Teamsters, Etc., Local 901, IBTCW & H of America, 1542 (1964)

Docket Number:24-CP-00014


On February 18, 1964, Trial Examiner Laurence A. Knapp issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor -Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem•, bers Fanning and Jenkins].

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner 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 these cases, and hereby .adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.

146 NLRB No. 177.


Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as;

amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recommended by-the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Team sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 901, IBTCW & H of America, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,


The Charging Party in this case is Louis Velasco, an individual doing business.

as Velasco Trucking Co., hereinafter sometimes called 'Velasco.' The Respondent is Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 901 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, hereinafter sometimes called 'Local 901 ' or 'Respondent .' After preliminary procedural steps carried out with regularity,' the case was heard before Trial Examiner Laurence A. Knapp on October 30 to November 1, 1963.


The broad issues presented are whether Local 901 engaged in primary picketing activities in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (A), and in secondary activities in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.

As to the alleged violation first stated, it is undisputed that Local 901 picketed' Velasco during the period July 31 to August 12, 1963; that just prior to this picketingVelasco had recognized and entered into a collective -bargaining agreement with another labor organization herein called the 'SIU '; 2 and that Local 901 was not then the certified representative of the Velasco employees. The main issues presented with respect to this alleged violation are ( 1) whether recognition was an object of' Local 901's picketing and (2 ) whether Velasco had lawfully recognized the SIU.

As to the alleged violations of Section 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii )( B) of the Act, it is undisputed that on August 1, 1963, Local 901 engaged in picketing at the premises of two oceanic carriers known herein as Sea-Train and Sea-Land . The main issuepresented as to these picketing (and some related ) activities is whether they were second fronts in the recognitional war which allegedly inspired the picketing at Velasco, or whether, as Local 901 contends , it picketed these other employers because of disputes peculiar to each and unrelated to the picketing at Velasco.

Upon the entire record in the case 3 and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:


  1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES ; JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD Describing first the businesses of the alleged secondary employers , Sea-Land Service, Inc. ( Puerto Rico Division ), hereinafter called 'Sea-Land,' and Sea-Train Lines of Puerto Rico Inc., hereinafter called 'Sea-Train ,' are engaged in the transportation of cargo by ship between continental United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. These carriers provide the 'trailership' form of service, that is, transporting cargo contained in trailers or vans which when unloaded from the ships are connected' to automotive trucks for delivery of the corresponding cargo to the ultimate con1 Upon charges duly filed and served, the complaint Issued on September 6, 1963. Respondent's undated answer was served on September 24,.1963. Certain amendments both' to the complaint and the answer not necessary to describe were allowed at the hearing.

    Respondent's motion at the bearing to dismiss the complaint for want of proof is hereby denied.

    2 Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland' Waters District, Puerto Rico Division , AFL-CIO.

    3The transcript contains numerous errors but since -they are harmless I do not formally correct them.

    .1544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signees4 Some of the cargo involved in this onward delivery service is transported by specific Puerto Rican trucking firms designated, not by Sea-Land or Sea-Train, but by the freight-forwarding companies. Such cargo was called 'routed' freight or 'routed' trailers at the hearing. 'Unrouted' cargo trailers or vans, on the other hand, are delivered to the consignees by local trucking companies or firms selected and engaged by Sea-Land or Sea-Train, as the case may be. Upon the evidence and a stipulation of the parties at the hearing, Sea-Land and Sea-Train is each an instrumentality of commerce between continental United States and Puerto Rico, and each is a person 'engaged in commerce' and 'hi an industry affecting commerce' within the meaning of those terms as used in subdivisions (i) and (ii) of Section 8(b) (4) of the Act.

    Velasco is engaged in the general trucking business in Puerto Rico. A part of this. business consists of services performed for Sea-Land and Sea-Train, that is, transporting 'unrouted' cargo trailers or vans from the Puerto Rican piers of these carriers to the ultimate consignees. At the hearing the parties stipulated and I find that for such services to Sea-Land alone during the year preceding the hearing Velasco received in excess of $50,000.5 Velasco's operations, as above described and found, are in commerce and are operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

    U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; and, as stipulated by the Respondent, Frank Chavez is secretary-treasurer of said labor organization and an officer, representative, and agent thereof.

    The SIU, see footnote 2, supra, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

    1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Principal events The main occurrences of this case lend themselves to consolidated chronological presentation, although evidentiary contradictions exist on many important fact issues.

      Such a contradiction exists between the testimony of Velasco and Chavez, secretarytreasurer of Local 901, as to whether there took place an early event which, if it happened, is distinctly pertinent. I resolve this conflict after setting forth the conflicting testimony of these two witnesses.

      Velasco gave the version set forth in this paragraph: Sometime in March 1963 6 a conversation took place (presumably by telephone) between Chavez and Velasco.

      In the conversation, Chavez, without claiming that Local 901 represented the Velasco employees, told Velasco he was 'sending over' a contract for Velasco to sign.

      Velasco told Chavez that 'if he sent one of his men over and got my men to sign his cards,' he, Velasco, would recognize Local 901, but as matters stood refused to agree to the Chavez proposition. The next day, and apparently solely on that day,

      Local 901 picketed Velasco's premises.

      Chavez denied that he had had any conversation with Velasco concerning recognition in March, that he asked Velasco at that time to sign a contract with Local 901, that he had ever requested Velasco to bargain with Local 901, and that Velasco had ever told him, prior to June 1963, that he would negotiate with Local 901 if the latter had card authorizations from Velasco's employees.

      4 Some additional description of Sea-Land's operations in commerce with Puerto Rico is set iforth In Sea-Land Service, Inc., 137 NLRB 540, and as part of undisputed jurisdictional facts stated by my colleague Foley in his recent Decision entitled Sed Land Service,

      Inc.. et at.. Case No. 24-CA-1633 ['146 NLRB 931].

      5On the evidence as well as upon a stipulation of the parties at the hearing, I find that Velasco's business-meaning its onward transportation of incoming cargo from the piers to the ultimate consignees' premises-is 'a link in the chain of interstate commerce,' that Is, Is itself commerce between continental United States and Puerto Rico. For jurisdictional purposes, it may further be noted that In a recent year Velasco had aggregate gross receipts of $12,000 from trucking services rendered to agencies in Puerto Rico of the United States Departments of the Army, Navy, and Post Office.

      ' All dates used hereafter in this Decision refer to the year 1963 unless otherwise stated.


      On the basis of my various findings hereinafter made concerning the credibility of Chavez, I accept the testimony of Velasco and discredit the Chavez denials.

      Accordingly, I find that in March 1963, Local 901, without pretending to possess the necessary representative authority, requested Velasco to sign a collective-bargaining agreement covering Velasco's employees.

      On June 17, Velasco signed a contract with the SIU. About a week earlier,

      Felix Diaz, a Velasco driver, presented to Velasco a number of SIU authorization cards signed by himself and...

To continue reading