Opinion ID: 1547796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unfair Labor Practices and Improper Motive.

Text: The lines of argument advanced by Gluek are that the delivery arrangement was for the purpose of effecting an economy; that the statements of its official and its supervisory employees do not sustain a finding of intimidation, coercion or restraint of its employees; and that the delivery arrangement with Bach was not prompted by animus against Brewers or by any intent or purpose to discriminate against them. Bach argues that it did not discriminate in hiring drivers and helpers to deliver for Gluek. The argument of intervener Local 792 is that the Board did not find that the delivery arrangement was for the purpose of defeating the rights of the employees [Brewers] under the Act; that the Board found the effect of such arrangement that an intent to violate the Act existed; and that such determination is not of a fact but is an erroneous conclusion of law which the Board had no power to make. While there was conflict in the evidence as to important particulars, [2] yet there was very substantial evidence to support the findings of the fact situation by the Board. For years, Gluek had operated under a closed shop contract with Local 205 (including drivers and helpers) and there is scant proof that it was not entirely satisfied therewith up until Teamsters began their raid late in November, 1941. The methods of that raid took forms which changed the entire situation in so far as Gluek's drivers and helpers were concerned. The even tenor of Gluek's business was disrupted. It experienced a boycott and threatened harm to its drivers and trucks which imperilled the existence of its local business. All of its actions thereafter had as their main purpose and intent escape from this unfortunate situation. It may be that a possible saving in expense of deliveries figured in the picture but the coincidence of time and Gluek's actions convince that the immediate, pressing, controlling motive was such escape. [3] Its first attempts had nothing to do with economies. Those attempts were to induce its drivers and helpers to join the Teamsters. The trouble began November 24, 1941. On that morning, representatives of Teamsters met the drivers and helpers near the brewery as they were going to work and urged them to join Teamsters. The drivers worked on that and the following day. They were followed by Teamsters representatives who went in and warned their customers not to take Gluek beer or deliveries of milk and other things would be stopped, the saloons picketed and signs put up warning A. F. of L. members not to buy there. This action prevented deliveries to these customers. November 26, Local No. 205 held a meeting to determine whether to go into Teamsters and decided adversely. When the drivers went to work November 27, there were eight or nine cars parked near the brewery, each containing from two to four Teamsters members. The drivers were met at the time clock by Marion Norbeck [4] who told them that Alvin Gluek would not let the trucks go out. While the drivers were grouped outside the brewery office, Norbeck said to them What are you fellows going to do now? Are you going to let them [drivers for another brewery] go out and plug up your stocks [stops] for you? You fellows better go in the lunch room and talk this thing over what you are going to do. They received information that a competing brewery was sending out trucks under Teamsters  apparently, the drivers of that brewery had theretofore been members of Brewers. Norbeck came in and said there are some friends of yours in here that want to talk to you. These were the acting secretary of Local No. 792 and an international representative of A. F. of L. Teamsters Union. After hearing these two men the drivers decided to join Teamsters and then and there secured cards from No. 792. Right afterwards, the drivers asked Norbeck if it was alright to punch the clock? We got the cards, now to which Norbeck replied, Alright, fellows, you got the cards, you can punch. From that day through December 2, the drivers made deliveries unmolested. On December 3, there was another meeting of Local 205 at which the drivers determined to withdraw from Local 792 and rejoin Local 205. The morning of December 4, the president of Gluek noted a number of squad cars picketing the plant, or rather, blocking exits at the plant. In view of this situation, he would not permit the trucks to go out because of fear of injury to the drivers and to the trucks. December 6, Gluek ordered trucks from Bach to make the deliveries on an hourly pay basis. [5] On December 6, Norbeck said to a group of drivers: Well, they called up Bach Transfer to deliver your beer. What are you guys going to do, are you going to let them get away with it? The next day, Norbeck came into the lunch room where a number of the drivers were and said I am going to tell you something. Alvin Gluek is damn mad at you, and boy, you are going to find some tough working conditions around here after this thing is all settled. About December 6 or 7, William Mueller (in charge of the building and of certain accounts for Gluek) said, to a group of drivers, Why don't you guys get wise to yourselves and go to work. Early in December, the president of Gluek told representatives of Local No. 205, in his office, that he could not let the trucks go out and have them and the men subject to violence but as soon as beer was delivered in Minneapolis and the dispute was cleared up that I would put our trucks on the street with Local No. 205 drivers. About this time, two drivers went to the office of the president of Gluek and asked him what he would do in their position to which he replied The A. F. of L. is too big, you can't lick them. It is impossible to beat them. During December, Arnold Klein, Sr., (credit manager for Gluek) several times said to drivers, Why don't you fellows sign up and go to work? On January 30, 1942, the temporary delivery arrangement was replaced by a ninety-day cost plus 10% contract with Bach and eight trucks were sold by Gluek to Bach. On January 31, 1942, representatives of Teamsters held a meeting across the street from the brewery to which Gluek drivers were invited. The purpose of the meeting was to induce the drivers to join Local No. 792. Norbeck said to several of the drivers: There is a meeting across the street at the Rockaway over there. The fellows from 792 want to talk to you. When a driver stated he would stick with 205, Norbeck said: That is alright, but you better go over and see what they got to say anyway. Norbeck allowed the drivers to attend this meeting without loss of time. At this meeting, the representatives of Local No. 792 urged the drivers to join that union. When some of them expressed a preference to work for Gluek instead of Bach, the representative stated: `I tell you one thing; we are still holding those trucks, and if you fellows feel you want to join us,' he said, `those trucks will go on the street just as they were before.' And I said, `How do you know that?' He said, `Mr. Gluek wants you boys on those wagons; he doesn't want the Bach Transfer.' From December 3 to February 3, 1942, the drivers remained on Gluek payrolls doing such other work as available. On February 3, they were discharged. The above and other evidence draws a rather clear picture of what took place and why. It shows that Gluek was satisfied with its long existing delivery arrangement; that the trouble was entirely caused by the economic pressure by Teamsters in their effort to compel the Gluek drivers to transfer their allegiance from Brewers to Teamsters; that this pressure was so effective that it forced Gluek to act; that this action was motivated, in large part if not entirely, by the purpose of avoiding disruption and loss of business; that Gluek knew its action would have the effect either of changing such allegiance or of depriving the drivers of their jobs by transferring the work to a place where it could be done by members of Teamsters; that Gluek first used pressure to bring about the first alternative; that failing in this, it adopted the other alternative; and that the known inevitable result of such action by Gluek has been to aid one labor union in a conflict with another union with which it had a labor contract. Albeit unwillingly, yet there is no doubt that Gluek participated in a jurisdictional labor dispute and its participation had the effect, well known to it in advance, of favoring one union over the other. It is clear that it had no purpose  in the sense of animus or desire  to injure one or to help the other. Its underlying and compelling purpose was to save itself. But to accomplish this result, it consciously interfered in a labor situation by actively favoring one union over another. This was properly held by the Board to be an unfair labor practice under the Act because economic interests of an employer are not valid reasons for violation of the Act (National Labor Relations Board v. John Engelhorn & Sons, 3 Cir., 134 F.2d 553, 557; National Labor Relations Board v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 528, 532; Wilson & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 123 F.2d 411, 417; Warehousemen's Union, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 74 App.D.C. 28, 121 F.2d 84, 87; South Atlantic S. S. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 480; McQuay-Norris Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 116 F.2d 748, 752, certiorari denied 313 U.S. 565, 61 S.Ct. 843, 85 L.Ed. 1524; National Labor Relations Board v. Star Pub. Co., 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 465, 470, and compare National Labor Relations Board v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co., 315 U.S. 685, 62 S.Ct. 846, 86 L.Ed. 1120, rehearing denied 316 U.S. 708, 62 S.Ct. 1038, 86 L.Ed. 1775, and National Labor Relations Board v. Polson Logging Co., 9 Cir., 136 F.2d 314). In National Labor Relations Board v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 528, 533, it was stated: We think it right and just to say that so far as the record shows, respondent has not wilfully violated the provisions of the Act, but the intent of the employer is not within the ambit of our power of review. When it is once made to appear from the primary facts that the employer has violated the express provisions of the Act, we may not inquire into his motives. The fact situations in South Atlantic S. S. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 480 and National Labor Relations Board v. Star Pub. Co., 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 465 are, in important respects, similar to this case. It may be said, also, that Gluek would have been justified, if not indeed obligated, to oppose Teamsters and to support Brewers because it had an unimpeachable closed shop contract with the latter. Act § 8(3), Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(3); International Assoc. of Machinists, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 72, 81, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L.Ed. 50; Warehousemen's Union, etc., v. National Labor Relations Board, 74 App.D. C. 28, 121 F.2d 84, 87; M. & M. Woodworking Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 9 Cir., 101 F.2d 938, 940. It was found, also, that Bach was, jointly with Gluek, guilty of unfair practices and subject to and covered by the order of the Board. Bach contests the order as to it on the grounds (1) that it is not engaged in interstate commerce and, therefore, not subject to the Act; (2) that it acted as an independent contractor and, therefore, is not responsible for what Gluek may have done; and (3) that it was not guilty of unfair labor practices. The first and second have to do with the scope or coverage of the Act, the third with the factual situation, if Bach is within such scope. (1) The evidence supports the determination that Bach is engaged in interstate commerce. While this is not true as to these deliveries of beer from Gluek's brewery to its local customers in Minneapolis, it is clear that a substantial portion of Bach's hauling was connected with freight to and from railroads transporting such in interstate commerce. See Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197, 219-222, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 31, 32, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. If a Board proceeding were against Bach alone for some violation of the Act, the jurisdiction would exist because it was engaged in interstate commerce within the broad meanning of the Act. Where, as here, Bach is jointly held with Gluek for unfair practices in which Gluek was the prime movant, it would seem that it is immaterial whether Bach was engaged in interstate commerce if it was used to effectuate a violation of the Act. The scope of the Act is as broad as the power of Congress over commerce. National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601, 607, 307 U.S. 609, 59 S.Ct. 668, 83 L.Ed. 1014. It expressly covers all situations affecting interstate commerce. § 2(7), 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(7). The dividing line is not whether a particular business is essentially intrastate but, in the situation in that business before the court, what is the relation between the activity or condition and the effect on interstate commerce. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 308, 56 S.Ct. 855, 871, 80 L.Ed. 1160; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 120, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122. Thus it follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power (United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119, 62 S.Ct. 523, 526, 86 L.Ed. 726; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 124, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122); and Acts having that effect are not rendered immune because they grow out of labor disputes (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 31, 32, 57 S.Ct. 615, 621, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352). If an employer can use a separate, independent, purely intrastate business as a means of effectuating an unfair labor practice and that business is always beyond reach of the Board, the administration of the Act and the application of remedies by the Board would be effectually and improperly restricted. (2) Bach contends that it acted as an independent contractor and, therefore, did not violate the Act nor is responsible for any violation by Gluek. The fact that Gluek used Bach, even if Bach be an independent contractor, would not protect Gluek from committing unfair practices if a purpose in such use was forbidden interference in labor matters. Williams Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 960, 964. However, this does not necessarily mean that Bach, if an independent contractor, would also be subject to the charge of unfair practices. It might be an entirely innocent and unconscious instrument. On the other hand, it might consciously give aid to the effectuation of an unfair practice by another. Where an independent contractor knowingly participates in the effectuation of an unfair practice, it places itself within the orbit of the Board's corrective jurisdiction. Interruption of commerce through strikes and unrest may stem as well from labor disputes between some who, for other purposes, are technically `independent contractors' and their employers as from disputes between persons who, for those purposes, are `employees' and their employers. National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 858. Common law or statutory concepts of legal relationships must yield in so far as is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. [6] The intent that the Act should be so applied is evidenced by the definitions of employer and employee as stated in section 2(2, 3) of the act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(2) and (3). [7] (3) Finally, Bach contends that it engaged in no unfair practices. This is a fact question. The Board has found Bach was guilty of unfair practices. There is substantial evidence to sustain that determination. No extended outline of the evidence is useful here. Bach knew of this labor controversy between the two warring unions. It knew in taking over the delivery for Gluek that it would really determine that conflict. Such conscious interference was an unfair labor practice.