Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Etc., Local 901, 895 (1961)

DECISION AND ORDER

On March 22, 1961, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that those allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof.

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 and briefs, and the entire record in the 134 NLRB No. 83.

case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.' ORDER

The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modification that provision 2(c) read : 'Notify the Regional Director, Twenty-fourth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' 2 The Board further orders that the complaint be dismissed to the extent recommended by the Trial Examiner.

1 We reject the contentions of our dissenting colleague for the reasons set forth in the majority opinions in International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees, Local 537 (Jack M. Lohman, d/b/a Lohman Sales Company ), 132 NLRB 901 ; and Local 662, Radio and Television Engineers, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO ( Middle South Broadcasting Co ), 133 NLRB 1698.

2 In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix, the words 'Decision and Order' are hereby substituted for the words 'The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words 'Pursuant to a Decision and Order' the words 'Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order ' INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This proceeding was heard before A. Norman Somers, , the duly designated Trial Examiner, in Santurce, Puerto Rico, on November 28, 29, and 30, 1960, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer •of Respondent Union. The issue was whether Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b) (4) (i ) and (ii ) ( B) of the Act,,as amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.' On petition of the Regional Director in the U.S. District Court under Section 10(1) of the Act, a restraining order pending this proceeding was issued against this Respondent on October 27, 1960. Compton v. Local, 901 IBTCW & H of America,

U.S.D.C., P.R. Civil No. 249-260 (October 27, 1960). The General Counsel and Respondent, through respective counsel, presented evidence and oral argument, and Respondent has filed a brief. On consideration thereof; on the entire record, and upon my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS Editorial 'El Impartial,' the Charging Party and the primary Employer in the dispute out of which the events here in issue arose , is a Puerto Rican corporation.

    It owns and publishes in San Juan a daily newspaper, in the Spanish language, called El Impartial, which is the name by which we shall hereafter refer to this Employer.

    The interstate business of El Imparcial , as stipulated and as found in prior Board decision, of which official notice is here taken,2 show it to be in 'commerce' and in a business 'affecting commerce' within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act, and to an extent meeting the Board's self-limiting standards for the assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding. The other employers are 'persons' whom Respondent Union is alleged to have sought to engulf in its dispute with El Impartial through coercive means violating Section 8(b) (4) (i) or (ii ) (B). These consist of 11 business establishments, 3 advertising agencies, and another newspaper publisher, all of whom will be named as we reach their proper places in the narrative . = At this stage, it `is found that all of them are 'person [s] engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce' within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act, the business establishments having 'an annual inflow of materials or products from outside Puerto Rico 1 The pertinent portions of Section 8(b) (4) are set forth in footnote 4, below a Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 901, IBTCW d H of America (Editorial 'El Impartial,' Inc.), 129 NLRB 1373; Editorial 'El Impartial,' Inc., 123

    NLRB 1585, 1592-1593.

    TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, ETC., LOCAL 901 897 exceeding $50,000 and the three advertising agencies and the newspaper publisher deriving incomes of over $50,000 a year for services to persons who either receive products or materials from, or sell and distribute, them to, places outside Puerto Rico, in excess of $50,000 annually? II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 901, IBTCW & H of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.

  2. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction: Origin of strike and nature of issue The events here arose out of a strike called by Respondent Union against El Imparcial, which has been the subject of at least one other proceeding before the Board.

    See Teamsters, etc., Local 901, IBTCW & H of America, supra footnote 2. No consideration is given that case in connection with the determination of the merits here. The legality of the primary strike is not before us; neither do we have the question of which of these primary disputants was at fault as between themselves.

    Presented before us is only the narrow issue whether Respondent Union, in trying to enlist outside support in its dipute with El Impartial, resorted to measures in violation of the 'secondary boycott' provisions of 8(b) (4) (1) and (ii) (B) of the Act.4

    In briefest outline, the Respondent on May 26, 1960, called a strike against El Impartial, which was joined by the latter's photographers and, very shortly thereafter, also by the composing and press room employees, as well as some employees in the editorial department of El Imparcial. The strike closed down El Imparcial's operations entirely for about 10 days, after which it resumed and has continued operations, but on a lesser scale than before the strike.

    The dispute took on acrimonious proportions when, about 10 days after its outbreak, Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO 'entered the picture.' Violence and police action ensued, after which Respondent denounced SIU for acting as 'strikebreakers' for El Impartial and accused the government of the Puerto Rican Commonwealth of abetting this endeavor. Respondent then sought to reach El Imparcial through persons advertising in El Impartial. All 'persons' whom Respondent is here charged with having illegally sought to involve in the dispute fall into that category, except Star Publishing Corporation, publisher of a newspaper, whose case will be treated separately.

    B. The efforts to enlist the aid of establishments advertising in El Impartial 1. The talks with the three advertising agencies About June 22, Respondent embarked upon a campaign to discourage businesses from advertising in El Impartial. This was denied by the two representatives of the Union who were put on the witness stand by the General Counsel-Frank Chavez, its secretary-treasurer, and Humberto Trias, an organizer for the Union and assist3 Although all are engaged in commerce to an extent which would warrant the Board's assertion of jurisdiction in a proceeding in which any of them were the only employer in the case, nothing here is intended to suggest that that is necessary for a finding that Respondent's overtures to any of them offended Section 8(b) (4) (1) or (11) (B) of the Act.

    4 The pertinent portion of Section 8(b)(4) provides that,

    It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or Its agentss s a a t • s (1) to engage in, or to Induce or encourage any individual employed by any person engaged in commerce or In an industry affecting commerce to engage In, a strike or refusal in the course of his employment to use, . . . process. . . . or otherwise handle or work on any goods, . . or perform any services ; or (it) to threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, where in either case, an object thereof is:

    s s s e a a s (B) forcing or requiring any person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person . . . .

    630849-62-vol. 134-58 ant to Chavez.5 This denial need not detain us. The proof is overwhelming and was established by the surrounding circumstances and credible testimony. These include overtures made by Chavez and Trias in some instances personally and in others by telephone. The conversations, as testified by the various persons approached were, in large part, not specifically denied. In the telephone calls, the caller identified himself as either Chavez or Trias or as purporting to speak for the Union, without identifying himself. The circumstances surrounding the calls, including testimony of two persons, hereafter named, who were specifically engaged and paid by Respondent to break windows pursuant to this antiadvertising campaign, leave no doubt that every call purporting to come from Chavez or...

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