucks from coming in the yard." Ivy pleaded for
more time. They returned the following week on the same
mission , this time additionally demanding that Ivy "give
[us) at least two men" or else they would "stop your gas
trucks from coming in and put pickets across the driveway
so the trucks can't come in." Under these circumstances,
Ivy signed the preprinted Local 705 "contract" which was
urged upon him.64 At no time did Gilmore, Jackson, or any
other Local 705 representative claim to represent any
employee.
After Strong left his employ in March 1969, Ivy (i.e., Jeff
Ivy) placed himself "in" the Union as the union "member"
replacement for Strong. At no time since March 1969, has
any employee at the station been a member of Local 705;
the only members were Jeff and Fred Ivy, part owners of
the station. In the latter part of 1969, Local 705
representative Gilmore remarked to Ivy that he knew that
Ivy had more than two employees but would "go along"
with the existing arrangement since "you are a good guy."
Ivy had joined GRAMC around September or October
1968 and on February 25, 1970, executed a formal
authorization expressly designating it as his bargaining
representative; and he displayed its distinctive emblem
prominently in his front window until it was broken in
1972.
In November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Gilmore
visited the station a number of times pressing for renewal
of the "contract" until Ivy's other brother, Edmund (a one-
third partner), signed it. Thereafter, on Gilmore's demand
that Jeff Ivy sign it because Edmund Ivy was "not on the
lease," Jeff Ivy signed it. At this time, in addition to the
three Ivy brothers who owned the station, the station had
four full-time employees, none of whom belonged to the
Union-although they knew the station had a "contract"
with Local 705; the only members being Jeff and Fred Ivy,
as shown by the Local 705 Business Agent's own reports
and remittance forms. The station's gross business volume
in 1970 was approximately $200,000 (65 percent from
gasoline sales).
Upon the basis of Jeff Ivy's uncontradicted credited
testimony, I find that the complaint allegations concerning
him and his service station have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
37. Instance 37: Jackson Service Station (147 W.
79th St., Chicago, I11.)
On like allegations, the uncontradicted testimony, of
General Counsel witness , Ray Jackson, establishes that he
opened and has owned and operated the Clark Oil service
station at 147 West 79th Street, Chicago, since May 1966,
at which time he hired two full-time employees. Around
August 1966 Jackson received a visit at his station from
Local 705 Business Agent George Gilmore, with a
preprinted Local 705 contract "for [you, Jackson ] to sign it
" At Gilmore's insistence, Ivy gave hun the names of his brother, Fred
(a one-third partner), and his mechanic, Strong (who left his employ in
245
and that was it . . . the other dealers [have] already signed
the contract, so therefore [you] might as well sign it." So
Jackson signed it. At this time none of Jackson 's employees
was in the Union and Gilmore did not even claim to
represent any of them.
A month later (September 1966) Gilmore returned,
announcing that Jackson's employees "would have to join
the union." Jackson demurred, calling in his employee
brother, who said he did not wish to join. Gilmore told
him, "In order for you to work here, [you'll have] to join
the Union." Jackson's employees declined to join Local
705. When Gilmore again revisited the station in Decem-
ber, this time warning Jackson to "have [your] men fill out
these cards or else ," Jackson directed four of his
employees that they "must sign them" and they did. At this
time, Jackson had 11 (7 full- and 4 regular part-time)
employees.
Around November 1970, Gilmore presented Jackson
with a new preprinted Local 705 contract for 1970-73, for
signature. At this time Jackson had only two employees
"in" the Union and told Gilmore he had heard that some
other stations had only one employee "in" the Union.
Gilmore replied that Jackson need not have more than two
"in" as he then had. So Jackson signed the 1970-73
"contract"; at this time, he had nine (five full- and four
regular part-time) employees, with only two "in" the
Union. Although Jackson had paid the wage scales
described in the 1967-70 contract, he did not pay the
wages specified in the 1970-73 contract. At any rate in
1970, Jackson himself paid to Local 705 "dues" for his
employees-including former employee Seymore , who was
to Gilmore's knowledge no longer in Jackson 's employ-
-without deducting it from their wages.
Jackson has been a member of GRAMC since 1966, and
on August 17, 1970, he executed an express bargaining
authorization designation to it. The gross volume of his
station's business in 1970 was around $700,00080 percent
from gasoline sales).
Upon the basis of Ray Jackson 's credited uncontradicted
testimony, I find that the complaint allegations concerning
him have been established by substantial credible evidence.
38. Instance 38 : Jervier Service Station (Jackson
& Kedzie, Chicago, Ill.)
There are analogous allegations in the complaint
concerning Dennis Jervier, whose testimony is, once again,
uncontradicted . Jervier owned and operated the Shell Oil
service station at Jackson and Kedzie (228 South Kedzie),
Chicago, from April 1968 to September 8, 1971.
In February 1970, after Jervier had learned from two of
his employees that they had repeatedly refused to join
Local 705 when solicited to do so at the station by Local
705 Business Agent Jackson , Jervier was himself ap-
proached at the station by Jackson who announced to him
that he "would have to have a man from that station join
the union." Jervier told Jackson he would talk it over with
his father, which he did. Later that month or early the next
month (March 1970) Jackson telephoned Javier and told
March 1969).
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him that he was "in hot water over the station [and] must
have a man from that station [in the Union]." Jervier
replied that it was up to the employees. About a week later,
Jervier asked his employee Reed to wash a car. Reed
refused, claiming to be ill. Jervier told Reed to go home if
he was ill. Reed left, saying, "[I'11] show [you] something"
and would "fix" Jervier. When Reed returned later that
day, Jervier told him he was fired. Reed thereupon told
Jervier he could not fire him since he had joined the
Union; however, he displayed no evidence thereof. Later
that day, Local 705 Business Representative Jackson
visited Jervier, informed him that Reed (who had been
discharged) had joined Local 705, and demanded that
Jervier sign a contract with Local 705. Jervier refused.
Jackson thereupon pulled his car to the curb in front of the
station (but not so as to block the entrance), with a "Local
705 IB of T on strike-unfair labor practices" sign, joined
by Reed who commenced picketing with a similar sign,
continuing until midnight. At 6 a.m. the following
morning, Reed was there again with the same sign. Around
6 p.m., Jackson came in (with Reed still outside) and again
stated to Jervier that Reed had joined the Union and that
Jervier would have to sign a contract with Local 705 and
put Reed "back to work" and pay Reed's Local 705
initiation fee and Local 705 health and welfare fees
retroactively to January 1, 1970. Under these circum-
stances , Jervier signed the preprinted Local 705 contract,
which was in no way negotiated, and restored Reed to his
job, at the same time complying with Jackson's demand to
pay an initiation fee as well as health and welfare
"contributions" to Local 705 on Reed retroactively to
January 1, 1970. Jackson subsequently called regularly at
the station for collections and to speak with Reed.
In October 1970, Jackson presented a new preprinted 3-
year contract to Jervier for signature. Stating that
GRAMC-which he had by express writing on September
21, 1970, designated as his bargaining representative, and
whose distinctive emblem was prominently displayed in his
service station window-was bargaining for him, Jervier
declined to sign it. Jackson said that GRAMC had lost or
would lose its case and warned that "the union always
comes out first, comes out on top." In November 1970,
Jackson returned, again for Jervier's signature on the "new
contract," this time also presenting to and asking Jervier to
sign a paper deauthorizing GRAMC to act as his
bargaining agent. After a telephone conversation with a
GRAMC official, in the presence of Jackson, Jervier
refused to sign either the deauthorization slip or the
contract. Jackson warned him, "There is no win and what
does around, comes around . . . . [You're] not doing
[your]self any good for not signing." Soon thereafter
(December 9, 1970)-still in the context of continuing
refusal by Jervier to heed Jackson's demands to sign a
..new contract" with Local 705-Jervier instructed his
employee, Reed, to supply customers with dimes at their
request when needed for the use of the restroom; but Reed
refused. Later, when a woman-apparently a regular
caller-telephoned Reed again and Jervier asked her not to
call so often, Reed called Jervier a "dirty black f--ter."
When Jervier consulted his attorney as well as a GRAMC
executive about this, he was advised to fire Reed; when
Jervier reported it to Local 705, he was warned to "be
careful with that guy." Nevertheless, Jervier decided to
discharge Reed that evening and arranged for police
protection. When Reed was then discharged by Jervier in
the presence of the police, Reed (who lived across the street
from the station) insisted he could not be fired because he
was a member of Local 705 and that he would let the
"union put [you] out of business." When Local 705
Representative Jackson called at the station on December
II about Reed, and Jervier explained the situation to him,
Jackson told Jervier that Reed "cannot be fired except for
theft" and Jackson insisted that Reed be reinstated.
Jackson was unimpressed when Jervier read him the Local
705 contract provision (G.C. Exh. 5, p. 5, art. XVI)
regarding the employer's right to dismiss an employee for
misconduct, but added that "a hundred dollars could solve
the whole problem." When Jackson telephoned Jervier on
December 14 and again insisted that Reed would have to
be reinstated or that he would file a charge with the NLRB,
Jervier again declined to reinstate him. On December 17,
however, Jackson drove up to the station with a car
equipped with a sign stating "Local 705 of IB of T, on
strike for unfair labor practices," and Reed started to
picket with a like sign. This continued, from 6 a.m. to
midnight, until January 6, 1971-with Local 705 Business
Agents Jackson and Gilmore visiting Reed and other
picketers there. During this period, early one morning
around Christmas, as a gasoline truck was about to turn
into the station, Reed joined by three or four other
individuals approached the gasoline truck driver and stood
in front of the truck-interdicting its entrance to the
station-and told the driver, "Call your supervisor," at the
same time handing him a card. Jervier called the police.
When Reed nevertheless continued to try to halt the truck,
he was physically restrained by the police and the gasoline
delivery was made. Other attempts were made by Local
705 to halt deliveries to Jervier's station; on three
occasions , fuel oil delivery trucks were interfered with and
stopped, and on one occasion Reed in the presence of
Gilmore, threatened to shoot Jervier. During this period
(December 17, 1970-January 6, 1971) the station 's business
declined 50 percent. Meanwhile, also around Christmas,
Jervier was visited by IGDA official, Jacobs,65 who
indicated that he had better "settle" and that the Union
wanted $2,800 "backpay" for "his" employees on a list
displayed by Jacobs. However, nobody on that list except
one part-time youngster was in Jervier's employ; Jervier
said so and refused to pay. Shortly thereafter Local 705
Representatives Jackson and Gilmore-seated in a car
with Reed-told Jervier that he would obtain gasoline
deliveries at once if he signed the contract with Local 705;
but Jervier continued to refuse.
On January 6, 1971, Jervier was told by IGDA official,
Jacobs-who had also told Jervier that he was formerly an
agent of Local 705 and had "connections" with Local 705,
and that the GRAMC emblem on Jervier's station window
had caused Jervier a "lot of trouble" which could be ended
if the emblem were removed-that Local 705 Executive
Peick had indicated that the $2,800 demand would be
65 See fns . 29 and 30, supra.
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705 247
dropped if Jervier signed the union contract. However,
Jervier continued to refuse to sign the contract. Thereupon,
Jacobs called in a Shell Oil representative; and when the
latter-in the presence of Jacobs, Jackson, and Gilmore
-advised Jervier to sign the contract, Jervier-who had
been totally without gasoline for almost a week or
more---capitulated and signed up. Jacobs then repeated
that "the sticker [i.e., GRAMC window emblem] is [what is
causing you] a lot of trouble . . . . Once the sticker is
removed, [you] will have no more trouble," and assured
him that all "charges" would be dropped if Jervier joined
IGDA, which Jervier thereupon did. At this time, none of
Jervier's employees was in the Union. Reed was never
reinstated into his employ. However, since Local 705
Representative Jackson had told Jervier that he "must put
a man in [the Union but you] won't have to pay this man
union wages ," Jervier "put" his employee, Randall, "into"
Local 705, paying his initiation fee as well as dues.68
Jervier's gross 1970 receipts at the station were around
$193,000 (80-85 percent from gasoline sales).
Upon the basis of the foregoing credited67 testimony of
Dennis Jervier, uncontradicted by any witness, I find that
the allegations of the complaint concerning him have been
established, in sufficient material essence as there set
forth,68 by substantial credible evidence.
39. Instance 39: Jones Service Station (18101 S.
Halsted St., Homewood, I11.)
On similar allegations , General Counsel witness, Rex
Jones , testified to an account substantially the same as
most of the other gasoline service station dealers. Jones
opened the Shell Oil service station at 18101 (or 10081)
South Halsted Street, Homewood, Illinois. in June 1967
with a brand new complement of employees, and has
owned and operated it since.
In the summer of 1967, shortly after Jones opened the
station , he was visited by two Local 705 emissaries. Patting
a blue snubnosed revolver which he carried in a belt holster
and displayed to Jones in the presence of Jones' son,
David, one of the Local 705 emissaries-Jacobs-said to
Jones , "Everybody on the street [is ] in the union and [you
are] going to be whether [you] liked it or not." Jacobs then
asked for a "get together" with Jones' employees, to which
Jones acceded. When this took place, the employees,
however, indicated they did not want to join Local 705 and
would not pay dues to it. Jacobs nevertheless threatened
Jones that if he did not sign up with Local 705 he would
picket and also cause Jones expense at Jones' other station.
Although Jones had told Jacobs he had five (three full- and
two part-time) employees-aside from himself-at the
station , Jacobs agreed that Jones could have only one
union member at the station and that this could be Jones'
son, David, who, on hearing this, was "ready to fight about
it." Nevertheless, Jones paid his son's "dues"-without
deducting it from his salary-to Jacobs or the other Local
es Jervier also paid for a vacation for Reed, who, as stated, never
reentered his employ
87 I have considered the contents of Jervier's pretrial statements, given,
as explained by him without contradiction, while he was in the process of
waiting on customers at his service station
68 Respondent 's motion to dismiss in whole or in part paragraph "XII
705 collector each 3 months, in cash . Jones had not signed
the 1964-67 "contract" with Local 705 since it was about
to expire; but later that year (1967) he was presented with a
1967-70 contract to sign. When Jones declined to sign it,
he was told by the Local 705 spokesman that if he (Jones)
wanted a "sweetheart contract" like the other dealers, with
only one employee as union member and to avoid
picketing, he had better sign, so he did.
Although Jones has continued to have a workforce of
five or six (three or four full- and two part-time) employees
at the station , at no time has any employee other than his
son, David, been a "member" of Local 705. And, although
his son, David, has been away in England with the U.S. Air
Force for 3-1/2 years, Jones has continued to pay "dues"
to Local 705 on him (and him alone) as a station employee.
Jones has been a member of GRAMC since 1967 at his
aforedescribed station; and, additionally on April 30, 1970,
executed an express authorization designation to GRAMC
as his bargaining agent. In the fall of 1970, Local 705
Business Representative Spizzeri-who had been told by
Jones or knew that Jones was a member of GRAMC-in-
formed Jones that there was a "problem" between Local
705 and GRAMC and that if Jones withdrew from
membership in GRAMC "you [Jones] would be in a much
better position to keep [your] status with sweetheart
contracts . . . . you'd still be able to keep [only] one
employee [as a union member]" instead of a "full
complement" of union members . Spizzeri at the same time
gave Jones a withdrawal form for Jones to sign, withdraw-
ing from GRAMC. Jones declined to sign it. Spizzeri
threatened to picket the station if Jones did not "go along."
Jones signed the new Local 705 contract for 1970-73, in
February 1971. He then had five (three full- and two
regular part-time) employees, with his son, David, still
overseas and the only union "member." 69
The gross volume of Jones' business at the foregoing
station in 1970 was approximately $392,000; and the cost
of his gasoline purchases there for the same period was
about $269,000.
Rex Jones' testimony also was totally uncontradicted,
Respondent wholly unexplainedly failing to produce any
witness to controvert it in any way. Crediting Jones'
testimony, I find that the complaint allegations pertaining
to him have been established by substantial credible
evidence.
40. Instance 40: Kallas Service Station (246 W.
Lake St., Addison, Ill. and 502 South Fifth Ave.,
Maywood, Ill.)
On similar complaint allegations, General Counsel
witness, Eugene ("Gene") Dennis Kallas, testified that he
has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at
246 West Lake Street, Addison (a western suburb of
Chicago), Illinois, since November 4, 1970; and that prior
thereto he owned and operated a Clark Oil Service Station
(ccX3)" of the complaint, which was and is accordingly deemed amended to
conform to the litigated proof, was denied at the trial.
89 Jones was unable to identify an alleged signature on a Local 705 dues-
checkoff card, produced at the hearing, as that of his son , David. However,
Jones testified that he made regular payments, out of his own pocket, to the
Union for David's "dues."
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at 502 South Fifth Avenue , Maywood (also a western
suburb of Chicago), Illinois . Kailas opened the Addison
location with six (2 full and 4 regular part -time) employees.
Toward the end of January 1970 Local 705 Business
Representative Dicks visited Kailas at his Maywood
station (which Kailas had recently opened) and notified
him that he "should have two men in the union ." Dicks did
not claim to represent any employee . When Kailas
explained he was new, he and Dicks "agreed to have [only]
one man" in the Union . Kailas accordingly gave his
employee, Cooper, a Local 705 card (which Kailas had
received from Dicks) to sign, telling Cooper that "the
union wanted one man represented out of my station and
that [you] would be the one man ." Cooper signed. About 3
months later, Cooper was replaced at the station by
employee Loucks, who on Kailas ' instruction but after
some hesitancy also signed a Local 705 card . At this time,
Kailas still had six employees, only Loucks being "in" the
Union as aforedescribed.
Kailas joined GRAMC in January 1970 at the Maywood
location ; when he moved to the Addison location
(November 1970), he continued as a member, and has at
all times prominently displayed on the station door the
distinctive emblem of GRAMC. Additionally, on August
5, 1970, he executed an express authorization designating
GRAMC as his bargaining agent.
In October 1970, at the Maywood station, Local 705
Representative Dicks asked Kailas if he had "any
employees to put in the union ." Kailas said no. Dicks
presented a 1970-73 preprinted Local 705 contract for
Kailas' signature , warning him that if he failed to sign it the
Union would set up a picket line and there would be no
gasoline deliveries to the station since the gasoline
truckdrivers belonged to the same Union, Local 705. Later
that month, Dicks returned and asked Kailas if he had a
man to "put in" the Union . Kailas thereupon asked his
employee , Connors, if he wished to join the Union;
Connors said no. Dicks warned that Local 705 would
"make trouble" for Kailas if he did not sign up, specifically
mentioning picketing . Kailas informed Dicks he was
moving to the Addison location . At this time , none of
Kallas' employees at Maywood belonged to the Union;
and at no time had more than one employee there been
"ins' the Union.
On November 4, 1970, Kailas moved to the Addison
location, taking with him his two full -time employees
(Connors and Curly) from Maywood , and hiring four part-
time employees . Kailas did not take over any employee of
the former operation at Addison. A few days after he
opened Addison , Kailas was visited by Local 705 Business
Agent Peter Alex, who asked if he had any men in the
Union. When Kailas said no, Alex presented a preprinted
Local 705 contract to him and said if he did not "put" two
men "in" the Union he "would have a picket line formed
and no gasoline deliveries." Referring to the GRAMC
emblem- in the station window, Alex said a sign like that
was "misrepresenting members and misleading you in a lot
of directions [and] would cause more harm than good to be
a member of this association .... With a sign like that
there in the window could cause a broken window," and
that it would be "to [your] best interest [to] withdraw
membership and [you] wouldn't have any problem." Alex
and Kailas agreed that Kailas need "put in" the Union
only one employee . When Alex returned a week later,
Kailas gave him a union card for Connors (who had
reluctantly placed his signature on it only on Kallas'
express direction to do so) and signed the 1970-73
contract . At this time, Kailas had six (two full- and four
part-time) employees , with Connors as aforesaid the only
one "in" the Union. At no time had Alex even claimed to
represent any employee.
In mid-March 1971 , on a call to the Addison station to
make collections, Local 705 Spokesman Alex asked Kailas
to "put" another man or Kailas himself "into" the Union.
When Kailas replied that he could not afford it and also
that he himself should not be in the Union, Alex said,
"Okay, we will let it be with Connors" but that "[I'll] be
back at a later date." Kailas has not seen Alex or any other
Local 705 emissary since then.7°
The dross revenues of the Addison station for 1971 were
approximately $312,000 (70 percent from gasoline sales).
Upon the foregoing credited uncontradicted testimony
of Eugene Dennis Kailas, I find that the allegations
concerning him have been established , essentially as set
forth in the complaint , by substantial credible evidence.
41. Instance 41: King & Abron Service Station
(5733 W. North Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
The Shell Oil service station at 5733 West North Avenue,
Chicago, has been owned from April 30, 1970 (since which
time until the end of that year it grossed around $150,000,
about 80-85 percent from gasoline sales , on the basis
thereof having a projected annual gross revenue of around
$225,000), by Nora King and Charles Abron as equal
partners. Both testified without contradiction.
Within about 2 weeks after King and Abron took over
the station in question (with some of its employees, none
known to be union members), they were visited by Local
705 Business Agent James Jackson with a preprinted Local
705 contract. In response to Jackson 's question, King
informed him that he had three full-time employees.
Jackson thereupon said that he would "have to have at
least two into the union ." When Jackson mentioned the
wages, King refused , stating he could not afford it. A few
weeks later, around June 1, 1970, Jackson returned and the
foregoing scene was essentially replayed , with the addition
this time, however, that Jackson yelled to the employees
(not by name) the question whether they wanted to join the
Union; one (Jimmie Irons) did not answer, and the other
(Mike Williams) said no . King did not sign the contract
and asked Jackson to leave.
Several weeks later-around mid-June 1970-Jackson
returned, this time accompanied by another individual,
and again asked King to sign the Local 705 contract. Again
King refused . Jackson then warned King that he would
picket the station and "stop the gasoline deliveries from
coming across the drive ," mentioning another station
TO As has been mentioned , the onginal charge herem was filed on
November 18, 1970.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
where he had done this, but that if King signed the
contract he "would let [you] go for one man being in the
union for the time being." Once again King asked Jackson
to leave. However, when Jackson returned around July 1,
renewing the proposed deal that if King signed the contract
the station need have only "one man in the union," King
signed up . Thereupon, when Jackson asked King "What
employee did [you] want[ed] to put in" the Union, King
designated his mechanic, Jimmie Irons , who was thus
assigned into the Union . Jackson then informed King that
King would "be responsible for paying the [union] dues of
this employee." At this time, the station had three full- and
two part-time employees. Irons, inducted into the Union as
described, remained in the station's employ for only about
8 or 10 months; but he (Irons) was the only union
employee at the station. At no time did Jackson in any way
indicate he represented any of the station employees, nor
did he ever state the station's previous owner had had a
contract with the Union.
On September 11, 1970, King became a member of
GRAMC and designated it as his collective-bargaining
representative, and he has since then continuously dis-
played its distinctive emblem prominently in the station
window.
In January or February 1971, Local 705 Business Agent
Jackson visited the station with a new 3-year preprinted
Local 705 contract which he asked King to sign. When
King inquired and Jackson informed him of the pay scale,
King refused to sign . Jackson returned a few weeks later
with an associate whom he identified as another union
business agent . This time Jackson spoke to King's partner,
Charles Abron, who likewise refused to sign the contract,
until Jackson threatened to picket and cut off gas deliveries
to the station, whereupon Abron signed up, without any
discussion of the contract terms or provisions. At this time,
the station had three full- and two part-time employees,
with only one employee-O. B. Marshall-"put in the
Union" by King to replace Irons after the latter left.
Respondent produced no witness and adduced no proof
to controvert any of the foregoing.
Crediting the described testimony of General Counsel
witnesses , Nora King and Charles Abron, I find that the
complaint allegations concerning them and their gasoline
station have been established by substantial credible
evidence.
42. Instance 42: Kobler Service Station (5753 W.
North Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
On like allegations, General Counsel witness, George
Kobler, testified that he has owned and operated the Shell
Oil service station at 5753 West North Avenue, Chicago for
21 years and has been a member of GRAMC during all of
that time, displaying its distinctive membership emblem on
the window of his station's front door for some years until
it was broken a few months ago; and that on September 16,
1970, he signed an express bargaining representative
designation to GRAMC.
Around the end of October 1970, Teamsters Local 705
Business Agent Daniel Ligurotus visited the station a
number of times with a 1970-73 preprinted contract for
Kobler to sign. Kobler each time told Ligurotus he would
249
not do so until an upcoming meeting with GRAMC. On
the third such visit , Ligurotus warned Kobler, "I have
always left you alone, I have never bothered you, so you
better sign the contract . . . . [We] wouldn 't bother [you)
if you sign[ed ] the contract .... [I] would leave you
alone ... [otherwise I] could shut off [your] gas
deliveries." Under these circumstances , Kobler signed the
"contract." Ligurotus did not claim to represent a majority
of, or indeed any , employees . At this time, Kobler had five
(two full- and three regular part-time) employees , with only
one (Colarrous , who did not want to join , but did so only
on Ligurotus' insistence that he "had to have one man in
the union"), in Teamsters Local 705 . During all of 1968
and 1969 , Kobler had likewise had not more than one
employee in the Union , out of a complement of five or six
(two full- and three or four part-time) employees. At no
time did Ligurotus ask Kobler how many employees he
had.
At no time has Kobler observed any provision (including
required wages) of his "contract" with Local
705-including "Union wages" to Colarrous . At no time
has Ligurotus been observed talking to any of the
employees; however, he called at the station quarterly to
pick up "collections" from Kobler . Although Kobler paid
these "Union dues" for Colarrous , at no time did he deduct
them from Colarrous' pay.
In the year 1970, Kobler's station produced a gross
revenue of $ 180,000 (85 percent from gasoline sales).
George Kobler's testimony was uncontradicted and is
credited . I find that the complaint allegations concerning
him have been established by substantial credible evidence.
43. Instance 43: Kool Service Station (3541 S.
California Ave., Chicago, I11.)
Upon substantially identical allegations , General Coun-
sel witness, Milton Kool, Jr., testified that he owned and
operated the Clark Oil service station at 3541 South
California Avenue, Chicago , from September 24, 1970, to
April 21, 1972, and joined GRAMC on November 12,
1970.
In early October 1970 , Local 705 Business Agent George
White called at Kool 's station and asked him if he was
"going to get into the Union." Kool responded affirmative-
ly. White asked him if he belonged to any dealers'
association. When Kool said no , White produced a
membership card in IGDA ("Illinois Gasoline Dealers
Association"-supra fns . 29 and 30), and told Kool that
Local 705 and IGDA got along well. Kool left the IGDA
membership form along with other papers for Kool's
signature. At this time, Kool told White that Kool was and
wanted to continue as a member of Local 705 , but White
told him not to worry about it and that he need not be; and
Kool made a Local 705 "health and welfare" contribution
on one of his employees, Wolf. The following day, Kool
was visited by representative Blair of IGDA , who informed
him that Local 705 Business Agent White had called and
notified Blair that Kool was "available for membership."
Blair told Kool that he (Blair) and White had "a very good
working relationship ." Kool thereupon made an initial
dues payment to Blair . In mid-November 1970, Kool
attended a meeting of GRAMC with some other dealers
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and joined GRAMC. Kool has since then maintained
membership in GRAMC, and has had no association with
IGDA.
In late November and in December 1970, Kool was
approached three or four times by Kool to sign a 1970-73
contract with Local 705. Kool refused, notwithstanding
White's threats to picket and "tie you up" and "dry[ing]
you up." On about the third such visit, among other things,
White called Kool a "hardnose punk" and again threat-
ened to picket, "dry [you ] up," and force him to pay "back
dues" and other moneys "on all [your] employees." Kool,
however, continued to refuse to sign up, stating to White
that it would be illegal since Local 705 did not represent
any of his employees. At no time did White indicate he
represented any of Kool's employees. At this time
(September-December 1970), Kool had six or seven (three
full- and three or four regular part-time) employees.
Although this is uncontroverted, it is stipulated that on
July 9, 1970-i.e., prior to the time Kool took over the station
-Local 705 had in its possession one (and only one)
membership and representation designation card, that of
Wolf, who continued to work for Kool only until July
1971; and that Kool had been a member of Local 705 only
prior to his taking the station over in September 1970.
Kool's station grossed about $85,000 from September 24
through December 1970; and around $350,000 in 1971.
At no time did Kool sign a contract with Local 705.
The foregoing facts are established by the uncontradict-
ed testimony of Milton Kool, Jr., which is credited. Upon
the basis thereof, I find that the complaint allegations
concerning Kool have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
44. Instance 44: Lacefield Service Station (503 S.
Mannheim Rd., Bellwood, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations, General Counsel witness
Robert ("Bobby") Lacefield testified that he has owned
and operated the Martin Oil service station at 503 South
Mannheim Road, Bellwood (a suburb of Chicago), Illinois,
since February 12, 1970, prior to which he was manager
thereof for Martin Oil Company. At the time Lacefield
took the station over, he kept all eight employees, who
(together with Lacefield) were members of Local 705,
which had a contract with Martin Oil Company covering
them.
In February 1970, Lacefield was visited by Local 705
Business Agent William ("Gene") Dicks, who informed
him that he (Lacefield) had "inherited the union contract
from Martin Oil," and presented him with a Local 705
contract which Lacefield signed. As of this time, seven of
Lacefield's eight employees (four full- and four regular
part-tune; excluding himself) were or had been members of
Local 705. Although Lacefield indicated that he would
keep employees in the Umon, he told Dicks he could not
afford to pay union scale. Dicks indicated that this as well
as who would be kept or placed into the Umon "is between
[you] and [your] men." Dicks did not state he represented
any of the employees, but left union dues-checkoff cards
for them to sign. Thereafter, Lacefield presented one of
these cards to his employee Trumble, who in signing the
card stated to Lacefield that he was doing so to "keep the
union off [your] back." In asking his employees Setek,
Chirbas, and Thompson to sign the union cards, Lacefield
explained to them that he "needed to put somebody in the
union to keep them off my back." Setek, Chirbas, and
Thompson signed the union cards for Lacefield, stating to
Lacefield that they were doing so "as a favor to (you]."
Employee Nendze likewise signed a Local 705 card.
At no time did Lacefield observe any provision of his
contract with Local 705. However, he paid his employees'
Local 705 union dues, which Local 705 Business Agent Dicks
called periodically to collect.
Lacefield joined GRAMC in August 1970, designating it
as his bargaining representative and since then displaying
prominently in his station window its distinctive member-
ship emblem.
In October 1970, Lacefield stopped paying union dues
and health and welfare contributions to Local 705 on his
employees (at that time, Lacefield's "dues" payments on
them were effective through December, but the health and
welfare contributions only through October 1970). Lace-
field so informed his employees and they did not object.
In November 1970, Dicks visited at the station and,
placing a preprinted Local 705 contract on the desk with
no suggestion of bargaining, told Lacefield it was "contract
time again." When Lacefield asked him to leave it for his
perusal, Dicks said he could not do so but would return.
Dicks returned later that month with the preprinted
contract. Lacefield informed him, "No way . . . . I can't
afford to pay the union scale." Dicks told Lacefield that he
(Lacefield) would have to "get the increase from the
[Martin Oil] company." After calling the Company,
Lacefield told Dicks that he was unable to obtain it from
the Company. At this time, Lacefield had 10 (6 full- and 4
regular part-time) employees.
On January 13, 1971, Dicks revisited the station and
again asked Lacefield to sign the preprinted Local 705
contract. When Lacefield continued to insist that he could
not afford it, Dicks again suggested that Lacefield call the
Martin Oil Company, which Lacefield again did without
success, so informing Dicks. Dicks thereupon stated,
"Well, we will just have to picket the station"; but after
speaking to several employees, Dicks told Lacefield that it
would be necessary "to get some outside help to take care
of the picketing [since] none of [your] boys will picket."
Subsequently Dicks continued to press Lacefield to sign
the preprinted contract, with Lacefield continuing to
decline. At these times, Dicks did not claim to represent
any of Lacefield's employees (eight or nine, five full- and
four regular part-time; it will be recalled that Lacefield had
discontinued paying dues on them in the preceding
October). Without claiming to represent any of the
employees, Dicks nonetheless warned Lacefield that he
would eventually have to sign the contract with Local 705
since the Union's lawyers "would make asses out of the
GRAMC lawyers." Although Lacefield was unable to
recall or account for signing a 1970-73 preprinted contract
with Local 705, nevertheless such an allegedly signed
document was produced and identified. It is, however,
totally undisputed that at no time did Lacefield pay any of his
employees the wages called for by this or any other Local 705
"contract" or observe any other provision thereof, and that he
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 251
himself for a period of time paid employees ' "Union dues"
without deduction from their wages . (Lacefield's income
tax return shows the amount of $1,363 paid in part to the
Union.)
Lacefield' s gross income for 11 months of 1970 at the
station was approximately $750,000 (80-85 percent from
gasoline sales).
Upon the foregoing facts, established by credited
testimony of Robert Lacefield, uncontradicted by any
witness , I find that the allegations of the complaint
consistent with the foregoing have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
himself (i.e., La Fata) was the only "Union member." At
no time did the Union indicate it represented any of his
employees. At no time did La Fata observe any provision
of any of the "contracts" he signed with the Union; at no
time did the Union indicate it was enforcing any contract
provision.
La Fata's gross business revenue at his station in 1970
was $70,000 (about 60 percent from gasoline sales).
Paul La Fata's testimony was uncontradicted and
uncross-examined, and is credited. I find that the com-
plaint allegations concerning him have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
45. Instance 45: La Fata Service Station (5362
W. Division St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon complaint allegations of the pattern described,
General Counsel witness , Paul La Fata, Jr., testified that he
has owned and operated the Arco Oil service station at 53
West Division Street, Chicago, for about 11 years.
Originally Paul La Fata owned the station in equal
partnership with his brother Philip La Fata, who remained
for only a year and a half but while there became a
member of Local 705 although neither of the station's two
employees joined. When the partnership was dissolved and
Philip La Fata stepped out and left the station-about
9-1/2 years ago-Paul La Fata became and has since
remained the only station "member" of Local 705; at no
time has any of his two employees been a member of Local
705. And La Fata has been entering into the usual
preprinted "contracts" with Local 705 recognizing it as the
exclusive "collective bargaining representative" of all of his
employees , while paying to it dues and health and welfare
contributions on himself alone.
In December 1970, La Fata was visited by a Local 705
spokesman with a "new contract" (1970-73), telling La
Fata it was "contract time ." When, this time, La Fata
refused to sign it, he was warned, "[You will ] have to sign
it . . . [otherwise we will] sign [up] all [your] employees
... and it would cost you more, [while ] now . . . it would
just take [yourself ]" and "if [you] didn't sign that the truck
drivers were union members and they wouldn't come-
they wouldn't drive, come across a picket line and [you]
wouldn't get any gas deliveries." La Fata nevertheless
continued to refuse to sign up. A few weeks later (mid-
January 1971), the Local 705 spokesman returned-this
time accompanied by an associate-and demanded that La
Fata sign the preprinted new "contract" under threat that
otherwise he would be picketed and receive no gasoline
deliveries. When La Fata pointed out that he belonged to
GRAMC (he had joined in October 1965, displayed its
distinctive emblem prominently in his station since 1969,
and executed an express bargaining authorization designa-
tion to it on October 15, 1970), the Local 705 spokesman
remarked that "They are on their way out, they won't do
[you] much good pretty soon',- and, further, threatened to
sign up all of La Fata's employees as Local 705 members
and that La Fata would then have to pay dues and health
and welfare contributions on all of them instead of just on
himself . Under these circumstances, La Fata signed up. At
this time he had two full-time employees, neither of them
then or at any time were members of the Union, and he
46. Instance 46: Lee Service Station (2675 E.
75th St., Chicago, Ill.)
On like complaint allegations , General Counsel witness,
William Lee, swore that he has owned and operated the
Clark Oil service station at 2675 East 75th Street, Chicago,
since February 26, 1968, when he took it over with only
one of the previous owner's employees (i.e., previous
owner's brother, John Shellafax), who remained for only 3
weeks. Lee hired four (two full- and two regular part-time)
employees.
About a week after he took over the station, Lee was
visited by Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri who
announced to him that he "want[ed] three men in the
union." In compliance with this demand, Lee "put" himself
and John Shellafax in, a few weeks later adding-at
Spizzeri's renewed insistence-employee Mitchell, who
refused to join but whom Lee told he would "have to join
the union" and "[You are] in the union ." Lee thereafter
signed Local 705's contract. When, shortly thereafter, John
Shellafax left Lee's employ, Lee "put" his employee
Connor "into" the Union in Shellafax's stead . At no time
had Spizzeri even claimed to represent any employee, nor
was he ever observed talking to any employee.
When, subsequently, employees Mitchell and Connors
left Lee's employ, Lee "put" others into the Union instead;
on one occasion, after Lee gave Spizzeri the name of an
employee, Lee saw Spizzeri himself sign the union member-
ship card for him. Lee also--in Spizzeri's presence-signed
another employee 's name (William Crush) on another Local
705 card. From 1968 to 1970, exclusive of himself, Lee had
five or six (three full- and 2-3 part-time) employees.
Lee had joined GRAMC in March 1968 and has been
displaying its distinctive membership emblem at his
station, and on April 21, 1970, he signed an express
bargaining agent designation to it. Around the beginning
of October 1970, Spizzeri told Lee he was "nuts for sticking
with the Gasoline Retailers" (i.e., GRAMC) and put before
him for signature a resignation form from GRAMC.
In January 1971 Spizzeri presented to Lee a new
preprinted Local 705 contract, which Lee refused to sign.
Spizzeri thereupon threatened the Union would picket the
station and "force [you] to pay health and welfare on [all
the employees]" and told Lee that "Most of the other
dealers were signing." Lee thereupon signed the contract.
At this time, Lee had six (three full- and 3 part-time)
employees, with only one (Ronez or Romez) and Lee
himself "in" the Union. A contemporary Union Business
Agent's report in Spizzeri's handwriting shows proprietor
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lee himself and only employee Ronez as Local 705
members. At no time had Spizzeri asked how many
persons were employed at the station.
Lee grossed $418,000 (75 percent gasoline sales) at the
station in 1970.
Again, as in the case of all of General Counsel's
witnesses , Lee's testimony was uncontradicted. Crediting
it, I find that the complaint allegations concerning William
Lee have been established by substantial credible evidence.
47. Instance 47: Levin Service Station (2700 W.
Tuohy, Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations, uncontradicted testimony of
General Counsel witness, Ben Levin, establishes that he
has since 1961 owned and operated the gasoline station at
2700 West Tuohy, Chicago, and since then has been
signing "collective bargaining contracts" with Local 705
each 3 years. Since 1961, aside from himself he has had two
(I full- and I part-time) employees, with never over one in
Respondent Union.
At no time has Respondent ever inquired how many
persons were employed at the station, nor was any union
representative observed talking to any employee, nor was
any "contract" provision discussed, nor did the Union ever
even claim to represent any employee.
In 1967, station owner, Ben Levin, made his son, Fred
Levin, his equal partner in the station's ownership; and
Fred has remained such. According to Ben Levin's
testimony, he saw his son, Fred, at the station on the
Saturday prior to the instant hearing, for about an hour,
doing the books; prior to that, he saw his son there about 2
months before, to relieve him (his father, Ben) for a few
days.
In 1968 , Local 705 Business Agent Frank Marker
presented Ben Levin with a new, preprinted 3-year
"collective bargaining agreement" for his signature. Ben
Levin signed it. At this time, he had two station employees:
Owens full-time and Ludwick part-time. Neither employee
was in the Union, nor did Local 705 Business Agent
Marker ask if they were nor claim that they were; nor did
Marker inquire as to how many employees there were, nor
was he observed to speak to any; nor did Marker even
claim to represent any employee. At this time, the only
possible "member" of Local 705 was Ben Levin's son, Fred
Levin, who was not even on the payroll. (Fred Levin put in
only 10 hours per month at the station in 1968, not on the
payroll. It will be recalled that station owner Ben Levin
took his son Fred in as an equal partner in 1967; in 1968,
Fred put in only 10 hours per month at the station.) It is
uncontroverted that the Local 705 "membership" card of Fred
Levinproduced by Respondent under subpena-is not signed
by nor otherwise in Fred Levin's handwriting.
In 1970, when Local 705 Business Agent Marker
presented him with a new preprinted "collective bargain-
mg" contract to sign, Ben Levin, before signing it, told
Marker that his son, Fred Levin, carried his own insurance
and that he, Ben Levin, would "like to get in on the health
and welfare." Marker said he would find out and let him
know. Subsequently, Marker informed Ben Levin that this
would be all right, but to have his son Fred Levin sign the
contract so as to indicate that "Fred is the employer and
you are the employee ." At this time, no station employee
was a member of Local 705 (the station had two
employees--Owens and Ludwick); however, Ben Levin
was paying "health and welfare" contributions on his son
Fred Levin-a 50-percent owner who put in only 10 hours
per month at the station in 1970 . Again, as previously,
Local 705 in no way inquired how many employees there
were, nor was observed to have any contact with any
employee ; nor was any provision of the contract negotiat-
ed. And at no time did Levin observe any provision of this (or
of any previous) "contract" with Local 705, although he made
such payments to Local 705 as it required and regularly
collected from him. There is no indication whatsoever that
the station employees were ever even aware that a
"collective agreement" had been entered into for their
"benefit" or in any way affecting them.
Levin has been a member of GRAMC from 1961 to
1971, but dropped out in the latter year when GRAMC
brought suit against Local 705; in 1972, Levin removed the
GRAMC emblem from his station window. In 1970, the
Levin station's gross receipts were around $ 130,000 (90
percent from gasoline sales).
As has been indicated , Ben Levin's testimony stands
uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find that the complaint
allegations concerning him have been established by
substantial credible evidence.
48. Instance 48: Leschkies & Berggren Service
Station (800 W. Cermak Rd., Chicago, Ill.)
Substantially similar complaint allegations are estab-
lished through, again, uncontradicted testimony of General
Counsel witnesses , Erwin Leschkies and Reinhold Berg-
gren (Berggreen), who have owned and operated the
Standard Oil service station at 800 West Cermak Road,
Chicago, in partnership since around April 1969. Prior to
this partnership, Leschkies had been employed at the
station by Berggren , who was then in partnership with one
Pemberton; when Leschkies took over the station's
ownership in partnership with Berggren there was no
hiatus in its operations. At that time (April 1969), there
were three persons at the station-Berggren , Leschkies,
and employee Flores. All three were "in" the Union:
Leschkies having been "put in," without payment of fees or
dues at any time, under the previous station ownership
(i.e., Berggren & Pemberton) when employee Messner had
left; and Flores, who was "put in" the Union when
Leschkies became an owner-partner . Local 705 "union
dues" were collected regularly by Business Agent Jerry
Spizzeri, who never inquired how many employees there
were.
Employee Flores left the station's employ in December,
1969 and was replaced by Erich Leschkies as a mechanic.
Station owner Erwin Leschkies told this to Local 705
Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri when he called at the station
in January 1970. Spizzeri thereupon asked station owner
Erwin Leschkies, "Who you going to put in the Union right
now," telling him that "There had to be three [in the
Union]." So, Erwin Leschkies told Spizzeri to "put" Erich
Leschkies into the Union and Spizzeri did so. At no time
did Erwin Leschkies ask Erich Leschkies whether he
wished to become a member , nor inform Erich he had been
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
made a member, nor did Erich ever sign a membership
card . However, payments to Local 705 were thereafter
made upon him (Erich Leschkies), as well as upon station
owners Berggren and Erwin Leschkies.
In October or November 1970, Spizzeri presented a
preprinted Local 705 "contract" for 1970-73 to Berggren,
telling him, "Here, sign it." Berggren signed it without
discussion. At that time, there continued to be three
persons at the station-owners Berggren and Erwin
Leschkies, and employee Erich Leschkies who had never
signed a union application nor been asked nor been told
about union membership, but upon all three of whom
Berggren and Erwin Leschkies were making regular
"payments" to Local 705, without checkoff or wage
deduction or authorization of employee. Other than such
`payments," at no time did the station owners ever observe
any of the "contract" terms. 71
The station-which grossed around $250,000 (about
75-80 percent in gasoline sales) in 1970-had associated
itself with GRAMC in September 1969 and commenced to
display its distinctive membership emblem in its window in
1970-71. In the latter part of 1971, Berggren notified
Spizzeri that he would make no further payments to Local
705. The following day, Spizzeri returned with somebody
identified as "a big guy ... six-two, six-three, 200, 220,"
and invited Berggren into a car. There, Berggren repeated
that he would make no further payments to Local 705,
giving as his reason that he had been unable to obtain
payments on health and welfare coverage for his child.
However, when Spizzeri showed him picket signs in the car
and threatened to picket the station and stop gasoline
deliveries, Berggren agreed to continue to make payments
to Local 705.
On July 14, 1972, a week before testifying at the instant
trial, Berggren told Spizzeri that after taking the matter up
with the National Labor Relations Board he would make
no further payments to the Union. Spizzeri replied that
"The Labor Board [has] nothing to do with the union" and
demanded to know the name of the person Berggren had
spoken to there. Berggren declined to supply this informa-
tion.
The foregoing is, once again, totally uncontradicted.
Crediting it, I find that the complaint allegations concern-
ing Erwin Leschkies and Reinhold Berggren have been
established by substantial credible evidence.
49. Instance 49: Marshall Service Station (11555
S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon the familiar allegations, 11555 South Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, Clark Oil service station Owner Robert
C. Marshall testified that he has operated that station since
he acquired it in November 1968 from the former owner,
who had a contract with Local 705 and whose seven
employees Marshall took over.
Prior to this, Marshall had operated another service
station on South Stony Island, also in Chicago. Marshall
described a previous experience there with Local 705
Business Agent Robert Jacobs who placed two Union
71 However, Station Owner Erwin Leschkies invoked "health and
welfare" coverage-presumably designed for employees as intended
beneficiaries of usual workmen's union representation-m February 1970.
25.1
"contracts" down on the table , opened up his coat
displaying two guns, and asked , "What's it going to be?"
Marshall signed the "contract" and placed himself as well
as an employee into the Union as "members."
In November 1968, soon after he took over his new
South Michigan Avenue location , Marshall was visited by
Local 705 Business Agent George White , and presented
with a new preprinted "contract" for signature . White did
not ask him how many employees he had nor did he claim
to represent any. Marshall signed up and began making
payments to Local 705 on all seven employees . From then
(November 1968) to December 1970, although the number
of station employees ranged from 7 to 10 , the number of
Local 705 employees dropped to 1; when a Local 705
employee left the station's employ, Marshall invariably
reported it on his remittance forms to the Union, but
received no response or comment from the Union.
When Local 705 Business Agent White called at the
station at the beginning of November 1970, observing a
GRAMC emblem in the window, he remarked, "You
joined that? .... [You] should know better than to join
an outfit like that." (Marshall had been a member of
GRAMC since 1961 , and executed an express bargaining
authorization designation to it on February 22, 1967.)
White told Marshall that the new contracts with Local 705
were "being printed up." Marshall asked him who had
negotiated it. White replied, "It's just being printed up."
When Marshall said, "I hope the contract reads the right
way now," White said , "Don't worry about it , just keep
working the way you are working." At no time did White
inquire how many employees Marshall had nor what wages
he was paying them, nor did White claim to represent any.
About 2 weeks later (i.e., November 15, 1970), White
returned and presented the preprinted "new contract"
(1970-73) with Local 705 for Marshall 's signature. When
Marshall pointed out that it contained a provision (i.e., 48
hours straight-time instead of time-and-a-half pay after 40
hours) which Marshall regarded as being in contravention
of Federal law,72 White began speaking of closing another
dealer down who had demurred about signing the new
"contract." Upon White's return a few weeks later,
Marshall signed the new "contract ." At that time, he had
10 (6 full- and 4 regular part-time) employees . However, as
established by his remittance form to the Union, in
November 1970 he made payment to Local 705 on only
one employee (Kennedy), and in December 1970 partially
on only three employees (dues and health and welfare on
part-time employee Jones; dues only on full-time employee
Brown ; health and welfare only on sporadic part-time
employee Riley).
The gross income of the Marshall Service Station in 1970
was approximately $650,000 (80 percent gasoline sales).
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted, credited testimony,
I find the complaint allegations concerning Robert C.
Marshall established by substantial credible evidence.
72 Marshall testified that he paid time-and-a-half wages to his employees
for hours in excess of 40 even though the Local 705 preprinted contract did
not so require
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
50. Instance 50: McCann Service Station (3749
N. Ashland, Chicago, Ill.)
Upon substantially identical complaint allegations,
William Blair McCann, Sr., testified-again, as in all other
instances, without contradiction by any witness of Respon-
dent-that he has owned and operated the Citgo service
station at 3749 North Ashland, Chicago, since October
1967, when he took it over from its former owner and hired
a completely new crew of employees. In addition to selling
gas and oil, McCann rents trailers at the station. McCann,
who had had a previous contract with Local 705, with two
employees (one of them his son, William McCann, Jr.) in
that Union, on or about April 20, 1968, signed a 1967-70
contract with the Union, but at no time did he observe the
wage or any other provision thereof.
When Local 705 Business Agent Frank Marker visited
the station in April 1969, McCann asked him if Ire (station
owner McCann, Sr.) could replace his son (employee
McCann, Jr.) as Local 705 union member and obtain
health and welfare coverage instead of his son. Marker
thereupon arranged to substitute on the union contract the
name of McCann, Jr. (employee), as the (purported)
station owner so as to indicate the father (McCann, Sr., the
station owner) was an employee of the son (McCann, Jr., a
station employee).73 Accordingly, when the new (1967-70)
preprinted Local 705 contract was prepared, it showed
McCann, Jr., as owner; but it is undisputed that it was
McCann, Sr., who signed the name of McCann, Jr.
From May 1969 until early 1971 the only two Local 705
"members" were McCann, Sr., himself (the station owner)
and employee Merkland or Merklin (rehired and a member
again in May 1969), although the station had (exclusive of
McCann, Sr.) six (four full- and two regular part-time)
employees.
McCann had been a member of GRAMC since long
before owning the station in question, and conspicuously
displayed its distinctive emblem in his station window
except at such times as the window was broken. In
November 1970 Local 705 Business Agent Marker present-
ed a new , 1967-70 contract to McCann (Sr.) for his
signature . This time, McCann expostulated that employees
were not signed up as members of Local 705, which was
not entitled to represent them, and that GRAMC was
"fighting this thing." Marker's response was, "We have
always cooperated with each other like in the case of the
health and welfare . . . . I don't think the association
[GRAMC] is going to get anyplace with their fight." So,
McCann (Sr.) signed the new contract; however, he signed
the name of his son (McCann, Jr.), although that son was no
longer even connected with the station. At this time, exclusive
of himself, there were six (four full- and two regular part-
time) station employees, with only one employee (plus
McCann himself) in the Union. Likewise, again, Marker in
no way inquired concerning the number of employees,
their wages , or otherwise, nor did he even claim to
represent them. And at no time has McCann observed the
wage or other provisions of the 1970-73 Local 705 "contract. "
The 1970 gross income of the McCann service station
was approximately $150,000, of which 40 percent was from
gasoline sales.
Crediting the uncontradicted testimony of William Blair
McCann, Sr., I find the complaint allegations concerning
him established by substantial credible evidence.
51. Instance 51: McCoy Service Station (4701 S.
State St., Chicago, Ill.)
On like complaint allegations, General Counsel witness
Elijah McCoy testified that for about 12 years until he
went out of business on April 15, 1971, he owned and
operated the Clark Oil service station at 4701 South State
Street, Chicago. Around Christmas 1967, McCoy was
visited by Local 705 Business Agents Jerry Spizzeri and
James Jackson, who presented him a preprinted "contract"
for his signature. McCoy refused to sign it without at least
reviewing it. He was, however, informed by the Local 705
spokesman that "there is nothing to review . It's the regular
procedure, usually every three years." When McCoy
continued to refuse to sign it without readin* it, the union
spokesmen left, but not without Jackson telling McCoy to
"put more men in the Union . . . at least half . . . [I'd] be
doing [you] a favor by only having two [in the Union]."
When Jackson and Spizzeri returned a few weeks later
and McCoy continued to refuse to sign the contract, they
warned him, "You going to sign it . . . if not [we] going to
put [you] out of business." When the same two again
returned in March 1968, McCoy signed up (1967-70
"agreement"). At this time, McCoy had at least seven
employees, with only two-to the knowledge of Spizzeri
and Jackson, since McCoy had allowed them to speak to
all employees-in the Union.
McCoy hired Union Business Agent Jackson's brother
(George Jackson) as an employee in 1970. Respondent
concedes that records indicate no evidence of union member-
ship of any McCoy employee at any time from January 1,
1970, to July 31, 197174, although throughout 1970 he had 8
to 13 (9 full-time) employees.75
McCoy has been a member of GRAMC since the early
1960's, with its distinctive emblem displayed in his station
window; in 1970 he was elected to its board of directors. In
September 1970, he was visited by Spizzeri, who presented
him with a paper to sign deauthorizing GRAMC to act as
his bargaining representative, stating that this would
"eliminate you from many problems of the [GRAMC]
Association." McCoy declined. Spizzeri thereupon called
his fellow Local 705 Business Agent Jackson, who came
over, and they both (i.e., Spizzeri and Jackson) threatened
McCoy that they would strike him, cut off his gasoline
deliveries , and put him out of business , if he did not sign
the GRAMC deauthorization form . They then invited him
to a restaurant , where this process of "persuasion"
continued, with the Local 705 spokesmen threatening
McCoy to "make an example out of you . . . since you
have been elected to the board of directors of the
GRAMC, we know that we got to make an example out of
73 Accordingly, McCann's remittance form to Local 705 for December McCann, Sr (father), as union member.
1968 (G.C. Exh. 458) shows McCann, Sr (father), as the "Employer" and 74 It will be recalled that McCoy gave up the business on April 15, 1971.
McCann, Jr. (son), as union member , whereas his remittance form for April 75 Apparently McCoy was under the impression that he had only two,
1969 (G .C. Exh. 459) shows McCann, Jr (son), as the "Employer" and and never over three , employees who were union members.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 255
you first and we set an example with you ... and we will
not have any problem with the rest of the Clark dealers."
McCoy, however, persisted in his refusal to sign the
GRAMC deauthorization paper, as he continued to do
when the two Local 705 spokesmen again returned some
weeks later.
In November 1970, Spizzeri and Jackson entered
McCoy's service station, "threw" a preprinted Local 705
"contract" for 1970-73 on his desk, and demanded that he
sign it . When McCoy refused, they warned him that if he
didn't they would "put you out of business ." The two
continued periodically to visit McCoy and to renew their
warnings and threats for the remainder of 1970 and the
early months of 1971 to "put [you] out of business," joined
in 1971 by a third Local 705 Business Agent, Gilmore, who
told McCoy, "I don't want to see you get hurt ...." The
Local 705 agents threatened that McCoy's gasoline
deliveries would be cut off if he did not sign the preprinted
"contract." Nevertheless, McCoy continued to refuse to
sign . The Local 705 spokesmen stated, "We just going to
have to make an example out of you for the others." But
McCoy never signed up. He went out of business in April
1971, and became an insurance representative. Although
his gross revenues from his service station in 1970 were
around $750,000 (90 percent from gasoline sales), with a
net income of $25-30,000, he gave up his service station
business (without compensation for goodwill but only for
repayment of merchandise by Clark Oil Company)
because, in his words, "I had gotten tired of the threats
from these fellows, from Jackson and Spizzeri and
Gilmore," as well as the accompanying anonymous
telephone calls, parked cars in front of his station, and
fears "for the safety of my family."
Upon the foregoing credited testimony of Elijah McCoy
-as usual , wholly uncontradicted-I find that the
complaint allegations concerning him have been estab-
lished by substantial credible evidence.
52. Instance 52: Megaris Service Station (5955 W.
Higgins, Chicago, Ill.)
Upon now familiar complaint allegations, General
Counsel witness, Michael George Megans, testified that he
has owned and operated the Clark Oil service station at
5955 West Higgins, Chicago, since January 1970. Soon
thereafter, in March 1970, he was visited by Local 705
Business Agent "Danny" Ligurotus-whom Megans de-
scribes as about 6 feet, 5 inches, tall and weighing about
235 pounds-who, presenting him with a preprinted Local
705 "contract," announced to him, "This station has
always been a union station and [I want] two men to join."
When Megaris asked what would happen if his employees
did not want to join, Ligurotus repeated that he "want[ed]
two men . . . in the union" and warned Megans that he
"would have a hard time getting gas for [your] gas station
because the truck drivers are in the union and . . . they
can't deliver to non-union stations." Ligurotus did not
claim to represent any employee nor did he indicate whom
he "wanted" in the Union, but he merely left two Local 705
membership application cards with Megaris. At this time,
Megans had four (two full- and two regular part-time)
employees at the station. On the same afternoon , Megaris
spoke to two of his employees about joining Local 705.
One (Mammosser), expressing reluctance to join, did so
only at Megaris' insistence that he was "in a jam"; the
other (Mains), at first refusing , also did so only on Megaris'
urging, explaining that "I 'll do it as a favor to you
[Megans ] ." When Ligurotus called for the membership
application cards the next day , Megaris turned them over
to him and signed the "contract" but simultaneously told
Ligurotus that he would not pay the wage rates thereby
required . Ligurotus merely shrugged off the question or
comment . Nor did Megaris ever pay that "contract" wage
scale.
When Megaris' employee, Mammosser , left his employ
about a month thereafter, Megaris made payments to the
Union on employee Mains only (out of four station
employees). On a visit to the station in July 1970, Ligurotus
told Megaris that he "want[ed] another man to join the
union" and gave Megaris another union card . However,
Megaris was unable to get any other employee to "join"
Local 705, until, after a lengthy discussion and on Megaris'
insistence , one part-time employee-Lumb, a 16-year-old
high school student-finally agreed only after Megans
gave him a 15- or 20-cent hourly increase . This made two
(Mains and Lumb) employees, out of four, in the Union.
Megaris had become a member of GRAMC on May 4,
1970, with its distinctive emblem prominently displayed in
his station window at all times since . In November 1970,
Ligurotus presented Megaris with a preprinted "new
contract" for 1970-73. After looking through it , Megaris
remarked, "This is really a whole lot of money for me to be
paying guys to be pumping gas. Do they really expect me
to pay this kind of bread?" Ligurotus replied, "Nobody is
really too worried about it" as he "shrugged his shoulders."
Other than eventually to Mains, Megaris never paid to any
employee the wage scale required by his "contract" with
Local705.
Megaris ' gross income at the station in 1970 exceeded
$260,000, of which about 80 percent was from gasoline
sales.
Michael George Megaris' testimony was uncontradicted
and is credited . I find the complaint allegations concerning
him established by substantial credible evidence.
53. Instance 53: Mohr Service Station (7400 W.
Harrison St., Forest Park, Ill.)
On like allegations, General Counsel witness, Thomas R.
Mohr, testified that he has owned and operated the
Standard Oil service station at 7400 West Harrison Street,
Forest Park (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, since January 1,
1969, when he took it over from his father (Howard R.
Mohr), retaining four (two full- and two regular part-time)
employees. A few days after he took the station over, he
was visited by Local 705 Business Agent William Dicks,
who, without asking how many employees he had or
anything else about them and without claiming to
represent any employee, announced to Mohr that he would
"have to carry two people in the Union" and that health
and welfare payments were "mandatory." When Dicks
returned a few weeks later and the same discussion was
repeated, Mohr signed a preprinted 1967-70 "contract"
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Local 705 and placed himself and one employee
(Nicholson) into the Union, so informing Dicks.
During all of 1969 and 1970 , with four station employees
(two full- and two regular part-time) excluding himself,
there was only one employee (Nicholson ; later, Teets) in
the Union, and also Mohr himself . At no time did Mohr pay
union wages nor observe any other provision of his "contract"
with Local 705, except to make payments on himself and
one employee to Local 705, which were collected regularly
at the station by Dicks, who at no time spoke to any
employee, nor inquired how many employees there were
nor who they were , nor what wages they were being paid.
At the end of November 1970, when Dicks presented a
new preprinted 3-year "contract" (1970-73) to Mohr for
signature , telling him again that he "would still have to
have two people in the Union and . . . have to carry health
and welfare," Mohr again signed the new "contract"
without any discussion and without so much as reading it.
Mohr then "put" employee Teets (Nicholson's replace-
ment) into the Union without asking him ; Mohr later told
Teets that he (Mohr) would be "carrying his dues" for him
(Teets). At this time , Mohr had four (two full- and two
regular part-time) employees, exclusive of himself. At no
time did Mohr deduct from employees ' wages the
payments he made to Local 705, nor did he tell them he
had a 1970-73 contract with Local 705.
Mohr has been a member of GRAMC and has
prominently displayed its distinctive membership emblem
on his station door since he took the station over in
January 1969. His gross volume of business in 1970 was
around $160 ,000, two-thirds from gasoline sales.
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted and credited testi-
mony, I find that the complaint allegations concerning
Thomas (R.) Mohr have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
54. Instance 54: Monroe Service Station (3248 W.
Fullerton Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon substantially similar allegations , General Counsel
witness James (Jimmy) W. Monroe testified that he has
owned and operated the Martin Oil service station at 3248
West Fullerton Avenue , Chicago, since December 1, 1970,
for about a year prior to which he had been the station's
assistant manager for its previous owner , Paul Napier.
When Monroe took over the station , he retained all nine
employees there , including Napier himself, of whom four
(Napier, Monroe, Bostic, and Cornwell) were Local 705
members with dues checked off. Early in December 1970,
Local 705 Business Agent Sam Dibenardo asked Monroe
to sign a new union contract (1970-73) and Monroe did so,
informing Dibenardo that he had kept all of Napier's
employees . Dibenardo told Monroe that he would have to
keep four employees in the Union at all times . At this time,
Monroe had nine (seven full-time and two regular part-
time) employees , and he began paying union dues on three
of them ; viz, Assistant Manager Napier who was clearly a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, Bostic ("Spas-
tic") who also had supervisory authority and who took
Napier's place as assistant manager when Napier left in the
late spring of 1971 , and employee Cornwell; and Monroe
also paid Union dues on himself . At no time did
Dibenardo claim to represent any employee nor discuss
any term of the contract . At this time, Monroe was a
member of GRAMC, with its distinctive emblem displayed
in the station window. (Knowing that he was soon to take
over the station, Monroe had also executed to GRAMC an
express bargaining authorization designation on August 14,
1970.)
When Dibenardo visited the station in January 1971, he
remarked to Monroe that the GRAMC emblem in his
window "[isn't] worth the piece of paper it [is ] printed on,"
and asked Monroe why he had joined it. Returning later in
the spring or early summer of 1971, Dibenardo informed
Monroe that although he (Dibenardo) was picketing a
nearby Martin Oil station , he would not picket Monroe
"till further notice." Soon thereafter Dibenardo instructed
Monroe to "put" somebody in the Union to replace Napier
(assistant manager) who had left. Monroe informed
Dibenardo that nobody had been hired to replace Napier
and that, furthermore , the employees had told him they did
not want the Union any longer , or deductions to be made
from their wages for dues or health and welfare, since the
Union did nothing for them. When Dibenardo returned
the following month (July 1971) for collections , Monroe
told him the same thing. Dibenardo warned that if
anything happened to any employee's child, the employee
could sue Monroe ; and Dibenardo threatened Monroe
with pickets and to stop gasoline deliveries . Monroe told
Dibenardo to contact GRAMC.
The gross income of the Monroe station for 1970 was
approximately $745,000, of which 80 percent was from
gasoline sales.
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted and credited testi-
mony of Monroe, I find that, except for the allegation in
paragraph XII,(Y),(2) of the complaint concerning threats
by Dibenardo to Monroe in December 1970, the remaining
allegations of the complaint, substantially as there alleged,
concerning James (Jimmy) W. Monroe, have been estab-
lished by substantial credible evidence.
55. Instance 55: Morgan Service Station ( 10301 S.
Cottage Grove Ave ., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon like allegations, General Counsel witness, Arthur
Morgan, testified that in 1965 he and a partner acquired
the Shell Oil service station at 10301 South Cottage Grove
Avenue , Chicago, and that a year later he bought his
partner out . Within a month after Morgan and his partner
acquired the station , they received a visit from Local 705
Business Agent George Gilmore , who told them to "put
somebody in the Union." Morgan said that since there
were only himself and his partner there , they could not
afford it. A few weeks later, however, several Local 705
spokesmen came to the station and told them to "put
somebody in the Union" or else they would "cut [your] gas
supply off." At this time, there was only one employee at
the station and he was part-time. Faced with the indicated
threat, Morgan signed a "contract" with Local 705 and his
partner went into that Union, remaining "in" until he left
the partnership and station a year later , at which time
Morgan himself replaced him as the station's "Union
member." Around the end of 1966 , Gilmore informed
Morgan to get out of the Union and "put somebody [else]
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
in." Accordingly, in Morgan's words, "I picked him
[Rasudo]" and merely gave his (Rasudo's) name to
Gilmore and "I told him [Rasudo] I was putting him in."
There is no indication that Rasudo ever signed a Local 705
membership card and none was produced by Respondent
Local 705 at the instant trial notwithstanding a subpoena
served upon it. At the time Rasudo 's name was thus given to
Gilmore , Morgan had two employees---one full and one
regular part-time . At no time did Gilmore even claim to
represent an employee.
From 1974-72 the station usually had four (two full- and
two regular part-time) employees . However , since 1%9
station owner Morgan himself has been the only person at
the station who has been a member of Local 705. When
Gilmore presented Morgan with a new 3-year preprinted
contract with Local 705 for 1970-73, in November 1970,
although Morgan had four (two full- and two regular part-
time) employees, none belonged to Local 705, nor did
Gilmore even claim to represent any; Morgan himself was
the only member of Local 705. Morgan signed the 1970-73
contract. At no time has he observed any provision of that
or his previous "contract" with Local 705 in respect to
wages or otherwise ; he pays less than union scale. At no
time did he ever tell any of his employees that he had
signed a contract with Local 705 or about any of its terms.
But he paid Local 705 "dues" and "health and welfare
contributions" on himself.7e
Morgan joined GRAMC on June 14, 1966, and has
displayed its distinctive membership emblem in his station
window prominently since at least 1969 or 1970; and
around June 1970 he also executed to GRAMC a formal
bargaining authorization designation. His 1970 gross
revenue at the station was approximately $304,000, 75-80
percent from gasoline sales.
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted, credited testimony
of Arthur Morgan, I find the complaint allegations
concerning him established by substantial evidence.
56. Instance 56: Nestor Service Station (6720 N.
Ridge Ave ., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon substantially identical allegations, the owner-
operator of the Clark Oil service station at 6720 North
Ridge Avenue, Chicago, John M. Nestor (Nestor), testified
that he acquired that station on September 6, 1968, from a
previous owner , none of whose employees he took over.
Later that month (September 1%8) Local 705 Business
Agent Harty visited the station and asked how many
employees Nestor had. When Nestor said two, Harty sa
"I will let you ride for the time being."
Harty returned around January 1969, and again asked
Nestor how many employees he had. When Nestor told
him he had two full-time and one part-time, Harty told him
to "put one in the union." (At no time then or prior to then
had Harty claimed to represent any of Nestor 's employ-
ees.) Harty handed a union card to Nestor , who "picked"
Sylvester Scott to be "in" the Union; thereupon, in Local
705 Business Agent Harty's presence, Nestor signed Scott's
name on the Local 705 union membership application dues-
257
checkoff card and returned it to Harty. That night, when
Scott came on duty at the station, Nestor told him he was
"in" the Union. At no time did he ask Scott whether he
wanted to be in the Union. Thereafter, Harty visited the
station regularly for Local 705 "collections," which Nestor
paid to him.
In July 1969 Nestor hired a new employee to replace one
(Kurth) who had left. The new employee was Freddie Scott
(Sylvester Scott's brother). When Local 705 Business Agent
Harty called later that month to make his collections, he
asked Nestor how many employees he then had. When
Nestor informed him that he had three full- and one part-
time, Harty told him he would "have to put another one in
the union." Although Nestor first said he could not afford
it, he nevertheless later agreed to do so; whereupon, Harty
gave Nestor a Local 705 card and Nestor again-as in the
case of Sylvester Scott, described above-without asking
Freddie Scott whether he wished to be in the Union , signed
(i.e., Nestor signed) Freddie Scott's name to the Local 705
card in the presence of Local 705 Business Agent Harty and
gave it to Harty. When Freddie Scott' s employment at the
station terminated in the summer of 1970, he was replaced
by John Fishbein, leaving only employee Sylvester Scott in
the Union then and since then, since Harty never asked
Nestor to place anybody else in the Union instead of
Freddie Scott. Nestor has accordingly since then been
making payments to Local 705 with relation to Sylvester
Scott only. At no time did Nestor deduct from the pay of
Sylvester or Freddie Scott an payments of "Union dues"
he (Nestor) made to Local 7055 in relation to them.
In November or December 1970-when Nestor had
three regular employees, with only one (Sylvester Scott) in
the Union-Harty presented a new 3-year preprinted
Local 705 "contract" to Nestor for signature. Nestor did
not sign it, saying he was unable to pay such wages. When
Harty returned a week later, a similar interchange
occurred, but this time, without further discussion or ado,
Harty indicated that the specified wage rates "doesn't
pertain to you [Nestor ]," whereupon Nestor signed the
"contract." And in fact Nestor has never paid the wages
called for by any Local 705 contract.
Nestor rejoined GRAMC in 1 %9, since when he has
remained a member, continuously displaying its distinctive
membership emblem in his station window , and on August
4, 1970, he executed a formal collective-bargaining
authorization designation to it. The gross income of his
service station in 1970 was around $270,000, approximately
85 percent from gasoline sales.
Again without explanation, as in the case of every other
gasoline service station dealer, Respondent produced no
witness to contradict Nestor in any way. Crediting the
described testimony of John M. Nestor, I find the
complaint allegations concerning him established by
substantial credible evidence.
57. Instance 57: Niewinaki Service Station (3519
W. Irving Park Rd ., Chicago, Ill.)
Again upon substantially identical allegations, Joseph
76 He made a claim , relating to his wife , against the union health and
welfare coverage , which was paid.
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Niewinski ("Niewinski"), owner of the Shell Oil service
station at 3519 West Irving Park Road, Chicago, testified
that he acquired that station ("Irving Park"), keeping some
of its employees, on February 1, 1969, from its former
owner, Mrs. Virginia Hoffman, who had a contract with
Local 705. On March 15, 1971, Niewinski acquired a
second Shell Oil service station at 3349 West Montrose
("Montrose") about 5 or 6 blocks away, at which he made
his father, Joseph J. Niewinski, the manager.
In April 1969-shortly after Niewinski acquired Irving
Park-he was visited by a large, heavyset individual who,
identifying himself as a business agent of Local 705,77
presented Niewinski with a preprinted "book form" which
he asked Niewinski to sign and to "put" a man into the
Union. According to Niewinski's totally uncontradicted
testimony, what he describes as the "book form" placed
before him by the Local 705 Business Agent was opened to
the signature page only and was not explained or described
by the Local 705 Business Agent to be a contract, so
Niewinski signed it-but he never, then or later, received a
signed copy of it. With regard to "putting" anybody into
the Union, however, Niewinski said he would first have to
talk to his employees about that. Although the Local 705
business agent did not inquire, at this time Niewinski had
six (three full- and three part-time) employees. After
speaking to employee May, with the permission of
Niewinski, the Local 705 business agent stated that he
would return subsequently "to talk about putting a man in
the union."
After the Local 705 business agent left, his employee,
May (to whom the Local 705 business agent had spoken, as
described above), notified Niewinski that he (May) did not
wish to join the Union unless Niewinski paid his dues.
Niewinski thereupon asked his employee, Borucki, whether
he would join the Union, paying dues but obtaining health
and welfare benefits; but Borucki replied that he already
had health and welfare coverage and did not wish to join
the Union.
About 2 weeks later, in early May 1969 the Local 705
business agent returned. Niewinski reported to him that
none of his employees wished to join the Union but that
he, Niewinski himself, could be "put into the union." This
particular business agent-unlike others , as shown above
-took the position that Niewinski could not join the
Union since he was an employer. Niewinski then inquired
whether the Union could supply him with an employee if
he needed one at the station and the business agent said
no. Niewinski thereupon asked, "What good is the Union
to me?" The business agent's response was that Niewinski
had signed a contract with the Union, but Niewinski said
he had no idea that he had done so. The business agent
insisted that Niewinski had "better have somebody to put
in the union" when he returned.
About a month later, the same business agent returned
and again insisted that Niewinski "put [somebody ] into the
Union" without further ado. Soon thereafter, in July 1969,
Local 705 Business Agent Sam Dibenardo dropped in on
Niewinski and demanded that Niewinski put "somebody
in the union." Niewinski again pointed out-as he had to
the other business agent-that he was unable to do so since
no employee was willing to join. Dibenardo left, only to
return shortly thereafter (July 1969) and state bluntly to
Niewinski, "I am tired of coming around and clowning
around with you ... we are going to picket you and cut
off your gas deliveries." At this, Niewinski indicated he
would attempt to persuade his father (Joseph J. Niewinski)
to sign up and become a member of Local 705. Niewinski's
father-who drove a tow truck 90 percent, and was an
attendant at the station only 10 percent, of the time-ag-
reed and signed a card for his son. Accordingly, Niewinski
began making payments to Local 705 of union dues and
health and welfare contributions on his father.
On November 30, 1970, Local 705 Business Agent
Dibenardo presented Niewinski with a new, preprinted 3-
year (1970-73) contract for signature. This time Niewinski
insisted on reading it first, and Dibenardo reluctantly left it
with Niewinski at the latter's insistence, explaining that this
was not the Union's normal practice. After two more visits
by Dibenardo, Niewinski signed the contract in December
1970. At this time, Niewinski had six regular (three full-
and three part-time) employees, with his father the only
member of the Union. There had been no discussion of
any contract provision and Dibenardo made no assertion
or claim that the Union represented the employees or a
majority of them.
On March 15, 1971, Niewinski opened his Montrose
station and installed his father as its manager. Although at
no time from then on did Niewinski's father work at the
Irving Park station, Niewinski continued to make pay-
ments to Local 705 on him-and on him alone-at Irving
Park just the same as if he were there. That the Union was
cognizant of the second (Montrose) station is shown by
uncontradicted testimony that a few weeks after that
(Montrose) station was opened, a u, for representative
called there and demanded of Niewnnek o',, tattier (the
manager there) that a "man [be put] in the union at the
Montrose station . . . you belong at Irving Park."
Following up on this, in early June 1971 Local 705
Business Agent Dibenardo demanded of Niewinski at
Irving Park that he put into the Union an (i.e., any)
employee at Montrose, but Niewinski refused. Later that
month (June 1971) Dibenardo returned to Irving Park and
told Niewinski, "We have been pretty easy on you up to
now. We have never enforced the contract. All we have
asked for is one man. We have never asked to see any
payroll records to see what you are paying your men or
anything." Nevertheless, Niewinski refused to "put" an
Irving Park employee into the Union.
At no time has Niewinski observed any provision of his
1967-70 or 1970-73 "contract" with Local 705 (except
payments on his father as aforesaid).
Niewinski was a member of GRAMC at all of the
foregoing times and has prominently displayed its distinc-
tive membership emblem in his window since 1970. His
gross revenues at Irving Park in 1970 were approximately
$328,000.
Upon the basis of Joseph Niewinski's uncontradicted,
77 Although the name of this individual has not been established, it is
undisputed by Respondent that he was one of its business agents
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705 259
credited testimony I find the complaint allegations con-
cerning him established by substantial credible evidence.
58. Instances 58 and 59: Partipilo Service Stations
("Vito's Standard Service Inc.," 1004 S DesPlaines
Ave. and 1602 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon the familiar allegations, General Counsel witness,
Vito Partipilo, testified that he owns and operates two
Chicago Standard Oil gasoline and service stations under
the name of Vito's Standard Service, Inc., or Vito's
Standard: one since 1960 at 1602 South Michigan Avenue
(South Michigan) with eight (six full- and two regular part-
time) employees, and the other since 1962 at 1004 South
DesPlaines Avenue (DesPlaines) with 12 (10 full- [includ-
ing the manager , his son Peter Nicholas Partipilo] and 2
regular part-time) employees.
In April 1968 at the behest of Local 705 Business Agent
Jerry Spizzeri, Partipilo signed a preprinted 3-year contract
(1967-70) covering each of his stations. Spizzen displayed
no union membership cards or other evidence that Local
705 represented any of the employees at either of the
stations , nor did Spizzeri so claim nor ask how many
employees there were. Spizzeri merely "told me to sign the
contract and he said to give him four men for each place."
(As already indicated, at this time Partipilo had 8 regular
employees at South Michigan and 12 regular [including
son, manager ] at DesPlaines.) Thereupon, Partipilo called
four employees in at South Michigan and they gave their
names to Spizzen; and Partipilo gave Spizzen the names of
four employees at DesPlaines.
In response to General Counsel subpena, Respondent
Local 705 produced at the trial a total of only six union
cards for Partipilo's employees. It is undisputed that of these
not a single signature was authenticated; a card bearing the
purported signature of V. Partipilo was not in fact signed by
Partipilo,• another card purportedly signed by P. Partipilo was
not in fact signed by Partipilo's son; and former employee
Oscar Lee Brown was not even alive in April 1968.
Partipilo has bee,i a member of GRAMC since 1946, has
prominently displayed its distinctive membership emblem
in the windows of each of his service stations since at least
1970, executed an express bargaining authorization desig-
nation to it on September 16, 1970, and has been a member
of its board of directors since 1971. Later in September or
October 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri presented
a document to Partipilo deauthorizing GRAMC to act as
his bargaining representative, and stated to Partipilo that
GRAMC could not do anything for him and to drop it and
sign the proffered document (a card) to that effect. When
Partipilo replied that he wished GRAMC to bargain for
him with Local 705, Spizzeri's response was, "There is
nothing they could do for you, they have very few people
left, you might as well sign it..... [I'11] see you do sign it
[I'll] talk to the big man about it.... If [you] don't
sign this card, [I'll] see . . . all [of your employees] belong
to the Union." At this, Partipilo invited Spizzen to talk to
his employees and that it was agreeable with him
(Partipilo) if they wished to join the Union.
In December 1970 Spizzeri returned to see Partipilo. This
time Spizzeri was accompanied by two others. Partipilo
told them to " Let out" and "leave me alone." At this time,
Partipilo had nine (seven full- and two regular part-time)
employees at South Michigan and was making "health and
welfare" payments to the Union on three; and with 12 (10
full- and 2 regular part-time) employees at DesPlaines he
was paying Local 705 "health and welfare" on only two,
one of whom was his son, the station manager there.
When Spizzeri returned again in January 1971 with a
new "contract" for Partipilo to sign , Partipilo declined to
do so. He made no further payments to Local 705 after the
expiration of his 1967-70 contract, nor has any employee
made any inquiry about it. At no time had he deducted out of
any employee's wages any "Union dues" remitted by him to
Local 705. At no time had he paid the wages called for by his
"contract" with Local 705, nor did Spizzeri ever inquire.
The gross volume of Partipilo' s business at both stations
in 1970 was approximately $ 1 million ($600,000 at
DesPlaines and $400,000 at South Michigan), of which
about 80 percent was from gasoline sales.
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted testimony of Vito
Partipilo, whom I credit, I find the complaint allegations
concerning him established by substantial credible eviden-
ce.
59. Instance 60: Ratz Service Station (662 E.
111th St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon substantially similar allegations , General Counsel
witness Donald Ratz testified that he has owned and
operated the Clark Oil service station at 662 East 111th
Street, Chicago, since December 30, 1968, when he
acquired it from previous dealer Langford, retaining two of
the latter's employees and hiring five new employees to
comprise a total workcrew of seven (five full- and 2 regular
part-time) employees. One of previous owner Langford's
employees remained for only about a month.
In the first week of January 1969, shortly after he took
the service station over, Ratz was paid a visit by Local 705
Business Agent George White, who presented to him for
signature a preprinted Local 705 contract for 1967-70 and
asked him to "put a man in the union." Although Ratz
signed the "contract," he did not then "put a man in the
union," explaining to White that he had just opened the
station but to come back later . At this time, Ratz had five
(three full- and two regular part-time) employees, with none
in the Union. At no time did White ask how many
employees Ratz had nor did White claim to represent any.
About a month thereafter (i.e., February 1969) Local 705
Business Agent White returned and reminded Ratz that he
(White) "needed a man in the union." So, Ratz himself
designated one of his employees to be "the union .. .
man," "just pick a man [and] I told the man he'd have to
be in the union."
In 1969 and 1970, Ratz had six or seven (four or five full-
and two regular part-time) employees, with never more
than one employee in the Union, except for 1 month when
there were two. And Ratz had informed White (in response
to White's inquiry)-who called regularly at the Ratz
station for "collections"-that he had seven employees.
Ratz joined GRAMC on March 5, 1969, signed an
express bargaining authorization designation to it on
September 13, 1970, and has been displaying its distinctive
membership emblem prominently in his service station
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
window since 1970. Late in 1970, Local 705 Business Agent
White together with IGD 78 Representative Blair ap-
proached Ratz at the latter's service station, and on
White's recommendation Ratz signed up also with IGD,
which, however, to his knowledge has at no time bargained
on his behalf.
In late December 1970, when White presented Ratz with
a new 3-year preprinted contract (1970-73) for signature,
Utz told him to "stick it up [your] a-." Undeterred,
White returned in January 1971, informed Ratz that "all
but a couple" of the gasoline dealers had signed it and this
time threatening Ratz that "if you don't [sign], you could,
too, be picketed." Under these circumstances Ratz signed
it. At this time Ratz had six or seven (four or five full- and
two regular part-time) employees, with only one in the
Union. At no time did Local 705 representative White
daim to represent a majority of Ratz's employees nor ask
for more employees "in" the Union. At no time did Ratz
pay the wage rates specified in the 1970-73 "contract," nor
did he tell his employees what those rates (or any other
provisions of the "contract") were, although he did tell
them he had signed the union contract. And he deducted
the union "dues" from such wages as he paid his union
"member" employees.
The gross income of the Ratz service station in 1970
exceeded $550,000, of which 80 percent was from gasoline
sales.
As usual, the foregoing testimony, in this instance of
Donald Ratz, stands uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find
the complaint allegations concerning Donald Ritz estab-
lished by substantial credible evidence.
60. Instance 61: Lester Reddick Service Station
(855 W. 95th St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon like allegations , General Counsel witness , Lester
Reddick, testified that he owned and operated the Clark
Oil service station at 855 West 95th Street , Chicago, from
January 25 , 1971, to March 1 , 1972. When he acquired the
station, he retained one employee of former owner
Winford and hired nine new employees.
On the day he took the station over (January 25 , 1971),
Reddick was visited at his new station by a Local 705
representative who presented him with a preprinted Local
705 contract for his signature and informed him he had to
have two "in" the Union "and that one of them could be
myself [i .e., Reddick ]," or else gasoline deliveries could be
stopped b pickets . So, Reddick signed the "contract" and
he himselJYbut no employee, "joined" the Union. The Local
705 spokesman showed no evidence that any employee
belonged to the Union , nor did he claim to represent any
employee.
In August 1971 , the Local 705 representative returned to
the station to "collect" money for "Union dues" and
"health and welfare" and threatened to stop gasoline
deliveries to the station if payments were not made. But
Reddick did not pay . At no time in the 13 months that he
operated the station has Reddick paid any money to Local
705.
In response to General Counsel 's subpena, Respondent
stated on the record that it has no union authorization
cards pertaining to the Lester Reddick service station.
Reddick has been a member of GRAMC and has
prominently displayed its distinctive membership emblem
at his service station continuously since April 6, 1971. The
gross volume of business of his station for 11 months of
1971 was approximately $600,000, of which about 75
percent was from gasoline sales.
Upon the basis of the foregoing uncontradicted, credited
testimony, I find the complaint allegations concerning
Lester Reddick established by substantial credible eviden-
ce.
61. Instance 62: William Reddick Service Station
(8100 S . Racine, Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations , the owner-operator of the
Clark Oil station at 8100 South Racine , Chicago, since
April 25 , 1%9, William Reddick, testified that in May 1969
he received a caller there, Local 705 Business A ent Jerry
Spizzeri, who told him he "had to join Local 705 .' Reddick
had inherited two union and four nonunion men from the
station's previous owner ; and he had hired three additional
employees, thus rounding out the station's workcrew to
nine employees. Spizzeri told Reddick that he wanted him
to carry three members in Local 705, and that these could
be Reddick himself and his father or other relative (i.e.,
any three persons, so long as it was three). Reddick said he
thought it was unlawful for an owner to belong to the same
Union as his employees. Spizzeri indicated this was not so
and threatened to picket the station if Reddick did not
comply with Spi 's demands . Under these circum-
stances, Reddick geed the preprinted Local 705 3-year
(1967-70) "contract" proffered by Spizzeri . At this time,
only the two union employees (Jesse James [Jones] and
John Matthews [Matthew] whom Reddick had inherited
from the former owner were in the Union . When one of
them (James) left in June 1970 (he had also not worked
there from around June to September, 1%9), there
remained and since then there has been only one employee
(Matthew) in the Union, out of eight (five full- and three
regular part-time) employees . Union dues and health and
welfare contributions on this one (originally two, as
explained above) employee were either picked up by
Collector Spizzeri or mailed by Reddick to the Union.
Reddick joined GRAMC in May 1%9 and has remained
a member since then , continuously displayer its distinc-
tive membership emblem in his station window; and on
August 5 , 1970, he executed to it a formal bargaining
authorization designation.
In December 1970 Reddick was presented by Spizzeri
with a new, 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "new
contract" to sign . Reddick refused. Spizzeri warned
Reddick that he would have to or he would have "trouble
with the union, picketing and closing the station down ...
cut the gas supply off, the gasoline truck drivers would not
cross the picket line." Reddick remarked that he would
wait until a pending GRAMC proceeding was resolved.
Spizzeri responded that GRAMC oilose , and that he
would picket and cut off Reddick 's gasoline supplies, like
Is See fns. 29 and 30, supra
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
the picketing and stopping of the gasoline supplies of the
station across the street. Reddick said he would wait.
Soon thereafter, in January 1971, Spizzeri returned,
again demanding that Reddick sign the 3-year preprinted
contract. Spizzeri also told Reddick that GRAMC had lost
its case, showed him contracts allegedly signed by other
dealers, and told Reddick to place three men "in" the
Union, threatening to picket otherwise. Under these
circumstances , Reddick signed the wholly unnegotiated
"contract," but he never "put" any employee into the
Union, thus having only one out of nine employees in the
Union.79 Shortly before this, in December 1970, Local 705
Business Agent James Jackson, on a visit to Reddick's
station to make "collections," told Reddick that if he
bought a wristwatch from him for $25 he (Jackson) would
take care of any labor problem Reddick had with his
employees. (Reddick did not buy the watch.) During the
preceding July 1970, Jackson had also requested from or
dropped a hint to Reddick about "some vacation money"
for himself.
At no time has any Local 705 representative asked
Reddick how many employees he had nor who they were,
nor has any representative been observed talking to any
employee.
Reddick's station grossed around $603,000 (at least
75-80 percent from gasoline sales) in 1970.
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted testimony of William
Reddick, whom I credit, I find the complaint allegations
pertaining to him established by substantial credible
evidence.
62. Instance 63: Reynolds Service Station (6856
W. Ogden Ave., Berwyn, Ill.)
Upon the familiar complaint allegations, the owner-
operator of the Clark Oil service station at 6856 West
Ogden Avenue, Berwyn (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, since
around 1960, Marvin Reynolds, testified-also without
contradiction-that he has been signing 3-year contracts
with Local 705 since that time, although the Local 705
Business Agent (Adams, from 1960-68) at no time showed
him any union authorization card signed by any employee,
nor claimed to represent any employee, nor inquired about
or discussed wages, nor observably talked to any employee.
During the same period (1960-68), although Reynolds had
an average of seven employees, at no time were there more
than two employees (plus himself) in the Union. And at no
time did Reynolds observe any of the "contract" provi-
sions.
Reynolds had signed the Local 705 preprinted 1967-70
contract at the request of its Business Representative Ray
("Red") Kolb, at that time with only two employees (one
Reynolds' brother) in the Union out of seven (three full-
79 The Local 705 "health and welfare" contributions report for the
station for the period ending January 1, 1971, in Spi zerr's handwriting,
shows only one employee (Matthews) as the only union member
so The words "owner-partner" were added by some unknown person to
the document Reynolds signed.
91 Reynolds accounted for a seeming discrepancy in his pretrial
statement that he had only five employees then , by explaining that the
pretrial statement was given while in the course of waiting on customers at
his station . After observing Reynolds' testimonial demeanor I am satisfied
that his explanation is truthful, particularly since he enumerated and
261
and four regular part-time) employees . When Kolb
presented a new preprinted 3-year (1970-73) Local 705
contract to Reynolds for signature in October 1970,
Reynolds said he could not afford to pay the wages it
called for-indeed, he had not even been paying all
employees the wages called for by the former ( 1967-70)
"contract." Kolb returned in November 1970, this time
threatening Reynolds that unless he signed the contract
"you are going to get the gas shut off and [I 'll] picket the
station." Reynolds said he would sign up only if Kolb got
the neighboring stations to sign up . Kolb returned later in
the same month, however, threatening Reynolds that
"[You're] going to have to sign the contract." Under these
circumstances, Reynolds signed80-"If I went broke,I'd
just close the place up . . . ." At this time , Reynolds had
seven (three full- and four regular part-time) employees,
with only two (one Reynolds' brother) employees (plus
Reynolds himself) in the Union .81 At no time did Kolb
display any union card or offer evidence that he represent-
ed, nor did he claim to represent , Reynolds' employees;
nor did Reynolds observe any provision of the "contract."
When Local 705 Business Agent Kolb came to make
"collections" in March 1971 , Reynolds informed him that
he would make no further payments of "Union dues" or
"health and welfare" contributions to the Union since he
could no longer afford to do so . Kolb promised to be back.
When Kolb returned in April 1971, Reynolds again refused
to make payments, this time informing Kolb that he
(Reynolds) was (also) acting on advice of GRAMC (which
he had joined in 1960 , and to which he formally executed
an express bargaining authorization designation on Sep-
tember 10, 1970).82
The gross volume of Reynolds' business at the station in
1970 was $473,000.
Upon the basis of the credited uncontradicted testimony
described , I find that the complaint allegations concerning
Marvin Reynolds have been established by substantial
credible evidence.
63. Instance 64: Friendly Three Service Co.
(Robinson) Service Station (800 W . 59th St.,
Chicago, Ill.)
General Counsel witness Percy Robinson, Jr., testified at
the trial upon like allegations . He has been a principal
officer of Friendly Three Service Co., an Illinois corpora-
tion83 since 1961, from when it has owned and operated
two Shell Oil gasoline service stations in Chicago, one at
59th and Throop (since 1959) (Throop) and the other
approximately 1 mile away at 59th and Halsted (since July
1966) (Halsted). Halsted is operated by Robinson, Throop
by Earsel Hall (another principal of the foregoin
corporation; the third corporate principal, Hiram Hill,
identified by name-without contradiction or countervailing evidence of
any land-the seven employees in question.
82 At the trial, I sustained Reynolds' plea of constitutional freedom from
self-incrimination when Respondent sought to cross -examine him concern.
mg whether or not he had deducted his previous payments to Local 705
from his employees' wages.
83 Complaint (paragraph XIV) accordingly amended to that corporate
name at the trial, in place of Percy Robinson, Jr., and listing moved from
Appendix B to Appendix A of complaint.
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stepped out in 1962). Both stations are operated as a single
intergrated enterprise and both obtain their gasoline
supplies from the same Shell depot in Argo, Illinois. The
gross volume of business of the stations in 1970 was
approximately $529,000 (of this around $200,000 at
Halsted), with about 75 percent thereof from gasoline sales.
In 1963, Local 705 Business Agent George Gilmore
visited the Throop station (where Robinson and the
corporation were then solely located) and announced that
he wanted to sign up some men for the Union "if you don't
want any trouble and . . . picketing ...." Gilmore did
not ask how many employees there were, displayed no
evidence that he represented any employee, and did not
even claim to represent any employee. Under the circum-
stances , however, Robinson, acceding to Gilmore's de-
mand, "put into" the Union himself and the station
manager and supervisor (Frank Gattis) but no rank-and-
file employee . At this time, the station had four (three full-
and one part-time) employees. Robinson then commenced
making payments regularly, on himself and the station
manager only , to Local 705. In 1966, Robinson moved to
the Halsted station when that location was acquired by his
corporation, which continued making the aforedescribed
payments to Local 705.
In March 1968 , Local 705 Business Agent Gilmore,
presenting a preprinted 3-year (1967-70) "contract" to
Robinson for signature , told him it "is time for [you] to
sign the contract" but that "this time" there was to be
"some additional-we have what you call the health and
welfare ." Robinson signed it and commenced making
additional "health and welfare" payments, still limited to
himself and Station Manager-Supervisor Gattis only,
although at this time he had six (four full- and two regular
part-time) employees. From 1968 to 1970, these pay-
ments-still limited to principal Robinson and Manager
Gattis-were continued, with regular collections by Gil-
more , who was never seen to talk to any of the employees.
When Local 705 Business Agent Gilmore presented a
new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted contract for Robinson's
signature on December 3, 1970, Robinson told him
business had "dropped completely" and things were "kind
of rough," but he nevertheless signed it. The contract
provisions were at no time in any way discussed, nor did
Gilmore even so much as claim that he represented any
employee . At this time, with six (four full- and two regular
part-time) employees excluding himself, Robinson himself was
the only "member" of the Union, since Robinson told Gilmore
that business was bad and Gilmore agreed to "go along" and
drop Gattis (the station manager) so that Robinson (the
station owner principal) himself would be the only one at the
station carried as a union "member. "84
The distinctive membership emblem of GRAMC had
been prominently displayed on the front door of the
station or stations since the Robinson enterprise joined and
authorized it to bargain collectively for it on July 10, 1968.
Upon the basis of the credited uncontradicted testimony
of Percy Robinson , Jr., I find that the complaint allega-
tions (as amended) concerning Friendly Three Service Co.
84 This, again, as in other instances, is substantiated by Union business
agent's and union "health and welfare" reports in the Local 705 business
(as amended from Percy Robinson, Jr.) have been
established by substantial credible evidence.
64. Instance 65: Root Service Station (631 N.
LaSalle St., Chicago, I11.)
On the familiar allegations , General Counsel witness,
Herbert Root, testified-again without contradiction
-concerning the Standard Oil Service Station at 631
North LaSalle Street, Chicago (LaSalle), owned and
operated by him with his brother Sherman Root as officers
and equal shareholders in S & H Root, Inc., doing business
as Root Brothers Standard Service Center since early 1970,
and prior thereto as a partnership under the firm name and
style of Ontario & LaSalle Service Station. For about 20
years until November 1969 the Root brothers also ran a
Standard Oil gasoline service station at 601 North
Dearborn Street, Chicago (Dearborn), about 2 or 3 blocks
from their LaSalle station.
Around 1962-64, Local 705 Business Agent James Harty
(Hardy) visited the Roots at Dearborn and, in response to
his inquiry, was informed by the Roots there that they had
six or four (or less) employees, whereupon he told them,
"[You] would need two men from the station to belong to
the union." The employers (i.e., the Roots) thereupon
"decided who we wanted in the union " and enlisted one
employee to sign a membership dues-checkoff card for
Local 705; the other card was signed by employer Sherman
Root himself. Thereafter, Local 705 Business Agent Harty
called regularly, about every 3 months , at times personally
collecting "dues" and "health and welfare" contributions
from Root, paid by the employers' checks although at no
time withheld from any employee's pay. At no time did the
Roots pay union scale as required by their "contract" with
Local 705; they only made payments, as aforedescribed, to
Local 705. As late as 1968-69 (the final year of the
Dearborn operation), excluding themselves the Roots had
six (four full- and two regular part-time) employees at
Dearborn, of whom only one (McQuiston) was a member
of Local 705. With the Roots' acquisition of LaSalle,
Dearborn was closed in August 1969, when two of the
Dearborn employees (McQuiston and Sims) were trans-
ferred to LaSalle and most of the employees of the former
owner of LaSalle were retained there by the Roots but left
soon afterwards.
Soon after the Roots took over LaSalle-probably in
August or the first half of September 1969-Local 705
Business Agent Harty had a talk with the Roots, mention-
ing his Union's contract with the previous owner there and
that the station had had four out of eight employees in the
Union, and stating to the Roots that "Now that you have
taken it over, we will require four men from you in the
union at the station ." At this time there were, aside from
the Roots, at least 8 to 10 or more employees, probably all
full-time, employed by the Roots at LaSalle. Accordingly,
the preprinted 1967-70 "contract" of Local 705 which
Harty presented for signature was signed (on September
18, 1969) and Harty gave Herbert Root four Local 705
membership-Union dues checkoff cards, whereupon Root
agent's-in this case, Gilmore 's-own handwriting, filled out in the
Employer's presence . This is totally uncontradicted upon the record.
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705 263
"chose who we wanted to sign the cards," designating three
employees (McQuiston, Fields, and Media85); and the
fourth card was signed by Employer Sherman Root (a one-
half partner).
From 1969 to the beginning of 1971, LaSalle had a
maximum of four (apparently including owner Sherman
Root) "in" the Union, out of an employee complement of
10 to 15 (of whom all except perhaps one or two were full-
time). Harty continued to call every 3 months or so to
make collections of "dues" and "health and welfare"
contributions, which the Employer paid (by checks) without
deduction from any employee's pay. At no time did the
Employer pay the union scale wages required by the
"contract" with Local 705, nor did any Local 705 represent-
ative inquire on that subject, nor was that agreement
observed in other respects, nor was Local 705 "servicing"
Business Agent Harty ever seen talking to any employee.
At no time did Harty even claim to represent any
employee; at no time did any employee become a member
of Local 705 in any way other than by the Employer
enlisting or "putting" him "into" that Union.
The Employer has been a member of GRAMC for over
10 years, during which period of time GRAMC has been
its designated collective-bargaining representative; from
around 1964-70, Herbert Root was an officer thereof and
member of its board of directors; and in August 1970, a
formal express bargaining authorization designation was
executed to it. At all times since shortly after opening
LaSalle (August 1969), the distinctive membership emblem
of GRAMC has been conspicuously displayed in its front
window.
In October or November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent
Harty presented to the Roots a new 3-year (1970-73)
preprinted Local 705 contract for signature. Herbert Root
refused to sign, indicating that GRAMC was its bargaining
representative and that there was a pending NLRB
proceeding. Harty stated that the NLRB proceeding
"wouldn't amount to anything" and urged that he save
himself "a lot of problems, aggravation by signing the
contract now." When Root continued to decline, Harty
promised to be back. At this time, that station (i.e.,
LaSalle) had between 10 and 14 employees (probably all
full-time), with only three employees (McQuiston, Fields,
and Media) plus owner, Sherman Root, "in" the Union
(the same as at all times in 1970 and 1971).
True to his promise, Local 705 Business Agent Harty
returned later in November or December 1970 and asked
Herbert Root (in the presence of his brother, Sherman)
whether he had changed his mind about signing the
contract, stating that GRAMC had "lost" its "case." Harty
warned Root that if he signed the contract then, it would
go "easier" for Root, stating that "every other dealer [is]
doing so, so why don't [you]," and threatened that if Root
did not sign it Harty could "put" all the men in the union
instead of the four that [you] now have; and that Root
"could be made an example of" as a GRAMC official, and
that he would or could easily picket "to stop gasoline
deliveries." At this time, the station still had 10 to 12
employees, but Harty neither inquired how many there
were nor asked for more than the existing three plus Root
to join the Union. When Harty returned a week or two
later, this time accompanied by another Local 705
emissary, and again demanded that Root sign the new
preprinted 3-year contract, under the described circum-
stances Root did so and also resigned his office in
GRAMC. At this time, the station had ten to fourteen
employees, probably all full-time, with only three (plus
owner Sherman Root) "in" the Union.
Root has never seen Local 705 "servicing" Business
Agent Harty for any purpose other than to demand that he
sign preprinted "contracts" and to make "collections."
The 1970 gross revenues of LaSalle were around $1
million. That station sells over 150,000 gallons of gasoline
per month at an average price (ca. 1970) of 42 cents per
gallon.
Upon the described uncontradicted, credited testimony
of Herbert Root, I find the complaint allegations concern-
ing him and Sherman Root and the service station in
question established by substantial credible evidence.
65. Instance 66: Rosman Service Station (4425 W.
63d St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar allegations , General Counsel witness Paul
Rosman testified-also without contradiction-that since
November 1956 he and his brother, Norman, have as equal
partners owned and operated the Arco Oil service station
at 4425 West 63d Street, Chicago, with Local 705
"contracts" every 3 years.
The Rosman brothers entered into their first "contract"
with Local 705 in 1955 (they then operated another
gasoline station , across the street), after they received a
visit from Local 705 Business Agent Andy Lezoretti, who
announced to them, "[You have] to join the union." The
Rosman brothers demurred, pointing out that they were
the only two persons at the station, that they were the
owners, and that they belonged to GRAMC. This fell on
deaf ears , Lezoretti threatening that if they did not sign up
they would receive no gasoline deliveries since all of the
gasoline truckdrivers belonged to Local 705. When Paul
Rosman asked what benefit he would get from the Union,
Lezoretti replied, "When you drop dead, your wife will get
$400 . . . . I will be back in a couple days." When he
returned a few days later , Paul Rosman signed the
"contract" and joined the Union. In 1960, when the
Rosmans inquired of Lezoretti whether Norman Rosman
could "put himself in" instead of the constant turnover of
carwashers they then had, Lezoretti said , "Fine," so
Norman Rosman joined, making the two owners the only
ones in the Union. At no time did Lezoretti claim to
represent any employee or discuss any provision of any of
the "contracts."
In March 1968, Local 705 Business Agent James Hall
presented a new preprinted 3-year Local 705 contract,
which Paul Rosman signed. At this time, also, none of the
station's six (all regular part-time) employees belonged to
the Union, but the Rosmans were making payments to
Local 705 only on themselves (the station owners). At no
es Although, according to Root and in fact, mechanics are not included
in the Local 705 collective agreement , two of these three employees-Mc-
Quiston and Fields-were mechanics.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time did Hall inquire how many employees there were, nor
was he seen to speak to any employee, nor did he claim to
represent any employee, nor did he discuss any contract
provision; nor did the Rosmans observe any provision of
their "contract" with Local 705. However, the Rosmans
continued making payments to Local 705 on themselves.
In January 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Hall visited
the station with a new preprinted 3-year (1970-73)
"contract" for signature. The Rosman brothers declined to
do so upon the stated ground that GRAMC-of which
they had been members continuously since 1948 (with its
distinctive membership emblem conspicuously displayed at
their station, and with Norman Rosman on its board of
directors from around 1960 to 1967) and to which they had
on September 14, 1970, executed a formal bargaining
representation designation-had told them to hold off.
Hall's response was that GRAMC had "just about had it"
and that "If you were smart you'd join Bobby Jacobs and
his IGD Association."m Under the indicated circum-
stances, Norman Rosman signed the proffered "contract."
At this time, also, none of the Rosman brothers' five (one
full- and four regular part-time) employees were in the
Union, but the Rosmans (owners) were making payments
to Local 705 on themselves only. On this occasion also, as
on all others, Local 705 emissary, Hall, did not inquire how
many employees there were, nor what pay they were
receiving, nor claim to represent any employee, nor discuss
any provision of the "contract." Nor did the Rosman
brothers ever observe any provision of that "contract." The
only thing the Rosman brothers did was to make regular
"dues" payments to Local 705 on themselves (the station
owners) only, and the only thing Local 705 did was to
collect those payments. (The Rosmans paid only "dues" to
Local 705. When Hall had asked them in 1968 to make
"health and welfare" payments also, they declined because
they already had Blue Cross. Hall thereupon said, "I'll let
you go now," and never brought the matter up after that.)
At no time since 1960 has any employee of the Rosman
brothers been in Local 705, their ostensible "representa-
tive" and bargaining agent under the described "contracts"
between Local 705 and the Rosmans.
The 1970 gross revenue of the Rosmans' service station
exceeded $300,000, of which 75 percent was from gasoline
sales.
The foregoing testimony of Paul Rosman was, again,
totally uncontradicted; indeed, not even cross-examined.
Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning
Paul and Norman Rosman established by substantial
credible evidence.
66. Instance 67: Shimko Service Station (6757 W.
26th St., Berwyn, Ill.)
Upon like complaint allegations, Thomas Shimko, owner
and operator of an Arco Oil service station at 6757 West
26th Street, Berwyn (a Chicago suburb), Illinois, testified
that he has owned and operated that station since
September 2, 1958, with 3-year "contracts" with Local 705
since shortly thereafter.
From 1958 to 1968, although Shimko had (exclusive of
w Soo Ins. 29 and 30, supra
himself) four (one full- and three part-time) employees at
the station , he made payments to Local 705 of union dues
and health and welfare contributions on only one employee
(Preseda), who spent 75 percent of his time as a mechanic
and was also a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and also on himself (Shimko, the owner). When, on March
26, 1968 , Local 705 Business Agent Edward Miller
presented a new 3-year (1967-70) preprinted Local 705
"contract" to Shimko for signature , Shimko signed it. He
then had two employees (Supervisor Preseda and one other
employee). Likewise, when in October 1970, Miller
presented another 3-year ( 1970-73) preprinted Local 705
"contract," Shimko signed that , too. At that time, Shimko
had four (Supervisor Preseda and three regular part-time)
employees , but was paying union dues and health and
welfare contributions to Local 705 on himself (Shimko)
and Supervisor Preseda only. At no time did Miller or any
other Local 705 Business Agent inquire as to the number of
employees or their wages, nor was he seen talking to any
employee , nor did he claim to represent any employee. He
merely came around to make collections from Shimko,
who made payments on himself and his supervisor only but
observed no provision of the "contract" with Local 705. At
no time did Shiniko tell any employee (other than
Supervisor Preseda) that he had signed a contract with
Local705.
Shimko (who has been a member of GRAMC since
April 1969, with its distinctive membership emblem
prominently displayed on his station's front window since
then) did a gross business in 1970 at his station of over
$200,000 (half from gasoline sales).
Upon the credited uncontradicted testimony of Thomas
Shimko, I find the complaint allegations concerning him
established by substantial credible evidence.
67. Instance 68: Sims Service Station (9155 S.
Stony Island Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar complaint allegations, the uncontradicted,
credited testimony of General Counsel witness, John R.
Sims, establishes that he has owned and operated the Clark
Oil service station at 9155 South Stony Island Avenue,
Chicago, since 1969, after taking it over from former owner
Hamilton (who had had a union contract) and retaining
two of the former employees (one a union member).
On October 15, 1969, Local 705 Business Agent Jerry
Spizzeri made a call on Sims at his new station, handed
him a preprinted Local 705 3-year contract to sign, and
told him he "had to have three men in the union ." Pleading
that he had just taken over the station, Sims said, "I only
[have] one man to put in the union." Spizzeri told Sims to
put him in and also himself (i.e., Sims, the station owner).
At this time, Sims had nine (five full- and four regular part-
time) employees at the station . Sims thereupon sinned the
"contract"-which was in no way negotiated or discussed,
or even read by Simsr-and, in the presence of Spizzeri, told
his employee, Morrellis, to join the Union; when Morrellis
said he did not want to join, Sims told him he would have
to join or he wouldn't have a job . Under these circum-
stances Morrellis became a "member" of Local 705. At no
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
time had Spizzeri shown Sims any evidence that he
represented any of Sims' employees nor did Spizzeri even
make such a claim.
From April to June 1970-as corroborated by written
reporting forms to Local 705-Sims paid to Local 705
union dues on himself (the owner) only. In July 1970, Local
705 Business Agent (Reverend) James Jackson appeared at
Sims' service station and told Sims he (Jackson) wanted
more employees in the Union. Sims thereupon summoned
his employee McKay and told him-in Jackson's presen-
ce-that he would "have to join the union," even though
McKay said he did not want to. When, 2 days later, Local
705 spokesman, Spizzeri, called with a union card for
McKay to sign, McKay signed it in Sims' presence.
Sims became a member of GRAMC and designated it as
his collective-bargaining agent on August 14, 1970, since
when he has continuously displayed its distinctive mem-
bership emblem prominently in his station window.
In January 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri
presented to Sims anew 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local
705 "contract" for Sims' signature. Sims refused to sign.
Spizzeri asked why. Sims replied that it was on advice of
GRAMC (his bargaining representative). Displaying 10 or
15 alleged "contracts" which he said other gasoline dealers
had signed, Spizzeri pressed Sims who, however, was
adamant. Spizzeri then threatened "to put pickets up and
strike the station." Sims continued to refuse to sign. Later
that month (January) or early in February (1971), Spizzeri
returned and again demanded that Sims sign the "con-
tract" under threat of "pickets and strike." Sims refused. A
few days later, Local 705 spokesman, (Reverend) James
Jackson, accompanied by still another union representa-
tive, visited Sims on the same mission. Continuing to refuse
to sign the "contract," Sims told them he could not operate
the station under the "contract." At this time, none of Sims'
seven (four full- and three regular part-time) employees
was in the Union.
Sims' gross revenue at the station in 1970 was approxi-
mately $393,000, about 80 percent from gasoline sales.
Upon the basis of Sims' foregoing credited testimo-
ny-which, again, is totally uncontradicted-I find the
complaint allegations concerning John R. Sims established
by substantial credible evidence.
68. Instance 69: John H. Smith Service Station
(2008 W. Madison St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon similar complaint allegations, the Clark Oil service
station owner-operator at 2008 West Madison Street,
Chicago, John H. Smith, testified that after working there
for awhile, on March 1, 1967, he took the station over from
the former owner, Bolden, retaining all four of Bolden's
employees, none of whom (nor Smith) was a union
member . Within a few weeks, however, only one of the
former employees remained, and Smith had (except for
that one remaining former employee) a workcrew of four
new employees.
Around April 1967-a month after he started operating
his service station-Smith was paid a call by Local 705
Business Agent Danny Ligurotus, who told him someone
"would have to join the union" and it could be "you" (i.e.,
owner Smith). So, Smith signed the preprinted 3-year
265
(1964-67) "contract" of Local 705 and put himself (i.e.,
Smith, the owner) into the Union, paying Ligurotus in cash
a $25 "initiation fee," plus $12 "Union dues" for 2 months.
Although the Local 705 emissary indicated he wanted a
second person also in the Union, when Smith pointed out
that he was new there the union spokesman was content to
leave it at that, with Smith alone "joining" the Union. At
no time did the union representative display any evidence
that he represented, nor did he even claim to represent, any
employee. Smith had informed him that he had five full-
time employees, exclusive of himself.
In October 1967 the same Local 705 spokesman returned
and told Smith that he would "have to put another man in
the union so I [Smith] agreed. I put another man in the
Union . . . . Henry Spencer." Although Smith then had
five employees (all full time), employee Spencer thereby
became and until August 1968 remained the only employee
in the Union. When a Local 705 emissary presented a
preprinted 3-year (1967-70) Local 705 contract to Smith'
for signature around March 1968, Smith signed it. He then
had seven full-time employees (excluding himself), with
only one (Spencer) plus Smith himself "in" the Union. On
August 6, 1968, a second employee (Tyrone Lewis) was
placed into the Union; this was accomplished by Smith':
signing Lewis' name on a Local 705 union card, in the
presence of the Local 705 representative. When employee
and Local 705 "member" Spencer left Smith's employ he
was replaced on October 1, 1968, by Henry Leachman who
was similarly put into the Union by Smith's signing
Leachman's name on a Local 705 union card in the
presence of the Local 705 representative. From then until
the end of 1970, of seven (all full-time) employees there
were only two (Lewis and Leachman, put in as aforedef
scribed by Smith himself, signing their names) who were
"members" of Local 705, plus Smith himself.
In 1969, (Reverend) James Jackson took over as the
Local 705 business agent "serving" the Smith service
station. Although in September or October Jackson told
Smith that Smith "had to get another man into the Union"
because Jackson's "boss [is] cracking down on [me,
Jackson]," apparently Smith's objections sufficed to allay
Jackson-who had even suggested that Smith "put a man
in for a month and kick him out the next month."
Smith had been a member of GRAMC since March 17,
1967, with its distinctive membership emblem prominently
displayed in his station window. He also executed a formal
collective-bargaining authorization designation to
GRAMC on September 11, 1970, and has been a member
of its board of directors since 1971. Around January 1971,
Local 705 Business Agent (Reverend) James Jackson and a
companion called at the station and, in the presence of
Lewis and Leachman-the station's only two employees
who were Local 705 "members"-announced to Smith that
it was "time to sign the new contract," a 3-year preprinted
"contract" for 1970-73. Smith refused. Stating that
"Gasoline Retailers [i.e., GRAMC] done lost the case,"
Jackson at once got picket signs out of his car and he and
his companion began picketing. A crowd gathered. Lewis
and Leachman-the only employee union "members"
-did not join, in the picket , by Jackson, and his
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
companion, who left shortly thereafter when they observed
Smith at the telephone.
Smith 's gross revenue at his service station in 1970 was in
excess of $500,000, approximately 60 percent from gasoline
sales.
Upon the basis of the uncontradicted and uncross-
examined testimony of John H. Smith, whom I credit, I
find the complaint allegations concerning him established
by substantial credible evidence.
69. Instance 70: Paul Smith & Aubrey Davis
Service Station (5200 S. Lake Park Ave., Chicago,
Ill.)
As amended and further amended at the trial, the
complaint alleges (par. XII(fff), XV, and Appendix A),
concerning Paul Smith and Aubrey Davis and the gasoline
service station they operate, as GRAMC members, under
the trade name of D & S Shell Service at 5200 South Lake
Park Avenue, Chicago, that on certain dates in 1971
Respondent did not represent a majority of their employ-
ees, but nevertheless threatened to stop their gasoline and
other deliveries and close the station down unless they
signed an -unlawful collective bargaining agreement (par.
XII(ffJ) ); and that, knowing Davis and Smith were
members of and had designated GRAMC as their
collective-bargaining representative, Local 705 as the
collective-bargaining representative of the D & S station
employees , in or around November 1970, threatened to
picket and stop gasoline and other deliveries to the station,
unless the station owner signed a collective agreement with
Local 705, without affording or intending to afford the
station owners an opportunity to bargain (either individu-
ally or through GRAMC), and that Respondent attempted
through strike and picket to enforce the agreement exacted
under those circumstances (par. X V ).
General Counsel witness, Aubrey Davis, one of the
station owners, testified without contradiction in proof of
these allegations . Davis testified that he and Smith have
owned and operated the station since April 1970, under the
trade name of D & S Shell Service, starting out with 12
employees (2 full-time mechanics, and 5 full- and 5 part-
time gasoline attendants; exclusive of the 2 owners, Davis
and Smith), of whom 8 had worked for the station's
previous owner, Bell, who did not tell the new owners he
had a union contract nor which if any employees were
union members.
In the same month they took over the station, Local 705
Business Agent Jerry Spizzen paid a visit and presented a
Local 705 contract to Davis for signature. Davis refused to
sign it . Spizzeri told him he would "have to sign it because
[former owner] Bell have most of the guys in the station in
the union." When Davis continued to refuse to sign it, after
some discussion , he and Spizzeri arrived at the "compro-
mise" understanding that there need be only five men in
the Union, so Davis signed the contract. At this time, the
station had 12 (7 full-time, including 2 mechanics, and 5
part-time) employees. Davis and Smith then commenced
paying Local 705 dues and health and welfare contri-
butions on five-in any event less than a majority, and
including two mechanics (Sato and Pette ) not in the
bargaining unit-employees (Sato, Pette, Smith, Jones, and
Ball). At no time have Davis and Smith made any payments to
Local 705 on any other employees.87
In November 1970, Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri
presented Davis with a new, preprinted 3-year (1970-73)
Local 705 contract for signature. Davis refused to sign.
Spizzeri threatened that if he did not sign, the station's
gasoline supply would be "cut off" and that the station
would be picketed. However , Davis continued to refuse to
sign. Returning to the station late that month (November
1970) from a road call, Davis heard loud yelling in the
office, Davis' partner Smith telling Local 705 Business
Agent Spizzeri he would "not sign a g-d damn thing."
When Spizzeri presented the contract (1970-73) to Davis,
Davis signed it. Neither Spizzeri nor any other Local 705
representative had even claimed to represent a majority of
the station's employees nor had there been any negotiation
nor indication that any negotiation was possible . At this
time, there were (exclusive of Davis and Smith), 12
employees at the station , 7 to 10 full-time (including 2 full-
time mechanics) and 2 to 5 regular part-time, with
payments being made to Local 705 on the same 5
(including 2 nonunit mechanics88) employees aforedes-
cribed, who were the only employees "in" the Union-or,
not a majority.
The Davis and Smith service station became a member
of GRAMC in January 1971, with its distinctive member-
ship emblem prominently displayed on the station door.
The station has made no further payments to Local 705
since July 1971. When Spizzeri dunned Davis for payment
several times around November 1971, Davis informed him
that on advice of GRAMC counsel no further payments
would be made. Saying that GRAMC had no "leg to stand
on" and that its "case in court in Washington has been
'thrown ] out . . . [by] the judge," Spizzeri threatened that
unless Davis paid up the station would be picketed and its
gasoline deliveries stopped.
On December 14, 1971, Local 705 Business Agent
Spizzeri visited the station in person to "talk this thing
over." The discussion was essentially the same as in
November, but this time Spizzeri indicated that if Davis
paid up for only 2 months "arrears," the balance of the
"delinquency" would be excused. Davis refused. Spizzeri
declared that in that case there would be a strike, picketing,
and "there will be no gas." On December 16, 1971, 2 days
later, when Davis arrived at the station late in the morning,
there was a picket line of the five (a minority; and
including the two nonunit mechanics) Local 705 employ-
ees, carrying signs stating, "This station on strike. Local
705." All of the other employees (i.e., the nonunion
majority) worked that day and for the next 4 days during
which the picketing continued.
The gross revenue of the Davis and Smith service station
from April through December 1970, was around $450,000;
for 1971, approximately $673,000; in each case, about 80
percent for gasoline sales.
87 At the trial, I sustained Davis' constitutional plea, during cross- 88 Among other things , the mechanics received about $ 125 more pay per
examination , against self-incrinunanon as to whether his payments to Local week than the other full-time employees (who were all gasoline attendants).
705 were deducted from the wages of the employee "members "
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted, credited testimony
of Aubrey Davis, I find that the allegations of the
complaint as amended and further amended concerning
him and Paul Smith and their service station in question,
have, essentially as there alleged, been established by
substantial credible evidence except that it has not been
established (as alleged in par. XV of the complaint as
amended) that Respondent Local 705 at any time here
material has been the exclusive representative of all of the
employees comprising an appropriate bargaining unit of
employees at said service station.
70. Instance 71: Spradley Service Station (8732 S.
Stony Island Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon the usual complaint allegations, General Counsel
witness , James Spradley, testified that he has owned and
operated the Clark Oil service station at 8732 South Stony
Island Avenue, Chicago, since August 1969.
In early September 1969, right after he started in
business , Spradley received a visit from Local 705 emissary
Jerry Spizzeri, who told him, "I learned you are a new
dealer . . . . This is the contract you will have to sign to
operate . . . . You will have to put your men in the
union ." After Spradley informed Spizzeri that he was a
member of the Union, Spradley told him to also "put" an
employee "in" the Union. At this time-known to
Spizzeri-Spradley had four (two full- and two part-time)
employees. Under the circumstances, Spradley signed the
agreement and thereafter "put" his son, James, into the
Union, paying his initiation fee, dues, and health and
welfare contributions, without deduction from his pay.
Around December 1969, Local 705 Representative
(Reverend or "Preacher") Jackson called at the station and
warned Spradley that if he didn't keep up his dues and
health and welfare payments the Union would "have to
close [you] down." Spradley promised to pay up. About 6
weeks later Jackson returned, notified Spradley that he was
"still delinquent," and threatened that if he did not pay up
Jackson would compel him to "put" all of his employees
into the Union. Reminding him that "fellow, I be nice to
you," Jackson pressed Spradley to buy two watches from
him at $50 apiece (without showing him the watches).
Spradley promised to buy them when he got the money.
In August 1970, Spizzen came around again to dun
Spradley for payments, again threatening to "put all your
men in" and "picket you and shut you down." Spradley
pointed out that he himself was the only "Union man" at
the station since his son had left. At Spizzeri's direction
and urging, Spradley "put" another employee, Johnson,
"in" the Union and promised to pay his initiation fee, dues,
and health and welfare contributions.
In October 1970 Spizzen presented Spradley with a new
preprinted 3-year (1970-73) Local 705 contract to sign, the
same "as all the rest of the dealers have." Spradley, who
had associated himself with GRAMC as a member since
about the time he went into business at the station (August
1969), told Spizzeri that he was unable to pay the wage
scale called for by the contract and asked Spizzeri who had
as See instance 68, supra
90 Subpenaed Local 705 records show only two employees (Guider and
267
rsgotiated it. Spizzeri replied, "This is the way it always
[has] been done." Spradley did not sign at that time.
In November or December, Spizzeri again brought up
the contract. When Spradley told him that he (Spradley)
nad been informed that other dealers had not signed it and
that GRAMC, to which he belonged, had advised him that
he need not sign it, Spizzeri indicated Spradley would
"have to sign it." When Spizzeri returned in January
(1971), he bluntly told Spradley, "Now you going to have
to sign the contract or else we going to picket you, shut you
down." When Spradley pointed out that his nearby
competitor, Sims,89 had not signed, Spizzeri replied, "We
are going to shut him down, we will picket him and he will
be shut down in two weeks." Under these circumstances,
Spradley signed the 1970-73 "contract." At that time,
Spradley had seven (three full- and four regular part-time)
employees, with only one (plus Spradley himself) in the
Union. Spradley paid all union dues and health and
welfare contributions every 3 months to a Local 705
business agent who called to make collections.
Spradley's gross revenues at his service station in 1970
were approximately $458,000, mostly from gasoline sales.
Following the invariable pattern, Respondent produced
no witnesses to contradict or in any way to dispute the
gasoline service station dealer's testimony. Upon the
described testimony of James Spradley, I find the com-
plaint allegations concerning him established by substan-
tial credible evidence.
71. Instance 72: Stokes Service Station (814 E.
87th St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon substantially the same complaint allegations,
General Counsel witness Roy Stokes, unemployed at the
time of this trial, testified that he owned and operated the
Clark Oil service station at 814 East 87th Street, Chicago,
from December 1, 1970, to November 31, 1971. Stokes
joined GRAMC and authorized it to bargain collectively
for him in January 1971, since when its distinctive
membership emblem has continuously been prominently
displayed at his station.
Stokes received a visit at his service station in February
1971 from Teamsters Local 705 Business Agent George
Gilmore, with a preprinted contract to sign . Stokes
declined. Gilmore said others had signed and that "it
would be a wise thing to do .... If you don't sign you
may have a strike." Returning a few weeks later, Gilmore
told Stokes he need "only have to put in three" ( including
Stokes himself, or therefore only 2 employees) out of the 12
employees Stokes informed Gilmore he had. Gilmore also
told Stokes that the former owner of the station (all of
whose employees Stokes had taken over but replaced as
necessary)90 had had a contract with Local 705 and that
Stokes need not sign a new one but merely "honor" that of
the former dealer. When Stokes asked how much it would
cost him to "put" all of his employees "in" the Union,
Gilmore said around $800 per year but not to "worry"
about "putting" all of them "in," two would be enough. So,
Stokes signed the contract. Gilmore then left one union
Little) of the former owner as members of Local 705.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership card with Stokes and told him to give it to his
employee , Guider. At this time, excluding himself, Stokes
had 12 (7 full- and 5 regular part-time) employees, with
now in the Union.
Stokes' gross receipts at his service station from
December 1970 through November 31, 1971, were approxi-
mately $486,000, about 75 percent from gasoline sales.
Upon the foregoing wholly uncontradicted, credited
testimony of Roy Stokes , I find the complaint allegations
concerning him established by substantial credible eviden-
ce.
72. Instance 73: Ukockis Service Station (6801 W.
87th St., Oak Lawn, Ill.)
Upon substantially the same complaint allegations,
General Counsel witness Peter Ukockis testified that he
has owned and operated the Texaco Oil service station at
6801 West 87th Street , Oak Lawn, Illinois, from June 1965
(for the first 7 months with a partner) to June 1971. When
Ukockis took the station over, he reopened it after it had
been closed for about a year.
In July 1965 , right after he opened the station, Ukockis
was visited by two Local 705 emissaries who said they
would be back when "[you are] on [your] feet." In
November, one of the two (Rebout) returned (with another
companion) for Ukockis "to sign a contract with the
union." Ukockis declined. The union emissary (Rebout)
told him, "At least one man in the station [has] to be in the
union and it could be [you] . . . . or [I] would picket the
station ." Ukockis declined to sign or join. When the same
Local 705 emissary again returned on December 2, 1965,
Ukockis' then partner finally signed the preprinted
Contract . Neither the emissary nor any other Local 705
representative had ever asked how many employees there
were at the station, nor claimed to represent any employee,
nor was any employee a member of the Union. A few days
later, on December 7, 1965, the same Local 705 agent
(Rebout) returned and had Ukockis himself sign a Local
705 membership card. (Ukockis' partner stepped out about
2 months thereafter , leaving Ukockis the sole owner of the
station .) From 1965 to 1967, another Local 705 business
agent (Benny Kay) came around each 3 months to make
"collections"-for owner Ukockis only, he being the only
one at the station "in" the Union.
In March 1968 , Local 705 Business Agent Hall presented
a new preprinted 3-year (1967-70) Local 705 contract to
Ukockis , which he signed . At no time did Hall ask how
many employees there were nor claim to represent any
employee. At this time, excluding himself, Ukockis had
two (one full- and one regular part-time) employees.
Thereafter, Hall called each 3 months to collect "Union
dues" from Station Owner Ukockis. At no time has any
station employee been a member of Local 705; only Ukockis
himself has been a "member" under the circumstances
described At no time has Ukockis observed any of the
terms , provisions , or conditions of any "contract" with
Local 705.
On December 2 or 3, 1970, Local 705 Business Agent
Hall presented a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local
705 contract to Ukockis to sign. Ukockis refused to sign,
saying he was a member of GRAMC (which he had joined
in 1967 and to which on September 2, 1970, he had
executed an express bargaining designation authorization;
and whose distinctive membership emblem he had for
years been displaying conspicuously on his station's front
door). Hall responded that numerous other dealers had
signed up. Ukockis, however, continued to refuse to sign.
Hall then said , "I have closed my eyes in the past to the
fact you had employees and I never talked to them about
signing into the union, but if you don't sign the contract I
will go in the back and talk to the employees and have
them sign up, too . . . . [and] picket your station ....
[and] stop gas deliveries to your station because the gas
truck drivers are part of the union also and they will obey
us." But Ukockis persisted in his refusal to sign. Threaten-
ing "mass picket" by the Union of all stations which had
not signed up with Local 705, Hall promised to return. (He
never did so.) At this time, as well as during the latter half
of 1970, Ukockis had three (one full- and two regular part-
time) employees. Notwithstanding Ukockis' "contracts"
with Local 705, as has been stated, at no time did any of
his employees belong to Local 705 nor did Hall ever even
claim to represent any employee, nor did Ukockis ever
observe any provision (including union scale wages) of any
of those "contracts."
Ukockis' gross revenue at his service station in 1970 was
approximately $150,000, of which about 70 percent was
from gasoline sales.
Peter Ukockis' testimony was totally uncontradicted and
uncross-examined. Crediting it, I find the complaint
allegations concerning him established by substantial
credible evidence.
73. Instance 74: Vance Service Station ( 1590 S.
Elmhurst Rd., Mt. Prospect, Ill.)
Upon substantially identical complaint allegations,
General Counsel witness, Richard Vance, testified that he
has been the owner and operator of the Standard Oil
service station at 1590 South Elmhurst Road, Mt. Prospect,
Illinois , under the trade name Mt. Prospect Standard Oil
Service Station, since February 1968. That service station is
located on a street intersection comer , with other gas
stations (Phillips, Enco, and Mobil) on each of the other
three comers.
In July 1968, Vance observed four men-three of whom
turned out to be Teamsters Local 705 Business Agents
Spizzeri, Ligurotus, and Dibenardo-picketing with signs
at the Enco station on one of the other comers; they also
stopped a truck seeking to enter that station , which they
did not enter. After the men visited the Mobil station on
still another comer, they entered Vance's station, where
Local 705 spokesman, Spizzeri, said to Vance, "Here's the
pen, sign on this line here." When Vance said that he
wanted to speak to his lawyer, Spizzeri answered, "We
have no time for that" and threatened to stop gasoline
deliveries to Vance's station by "park[ing ] my cars on your
[gasoline] fills" if Vance did not sign then and there. When
Vance pleaded to let him think about it overnight, Spizzeri
refused and threatened further that if Vance did not sign
the Local 705 "contract" (a preprinted 3-year form for
1967-70) then and there " I will make every man in your
station join," but if he signed then and there only two
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 20
employees would have to join since "Louis wants two."
Vance said he only had two full-time employees. (In fact,
at this time , excluding himself, Vance had nine employees
-one full-time mechanic and eight regular part-time
employees.) At this, Spizzen said "Tell you what, we will
make it simple, we will call it a partnership, [just] you and
your brother-you take one card and you don't have to
feel sorry for the other fellows then if that is the way we
have to do it"-although Vance never had a partnership or
brother there with him-indeed, his brother lived 200 miles
away. Spizzeri thereupon added the word "PARTNERSHIP"
on the "agreement" and Vance signed it. At no time did
Spizzeri or any other Local 705 representative indicate in
any way that Local 705 represented any employee. After
signing this "agreement," Vance paid union initiation fees
on himself and on his mechanic, Krueger (not even a
member of the purported "bargaining unit"), as well as
union "dues" and health and welfare contributions (the
latter , but not the initiation fee, withheld from Krueger's
salary). Shortly after Krueger (the mechanic) left Vance's
employ in July 1969, Local 705 Business Agent Tony
Lapiana came around to pick up "collections." When
Vance informed him that Krueger no longer worked there,
Lapiana asked who Vance was "putting in" in his place,
but Vance refused.
In November 1970 (while Vance was a member of
GRAMC, with its distinctive membership emblem promi-
nently displayed in his station's front window), Local 705
Business Agent Lapiana put before Vance a new 3-year
(1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "contract," telling Vance
that it was "Time to sign the new . . . . contract . . . . you
know what will happen if you don't sign it." Lapiana also
told Vance that, although he could not "guarantee" it, it
would probably continue to be all right for Vance to "leave
it as just one man" (i .e., Vance himself) "in" the Union. At
this time , excluding himself Vance had nine (two full- and
seven part-time) employees, none of whom was a union
member; during all of 1970, station owner Vance himself
was the only "Union member."
On Lapiana's September 1971 visit to the station, Vance
informed him that he would make no further payments to
Local 705 because an NLRB agent had advised him he
need not do so. When Lapiana said, "Well, you know what
will happen to you. All the bad guys," Vance replied, "I
guess I am going to find out because you can leave now."
Vance's 1970 gross revenue at his service station was
approximately $469,000, of which about 80 percent was
from gasoline sales.
Again, Vance's testimony stands wholly uncontradicted.
Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations concerning
Richard Vance established by substantial credible eviden-
ce.
74. Instance 75: Vinyard Service Station (7400 W.
Roosevelt Rd., Forest Park, I11.)
Again upon substantially identical complaint allegations,
General Counsel witness , Kenneth Vinyard, testified that
he has owned and operated the Martin Oil service station
at 7400 West Roosevelt Road, Forest Park (a Chicago
suburb), since February 1970, after having been the
manager (and a member of Local 705) there for Martin Oil
Company, all eight of whose employees there he initially
retained.
In March 1970-a month after he took over ownership
of the service station-Vinyard was visited there by Local
705 Business Agent "Eddie" Miller, who informed him that
"You will have to sign a contract and it [i.e., this station]
will have to run just like it did when it was [Martin Oil]
company operated." When Vinyard expressed doubt that
he could do that and survive economically, Miller's
response was that if he signed no contract there could be
pickets and his gasoline supplies cut off. Vinyard asked for
a week or 10 days to ponder this. When Miller returned a
week or so later, Vinyard told him he thought he " can put
four men in the union," to which Miller assented, and
Vinyard thereupon signed the preprinted Local 705 3-year
contract (1967-70). Miller left union membership dues-
checkoff authorization cards, which Vinyard subsequently
gave to the three employees Vinyard wanted to put in the
Union and at his behest those three employees signed the
cards. Miller had never asked how many employees there
were nor did he claim to represent any; no provision of the
""contract" was discussed, nor did Miller ask what pay the
employees were receiving, nor did Vinyard ever pay Union
scale. At this time, excluding himself Vinyard had seven
(two full- and five regular part-time) employees. At no time
was Miller observed to have any contact with any
employee; however, he called regularly to make "collec-
tions" Pron. Vinyard.
Around November 1970 Local 705 Business Agent
Edward Miller presented a new 3-year (1970-73 ) preprint.
ed Local 705 contract to Vinyard, who then still had seven
(two full- and five regular part-time) employees (excluding
himself), of whom three (including a possible supervisor,
plus Vinyard himself) were "in" the Union and on whom
Vinyard was making regular payments to Local 705.91 At
no time did Miller ask Vinyard how many employees he
had, nor what wages he was paying, nor claim to represent
any employee; nor was the "contract" negotiated in any
way, nor did Vinyard observe its provisions, nor did Local
705 ever object to Vinyard's nonpayment of union scale as
called for by its "contract" with him. When Vinyard told
Miller he could not afford to pay Local 705 wage rates.
Miller told him to "do the best you can do." Vinyard
signed the "contract" and Miller continued to make
"collections."
The distinctive membership emblem of GRAMC-of
which Vinyard has been a member and which he has
designated as his collective-bargaining representative since
February 1970-has been prominently displayed in the
Vinyard service station window continuously since Febru-
ary 1970. From February through December 1970, the
gross revenues of Vinyard at his station were approximate-
ly $680,000, around 75 percent of which were from gasoline
sales.
Again, as in all other instances described and to be
described, the service station owner's testimony stands
91 During cross-examination, I sustained Vinyard's constitutional plea the employees' pay the "dues" and other sums he was paying on their
against self-incrimination on questioning about whether he deducted from "behalf" to Local 705.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wholly uncontradicted, Respondent having without expla-
nation failed to produce any witnesses. Crediting the
described testimony, I find the complaint allegations
concerning Kenneth Vinyard established by substantial
credible evidence.
75. Instance 76: Vaughn & McCaskill Service
Station (7126 S. Stony Island Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon the usual allegations , General Counsel witness,
Pierce Vaughn, testified that, in equal partnership with Ben
McCaskill, he owned and operated the "Phillips 66" Oil
service station at 7126 South Stony Island Avenue,
Chicago, from July 1, 1970, to around July 1971, about a
year, at which time he (and McCaskill) sold the gasoline
and repair shop portion of the station but retained (and
still has, with McCaskill) the body and fender repair shop
portion.
In July 1970, right after he took over the station, Vaughn
was visited by Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri,
who asked how many employees he had in the Union.
Vaughn told him one-Longfellow (the only retained
employee of the former owner), and at Spizzeri's behest
signed a preprinted Local 705 contract and paid "Union
dues," possibly relating to a past period, on Longfellow. At
this time , exclusive of its owners, the station had four (two
full- and two part-time) employees; as already stated, only
Longfellow was in the Union. Spizzeri did not claim to
represent any employee nor discuss the "contract" in any
respect . Thereafter, Vaughn continued to make payments
to Local 705 on Longfellow.
In January 1971, Local 705 Business Agent Jerry Spizzeri
presented a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705
contract to Vaughn for signature, and said to Vaughn he
(Spizzeri) "want[ed ] more than one man in the union."
Telling Spizzeri he could not have more than one, Vaughn
signed the "contract," no provision of which was in any
way discussed or observed (excepting, perhaps, the
payments made on Longfellow). At this time, excluding the
two owners (Vaughn and McCaskill), the station still had
four (two full- and two part-time) employees, with only
Longfellow in the Union.
The Vaughn-McCaskill service station had associated
itself as a member of GRAMC on July 9, 1970, continuing
as such thereafter while in business as a gasoline station
and displaying its distinctive membership emblem promi-
nently there.
The gross revenue of the station in question during the
year (July 1970-July 1971) of its operation was approxi-
mately $125,000.
Upon the foregoing uncontradicted testimony, which I
credit, I find the complaint allegations concerning Pierce
Vaughn and Ben McCaskill established by substantial
credible evidence.
76. Instance 77: Wax Service Station (5151 W.
Division St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon the usual complaint allegations, General Counsel
witness , Felix Wax, testified that he owned and operated
the Standard Oil service station at 5151 West Division
Street, Chicago, with equal partner Kurth Lumak from
April 14, 1969, to March 1970, and since the latter date as
sole owner.
In June 1969, Wax was visited at his station by a Local
705 representative (described except for name) at whose
behest then and on a subsequent visit that he sign a
collective agreement with Local 705 and put his partner
Lumak in as the "Union member," he signed such a
"contract" (1967-70) and placed his partner "in" and paid
"dues" on him to Local 705 by check which cleared that
Union's bank account. At this time, exclusive of owners
Wax and Lumak, the station had three ( two full-time
including a mechanic, and one regular part-time) employ-
ees, none of whom belonged to Local 705 ; only station
half-owner Lumak was a "Union member" of Local 705.
In December 1969, the Wax-Lumak partnership opened
a second service station at 1754 North Central, operated by
Lumak; and thereafter each partner operated one station.
At this time, Wax joined Local 705 , with Lumak making
payments to it for him and he ( Wax) making payments to
Local 705 for Lumak. When the partnership dissolved in
March 1970, Wax remained at the West Division Street
service station as the sole lessee and owner there, and
Lumak the sole lessee and owner of the North Central
station. However, notwithstanding the dissolution of the
partnership and the fact that Lumak was no longer at or in
any way connected with Wax' s West Division Street
station, Wax continued making payments to Local 705 on
Lumak as the West Division Street station's "Union
member" under the "contract" with Local 705 (as did
Lumak at the North Central in relation to Wax, who
likewise had nothing to do with that station), until
September 1971-when, because Wax learned that Lumak
was not making payments to Local 705 on Wax, Wax in
turn stopped making payments to Local 705 on Lumak
and started to make payments to Local 705 on himself (the
station owner).- but still on no employee, since no employee
was a union member.
Wax associated himself with GRAMC and designated it
as his collective-bargaining representative in July 1970, and
has since then prominently displayed in his station's front
window its distinctive membership emblem. In December
1970 a Local 705 Business Agent put before Wax for
signature a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705
"contract," without in any way negotiating it or claiming to
represent any employee. At this time, excluding himself
Wax had four employees, all full-time (including one
mechanic), with none in the Union; and Wax was making
payments to Local 705 only on his former partner Lumak
(who had left the station a year before) as the station's
"Union member." Apparently satisfied to leave things this
way, Wax signed the new 1970-73 "contract" with Local
705.
The gross receipts of Wax's West Division Street station
in 1970 were approximately $210,000, upwards of 75
percent from gasoline sales.
The testimony of the gasoline dealer, in this case Wax,
was as usual wholly uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find the
complaint allegations concerning Felix Wax established by
substantial credible evidence.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705
77. Instance 78: Williams & Cross Service Station
(8650 S . Morgan, Chicago, Ill.)
Upon the usual complaint allegations (as amended at the
trial), General Counsel witness, Henry Cross, testified-
again in the invariable pattern, wholly 'without contradic-
tion-that on December 14, 1969, he (with his equal
partner, Joseph T. Williams) acquired and have since then
owned and operated, with an entirely new workcrew, the
Humble (Enco) Oil service station at 8650 South Morgan,
Chicago.
Soon thereafter, in February 1970, Teamsters Local 705
Business Agents (Reverend) James Jackson and George
Gilmore paid a visit to the service station, where Jackson
told Cross he would like to have two employees in the
Union and that it didn't matter which two. Stating to Cross
that the former owner (none of whose employees was
working there) had had three employees in the Union,
Jackson told Cross that "being that [you're] a [black]
brother, [I] will settle for two." Cross said he was not
interested . Jackson suggested that Cross speak to his
partner, Williams, and that "Mr. Spizzen" would be back
to see him. When Local 705 Business Agent Spizzeri
appeared at the station soon thereafter, and Spizzeri also
said, "All [I] want[ed] [is] dust two, [I don't] care which
two, as long as it [is ] two" in the Union, Cross-who had
discussed the matter with his partner Williams-signed the
contract. Spizzeri thereupon urged them to sign for "health
and welfare," indicating that that was what the signature
cards were for that he presented. So, Williams (Cross' 50-
percent partner and half owner of the station) signed
"health and welfare" checkoff cards for himself and Henry
Cross (the other half owner) signed the name of his son
Dinny (Danny, "Dinni") Cross (employed at the station as
a gasoline attendant).92 At this time, excluding the partners
themselves, the station had two employees (Dinny Cross
and Conway). Thereafter, Spizzeri called at the station
quarterly for "collections," which he made on half-owner
Williams and on Dinny Cross, but he was never observed
talking to any employee.
In December 1970 or January 1971, the existing
situation-still with two employees (Danny Cross and
Conway) and payments to the Union on Owner Williams
and on Dinny Cross-was continued with Cross' signing of
a new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted "contract" with Team-
sters Local 705. Then, as previously and thereafter, at no
time did any Local 705 representative ask how many
employees there were, or present any evidence or =ndica-
tion that he represented any employee, or claim to
represent any employee, or inquire concerning wages being
paid, or in any way negotiate any provision of the
"contract"; nor did the station owners observe any
provision of the "contract"-they merely made payments
to the Union on half-owner Williams and on Dinny Cross.
The station ownership had affiliated itself with GRAMC
as a member in January 1970, continuously and conspicu-
ously displaying on its front door the GRAMC distinctive
membership emblem; and on September 5, 1970, a formal
92 A few days after Spizzeri's visit, Local 705 Business Agents Jackson
and Gilmore returned to the station to "check and see if we signed the
271
bargaining representation designation was executed to
GRAMC.
In April or May 1971 Spizzeri warned Cross and
Williams that if Williams' "dues" payments to Local 705
were not kept up, the Union could cause "trouble"; that
GRAMC would not prevail in court; and that they had
better pay up. They nevertheless stopped making payments
to Local 705 in July 1971. The 1970 gross revenue of their
station was around $350,000, with 80 percent from gasoline
sales.
As usual, the dealer's testimony stands wholly uncon-
tradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allegations
concerning Joseph T. Williams and Henry Cross and their
gasoline service station established by substantial credible
evidence.
78. Instance 79: Windzio Service Station (101 N.
LaGrange Rd., LaGrange, Ill.)
Upon the familiar allegations, General Counsel witness
Wally Windzio testified that he owned and operated the
Shell Oil service station at 101 North LaGrange Road,
LaGrange, Illinois, for about a year after acquiring it on
August 3, 1970.
About 2 weeks after he opened his service station,
Windzio received a visit from "Red"-otherwise identified
as Local 705 Business Agent Raymond Kolb-who put a
preprinted Local 705 contract before him and told him to
sign it. In response to a question by "Red" Kolb, Windzio
informed him he had, in addition to himself, two (one full-
and one part-time) employees. Kolb said, "A station like
this needs at least one guy in the union." Windzio
protested that he could not afford it. When Kolb suggested
Windzio himself could be the man, Windzio agreed so that
he himself could be eligible for employees' health and
welfare benefits. At no time did Kolb claim to act on
behalf of or to represent any employee.
About a month later Local 705 Business Agent "Red"
Kolb returned, this time insisting that it was time for
Windzio to sign up and threatening to "demonstrate" with
signs and to picket so that customers would be "afraid to
drive in" and that Windzio would be unable to obtain
gasoline deliveries at his station since the truckdrivers
"belong to the same union" and would not make deliveries.
"Scared," Windzio thereupon signed the preprinted 3-year
(1970-73) "contract" and "put" himself into the Union as
the service station's only "Union man." At this time,
excluding himself (he did mostly mechanical work),
Windzio had two (one full- and one part-time) employees,
neither of them a union member.
Windzio had been affiliated with GRAMC and promi-
nently displayed its distinctive membership emblem in his
station window since early September 1970, and executed a
formal bargaining authorization designation to it on
December 3, 1970.
A purported union dues-checkoff authorization card for
Windzio, produced by Respondent Union, is not signed by
Windzio, nor is any writing on that card that of Windzio.
Windzio's gross receipts at his service station for the 12
contract for the Union." After ascertaining they had, Jackson attempted to
sell them a watch or watches.
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
months he operated it (August 1970-71) were approximate-
ly $200,000.
Once again, the testimony of the gasoline service station
dealer stands wholly uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find
the complaint allegations concerning Wally Windzio
established by substantial credible evidence.
79. Instance 80: Wintercorn Service Station (2 W.
111th St., Chicago, Ill.)
Upon the usual familiar complaint allegations, General
Counsel witness, Frank A. Wintercorn, testified that he
owns and operates two Standard Oil service stations-one
(2 West 111th Street at State Street, Chicago) since March
1953, and another (in Orland (Olean?) Park, a Chicago
suburb), since July 14, 1971. We are here concerned only
with the first of these.
Wintercorn has been signing 3-year "collective agree-
ments" with Teamsters Local 705 since 1953. In 1960,
when Wintercorn had 13 (6 full- and 7 part-time)
employees, with only 3, a minority, in the Union, the Local
705 representative asked that 2 more be added. Wintercorn
did so, raising the number of his Local 705 employees to
five-still a definite minority. This situation continued
until 1970, during which he continued to sign "collective
agreements" with Local 705, while having only this
minority of Local 705 employees, with regard to whom he
made payments to Local 705 of about $30 per month for
"dues" plus about $125 per month for "health and welfare"
contributions.
In November or December 1970, Teamsters Local 705
Business Agent George White presented to Wintercorn a
new 3-year (1970-73) preprinted Local 705 "collective
agreement," which Wintercom signed. At that time,
Wintercorn had 13 (6 full- and 7 regular part-time)
employees, with only 4, or in any event a minority, "in" the
Union (plus Wintercorn himself); however, the purported
four employees "in" the Union, on whom he was making
payments to the Union, included the station manager, an
employee who had quit 2 years earlier in 1968, and his
brother who had also quit in 1968. Thus, out of 13
employees, Wintercorn had only 2 (including the station
manager) "in" the Union. But Local 705 Business Agent
White picked up the "collections" regularly on the
others-no longer at the station, for as long as 2 years-as
well, without inquiry of any kind.93 White was never
observed to talk to any of the employees.
Wintercorn has been a member of GRAMC since 1953
and on its board of directors since around 1968; its
distinctive membership emblem has been displayed promi-
nently in his station window since 1970, and on September
22, 1970 he also executed to it - formal collective
bargaining authorization designation.
In 1970 gross receipts at the Wintercorn service station
were approximately $455,000, over 75 percent from
gasoline sales.
Again, the testimony of Wintercorn stands totally
uncontradicted. Crediting it, I find the complaint allega-
tions concerning Frank A. Wintercorn established by
substantial credible evidence.
80. Instance 81: Zavorka Service Station (3625
W. 127th St., Alsip, Ill.)
Upon the usual allegations , General Counsel witness,
James Zavorka, also testified without any contradiction
that he has owned and operated the Clark Oil Service
Station at 3625 West 127th Street , Alsip (a Chicago
suburb), Illinois , with an entirely new crew of employees.
In July 1969 Zavorka received a visit from Local 705
Business Agent Nicholas, who asked him if he "wanted to
join the union ." Zavorka declined the invitation. Nicholas
returned around August 1, 1969, on the same mission, but
this time with a Local 705 contract, which Zavorka signed,
although Nicholas never claimed to represent any employ-
ee, did not ask how many employees there were, nor
discuss any provision of the "contract." Thereafter,
Zavorka began making regular payments to Local 705 on
one employee (James Tross), although he had about six
(two full- and four regular part-time) employees. Although
Nicholas called regularly-monthly or so-for "collec-
tions," at no time was he observed to speak to any
employee. And Zavorka did not observe the provisions of
his "contract" with Teamsters Local 705, nor did that
Union apparently know or care.
From 1969 to 1971 with a workcrew of five (two full- and
three part-time) employees , Zavorka made payments to
Local 705 on at most one employee.
In April or May 1971, Local 705 Business Agent
Nicholas asked Zavorka if he would sign another contract
with his Union . Zavorka said , "Not really." Nicholas
thereupon threatened , "I hate to close you up, shut off
your gas and picket your station ." So, Zavorka again
signed a "contract" with Local 705. At this time , excluding
himself Zavorka had three (one full - and two regular part-
time) employees and was making payments to Local 705
on none of them, but "just [on ] myself" (Zavorka). (Local
705 records bear this out .) Also on this occasion, as all
along, the Local 705 business agent did not even claim to
represent any employee.
Zavorka became a member of GRAMC in September
1969, since when he has continuously displayed its
distinctive membership emblem prominently at his service
station, which in 1970 had a gross revenue of about
$289,000, approximately 75 percent thereof from gasoline
sales.
As has already been stated, the testimony of Zavorka
was wholly uncontradicted . Crediting it, I find that the
complaint allegations concerning James Zavorka have
been established by substantial credible evidence.
81. Instance 82: Zichittella Service Station (1152
S. Western Ave., Chicago, Ill.)
Subsequent to the conclusion of the trial in Case
13-CB-3571, consisting of the foregoing 81 instances
es At the trial , I sustained Wintercorn's plea of constitutional privilege Although my reasons for this ruling (also affecting some subsequent
against self-incrimination when Respondent sought on cross-examination to witnesses, described supra herein) are explicated upon the record and I
die it from hun whether his payments to Local 705 were deducted from the allowed Respondent ample time to seek review thereof, Respondent chose
pay of the employees on whose behalf they were purportedly made. not to appeal.
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705 273
which have been described, the parties entered into a
stipulation, finalized on November 30, 1972, which on their
joint applicant I accepted by my order of December 7,
1972, in lieu of reopening the record and conducting a
further hearing. That stipulation (and my order of
consolidation of October 17, 1972) in effect adds another
case (Case 13-CB-4457) to the foregoing, which for
purposes of convenience is here described, with findings, as
instance 82, since as to pleadings and proof it follows
essentially the same pattern as the 81 instances which have
already been detailed. The following findings are accord-
ingly based upon the parties' said stipulation.
Anthony Zichittella has since February 16, 1972-i.e.,
subsequent to the trial herein-been the owner and operator
of a Save-Way Service Station known as Roosevelt Save-
Way, at 1152 South Western Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. For
the 6-month period from March 1-September 1, 1972, the
gross revenue derived from the operation of that service
station was approximately $340,000 (around 80 percent
from gasoline sales), with over $5,000 worth of products
shipped there directly in interstate commerce. (Projected
over a year, the 6-month figure would be approximately
$680,000.) When Zichittella took this station over from
Save-Way Company, he retained there seven of Save-Way
Company's employees, two of whom (Thompson and
Townzell) were members of Local 705, under a collective
agreement (to Zichittella's knowledge) between Save-Way
Company and Local 705 covering that as well as another
service station located elsewhere. At the time Zichittella
took over ownership and operation of the station here
involved, Thompson and Townzell (the two Local 705
members) were the only two, out of seven, employees
receiving the wages called for by the Local 705 contract
with Save-Way Company.
In March or April 1972-shortly after Zichittella took
the station over, Local 705 Business Agent Tony Lapiana
called on him there and informed him that "You still have
two men in the Union" and that he (Lapiana) would let it
go at that, although he knew Zichittella had seven
employees, provided Zichittella made dues and health and
welfare payments to Local 705 on these two "Union" men.
When Zichittella informed Lapiana that he was already
making payments on Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage
through Save-Way Company on these two men, Lapiana
replied that Zichittella could not do it that way anymore,
but that he had to sign a contract (i.e., 3-year preprinted
contract for 1970-73) with Local 705 and pay health and
welfare contributions to Local 705 or else "the Union
would picket Zichittella's station and stop his gasoline
deliveries." Zichittella did not sign the Local 705 contract
on this occasion.
Zichittella returned around May 11, 1972, accompanied
by an associate, and, presenting the same contract to
Zichittella, told Zichittella that they were there on "the
health and welfare for the two men" and that Zichittella
"must sign the contract." After Lapiana informed Zichit-
tella that the reason he "must sign a new contract" was
that "the two men in the Union had to have health and
welfare from the Union as provided by the contract and
that this was "necessary," Zichittella signed, with Lapia-
na's associate filling in the blank spaces and backdating it
to April 1, 1972, and telling Zichittella that the "quarter"
had already begun. Zichittella then also paid union dues
and health and welfare contributions to Local 705 on the
two men (Thompson and Townzell), by checks which he
signed after they also were filled out by Lapiana's
associate. At this time, Lapiana had seven full time
employees, with only the foregoing two (Thompson and
Townzell) in the Union. At no time did the Local 705
representatives display or offer to display any cards or
other evidence that they represented any of Zichittella's
employees, nor did they claim to represent a majority of
the employees. At no time was there any negotiation of any
provision of the "contract" which Zichittella thus signed.
Zichittella did not expressly tell the Local 705 spokesmen
that he was represented for bargaining purposes by
GRAMC, although Zichittella had continuously since
February 22, 1972, been a member of GRAMC and had
expressly designated it as his collective-bargaining agent
and had also continuously since February 22 displayed its
distinctive membership emblem conspicuously in his
station front window so as to be plainly visible.
Upon the foregoing facts, established as aforesaid by
stipulation without cross-examination or countervailing
proof, I find the allegations of the complaint in Case
13-CB-4457, essentially as there set forth, concerning
Anthony Zichittella established by substantial credible
evidence.
C. Discussion
No less than 82 instances have been detailed establishing
a consistent and well-defined and organized pattern of
unlawful conduct by Respondent Teamsters Local 705 so
flagrant, egregious , widespread, and long-continued as to
arouse wonderment whether paralleled in Board annals
and why the multiple arms of the law have been so long
withheld. (The record indicates these practices may have
flourished for 15 or more years .) Respondent's unexplained
total failure to present any witnesses to raise factual issues
for practical purposes precludes waffling on its part
concerning the events described . No less than 10,000
employees in the gasoline service stations of the Metropoli-
tan Chicago area are said to be involved. The overall
pattern shown consisted of strong -arm demands by
Teamsters Local 705 that the gasoline dealer sign it
imposed, preprinted 3-year "contract" without negotiation
or possibility of negotiation . That "contract" involved
recognition by the gasoline dealer of Local 705 as his
employees' exclusive collective-bargaining representative
with mandatory dues-checkoff and other payments to
Local 705 and required membership therein, even though a
majority of the station's employees and in some cases none
belonged to Local 705. This was accomplished through
threats of "drying up" the station by cutting off its gasoline
deliveries-the sine qua non of the station's existence-by
the gasoline delivery truckdrivers, members of the same
union (Local 705) and who, as is stipulated , made the
gasoline deliveries to these Chicago gasoline stations. The
pattern of Teamsters Local 705's operations here makes it
evident that that Union was interested solely in collecting
moneys from the Chicago gasoline dealers, regardless of
their actual source , rather than in protecting the interests
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employee members whom a union normally serves or is
expected to serve. In many cases, with the knowing
acquiescence and even at the urging of Local 705, the
station owners themselves, rather than the employees, were
coerced into "membership" in Local 705; in some cases,
the station owners were the only Local 705 "members," to
the exclusion of station employees. In others, mechanics
-not even included in the bargaining unit-were taken in
to attempt to put together a semblance of a "majority" in
the bargaining unit 84 In almost all cases where employees
became members of Local 705-which foisted a "contract"
upon the dealers without in fact being the representative of
a majority, if indeed any, of their employees-after the
"contract" was signed the employees were assigned or
"put" into the Union by the employer, who handpicked the
employees desired by the employer to be "in" the Union,
often over their protest. In some cases, the employer signed
his employees' names to Local 705 membership application
and dues-checkoff cards without the employees' knowledge
or consent or even without telling them about it; in some
cases "members" were not employed at the station at all;
and in many cases the employer did not even deduct the
"Union dues" from their pay, thus perfecting their
ignorance that they were being reported and carried as
Local 705 "members." Not only did Local 705 not
negotiate or even make a pretense of negotiating any of its
contracts with the Chicago gasoline dealers, but it
presented no evidence that it represented employees nor
did it claim to, nor did it evince any concern over the
wages or other terms or conditions of their employment
either before or after the perfunctory "contract" signing;
all that Local 705 evinced interest in was making
"collections" from the employer without concern for their
actual source . There is no evidence that Local 705 ever
enforced the wage or other requirements (except for its
"collections" from the gasoline dealers) of any of these
"contracts"; indeed, the evidence is overwhelming and
undisputed that numerous dealers were expressly told by
Local 705 that they need not pay the "required" (i.e.,
"contractual") wages at all; there were even indications
that dissident employees would be "taken care of" for the
employer by Local 705. Embellishments of the foregoing
pattern were myriad in degree, as disclosed by the 82
illustrative instances exposed. In a word, Respondent's
activities here constituted sheer racketeering.
That activities of the described nature are seriously
violative of at least the Act brooks of no question and is so
well established that extended discussion would be
superfluous (as well as encyclopedic) here.
One might begin, in a case like this, with a reminder,
which should be unnecessary, that as a matter of contract
law a coerced "agreement" may be avoided, more
particularly by third parties (here, employees) whose rights
and obligations are thereby purportedly defined and
regulated . Beyond that, it is- abundantly settled that the
94 Regular part-time employees, having a community of interest as they
do with full-time employees here (other than mechanics, who are not
included in the bargaining units) are properly to be considered included in
the appropriate collective-bargaining units at the gasoline service stations
here both as a matter of Board law (see, e g, Airlines Parking, Inc, 196
NLRB 1018; enfd . 470 F.2d 994, (C.A. 6, 1972), The May Department Stores
Company, 181 NLRB 710; Chester County Beer Distributors Association, 133
making of a contract between employer and union
containing a union-security provision without a majority of
the affected employees having validly selected the union as
a bargaining agent is unlawful under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act and void "in its entirety," and confers neither
rights upon the union nor obligations upon the employees.
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union [Bernhard-
Altmann Texas Corp.] v. N.LR.B., 366 U.S. 731, 737(1961).
Such conduct among other things strikes at basic protec-
tions of workers which it was the Act's central purpose to
secure; viz, their right to bargain collectively (if they so
desire) through representatives of their own free choice.
Republic Steel Corporation v. N.LRB., 311 U.S. 7.95 Union
solicitation, execution, maintenance, and enforcement of
such a contract containing union-security and dues-check-
off provisions restrain and coerce employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(b)(IXA)
of the Act; and they also cause the employer to
discriminate against its employees in violation of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Seine and Line Fishermen's
Union, 374 F.2d 974, 977-78 (C.A. 9, 1967), cert. denied
389 U.S. 913; Sweater Bee by Banff, Ltd, 197 NLRB 805.
Furthermore, Respondent' s actions in consistently bypass-
ing GRAMC and soliciting gasoline dealers to deauthorize
it as their collective-bargaining representative restrained
and coerced the gasoline dealers in their choice of
bargaining representative, in violation of Section 8(b)(IXB)
of the Act. Finally, Respondent's refusal to bargain
collectively with any gasoline dealers whose employees it
may have represented at any specific time , concerning its
imposed and required "contract" violated Section 8(bX3)
of the Act.
The dismal narrative spelled out in the 82 illustrative
instances here detailed includes numerous other unlawful
actions comprising the wide-ranging, atrocious constella-
tion exposed. For example, it is of course violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) for a union to give effect to a
contract including a union-security and checkoff provision
when the employer without employees' authorization pays
his employees' required union dues out of his own funds
instead of by deduction from their wages. Sweater Bee by
Banff, Ltd, supra at 1248. And coerced inclusion of
employers themselves, as typically here, in the "collective
bargaining units"-indeed, sometimes the employers
alone, to the total exclusion of their employees -is likewise
a violation of the Act: with whom in such a "collective
bargaining unit" does the employer bargain-himse; and
for whom does the employer vote in a union or other non-
Board election-himself? Cf. Mechling Barge Lines, 197
NLRB 592. For similar reasons as interfering with if not
choking off employees' rights to unsaddled democratic
selection of collective bargaining representatives (if they
desire to bargain collectively), as well as encouraging
membership not only in a union (if employees do not so
desire) but one of their employer's preference, continued
NLRB 771, 774) and because concededly so included under Respondent's
own collective agreements (Joint Exh. I and G.C. Exh. 5)
95 Indeed, even good-faith belief in a union's majority status is no
justification for recognition of a minority union , "for, even if mistakenly,
the employees' rights have been invaded ." ILGWU [Bernhard-Altmann
Texas Corp J v N.L.R.B, supra at 739.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 275
checkoff of dues of employees who (as here) have left the
employer's employ, and continued carrying of them as
"collective bargaining unit" members-to say nothing of
carrying shadow "members" who were never in the
unit-is likewise violative of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. Cf.
Industrial Towel and Uniform Service, a Division of Cavalier
Industries, Inc., 195 NLRB 1121, reversed on other grounds
473 F.2d 1258, (C.A. 6, 1973) 96 97
The 82 instances which have been uncovered overwhelm-
ingly establish a clear pattern of violations so serious and
pervasive in character and extent as to require stringent
remedial measures.
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. At all material times, Respondent Truck Drivers,
Oil Drivers, Filling Station and Platform Workers Union,
Local No. 705, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, has been and is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
B. At all material times, as hereinabove set forth and
found in sections II and III, supra, various employers
therein identified and found, have been and are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act; and there has been established, with
regard to them and other employers in their industry, being
the gasoline service station dealers in the metropolitan area
of Chicago, Illinois, a pervasive pattern of substantially
identical or similar unlawful conduct directed at and
affecting all of said enterprises and industry and the
employees thereof and the general public served thereby,
such as to justify and require assertion of jurisdiction
herein so as to make any remedy herein effective in
carrying out the policies of the Act.
C. In view of the facts established in the 82 instances
reviewed supra, herein, and upon the record as a whole,
assertion of jurisdiction herein so as to reach all of the
gasoline service station dealers and industry and their
employees in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, is
warranted and proper.
D. By its conduct set forth in section III, supra,
Respondent Teamsters Local 705 has engaged in and is
continuing to engage in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (B), (2), and (3) of the Act.
E. Said violations, constituting a pattern, have been
96 Respondent seeks to project into this case a former Board proceeding
(13-RM-994), which Respondent describes as having concerned the
question whether GRAMC could properly require Respondent to engage in
multiemployer or industrywide bargaining with it However , that issue is not
involved here. The complaint here does not allege that Respondent failed or
refused to engage in multiemployer or industrywide bargaining with
GRAMC nor that such would have been a violation of the Act. To
introduce that matter into the instant proceeding would becloud and
confuse this proceeding with something not in issue here . Respondent's
obligation to bargain collectively with individual gasoline station dealers or
with GRAMC as the authorized bargaining representative of individual
gasoline station dealers, is a different issue and has been dealt with herein.
For these reasons, Respondent's application, upon which ruling was
reserved at the trial, to take official notice of that other proceeding
(13-RM-994) and a related United States district court proceeding (70 C
2562) seeking to enjoin the Board' s Regional Director, is denied, the
systematic, repeated, deliberate, flagrant, widespread, and
pervasive throughout the gasoline service station dealers
industry in the metropolitan area of Chicago, Illinois, and
calculated knowingly and deliberately to flout, disrupt, and
defeat the policies and purposes of the Act.
F. Said unfair labor practices and each of them have
affected, are affecting, and, unless permanently restrained
and enjoined, will continue to affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Perhaps particularly in view of Respondent's unex-
plained total failure to call any of its business agents or
representatives-implicated by name over and over in the
dreary chronology of misconduct detailed in the 82
illustrative instances here reviewed-the serious question
here is not whether Respondent's described pattern of
activities was unlawful, but rather how to deal effectively
with such emboldened and wide-ranging violation of the
Act so as to stamp out the evil and prevent its recurrence.
Remedial measures in a case of this magnitude and
scope should be designed to bring the persisting pattern of
violations to a halt and make amends and restitution
therefor, and to avoid any repetition or recurrence thereof.
We shall, accordingly, address ourselves to measures for
the attainment of these essential objectives.
A. Cease-and-Desist Remedies
To begin with, there must be issued a cease-and-desist
order requiring Respondent to halt unlawful activities such
as have been described, and requiring recognition under
the unlawfully procured contracts to be withdrawn from
Local 705. Further, in view of the fact that over 80
instances, constituting a systematic pattern of atrocious
illegality, have been established, I shall also provide that
recognition of Local 705 be withheld in the Metropolitan
Chicago gasoline service station industry for an appropri-
ate period except through certification by the Board after
secret ballot elections held under the Act. See, e.g., Burns
International Security Services, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 441 F.2d
911, (C.A. 2), affd. 406 U.S. 272; The Carpenter Steel
Company, 76 NLRB 670.
Charging Party's and General Counsel's objections thereto are sustained,
and the related documents sought by Respondent to be introduced into the
record here-marked for identification at this trial (Resp . Exhs. 90-94,
inclusive , for identification)-are rejected; and the Charging Party's motion
to strike out and dismiss Respondent's affirmative defense raising this
matter in paragraph "XXI" of its answer is granted.
87 Respondent's Exhibits 19 and 99-107 inclusive for identification, with
an accompanying offer of proof, relating to certain abortive settlement
attempts and other matters deemed immaterial are rejected , and Respon-
dent's affirmative defenses encompassing the same , as set forth in
paragraphs XXII and XXIII of its answer , are hereby dismissed. The
alleged affirmative defense set forth in paragraph XXIV of the answer was
stricken out on motion , without opposition of Respondent, at the
conclusion of the trial.
Resp . Exh. 95 for identification (U.S. Dept. of Commerce data) is
received.
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Abrogation of "Contracts " and Union
"Memberships" Unlawfully Obtained, Repayment of
Collections Thereunder
Local 705 "contracts" and "memberships" unlawfully
procured should be abrogated and payments thereunder
(except to the extent inequitable , as hereafter described)
should be returned , with appropriate interest . Sweater Bee
by Banff, Ltd., 197 NLRB. 805. Such repayments should in
each case be made to the person who , or for whose benefit,
such payments were made ; in the case of employees who
were ignorant of their "membership" in Local 705 or that
any payment was being made by their employer under or
in their name , the payments should be returned to the
employer . "Health and welfare payments" should be
similarly returned . A troublesome question arises with
regard to the return of "health and welfare payments"
where a claim has been made and paid by the health and
welfare fund or its designee , such as for hospitalization. As
to such instances , seemingly relatively few in number, for a
variety of practical as well as theoretical reasons perhaps
no perfect solution is possible . (E.g., should a coerced
insurance payment be returned, where a benefit has been
claimed and paid thereunder ?) Mindful of the core
purposes of the legislative authors of the Act , the stream of
judicial direction that remedial measures under the Act
should be tailored so as to be effective yet fair, and
considerations of practicality, I have arrived at what seems
to me to be a fair reconciliation and methodology for
treating these instances-also having in mind that in order
to bring tipped scales into balance the law may have to
lean toward protection of the wronged rather than the
wrongdoer .98 This will be that in the case of any person to
or for whose benefit payment has been made under a claim
arising out of the health and welfare "coverage," the
amount of "health and welfare" contributions to be repaid
by Local 705 may be reduced by 1 year's "health and
welfare" contributions , at the rates in effect from the date 6
months prior to the payment of the claim to the date 6
months subsequent to the payment of the claim ; without in
any way affecting the payments made or to be made upon
the claim . The recommended Order will include a
provision for notifying those whose payments are current,
that upon receipt of the repayment they shall no longer be
covered , after a brief reasonable period to obtain substitute
coverage if desired.
98 One inevitably calls to mind Judge Learned Hand's observation in
N LR.B v Remington Rand Inc., 94 F.2d 862, 872 (C.A. 2) that "it rest[s]
upon the tortfeasor to disentangle the consequences for which it [is]
chargeable from those from which it [is ] immune ." Also particularly apropos
are the recent remarks of Judge McCree in National Cash Register Company
v. N.LR.B, 466 F.2d 945, 969-970 (CA. 6, 1972):
It may be that the reimbursement order will result in providing a
windfall . and that the Board should have explored means of
determining which employees actually were coerced .... By the same
token, the union was not justified in remaining silent in the face of
testimony about the pervasive nature of the union 's coercive tactics
No employee testified that he made the payments freely and
voluntarily.. .
Accordingly, the Board acted well within its authority in ordering
the union to reimburse all the employees. As Judge Learned Hand
phrased it in an analogous context:
"However , as in our decision in N.LRB. v. Revere Metal
Art Co, 280 F.2d 96, 101, we will not direct the Board to make
Repayments-whether of initiation, dues, or health and
welfare payments-are here limited to those payments
made within the 10(b) period of the Act-i.e., not more
than 6 months prior to the filing of the original charge
herein (filed on November 18, 1970), regardless of the date
of the "contract" under which made or purportedly made.
Contracts herein abrogated are similarly limited, in
respects other than payments as above provided, to
contracts executed within said 10 (b) period.99
C. Retention of Jurisdiction
Toward the close of the lengthy trial, it was indicated
that perhaps as many as 300 or more additional instances
and gasoline dealers' cases could be presented , within the
compass of the general allegations of the complaint (or
appropriate amplification thereof) in the instant proceed-
ing, given sufficient time and opportunity for preparation.
General Counsel pleaded that he has had insufficient staff
and time to prepare and present such additional instances
and that he desired to avoid delay in disposition of and
relief for the 82 instances here presented in combined or
conglomerate form . The Charging Party , on the other
hand, contended that it had some time ago turned over its
proof en masse to General Counsel , whose responsibility it
was to proceed to trial thereon in full; that it would be
unfair now in effect to transfer these materials back to the
Charging Party to proceed with ab initio at this late date;
and that in any event the Charging Party lacked the
personnel , facilities , or finances to carry on a project of
such magnitude, statutory responsibility for which rests
upon the shoulders of General Counsel . I was and continue
to be heedful of the desirability of striking a balance
between these considerations , within the framework of
practicability . As I indicated at the trial, I am most
reluctant to, and have now decided that I will not,
contribute toward possibly cutting off the important rights
of any of the 300 other gasoline dealers and their
employees who for one reason or another-perhaps
through sheer arbitrary selection-simply did not happen
to be among the 82 instances prepared and presented at
this trial, which, while prolonged was nevertheless possibly
truncated by General Counsel for understandable reasons
of administrative expediency . I am strongly of the view
that the rights of these other gasoline dealers and their
employees should be preserved.
To require at this time in each and every such additional
an inquiry in each case how far the employee was coerced. We
there said: 'hough the Board might have excluded the
employees who had voluntarily signed union cards before
September I from the reimbursement provision , it did not abuse
its discretion in not doing so since these employees may well
have remained in the union only because of the status it had
unlawfully acquired . For the courts to require a determination
of the attitude of each employee in every case would impose
impossible administrative burdens.'
N.L.R.B. v. Cadillac Wire Corp , supra, 290 F .2d at 263.
ae Since the 10(b) limitation applies only to proceedings such as this,
under the National Labor Relations Act before the National Labor Relations
Board the above limitation of payment is without prejudice to any civil
cause of action at law or otherwise to recover such sums as were paid prior
to the 10(b) period . Such civil causes of action, as also causes of action at
law to set aside contracts procured through duress or other illegality, would
presumably be governed by whatever statute or statutes of limitations are
applicable to civil suits between private parties.
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 705 277
instance a trial of the magnitude and duration of the
instant trial would frustrate and could defeat the rights of
those parties and their employees and thwart the ends of
justice .' I shall therefore provide for what I believe to be a
fair and feasible alternative in this highly unusual situation,
mindful that the genius of the administrative law process is
its flexible practicality . I shall include in the recommended
Order a provision under which continuing jurisdiction is
retained herein for the purpose of entertaining ad hoc
applications for supplemental relief at the foot of the Order
and for granting summary relief thereon as warranted,
without the necessity for repetitive trials unless required
with regard to specific issues of fact expressly tendered in
good faith ; and for the imposition of costs if unjustifiably
proliferating relitigation of issues is indulged in.2
D. Posting of Notices
In view of the widescale pattern of illegal conduct
exposed , permeating the gasoline service station industry
and its estimated 10,000 or more employees in the
Metropolitan Chicago area, and in order to promote the
objective of stamping out such abuses , I shall include in the
recommended Order the provision that the notices to be
posted may be posted in all gasoline service stations in that
area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties, Illinois). See, e.g.,
Texas Gulf Sulphur Company v. N.LR.B., 463 F.2d 778, 779
(C.A. 5, 1972); J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc. v. N.LR.B., 417
F.2d 533 (C.A. 5, 1969); N.LRB. v. District 65, RWDSU,
AFL-CIO, 375 F.2d 745, 747 (C.A. 2); NLRB. v.
Lummus Co., 210 F.2d 377, 381 (C.A. 5); Teamsters, Local
901 [Associated Federal Hotels], 193 NLRB 591, 599;
District 65, Retail etc. Union [The St. John Associates, Inc.],
157 NLRB 615, 625-626, enfd. 375 F.2d 745, 747 (C.A. 2):
"If the much used phrase `law and order' is to have any
meaning in our society, the Board's decision supporting
these words must be enforced. The manner in which the
Union proceeded justifies the broadest type of order."
E. Referral to Attorney General of the United
States 6
The flagrant, egregious, widespread, and corrupting
nature of the pattern of practices here pursued mandates
that they be referred to the Attorney General of the United
States for appropriate action .3 Such reference will accord-
ingly here be made.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this consolidat-
i Such new proceedings could, for example, be subject to 10(b) defenses,
even though the charge as filed herein was sufficiently broad to include all
such additional instances and dealers . Cf., e g., International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union /McLoughhn Manufacturing Corporation] v
N LRB., 463 F.2d 907,921-23 (C.A.D.C., 1972).
2 The Charging Party's application for costs at this time is denied, with
some reluctance, since in my opinion it has considerable merit, even a
fortiori Tudee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234, and 196 NLRB 158,
particularly in view of Respondent 's failure to present even a single witness
to controvert the massive testimony adduced in the 82 described instances,
thereby subjecting General Counsel to the seemingly avoidable gargantuan
trial task thrust upon him . Nevertheless, I shall not award costs here
because the heavy laboring oar was plied by General Counsel who does not
seek costs , and also because I have not fared well with a previous
ed proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER4
A. It is hereby ordered that: Respondent, Truck
Drivers, Oil Drivers , Filling Station and Platform Workers
Union, Local No. 705, an Affiliate of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, and its officers , representatives,
and agents, shall forthwith:
1. Cease and desist from:
a. In any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce, or
performing or giving effect to, any collective agreement or
contract found in section III hereof , to have been obtained
through coercion , restraint , or unlawful threat against any
employer or in interference with the right of his employees
freely to select (or to refrain from selecting) a collective-
bargaining representative of their own choice, or in
interference with any other right of employees under the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or when said
Respondent did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
employees of said employer in an appropriate collective-
bargaining unit, or otherwise unlawfully under said Act.
b. In any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce,
or performing or giving effect to , any collective agreement
or contract obtained under circumstances substantially the
same as or similar to those found in section III hereof,
through coercion , restraint, or unlawful threat against any
gasoline service station owner or dealer in the Metropoli-
tan Chicago area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties),
Illinois , or in interference with the right of his employees
freely to select (or to refrain from selecting) a collective-
bargaining representative of their own choice, or in
interference with any other right of employees under the
National Labor Relations Act as amended, or when said
Respondent did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
employees of said employer in an appropriate collective-
bargaining unit, or otherwise unlawfully under said Act.
c. In any manner enforcing or attempting to enforce
payment or collection of initiations , dues , assessments,
health and welfare contributions, or other payments
required under or in relation to or under color of any
obligation or purported obligation arising out of any
collective agreement or contract referred to in sections A,
1, a or A, 1, b of this Order, or under any membership in
Respondent or dues checkoff or other payment require-
ment to Respondent by virtue thereof.
d. Seeking recognition or acting or purporting to act as
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees
recommendation along that line (cf. Russell Motors, Inc., 198 NLRB No. 58,
80 LRRM 1757, 1759-60). I have, however, made the above provision for
costs in the event Respondent indulges in unjustifiable, repetitive litigation
of other instances of a substantially identical character without adducing
countervailing proof raising genuine issues.
3 Without reference to U.S . Code provisions, see, e .g, Act., § 302, U.S.
v. Lanni, 466 F .2d 1102 (C.A. 3); U.S. v. Ferrara, 458 F .2d 868 (CA. 2), cert.
denied 408 U .S. 931; Sweater Bee by Banff, lid, 197 NLRB 805.
4 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 the recommended Order which follows, 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.
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of any employer, unless said Respondent is in fact the duly
authorized collective-bargaining representative of an un-
coerced majority of said employees in a unit appropriate
for collective-bargaining purposes; arias further, for a
period of 5 years from the date of this Order, seeking such
recognition from any gasoline service station owner or
dealer (or acting or purporting to so act on behalf of the
employees of such owner or dealer) in the Metropolitan
Chicago area (i.e., Cook and DuPage Counties), Illinois,
unless said Respondent has been duly certified by the
National Labor Relations Board to be such representative
following a secret ballot election or elections held by said
Board in accordance with the National Labor Relations
Act as amended.
e. Utilizing employers, owners, officials, supervisors, or
agents of an employer to unionize, or to attempt to
unionize, or to enlist or induce employees into membership
in Respondent, or to be represented by Respondent, or to
assist Respondent in organizing such employees.
f. Causing or attempting to cause any employer to
discriminate against an employee in violation of Section
8(aX3) of said Act.
g. Coercing an employer to enter into a recognitional
and collective agreement under threat of preventing
merchandise deliveries to the employer in violation of said
Act.
h. Representing, or claiming or purporting to represent,
a majority of employees of an employer in an appropriate
collective-bargaining unit upon the basis of the member-
ship of the employer or supervisors within the meaning of
the Act.
i. Requiring employees to be placed into, or to hold
membership in, Respondent upon the basis of provisions of
a collective agreement executed when Respondent was not
the duly authorized representative of an uncoerced
majority of employees of an appropriate collective-bar-
gaining unit of such employees.
j. Collecting or seeking to collect or accepting dues,
initiation fees, assessments , health and welfare contri-
butions, or other payments required by Respondent from or
for persons not lawfully members of Respondent, upon the
asserted or purported basis of such membership.
k. If and to the extent that Respondent may at any time
be the duly authorized exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of an appropriate bargaining unit of
employees, refusing to bargain collectively with the
employer of such employees; or, bypassing or otherwise in
violation of the Act failing or refusing to bargain
collectively with any gasoline service station owner or
dealer in the Metropolitan Chicago area (i.e., Cook and
DuPage Counties), Illinois, through his duly authorized
collective-bargaining representative, including Gasoline
Retailers Association of Metropolitan Chicago.
1. In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; to
form, join, or assist any labor organization; to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing;
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
a. Within 20 days from the date of this Order, repay to
each employer or employee from whom any moneys have
been collected or received under or in connection with any
collective agreement or contract referred to in section A, 1,
a of this Order , all such moneys plus 6-percent interest
thereon from the date of collection or receipt thereof by
Respondent; provided, however, that (1) in any case where
there has been paid to or on behalf of any such person a
hospitalization or other "health and welfare " claim, there
may be deducted from the refund of the "health and
welfare" contributions portion of such repayment, the
amount of one year's "health and welfare" contributions of
such person, calculated at the rates of contributions in
effect from a date 6 months prior to the payment of such
claim to the date 6 months subsequent to such payment.
Any claim(s) payment(s) heretofore or hereafter made shall
be unaffected by this Order, as shall any accrued
obligation to make or to continue to make st, . payment(s)
on such claim(s); (2) there shall be no obligation on the
part of any person who has received payment of any
"health and welfare" claim, to repay all or part thereof by
reason of any provision of this Order; (3) to the extent
necessary to effectuate the intent of this provision of this
Order, Respondent shall if legally required reimburse any
health and welfare fund , insurer, carrier , or servicing
institution, organization , or person ; 5 and (4) each such
repayment shall be accompanied by a written notice (with
blank spaces filled in) as follows:
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The National Labor Relations Board has determined
that collection by Teamsters Local 705 of Union
initiation fees, dues, assessments , and health and
welfare payments from you or for your account, has
been unlawful in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended. The enclosed check payable
to you in the amount of $- is in repayment thereof
for the period from date to date
YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED THAT HEALTH AND WELFARE
(INCLUDING HOSPITALIZATION) COVERAGE FOR YOU
THROUGH LOCAL 705 WILL AUTOMATICALLY CEASE ON
THE THIRTIETH DAY AFTER YOUR RECEIPT OF THIS
NOTICE. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE AT ONCE MAKE OTHER
ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUBSTITUTE COVERAGE IF YOU
DESIRE.
This Notice is sent to you in accordance with the Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.
Dated: Truck Drivers, Oil Drivers,
Filling Station and Platform Workers Union, Local
No. 705, an Affiliate of International Brotherhood of
5 Cf. e.g., Local 964, Carpenters, 181 NLRB 948, 955; Teamsters, Local v. N.LR.B, 450 F.2d 942 (C.A 3).
560 [Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.], 187 NLRB 850, 865-866, enfd sub nom Rosen
TRUCK DRIVERS , LOCAL 705
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.
b. Upon demand by the Regional Director for Region
13 of the National Labor Relations Board, or by any
signatory to any collective agreement or contract referred
to in A, l,a of this Order, or signatory of any dues checkoff
or other payment authorization related thereto, forthwith
surrender to such person any such collective agreement or
contract, dues checkoff, or other payment authorization,
executed by him under circumstances herein found in
section III , steprq to have been unlawful.
c. Upon demand by said Regional Director, make
available to hun or other Board agent , for examination and
copying, and all currently deemed valid (i.e., by Respon-
dent) collective agreements or contracts, as well as any
dues checkoff or other payment authorizations and
records, of the Employers herein referred to in A,l,a, and
all records reflecting payments to Respondent thereunder
or by virtue thereof.
d. Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examina-
tion and copying, all records and reports necessary to
analyze the amounts to be repaid under, or otherwise to
determine the extent of compliance with, this Order.
e. Post at Respondent's business offices, union halls,
and meeting places, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix.."6 Copies thereof, on forms provided by said
Regional Director, shall be duly signed and posted
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
f. Deliver signed copies of the notice marked "Appen-
dix," to said Regional Director in a quantity to be
designated by said Regional Director, for the purpose of
posting by gasoline service station dealers throughout the
Metropolitan Chicago area (i.e., Cook and DuPage
Counties), Illinois, if desirous and willing.
g. Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
B. In view of Respondent's failure to produce any
witness to controvert General Counsel's overwhelming
proof comprising 82 illustrative instances establishing a
consistent, systematic pattern of unlawful conduct toward
gasoline service station dealers and their employees in the
6 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 be changed to read
279
Metropolitan Chicago, Illinois, area and in order to
promote the purposes and policies of the Act , as well as to
effect economies of manpower , time, and money, and in
the interest of administrative feasibility , jurisdiction is
hereby expressly retained herein so that General Counsel
(or, on its relation, Charging Party) may at any time apply
to the Division of Judges of the National Labor Relations
Board , by motion in the nature of a motion for summary
judgment , for supplemental relief at the foot of this Order
so as to extend its scope to include one or more gasoline
service stations and their employees encompassed by the
original charge filed in this proceeding. Each such
application, upon not less than 10 days notice to Respon-
dent , shall be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits,
with attached exhibits as appropriate, setting forth the
alleged facts; Respondent may thereupon , if so advised,
within 20 days after service upon it or its attorneys of such
application and accompanying papers, file with said
Division of Judges answering affidavits and appropriate
exhibits, which shall clearly set forth and separately state
and number specific issues of fact and law raised and
proposed to be tried; and General Counsel and the
Charging Party may within 10 days thereafter file any reply
affidavits and exhibits. All of such papers so filed shall be
accompanied by proof of service of copies thereof on all
other parties . If no genuine triable issue of fact or law is
raised thereby, an appropriate order shall thereupon be
issued ; if one or more triable issues are determined to be
raised, such issue or issues, specified by the Administrative
Law Judge, shall be set down for trial or deposition or be
otherwise disposed of by appropriate order or further
order. (See Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division,
154 NLRB 819, enfd. 379 F.2d 172, 178, 179, 180 (C.A. 6),
cert. denied 389 U .S. 958). In the event the Administrative
Law Judge finds that no bona fide issue or defense has been
interposed or litigated in good faith upon or in connection
with any such further trial or trials or proceeding or
proceedings, reasonable costs may be imposed. Respon-
dent's right to file exceptions or otherwise to seek review of
any order or orders of the Administrative Law Judge in
any such supplemental proceeding shall be the same as in
the case of any order or decision of an Administrative Law
Judge under the Board 's Rules and Regulations.
C. A copy of this decision and the entire record in this
proceeding shall forthwith be forwarded by the Executive
Secretary or other appropriate official or designee of the
Board, to Honorable Elliot L. Richardson as Attorney
General of the United States.
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."