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.

National Labor Relations Board v. Local 169

December 9, 1955

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
LOCAL 169, INDUSTRIAL DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, RESPONDENT.



Author: Staley

Before MCLAUGHLIN, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

STALEY, C.J.:

The National Labor Relations Board has petitioned for enforcement of its order*fn1 issued against the respondent, Local 169, Industrial Division, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL (union or AFL), on February 2, 1955. Since the unfair labor practices found by the Board occurred within this judicial circuit (Burlington, New Jersey), this Court has jurisdiction.

The Board concluded (1) that the respondent, through its agent John Morris, had independently violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) by threatening employees of the Rheem Manufacturing Company (employer) with physical violence and loss of employment if they engaged in activities on behalf of United Steelworkers, CIO, and (2) that the respondent committed violations of Sections 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by unlawfully causing or attempting to cause the employer to discharge an employee, Ann Bodrog. We shall discuss each violation separately, considering first the Board's finding that the union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)*fn2 through the threats of its agent Morris.

On January 14, 1954, the union was served with a charge which had been filed with the Board two days earlier. The charge alleged, inter alia, that the union violated Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act by causing the company to discriminate against Ann Bodrog and thereby and by other acts and conduct had restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.*fn3 An amended complaint, filed on April 21, 1954, contained allegations that Section 8(b)(1)(A) had been violated by the threats of Morris, although the original complaint did not.

The union contends that although the unfair labor practices by the union through agent Morris (i.e., the threats) occurred within six months of the filing and service of the charge, they did not occur within six months of the filing of the amended complaint and so the Board was barred by Section 10(b) of the Act*fn4 from considering the threats as violations of the Act.

The proper application of the six-months rule of Section 10(b) and its relationship to a charge, complaint, or amended complaint, has been considered by the courts on various occasions,*fn5 and the decisions do not support the union's interpretation of Section 10(b). In National Labor Relations Board v. Dinion Coil Co., 201 F.2d 484, 491 (C.A.2, 1952), the court summarized the effect of Section 10(b) as follows:

"* * * (1) A complaint, as distinguished from a charge, need not be filed and served within the six months, and may therefore be amended after the six months. (2) If a charge was filed and served within six months after the violations alleged in the charge, the complaint (or amended complaint), although filed after the six months, may allege violations not alleged in the charge if (a) they are closely related to the violations named in the charge, and (b) occurred within six months before the filing of the charge."

Since in the case at bar the threats occurred within six months of the filing and serving of the charge, the only remaining question is whether the allegations contained in the amended complaint are related to the allegations in the original charge, and the question can be reasonably answered only in the affirmative. The original charge alleged that by its "acts and conduct" the union had restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7. All that the amended complaint did was to specify more precisely what the complained of acts were. As this Court said in National Labor Relations Board v. Kingston Cake Co., 191 Fed.(2d) 563, 567 (C.A.3, 1951):

"The purpose of the charge is not to define the issues to be tried with the precision that is sought normally in pleadings in law suits. The purpose of the charge is to give the Board a preliminary basis for determining whether to proceed in the investigation of the case. For this purpose, it is of course not essential that it be precise."

The Board properly considered the threats which occurred within the six months prior to the filing and service of the charge, and there is no question that the threats substantially supported the Board's conclusion that Section 8(b)(1)(A) had been violated.

The violation of Section 8(b)(2) and the second violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) centered around the firing of an employee, Ann Bodrog.

Bodrog began working for the Rheem Manufacturing Company in December of 1952. Shortly thereafter she took an active part in a pre-election organizing campaign in behalf of the CIO union, which lost the election to the respondent AFL union. Respondent union's representatives were well aware of Bodrog's efforts on behalf of the CIO union. Following the election in February, the hostility of respondent union's representatives toward the supporters of the CIO union continued.

In August of 1953, Bodrog, upon the advice of her physician, went on sick leave until December 31, 1953. During that period she did not pay any union dues. Early in November Bodrog had made inquiries through a fellow employee, Alice Bublewitz, about the necessity of paying dues while on sick leave. After being informed by Bublewitz that she had to obtain a "withdrawal card," Bodrog, accompanied by Bublewitz, went to the union office and requested one. (Bublewitz found out about the withdrawal card through their union steward, Elsie Sarlo, who did not know what a withdrawal card was but obtained the information from some other union official.) Morris, a union official, refused to give her one, stating she would have to pay the dues which had theretofore accrued during the sick leave. Thereupon Bodrog requested permission to pay her back dues in installments when she returned to work,*fn6 because she had not been working and had incurred considerable medical expenses. Morris refused and insisted on a lump sum payment. During the conversation, Morris "screamed" ...


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.