Western Fishing Lines Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 749 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

WESTERN FISHING LINES CO. 749
"struck work" provisions in their collective bargaining contracts, or from honoring
these provisions That is all that happened in this case We therefore find that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by causing employees of
Palmer Lines, Central Warehouse, and Oppenheimer & McEwan to exercise their con-
tractual privilege of declining to handle Conway freight [Footnotes omitted.]
This holding, affirmed in the circuit court of appeals, is equally applicable here
Therefore, as the undersigned has found that the Union did not induce or encourage the
employees and further than the "unfair goods" clause also provides the Union here with a
defense to a charge of violating Section 8 (b) (4) (A), he will recommend that this complaint
be dismissed.6
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company is, and the motor freight carriers listed in Appendix
A attached hereto are, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters; Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 135, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
3. The aforesaid Local 135 has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
6Local 135 introduced evidence at the hearing to the effect that, when Pittsburgh and Local
716 settled their difficulty in September 1952 resulting in the withdrawal of the picket line
with the acceptance of the association contract by Pittsburgh, all cases between Pittsburgh
and the Union Locals were supposed to be settled or withdrawn. In view of the undersigned's
findings on the merits, he sees no necessity for passing upon this contention of Local 135.
APPENDIX A
1. Allen Truck Lines 12. Interstate Motor Freight System
2. Anderson Freight Lines 13 Keeshin Motor Express Company
3. B. B, & I. Motor Freight, Inc 14, Lucas Motor Express, Inc
4. Bowser Truck Lines, Inc. 15. Marion Trucking Company
5. Clemans Truck Lines, Inc 16 Mid-States Freight Line
6. Commercial Motor Freight Lines, Inc. 17 Motor Express, Inc.
7 C. & D. Motor Delivery 18. McDaniel Freight Lines, Inc
8. Eastern Motor Freight Company 19 National Carloading
9. Hayes Freight Lines 20 Security Cartage Company
10. I. R. C. & D. Motor Freight, Inc 21 Tarbet Trucking Company
11 Indianapolis & Southern Motor Express, Inc
WESTERN LACE AND LINE CO., d/b/a WESTERN FISHING
LINES CO. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
CIO. Case No. 21-CA-1504. June 25, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge duly filed on August 25, 1952, and an amended
charge duly filed on September 3, 1952, by the Textile Workers
Union of America, CIO, herein called the Union, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
105 NLRB No. 114.
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
first Region ( Los Angeles , California ), issued a complaint dated
February 9, 1953, against Western Lace & Line Co., d/b/a
Western Fishing Lines Co., herein called the Respondent , alleg-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and ( 4) and Section 2 (6) and
( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat.
136), herein called the Act. Copies of the charges , complaint,
and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint
alleged, in substance , that the Respondent discharged Mary
Gabrish on or about August 19, 1952, and Dorothy Gingery on
or about October 7, 1952, and refused to reemploy them despite
their repeated applications for reemployment , because theyhad
engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection and because
they had to stified, under the Act, in a previous proceeding before
the Board.'
The Respondent duly filed its answer on February 19, 1953,
denying that it had engaged in any of the unfair labor practices
alleged.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Los Angeles,
California , on March 30 and 31, 1953, before Maurice M.
Miller, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel and Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel; the Union by a business representative.
All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross - examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the hearing certain general motions to strike testimony
were made on behalf of the Respondent which motions were
denied by the Trial Examiner. With the consent of all the
parties, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report by
delivering it orally to the parties before the close of the hear-
ing. It is to be found at pages 138-166 of the transcript of the
hearing in this case , and finds that the Respondent did not
discharge or thereafter refuse reemployment to Mary Gabrish
or Dorothy Gingery for any reason proscribed by the Act, and
thus recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety . Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this proceeding to a three - member panel
[ Members Houston, Murdock , and Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the General Counsel's
exceptions and brief , and the entire record in this proceeding,
1 Western Fishing Lines Co., 103 NLRB 1408
McALLISTER TRANSFER, INC. 751
and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommend-
ations of the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
3. Upon a consideration of the entire record,2 the Board in
agreement with the Trial Examiner finds that the evidence
here, though raising a strong suspicion of discriminatory
motivation, 3 fails to constitute the preponderance necessary to
establish that the Respondent was illegally motivated intermi-
nating the employment of and in refusing to reemploy Mary
Gabrish and Dorothy Gingery. We shall therefore dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
2In reaching its conclusions herein, the Board has taken administrative notice of its Deci-
sion and Order in Western Fishing Lines Co., 103 NLRB 1408, in which the Respondent was
found to have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1), (2 ), and (3) of the Act. Ac-
cordingly, the motion of the General Counsel to remand the instant case to the Trial Ex-
aminer for such purpose is denied . See Mission Oil Company , 93 NLRB 1215.
3 The Board has held that suspicion alone is not sufficient evidence on which to base a
finding of illegal discrimination . Strachan Shipping Company, 87 NLRB 431.
McALLISTER TRANSFER , INC., Petitioner and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA , GENERAL
DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL NO. 554 , AFL, AND IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
CHAUFFEURS , TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL NO.
608, AFL, AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS
OF AMERICA , TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS LOCAL NO.
784, AFL. Case No. 17-RM-70. June 25, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Martin Sacks,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
105 NLRB No. 116.