Teamsters Local 688 (Frito-Lay), 1150 (2005)

Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters1 and Frito-Lay, Inc.  Case 14–CB–9771

September 30, 2005

DECISION AND ORDER

By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber

On January 14, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Mark D. Rubin issued the attached decision.  The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs to the Respondent’s exceptions, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.

The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judgeÂ’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2

The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by threatening its members with intraunion disciplinary proceedings, initiating disciplinary proceedings, and then fining members who refused to honor a third-party picket line. The judge found that this conduct contravened the RespondentÂ’s obligations under a no-strike clause in the collective-bargaining agreement, which, in the absence of relevant extrinsic evidence, clearly and unmistakably waived the right to engage in sympathy strikes. We agree.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. The Respondent Union, Teamsters Local 688, represents sales route representatives (sales representatives) at the Charging PartyÂ’s (Frito-Lay) distribution centers in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Sales representatives drive to grocery stores, sell Frito-Lay products, stock display areas, and write up new orders. The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), a separate union, set up picket lines at Shop NÂ’Save, DierbergÂ’s, and SchnuckÂ’s3 grocery stores in the St. Louis area on October 7, 2003.4 Three sales representatives represented by the Respondent and members of the Respondent, James Griffin, Barbara Henry, and Ronald Johnson, regularly serviced some of the stores being picketed by UFCW. The Respondent told its members to not cross UFCWÂ’s picket lines. During the course of their duties in October, Griffin, Henry, and Johnson crossed UFCWÂ’s picket lines and performed their normal duties.

On the evening of October 8, Kevin Meyer, Frito-LayÂ’s zone sales leader, left a voice mail message with Frito-LayÂ’s sales representatives stating that he had been told by the RespondentÂ’s business representative, Mel Cutrell, that sales representatives could be fined if they crossed UFCWÂ’s picket lines. The next day, the RespondentÂ’s steward, Joe Philippi, told Griffin, who had admitted to Philippi the day before that he had crossed the picket line, that Griffin could be fined $200 per day for crossing the picket line. Philippi repeated this to other sales representatives at a separate distribution facility that day.

Thereafter, the Respondent charged Griffin, Henry, and Johnson with violating the RespondentÂ’s bylaws by crossing an authorized picket line. Each was summoned to a trial conducted by the Respondent, found guilty, and fined $1000.

The collective-bargaining agreement contains a broad no-strike provision:

Article 18—Unauthorized Activity

Section 4. For the duration of this Agreement, the Union will not authorize any strikes, work stoppages, or interference with the activities required of employees under this Agreement. In the event that the Employer refuses to comply with a valid arbitration award pursuant to the Grievance Procedure, this provision shall be of no force or effect for so long...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here