Local Union No. 174, Teamsters, 1212 (1968)

Local Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Independent and Neil Pike. Case 19-CC-350

July 19, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING

AND BROWN

On April 2, 1968, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief and Respondent filed an answering brief.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a threemember panel.

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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations' of the Trial Examiner.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed inits entirety.

' In accepting the recommendations of the Trial Examiner, we do not adopt his dictum applying Loea ( Union No 505 , International Brotherhood of Tea,niter, ( Carolina Lumber Companv). 130 NLRB 1438 In any event, we note that the applicable standard is found in N L R B v Servett, Inc 377 U S 46

TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION dent, herein called the Respondent Union, or Local 174, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 19, on November 22, 1967,1 issued a complaint alleging that the Respondent Union, by the action of its agent, Ted Nichols, violated the 'secondary boycott' provisions of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Respondent filed an answer, admitting certain jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and that Nichols was its agent, but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.

Pursuant to notice, I heard the case in Seattle,

Washington, on January 4 and 5, 1968. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging Party were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to participate in the hearing. Briefs filed by counsel for the Respondent and the General Counsel, ably discussing the relevant facts and law, have been carefully considered.

Upon the entire record in the case,' including. the briefs of counsel, and the demeanor of the witnesses appearing before me, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED Pike, the primary employer here involved, is a partnership composed of Neil Pike and his brother,

Keith Pike. They operate a 'for hire' dump truck and excavating business as owner-operators. During the calendar year 1966 Pike performed services for National Construction Company, herein called National, valued at $71,704.87; in 1967 the value of such services to National was some $14,000, or $16,000 less than the preceding year.

National is a utility contractor engaged in construction work in the State of Washington. It annually purchases cast iron pipe from Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe which is manufactured at Provo,

Utah, and delivered to National's jobsites in the State of Washington, of a value between $45,000 and $50,000. National also buys asbestos pipe, annually valued at or about $30,000, from JohnsManville Company, which is manufactured in Stockton, California, and delivered directly to National's jobsites or yard.

I find that Pike and National are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that jurisdiction should be asserted over their operations.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

IVAR H . PETERSON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge duly filed on August 23, 1967, by Neil Pike, one of the members of a partnership doing business as Pike 's Trucking & Excavating Co., herein called Pike , against Local Union No. 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,

Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Indepen172 NLRB No. 122

2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 174, as a constituent local of its International Union, has geographical jurisdiction over Unless otherwise indicated , all dates refer to the year 1967

   Originally, this case was consolidated with Case 19-CC-344 [ V G Scalf, 172 NLRB 1217], in which I have issued a decision today. Inasmuch as the cases are closely related , reference will be made to the other case as the Seal case LOCAL UNION NO. 174, TEAMSTERS 1213

   King County, Washington. It is, as alleged and admitted, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act and is engaged in commerce as that term is defined in the Act and applied by the Board to labor organizations . Its admitted agent involved in this proceeding is Ted Nichols, a business agent, who also was involved in the Scalf case.

3. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Testimony For about 3 years the Pike Brothers have conducted an owner-operator dump truck business.

   They have two trucks operating under a common carrier permit. Each brother drives one truck and they do not hire other drivers to drive their trucks.

   Both joined Local 174 some 4 or 5 years prior to the events with which we are involved; they were suspended for nonpayment of dues-Neil in May 1967 and Keith in February 1967. Neither asked for nor obtained a withdrawal card.

   As owner-operators, the Pikes had been members of the Washington Dump Truck Association, a party to the current agreement, described in the Scalf case, and bound by its terms. The Pikes withdrew from this association in December 1966 or January 1967.

   In February or March, and later, the Pikes had discussions with Nichols concerning two matters:

   (a) their union dues delinquency and (b) the amount they owed, as owner-operators, to the health and welfare and pension funds established by the contract. According to Neil Pike's testimony, at one time Nichols told him they owed these funds about $700. Nichols testified that under the agreement an owner-operator was obligated to pay a monthly flat fee of $36.40 for health and welfare, and as of the time of the hearing the Pikes' obligation in this respect was in 'the area of $700.' Pike testified that Nichols (apparently early in 1967) told him that in order to continue to operate in King County, within the Union's jurisdiction, the health and welfare payments would have to be paid.

   The applicable collective-bargaining agreement provides, in article V. as follows:

   ARTICLE V

   SUBCONTRACTORS-HIRED, RENTED, OR LEASED EQUIPMENT

   (a) The employer agrees that contractors to whom subcontracts are let shall be required orally or in writing to comply with all the requirements, conditions and intents of this Agreement and shall continue to do so throughout all parts of their subcontract work.

   In the case of hired, rented or leased equipment, the employer will be responsible to see that the wages and other conditions of employment hereunder are furnished the driver of such equipment.

   (b) The Union agrees that employers who employ men under the classifications of this Agreement will be required to be bound by and abide by all the requirements, conditions and intents of this Agreement in construction work coming under the terms of this Agreement.

   As stated above, Pike in 1966 performed dump truck services for National valued at $71,000, and in 1967 these services were worth $55,000 to $57,000. Pike testified that National never called his attention to the above-quoted provision or informed him that he must comply with 'all the requirements, conditions and intents' of the agreement when performing subcontracting work for it.

   However, Pick acknowledged that he had received a copy of the contract from the Washington Dump Truck Association while a member.

   On August 22 Neil Pike was performing dump truck services for National at the latter's jobsite at Sixth Avenue and Dearborn Street in Seattle, having been engaged for 1 day to do cleanup work.

   While the last load was being loaded on his truck,

   Nichols came to the jobsite. There are three...