Extract
Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen Etc., 696 (1958)
Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745 and Dallas County Construction Employers' Association, Inc. Case No. 16-CC-91. August 2If, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER
On June 5, 1959, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with supporting briefs.The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent Union, by its picketing at the construction sites of neutral employers, induced or encouraged employees of such neutral employers to discontinue work with an object of forcing or requiring the neutral employers to cease doing business with Macatee, Inc., the primary employer.We base our conclusion that the picketing of construction sites was for such unlawful objective upon the following :(1) The primary employer, Macatee, had a permanent place of business where all its employees, including those not directly involved in the labor dispute with the Respondent Union, regularly reported, and where the Respondent Union could and did publicize its dispute to, and solicit the support of, Macatee's employees.2 If the Respondent Union's object was only to seek the support of the primary employer's employees, there was no need for picketing the premises of neutral employers.(2) The Respondent Union's letter to employers in the construction industry in Dallas requesting them to cease doing business with Macatee until the labor dispute was settled.' 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].2 Amarillo General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 577, affiliated with, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers. of America (Crowe- Gulde Cement Company ), 122 NLRB 1275.8 Idem. (in this case a substantially identical letter was held evidence of the respondent union's objective in engaging in secondary employer picketing. See footnote 4) ; N.L.R.B.v. Associated Musicians, Local 80 2, AFL, 226 F. 2d 900, 904 (C.A. 2) ; N.L.R.B. v.Denver Building and Construction Trades Council , 193 F. 2d 421 , 423-424 (C.A. 10).124 NLRB No. 87.DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN ETC. 697 (3) In many instances, employees of neutral employers quit work when Respondent Union's pickets appeared.' (4) On February 26 and 27, 1959 , Respondent Union's pickets picketed the entire length of the John Deere property facing on Harry Hines Boulevard rather than limiting themselves to the area adjacent to the place where Maca.tee's employees were working on the project.5On February 25, 1959, Respondent Union's pickets continued picketing the Richardson project for 2 hours after Macatee's and other employer's employees had ceased working and had left the job.In view of the foregoing , we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respondent Union violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) by its picketing at the construction sites of neutral employers.' ORDERUpon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relat...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
