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.

SHORE EX REL. NLRB v. GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO.

February 6, 1959

Henry SHORE, Regional Director of the Sixth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,
v.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS LOCAL NO. 249, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Respondent



The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY

In this proceeding, Henry Shore, Regional Director of the Sixth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board), petitions the court for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended 29 U .S.C.A. § 160(l) (herein called the Act), pending the final disposition of the matters involved which are to be heard by the Board on February 24, 1959.

The matter before the Board relates to whether or not the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in picketing the plant facilities of management under circumstances which it is contended constitute a secondary boycott on the part of the respondent.

 The jurisdiction of the court stems from the provisions of Section 10(l) of the Act, and under the provisions of law it is the duty of the District Court to determine whether or not reasonable cause exists to believe that the charges of a secondary boycott are true. It must be kept in mind the District Court is not required to find the charges made to be true or untrue, but to determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe the charges to be true.

 Fried & Reineman Packing Company (hereinafter referred to as F & R) has been engaged in the meat packing business in the City of Pittsburgh for a number of years and had employed its own truck drivers and helpers to haul its meat products. The bargaining agreement between F & R and the respondent expired September 30, 1958, and after extended negotiations with the help of a state and federal conciliator, a satisfactory agreement between the respondent and F & R could not be effectuated. As a result thereof, F & R through the actions of appropriate corporate officials determined that the services heretofore performed by the truck drivers and helpers represented by the respondent would no longer be carried on by the company. For economic reasons it was decided that arrangements would be made with the Kenny Motor Express, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Kenny), a holder of a certificate from the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, which was engaged in the hauling of meats and similar products, to perform the services formerly carried on by the truck drivers and helpers represented by the respondent. When Kenny notified the respondent that it intended to perform the services for F & R, the respondent engaged in the picketing of the premises of F & R.

 Counsel have not submitted to the court any authority or proceeding of a similar nature and it appears that the facts as they exist in the instant case are matters of first impression.

 However, in my considered judgment, from a review of the proceeding identified as International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al. v. Polar Water Company, Case No. 6- CC-143, 120 NLRB No. 25, the Board indicates that where services heretofore performed by employees of management are discontinued and said services are to be administered by an independent contractor, that a secondary boycott would exist where the former employees of management picket the premises of their former employer.

 All parties have been afforded a full and complete opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence bearing on the issues and to act and submit briefs on the evidence and the law, and I conclude that reasonable cause exists in the instant proceeding to believe the charges to be true and that a duty and obligation exists on the part of the court to grant the temporary injunction pending the disposition of the proceeding before the Board. Shore, for and on behalf of National Labor Relations Board v. Building & Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh, Pa., 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 678, 8 A.L.R.2d 731.

 Upon the entire record the Court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

 Findings of Fact

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

 2. Respondent, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No. 249, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, an unincorporated association, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sections 2(5), 8(b) and 10(l) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 152(5), 158(b), 160(l), has its principal office in this judicial district and is engaged within this judicial district in transacting business and in promoting and protecting the interests of its employee members.

 3. On or about December 19, 1958, F & R, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, filed with the Board, a charge alleging that respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4)(A) of the Act.

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

 5. The court must consider the public interest in connection with the dispute which exists, the interests of F & R, the interests of the respondent and the interests of Kenny, all of whom are involved to one degree or another in the determination of the conclusion as to whether or not reasonable cause exists to ...


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.