NLRB v. LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF TEAMSTERS, ETC.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1963
• Docket Number: No. 234,Docket 27825.,234
• Citation: 317 F.2d 746
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

317 F.2d 746 (1963)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT, Respondent.

No. 234, Docket 27825.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued January 29, 1963.

Decided May 21, 1963.

Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallett-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Gladys Kessler, atty., N. L. R. B.), for petitioner.

Harry Pozefsky, Gloversville, N. Y., for respondent.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, HAYS, Circuit Judge, and DIMOCK, District Judge.

HAYS, Circuit Judge.

The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of an order based upon a finding that respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and Section 8(b) (2) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (1) (A) and (b) (2)). We deny enforcement on the ground that the activities in which the respondent engaged were not unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.

We accept the Board's findings of fact with one minor exception which we will indicate later.¹

The findings present the following situation:

George Monty was employed from time to time as an "extra" driver by the Valetta Motor Trucking Co., Inc., a company engaged in general trucking between terminals in Vestal, New York and Boston, Massachusetts. Monty worked at the company's terminal in Albany, New York, which is a transfer point on its Vestal-Boston route.

Monty began to work for the company in December, 1959, taking out "extra" runs when the number of runs was greater than could be handled by the regular drivers or when one of the regular drivers did not report for work. The company had four regular drivers and two extra drivers besides Monty. All of the drivers, regular and extra, were members of respondent union which had a collective agreement with the company covering the work of the drivers.

From the time of his original employment in December, 1959 until some time in the fall of 1960 Monty had "priority" on the extra runs, i. e. he was assigned to the first run for which an extra driver was needed. If further help was required one or both of the other two extra drivers was then called upon.

In the fall of 1960 the two extra drivers other than Monty began to be assigned to runs ahead of Monty and Monty's work dropped from an average of approximately one and one half trips a week to little more than one a week in November and less than one a week in December. In January 1961 Monty stopped reporting for work with the company.

When Monty's work began to fall off he complained to the Company and was assured that he was to have priority. Instructions to that effect were given to the dispatcher (who was also one of the regular drivers and the union steward). Monty also complained to his union steward who accompanied him to the union hall where he presented his complaint to a committee composed of union officials and members. At this meeting the business agent of the union said to the union steward who was presenting Monty's case, "We tried to keep this job open where a man out of work can pick up a few days' work now and then."

Nothing came of Monty's complaint to the union and he again complained to the company. The dispatcher was informed that if Monty was not given preference the Albany stop would be canceled, and the company did run several trucks straight through from Vestal to Boston without stopping at Albany to change drivers. When the union lodged a complaint against this practice the subject of Monty's priority again came up and union officials argued that Monty was a "trouble maker" and "no good", and that there were plenty of other reliable men whom the company could employ.

On the basis of this evidence the Board concluded that the union violated Section 8(b) (2) of the Act by causing the company to discriminate against Monty in violation of Section 8(a) (3).

The Board's order requires respondent to cease and desist from causing or attempting to cause the company to discriminate against Monty and to make Monty whole for any loss of pay he has suffered by reason of discrimination. The order also requires respondent to notify the company that it withdraws its objection to Monty's being given priority in employment and to post appropriate notices in its office.

We hold that this evidence fails to establish any violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) or 8(b) (2) of the Act.

The union does not commit an unfair labor practice merely because it causes or attempts to cause an employer to promote or demote an employee or to discriminate for or against him. In Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048 (1953), discrimination in seniority which was adopted at the behest of the union was found unexceptionable.² In Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727 v. Campbell, 337 U.S. 521, 69 S.Ct. 1287, 93 L.Ed. 1513 (1949), the Court gave its approval to super-seniority for union officials which was, of course, a practice proposed by the union. Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 365 U.S. 667, 81 S.Ct. 835, 6 L.Ed. 2d 11 (1961), held that it was not an unfair labor practice for a union to cause the discharge of an employee because he was hired ahead of other men to whom the union had assigned preference. See also Alvado v. General Motors Corp., 303 F.2d 718 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 925, 83 S.Ct. 293, 9 L.Ed.2d 233 (1962).

Decisions of the Board which hold that discrimination at the instance of the union is not per se an unfair labor practice include Matter of Yonkers Contracting Co., 135 NLRB 865 (1962), where the union induced the employer to hire one man rather than another³; Matter of Wilputte Coke Oven Division, Allied Chemical Corp., 135 NLRB 323 (1962) and Matter of Plaza Builders, Inc., 134 NLRB 751 (1961), where the union prevailed upon the employers to lay-off employees because they were "out-of-town" men.

These authorities establish the principle that a union does not violate Section 8(b) (2) unless the discrimination which the union seeks would constitute a violation of Section 8(a) (3) if the employer acted without union suggestion or compulsion.⁴ Section 8(b) (2) is violated only by causing or attempting to cause "an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of Section 8(a) (3)". An employer who discriminates among employees does not violate Section 8(a) (3) unless the discrimination is based upon union membership or other union-connected activities. It is obvious, for example, that the employer's promotion or the demotion of an employee who is a union official is not a violation of the Act unless the discrimination for or against him is based on his union activity. It seems to us to be equally obvious that the union's seeking such a promotion or demotion would not constitute an unfair labor practice if the union's action was based upon the employee's merit or demerit and was unconnected with his union membership or activity.

In the present case there is no evidence in the record which suggests that the union was motivated by considerations having to do with Monty's union membership or activity. The board's brief says: "the reason for the Union's action, concededly is not altogether clear". The reasons suggested by the record include the statements of the Union's business agent that "we tried to keep this job open where a man out of work can pick up a few days' work now and then"⁵ and that Monty was "no good" and "a troublemaker".

Since, if the employer had, sua sponte, reduced Monty's priority on the ground of providing jobs for others, or on the ground that he was no good or a troublemaker, he would have committed no unfair labor practice under Section 8(a) (3), we fail to see how the union could commit an unfair labor practice by inducing that action.

But it is argued that since the union influenced or dictated the employer's action in withdrawing Monty's priority, that action encouraged union membership. The proposition is advanced that Section 8(b) (2) is violated because the display of the union's power over the priority status of employees demonstrates the advantages of such membership. This theory, arising from too broad a reading of Radio Officers' Union of Commercial Telegraphers Union v. N. L. R. B., 347 U.S. 17, 74 S.Ct. 323, 98 L.Ed. 455 (1954), has been completely rejected by the Supreme Court in Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 365 U.S. 667, 81 S.Ct. 835, 6 L.Ed.2d 11 (1961) and N. L. R. B. v. News Syndicate Co., 365 U.S. 695, 81 S.Ct. 849, 6 L.Ed.2d 29 (1961) which held that provisions for union control over hiring and job requirements were not violative of the Act. See also Local 553, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 366 U.S. 763, 81 S.Ct. 1670, 6 L.Ed.2d 853 (1961) (union control over seniority).

In Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. N. L. R. B., the Court held that the establishment of a hiring hall under the union's exclusive control was not a violation of the Act. The very basis of the administration of a union controlled hiring hall involves discrimination since employees are referred in accordance with some type of listed priorities. As we have pointed out the employee involved in the Teamsters' case, whose discharge was held not violative of the Act, was discharged because he had been hired out of the turn to which the union assigned him. But, as the Court clearly held, this discrimination, so long as it is not based upon union membership, is not "the kind of discrimination to which the Act is addressed", and is not violative of the Act merely because the union's power encourages union membership.⁶

"It may be that the very existence of the hiring hall encourages union membership. We may assume

...