International Union of United Brewery, 271 (1958)

Conclusion In view of our holdings above, it will not be necessary to open the ballot of Sidney Dugue; and as the Petitioner has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify it as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.

[The Board certified International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of employees of the Employer in the unit herein found appropriate.] International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local No. 366, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal,

Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Adolph Coors Company. Case No. 30-CC S0. August 6, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER

On January 6, 1958, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a memorandum in support of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report. The Respondents also requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied because, in our opinion, the record, the exceptions, the brief, and the memorandum adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.

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 exceptions, the brief, and the memorandum, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent that they are consistent herewith.' 1 The Intermediate Report contains certain minor misstatements and lnadvertencies, none of which affects the Trial Esanuner's ultimate conclusions Accordingly, we note the following corrections The complaint, as amended, alleges, in pertinent part, that the Respondents picketed 121 &TLRB No 35

  1. Adolph Coors Company has a brewery in Golden, Colorado, and a warehouse in Denver. Before the events involved herein Coors itself distributed beer from its Denver warehouse to retail customers in the Denver metropolitan area; independent distributors delivered Coors beer to retailers located elsewhere in Colorado.

    The Respondents were engaged in a labor dispute with Coors involving the renewal of a collective-bargaining agreement. In furtherance of their position, the Respondents struck Coors. However, before its old contract expired, Coors, anticipating difficulty in the negotiation of a renewal contract with the Respondents, had arranged for 6 of its independent distributors to handle the delivery of Coors beer in metropolitan Denver in the event the Respondents struck Coors. After the Coors drivers, in fact, went on strike, drivers supplied by the independent distributors continued the deliveries of Coors beer in the metropolitan Denver area which had formerly been handled by the striking employees. In the course of their strike, the Respondents engaged in various activities at the premises of certain retail stores in Denver, which sold Coors beer to the public. The Trial Examiner found that by virtue of those activities at the retail stores the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4). (A) of the Act.

    The Respondents urge that the purpose of their conduct at the various Denver retail stores was to publicize their dispute with Coors, and thereby persuade the buying public and the owners of the retail stores not to purchase Coors beer. The Respondents have, in effect, admitted that an object of their conduct was to place pressure on the retail store owners to force them to cease using, handling, or otherwise dealing in Coors products? It is therefore necessary to determine whether the Respondents sought to achieve that object, at least in part, by inducing or encouraging store employees to refuse to handle goods or to perform services for their respective employers.

    premises of Coors' customers at Denver, Colorado, and 'in the Metropolitan San Francisco, California, area.' The record shows that Coors beer distributor, Ray C. Imel, is located at Lafayette,

    Colorado, about 20 miles from Denver.

    Coors made arrangements with its distributors for delivery of beer to its retail customers in metropolitan Denver about a month before March 1, 1957.

    On May 20, 1957 , the pickets' activity at the Torch Club premises consisted of one man going 'into the account' and another parading outside the premises with placards.

    Pahel did not remember whether pickets followed him back to Coors' Denver warehouse after he made deliveries to retail customers on May 20, 1957. After May 21, 1957, pickets 'several other times ' followed Pahel as he made deliveries to retail customers between then and July 3, 1957.

    On May 20 , 1957, when Knafelc entered the Plaza Drug premises to make a beer delivery, the pickets 'were just leaving.' The 'Charlie Esposito' working at the premises of Ivanhoe Drug Company was the manager of that retail store.

    2 At page 2 of their brief in support of exceptions the Respondents stated, 'There is no question but that in the instant case the striking , employees made such direct appeals to secondary employers . . . to cease doing business with the primary` employer.' The purpose of the Respondents ' activities is thus admitted.

    The record shows that, at various stores, the Respondents' pickets requested store employees not to accept deliveries of Coors products.

    For example, on May 20, 1957, the pickets followed the substitute driver, Knafelc, to the premises of Corona Drugstore. When Knafelcentered the store pickets were talking to the store pharmacist.

    The pharmacist asked the pickets, 'Can you get the rest of the, unions to back you up on this?' A picket answered 'Absolutely.' The pharmacist then told Knafelc, 'that he wouldn't have anything to do with Adolph Coors.' However; the pharmacist decided to telephone 'the boss.' After making a phone call, the pharmacist told Knafelc, 'Well, he owns the place and if he ever wants Coors in here I guess you can bring it in.' On another occasion the Respondents' pickets followed a truck delivering Coors beer to Ivanhoe Drug Company. Two pickets asked Salesman Almy whether he 'was going to accept this load of Coors Beer'; Almy did not accept the delivery, instead he referred the matter to the store manager.

    We find, accordingly, that, in furtherance of their object to force the retail store owners to cease handling Coors beer, the Respondents induced and encouraged the employees of those store owners to refuse to perform their normal job functions of accepting deliveries of Coors products.

    The Respondents' conduct at the Denver retail stores involved an 'ambulatory situs'-that is, the trucks which were delivering Coors beer. The Board has held that a union's picketing of an 'ambulatory situs' at 'the premises of a secondary employer is primary,' notwithstanding the impact of such conduct on the employees of neutral employers ; but such a holding depends upon the union's conformity with the standards establishing lawful 'ambulatory situs' picketing set out in the Moore Dry Dock case? Consideration of the facts of this case shows that the Respondents' inducement and encouragement of secondary employees.was..not primary activity under such standards. The Respondents not only stationed pickets near the trucks delivering Coors beer, but their pickets also carried picket signs in front of store entrances which were not used for deliveries of the Coors beer, and the pickets contacted employees inside the stores as well. Thus, the Respondents' failure to limit their activity to picketing reasonably close to the, delivery trucks renders their conduct unlawful.

    8 Sailors' Union of the Pacific, AFL (Moore Dry Dock Company ), 92 NLRB 547. The standards, stated at page 549, are : '(

    1. The picketing is strictly limited to times when the situs of dispute is located on the secondary employer 's premises ; ( b) at the time of the picketing the primary employer is engaged in its normal business at the situs;

      (c) the picketing is limited to places reasonably close to the location of the situs; and (d) the picketing discloses clearly that the dispute is with the primary employer.' 487926-59-vol. 121-19

      In addition to the Respondents' assertion that their activities at the retail stores were intended merely to publicize their dispute with Coors, the Respondents advance a number of other arguments to support their contention that the pickets' conduct at the retail store premises was lawful. The Respondents contend in the first place that the record fails to establish that any of the working personnel inside the retail shops were employees within the meaning of the Act, and, therefore, that there was no inducement or encouragement of employees within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A). The record as a whole refutes the contention; indeed the minimum of record facts already recited in the text of this Decision bears this out. The Respondents claim, in the alternative, that if the personnel in the stores were in fact employees: (a) the evidence does not show that more than 1 employee was present in any 1 store, and that inducement or encouragement of. a single employee does not violate 8 (b) (4) (A) ; (b) the oral appeals were made to the employees as individual members of the general public to persuade them not to consume Coors beer; (c) the record fails to show that any employee had the function, in the course of his employment, to purchase beer and, therefore, could not be induced or encouraged...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT