Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SCHAUFFLER EX REL. NLRB v. BREWERY & BEER DISTRIB.

May 1, 1958

Bennet F. SCHAUFFLER, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner,
v.
BREWERY AND BEER DISTRIBUTOR DRIVERS, HELPERS and PLATFORM MEN, LOCAL 830, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT, Respondent



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUSEN

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition with attached supporting affidavit of Bennet F. Schauffler, Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board), for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), 29 U.S.C.A. ยง 160(l), pending the final disposition of the matters involved pending before said Board, and upon the issuance of an order to show cause why injunctive relief should not be granted as prayed in said petition. Respondent filed an answer to said petition. A hearing on the issues raised by the petition and answer was duly held beginning on April 8, 1958. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence bearing on the issues, and to argue on the evidence and the law. The Court has fully considered the petition, answer, evidence, and arguments and briefs of counsel. Upon the entire record the Court makes the following:

Findings of Fact.

 1. Petitioner is Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the Board, an agency of the United States, and filed this petition for and on behalf of the Board.

 2. Respondent Brewery and Beer Distributor Drivers, Helpers and Platform Men, Local 830, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, an unincorporated association, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5), 8(b) and 10(l) of the Act, and at all times material herein has been engaged within this judicial district in transacting business and in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members.

 3. On or about March 13, 1958, Delaware Valley Beer Distributors Association (herein called Association), pursuant to the provisions of the Act, filed a charge with the Board alleging that respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b), subsection (4)(A) of the Act.

 4. Said charge was referred to petitioner as Regional Director of the Fourth Region of the Board for investigation, and was investigated by petitioner and under his supervision.

 5. There is and petitioner has reasonable cause to believe that:

 (a) Association is composed of approximately 27 members each of whom is engaged in the distribution of beer in the City of Philadelphia.

 (b) C. Schmidt and Sons, Inc. (herein called Schmidt), Harry F. Ortlieb Brewing Company (herein called Ortlieb), Esslingers, Inc. (herein called Esslinger), and William Gretz Brewing Company (herein called Gretz), and herein collectively called the Brewers, are each engaged within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the manufacture and sale of beer and related malt products. During the past year Schmidt, Ortlieb, Esslinger and Gretz each sold and shipped beer and related products valued at in excess of $ 50,000 directly from their respective plants in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to points and places outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

 (c) Scott and Grauer, Antonio Origlio (herein called Origlio), Smiler Beverage Company (herein called Smiler), and herein collectively called Importing Distributors, are engaged at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the sale and distribution of beer. During the past year Scott and Grauer purchased and caused to be shipped beer valued at in excess of $ 500,000 to their respective establishments in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, directly from points and places outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

 (d) Members of the Association purchased the beer which they distribute and sell in the City of Philadelphia from the Brewers referred to Findings of Fact (b), and from Importing Distributors such as Scott and Grauer, Origlio and Smiler.

 (e) Since on or about March 1, 1958, respondent has been engaged in a labor dispute with members of Association over the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of the employees employed by members of Association.

 (f) In furtherance and support of the labor dispute referred to in Finding of Fact 5(e) above, since on or about March 10, 1958, respondent has on occasions picketed at the premises of some of the Brewers and Importing Distributors referred to in Findings of Fact 5(b) and (c) above, when a truck of a member of Association came to the premises of said Brewers or Importing Distributors to pick up beer, thereby appealing to the employees of such Brewers and Importing Distributors not to load beer on the trucks of such members. (N.T. 121, 195-198, 200 & 214 re March 18, N.T. 176-177 re March 26 and N.T. 71 ff. re April 7).

 (g) In addition thereto, since on or about March 10, 1958, respondent has ordered, directed, instructed and appealed to the employees of Schmidt, Ortlieb, Esslinger, Gretz, Scott and Grauer, Origlio and Smiler not to load the trucks of members of Association, or to deliver beer to members of Association, as a result of which members of Association have been cut off from their supply of beer. See pages 3-7 of Attached Discussion (post, p. 7).

 (h) By their acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 5(f) and (g) above, and by other means, respondent has engaged in, and has induced and encouraged the employees of Schmidt, Ortlieb, Esslinger, Gretz, Scott and Grauer, Origlio, Smiler, and of other employers, to engage in, strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, materials or commodities or to perform services.

 (i) An object of respondent's acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 5(f), (g) and (h) above, was and is to force or require Schmidt, Ortlieb, Esslinger, Gretz, Scott and Grauer, Origlio, Smiler, and other employers and persons to cease doing business with members of Association.

 (j) The facts stated on pages 1-6 of attached discussion (post, p. 6).

 6. The acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 5(f) through 5(i) above, occurring in connection with the operations of Schmidt, Ortlieb, Esslinger, Gretz, and Scott and Grauer, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several states and tend to lead and do lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. All the secondary employers named in the petition were victims of a pattern of unfair labor practices.

 7. It may be fairly anticipated that, unless restrained, respondents will repeat or continue the acts and conduct set forth in Findings of Fact 5(f), through 5(i) above, or similar or like acts and conduct.

 8. The following paragraphs of respondent's Requests for Findings of Fact are affirmed: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 39, 41-44, 46, 47, 50-53, 55, 56, 58, 63-65, 72, 75, and 76.

 9. The following paragraphs, and parts of paragraphs, of respondent's Requests for Findings of Fact are affirmed as modified below:

 First sentence of paragraph 4; second sentence of paragraph 5; 8, with insertion of 'fairly' before 'common' in line 1; 12, with the exception of the 4th sentence and with the insertion of the words 'in 1957' at the beginning of the 3rd, 5th, and 6th sentences; 20, with the 3rd sentence modified to insert 'all' after the word 'represent' and with the addition of these words at the end of the sentence: 'but may represent some of these dock employees'; 21, with the insertion before the word 'have' in line 2 of '(about 20)' and with the insertion at the beginning of the 2nd sentence of the words 'the charge also alleges that'; 27, with the elimination of the second sentence; 28, with the substitution of 'most' for 'practically all' in the 1st sentence and with the substitution of these 2 sentences for the 2nd sentence: 'He is in the store about 2 hours a day. During weekend his wife is in the store and quite a few customers pick up merchandise in the store on Fridays and Saturdays.'; 36, reworded as follows: 'Mr. Origlio ordered three of his men to start loading Mr. Miller's truck. After the first of these men refused and the second hesitated before refusing, Mr. Origlio asked Mr. Basal 'What are we going to do about this?' Mr. Basal replied to Mr. Origlio, 'Well, those men should load the truck.' The three men (a union steward and two others) refused to load the truck and were discharged immediately by Mr. Origlio. Mr. Basal did not order these men to load the truck and he made no protest concerning the discharge of these employees for refusing to load Mr. Miller's truck (N.T. 62 ff.).'; 40, with the words 'but were members of another union' added at the end; 54, with the insertion of 'approximately' before '25' and of 'since March 10, 1958' after 'signed'; 57, with the insertion of 'present' after 'membership'; 60, with the words 'almost all of' at the beginning of the second sentence; 71-A, with the elimination of the words 'particularly, to be sure' from the second sentence; 73, with the elimination of the last sentence; 74, with the insertion after 'distributors' in the 1st line of ', listed in the appendix to Delaware Valley's charge attached to the petition,' and with the substitution of 'Cicchiani' for 'Cicchini'; 77, with the elimination of 'only' in the 1st line and the substitution of 'which was the most important part of the material to which' for 'that' in line 3 and with the insertion of 'was' after 'to' in the 4th line; 78, with the insertion in line 4 after 'do' of ', if only their business was involved,' and with the elimination of 'any of' in that line.

 All other Requests for Findings of Fact are denied. *fn1" ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.