Scott v. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS, C-85-5706 RFP.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-85-5706 RFP.,C-85-5706 RFP. |
| Citation | 633 F. Supp. 121 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | James S. SCOTT, Regional Director of the Thirty-Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL NO. 70 OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, I.B.T.C.W. H.A., Respondent. |
Barbara D. Davison, Paul Eggert, Veronica I. Clements, N.L.R.B., Oakland, Cal., for petitioner James B. Scott on behalf of N.L.R.B.
Duane B. Beeson, Beeson, Tayer & Silbert, San Francisco, Cal., for Broth. of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County.
James Paras, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent Sea-Land Services.
John M. Skonberg, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent Chipman Freight Services.
This case arises from a petition of the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for issuance of a preliminary injunction under § 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA" or the "Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 160(l), against Local 70 of the Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers ("Teamsters") to enjoin activity allegedly proscribed by NLRA § 8(b)(4)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B). The petition alleges that two forms of picketing by the Teamsters violate this "secondary boycott" provision of the Act. The first consists of picketing by the union at Chipman Freight Services; the second involves picketing at Sea-Land Services.
The Court, having heard oral argument on the matter on August 26, 1985, and having fully considered the papers, declarations, and record in this case, finds that the Regional Director has failed to establish, under § 10(l) of the Act, reasonable cause to believe respondents have violated § 8(b)(4)(B). This order therefore denies the requested injunction with respect to picketing at Chipman. An injunction is granted with respect to picketing at Sea-Land to ensure that the union limits its picketing to activity associated with Chipman.
The facts alleged by the parties are not in substantial conflict. The drivers involved are owner-operators of trucks who haul containerized freight to and from the piers in the Port of Oakland. Prior to the events described below, Chipman Freight Services had contracts with at least twenty-three such drivers to make pickups and deliveries, mostly within the immediate Port area. Chipman is a California corporation engaged in the transportation of freight and commodities for both domestic and foreign clients. The company has two terminals in Oakland.
On July 29, 1985, Chipman informed these drivers that they would have to sign new contracts in order to continue working for Chipman. The existing sub-haul contract between Chipman and the drivers specified that either party could immediately terminate the agreement at any time upon written notice. Aff. of Jon Tucker, Aug. 8, 1985, at 13-14, att. A. All but two of the twenty-three drivers refused to sign the new contracts on this date. Chipman has not provided additional work to those drivers who did not sign new contracts.
In their efforts to regain employment by Chipman, some of the drivers who refused to sign the new contracts on July 29, 1985, sought the assistance of the local Teamsters union which had already begun efforts to represent the approximately six hundred owner-operators in the Port area. In response to their request, the director of the owner-operator division of the Teamsters Local 70 attempted, on July 30, 1985, to convince the Chipman management to allow the drivers to return to work under the terms of their previous contracts. Chipman declined to rehire the truckers or to recognize the Teamsters as the truckers' representative. Decl. of Alex Ybarrolaza, Aug. 20, 1985, at 2-5. Employees of Chipman who work in the company's container freight station or who drive vehicles owned by the company are represented by another union.
On August 7, 1985, picketers appeared at both Chipman facilities carrying signs that read "Chipman Freight Services/Unfair to owner-operators/Teamsters Local 70." On the second day of picketing, the words "sanctioned by J.C. 7" were added at the bottom of the signs. Decl. of Tucker, Aug. 8, 1985, at 1-2. The picketing was conducted by the former Chipman owner-operator truck drivers.
Teamsters Local 70 claims to represent the owner-operators associated with approximately thirty-five facilities in the Port area. Nevertheless, the union maintains that the picketing by Chipman drivers is prompted entirely by their desire to return to work rather than to achieve company recognition of the union. A letter written August 15, 1985, from the director of the owner-operator division to the attorney for Chipman states, "Our picketing Chipman Freight Services is for the sole purpose of returning all of the Chipman owner-operators to their jobs and not for the purpose of gaining recognition." See also Resp. Memo. in Opp. to Injunction, at 3. The picketing at Chipman has continued on weekdays since August 7, 1985. Req. for Exp. Determ. by Charging Party, Aug. 27, 1985, at 2.
Chipman alleges that the effect of the picketing of its company's two terminals has been, inter alia, to coerce some of the owner-operators who would otherwise perform work for the company into not crossing the picket lines. Decl. of Thomas Longren, Aug. 9, 1985, at 1. Chipman summarizes the harmful effects of the picketing as follows: "The failure of some of Chipman's owner-operators and the trucking companies under contract with Chipman's customers to cross the picket lines at Chipman's facilities has caused Chipman's customers to withdraw work from Chipman and to threaten further cessation of business with Chipman." Req. for Exp. Determ. by Charging Party, Aug. 27, 1985, at 2-3.
The picketing related to Chipman operations also, at least initially, occurred at locations where Chipman trucks made pickups or deliveries. The pickets followed the trucks from Chipman to the other locations. One of these picketed facilities is Sea-Land Services. On August 8, 1985, Sea-Land established a "main gate" and a "reserve gate." A sign at the main gate stated that it was not to be used by Chipman drivers, whereas the reserve gate had a sign indicating "Chipman drivers only." In two instances, picketers from Chipman picketed at both Sea-Land gates. An official associated with Sea-Land alleges that the Chipman-related pickets at Sea-Land caused certain drivers for Sea-Land to refuse to perform work, creating delays in delivery and pickup of freight. Decl. of A.S. Newson, Aug. 9, 1985, at 1-4.
The Teamsters assert that the instances where picketing occurred at the main gate of Sea-Land were in response to Chipman trucks driving through this entrance. Decl. of Terry Frame, Aug. 20, 1985, at 3-4. According to the director of the Teamsters owner-operator division, "Aside from these two incidents the picketing has been restricted to the separate gate, and in all cases has been directed solely at Chipman trucks." Decl. Ybarrolaza, Aug. 20, 1985, at 7. A notice from the Teamsters Business Representative at Sea-Land, addressed to Sea-Land Employees and distributed to members of Local 70 on August 13, 1985, states:
The picketing which is being conducted by Teamsters Local 70 against Chipman is restricted to that employer. Picketing is carried on at Sealand only when Chipman drivers enter Sealand's premises and perform work. Local 70 is not requesting or encouraging any employee of Sealand or any person having business with Sealand, other than Chipman drivers, to stop or interrupt normal work.
Decl. of Marty Frates, Aug. 16, 1985, Exh. B.
Section 10(l) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160(l), provides that when the Board has "reasonable cause" to believe that an unfair labor practice is being committed, it must petition a United States district court for injunctive relief pending the final adjudication by the Board of the complaint. The standard of review the district court must employ is left to the equitable discretion of the court under the terms of § 10(l): "Upon the filing of any such petition the district court shall have jurisdiction to grant such injunctive relief or temporary restraining order as it deems just and proper, notwithstanding any other provision of law." 29 U.S.C. § 160(l) (emphasis added).
The Ninth Circuit's interpretation of this standard for review of a petition under § 10(l) establishes that a district court should accord deference to the initial determination of the NLRB of an unfair labor practice:
The preliminary injunction should be granted by the court if the court finds that the factual allegations and the propositions of law underlying the regional director's petition are not insubstantial or frivolous so that he has reasonable cause for believing the Act has been violated, and if the court finds that injunctive relief is appropriate.
San Francisco-Oakland Newspaper Guild v. Kennedy, 412 F.2d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1969). A subsequent Ninth Circuit opinion, Kennedy v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 542, 443 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir.1971), suggests that district court review of the regional director's petition should focus on whether he has made a prima facie showing of an unfair labor practice. This case cautions, however, that it is "... not for the District Court, at this stage, to resolve either the factual disputes or the legal issues involved." Id. at 630.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Production Workers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 707 v. N.L.R.B., 85-1078
...very similar to that adopted in this opinion, the court denied the petition. See Scott v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 633 F.Supp. 121 (N.D.Cal.1985). The Ninth Circuit has since issued an unadorned order granting the Regional Director's m......
-
Chipman Freight Services, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...it, pending an appeal of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Scott v. Teamsters' Local 70, 633 F.Supp. 121 (N.D.Cal.1985), that denied a temporary injunction of Local 70's picketing. The appeal in that case was dismissed as moot after the NLRB'......
-
Checker Taxi Co. v. NAT. PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION
...injunction prohibiting the picketing. They also point to a district court decision (Scott v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, 633 F.Supp. 121, 129 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 21, 1985))(D. Ex. A) that explicitly criticizes Board's decision. But any claimed "unfairness" due ......