Auto Workers Local 695 (T. B. Wood's)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 1328 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1328
311 NLRB No. 183
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 On February 17, 1993, Administrative Law Judge Richard A.
Scully issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed a brief in re-
sponse to the Respondent’s exceptions.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
We find no need to pass on the issue whether the June 27, 1990
incident involving pickets following employee Curtis Culbertson vio-
lated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A). A finding of unlawful conduct would merely
be cumulative in light of several other findings based on similar con-
duct and would not affect the remedy appropriate for such unfair
labor practices.
Member Devaney notes that while there was evidence in this case
that some pickets who were involved in some of the most egregious
incidents thereafter did not appear at the picket line, he views the
situation here as different from that in Teamsters Local 812 (Pepsi-
Cola Newburg), 304 NLRB 111 (1991), where the Respondent took
action to keep the offending picket off the picket line after it became
aware of the incident there.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 695, AFL–CIO and T. B. Wood’s
Sons Company. Case 5–CB–6599
August 20, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
The questions presented here are whether the judge:
(1) correctly denied the Respondent’s motion to dis-
miss for the alleged failure of the General Counsel to
comply with a prehearing disclosure order; and (2) cor-
rectly found that the Respondent violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by numerous acts of misconduct at or near
a strikers’ picket line.1
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Local 695, AFL–CIO, Chambers-
burg, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
James P. Lewis, Esq., for the General Counsel.
William T. Josem, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
the Respondent.
Michael A. Taylor and Celeste M. Wasielewski, Esqs., of
Washington, D.C., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD A. SCULLY, Administrative Law Judge. Upon a
charge filed by T. B. Wood’s Sons Company (the Employer)
on June 27, 1990, and an amended charge filed on April 26,
1991, the Regional Director for Region 5, National Labor
Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint on Sep-
tember 28, 1990, and amended complaints on July 29 and
August 23, 1991, alleging that International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, Local 695, AFL–CIO (the Respondent) com-
mitted certain violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed
timely answers denying that it had committed any violation
of the Act.
A hearing was held in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, on
February 10 through 14 and March 24 and 25, 1992, at
which all parties were given a full opportunity to participate,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to present other
evidence and argument. Briefs submitted on behalf of the
parties have been given due consideration. On the entire
record and from my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
At all times material, the Employer was a Pennsylvania
corporation with an office and place of business in Cham-
bersburg, Pennsylvania, engaged in the business of manufac-
turing industrial equipment parts. During the 12 months pre-
ceding September 28, 1990, a representative period, the Em-
ployer, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
purchased and received at its Chambersburg facility goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Respondent admits, and I find, that the Employer is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent
moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Gen-
eral Counsel had failed to comply with the order issued on
November 20, 1990, by Associate Chief Administrative Law
Judge John M. Dyer disposing of the Respondent’s motion
for a bill of particulars. It has raised the issue again in its
posttrial brief. In its motion for a bill of particulars, the Re-
spondent alleged, inter alia, that the allegations in paragraph
6(a) through (x) of the complaint did not constitute a clear
and concise statement of the acts alleged to be unfair labor
practices and did not state the names of the agents of the Re-
spondent who engaged in such acts. In response, counsel for
the General Counsel argued that the allegations in the com-
1329AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 695 (T. B. WOOD’S)
1 In his posttrial brief (p. 45), counsel for the Respondent asserted
that the names of two picketers identified in an affidavit taken by
the NLRB in July, 1990, ‘‘were not named in counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel’s supposed August 1 oral recitation.’’ While there is no
evidence in the record to establish whether this statement is true or
not, it is an acknowledgement that information was provided to the
Respondent and that Josem had access to it.
2 The thrust of Judge Dyer’s ruling was that the allegations in the
complaint were sufficient to inform the Respondent of what took
place and that the motion was denied. Insofar as it called for disclo-
sure of the names of the participants known to the General Counsel,
what was important was that the names be provided. Once the infor-
mation was provided, the General Counsel had met his obligation
under the Order. It is immaterial how the information was commu-
nicated to the Respondent or that some of the names might have
been provided before a particular incident was actually alleged in the
original or the amended complaint. While it is not clear what was
meant by the statement in the General Counsel’s response to the
original motion that the names were ‘‘unknown,’’ it could refer to
those participants whose names had not already been furnished to
the Respondent’s counsel. I found this did not constitute evidence
of bad faith any more than did the Respondent’s counsel’s failure
to acknowledge in his motion that much, if not all, of what he was
seeking by it had already been provided.
3 Hereinafter all dates are in 1990 unless otherwise indicated.
plaint were sufficient and stated that the names were not
presently known. Judge Dyer’s order states that ‘‘the allega-
tions of the complaint as to what allegedly occurred are clear
and sufficiently inform Respondent of what took place.’’ The
order also states that the General Counsel is to provide the
Respondent with ‘‘the identity of those who performed or
took part in the acts’’ when and if such information becomes
known. On the morning the hearing opened, counsel for the
Respondent submitted the motion to dismiss and stated that,
to his knowledge, the Respondent had never been informed
of the names of those alleged to have been involved in the
picket line incidents referred to in the complaint. In response,
counsel for the General Counsel stated that the Respondent
had been provided with all of the names of the persons that
were known to him. He submitted a copy of a letter from
a Board investigator, Patricia Hickey, to the Respondent’s
counsel, William Josem, dated June 21, 1991, in which she
forwarded 13 pages of notes summarizing the information in
the affidavits of witnesses describing the incidents occurring
between August 1990 and June 1991, including, the names
of those involved in the incidents. Also submitted was a
copy of a letter from Hickey to Josem representing that, on
August 1, 1990, she had orally provided similar information
concerning the incidents occurring prior to that time, includ-
ing, the names of those involved, to the Respondent’s coun-
sel at the time, Louis Agre.
I found no reason to doubt the representations of counsel
for the General Counsel that all of the names of the partici-
pants in the incidents alleged in the complaint that were
known to him were given to the Respondent’s counsel. Nor
was it, as the Respondent contends, ‘‘incumbent upon coun-
sel for the General Counsel to prove compliance once the
issue was raised by Union counsel.’’ The Respondent’s mo-
tion was not supported by any affidavits or other evidence.
As the moving party, it was the Respondent’s responsibility
to present evidence to establish that it had not been given the
names of the alleged perpetrators as directed in Judge Dyer’s
order. In the absence of such evidence, there was no issue
of fact to be resolved and no reason to accept the representa-
tions of the Respondent’s counsel over those of counsel for
the General Counsel. Moreover, the Respondent’s motion
and argument seeks to focus on the timing and mechanics of
how the information was provided to it rather than the real
issue which is whether or not it received the information. It
has not established that it was not furnished with the names
of those involved in the incidents alleged in complaint para-
graph 6(a) through (x) known to the General Counsel. From
all that appears, those names were given to Agre on August
1, 1990. At the hearing, Josem did not dispute this, he sim-
ply said he did not know it to be so. (Tr 15.)1 Given the
fact that, subsequently, counsel for the Respondent was vol-
untarily provided with the known names of those involved in
other incidents which were alleged in the amended com-
plaint, I found no basis to conclude that counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel had not made a good-faith effort to comply with
the order.2 Further, there was no evidence presented from
which I could conclude that the Respondent has been preju-
diced. More than 6 months elapsed between the date of the
Respondent’s answer to the amended complaint and the date
of the hearing without any question being raised as to the
adequacy of the General Counsel’s compliance with the
order. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Respondent’s mo-
tion to dismiss was denied. After the hearing opened, it was
adjourned for more than a month after the General Counsel
had put on his case (with the exception of one witness) and
before the Respondent had to put on its case. There was no
evidence that the Respondent was hindered in any way from
presenting its defenses. Accordingly, the Respondent’s
posttrial motion to dismiss is denied.
B. Background
In 1990,3 the Respondent was the collective-bargaining
representative of the Employer’s approximately 322 produc-
tion and maintenance workers. The Respondent and the Em-
ployer were parties to a contract which expired on April 29.
Prior to that date, the parties engaged in negotiations for a
new contract and reached a tentative agreement. On April 29,
the union membership voted to reject the proposed contract.
In March, the membership had voted by the two-thirds ma-
jority required by the Union’s constitution and bylaws to au-
thorize a strike, which commenced at 12:01 a.m. on April 30.
A picket line authorized by the Respondent was established
and maintained at the entrances to the plant. During May, the
plant remained open and although there was no new produc-
tion some finished products were shipped to customers.
On May 18 and 30, the Employer sent letters to the strik-
ing employees indicating its intention to resume some pro-
duction and encouraging the employees to return to work.
Negotiations between the parties resumed with the assistance
of a Federal mediator on May 23. The Employer began inter-
viewing prospective employees and at a negotiating session
on June 5 informed the Union that if the strike continued it
would begin hiring permanent replacement workers.
C. Activity at or Near the Picket Line—Mass Picketing,
Threats, Interference With Ingress and Egress,
Damage to Vehicles
Many of the unfair labor practice allegations involve inci-
dents occurring or originating at or near the picket line au-
1330 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thorized and set up by the Respondent. Pickets were assigned
to duty in shifts and were paid $100 per week by the Re-
spondent. According to the testimony of Union President
Walter C. Klenzing Sr., two picket line captains were ap-
pointed for each shift in order to assure that at least one
would be present at every shift. If neither was available, a
temporary captain was appointed for a particular shift.
Klenzing Sr. was present at the picket line on many occa-
sions. Testimony and photographs of the scene show pickets
and union signs at the plant entrances and in the streets near-
by.
The replacement workers hired by the Employer began
work on June 11. Company Personnel Director Charles
Ewing testified that he arrived at the plant at 4:30 a.m. and
there were 20 to 30 pickets presents. Within a few minutes
the number of pickets grew to about 150 in the street and
at the various entrances to the plant. As people began to ar-
rive for work at about 6:30 a.m., Ewing observed vehicles
which attempted to enter the plant parking lot being sur-
rounded by pickets who rocked and beat on them. He ob-
served one vehicle being pushed back out into the street by
pickets and another which had its rear window broken as it
left the premises after dropping off a replacement worker. He
observed Klenzing Sr. and Union Vice President Denny Ott
watching what was going on. Of the 30 replacement workers
scheduled to start that morning only 18 entered the plant.
During the day, the Employer obtained a state court injunc-
tion limiting the number of pickets allowed at the entrances.
On June 12, Ewing observed constables passing out copies
of the injunction to pickets and posting copies on signs and
trees in the area. That afternoon, 150 to 175 pickets gathered
and prevented some trucks from entering; however, the ar-
rival of state police in riot gear resulted in the trucks being
able to enter the plant. After the injunction was entered he
observed that during the next 10 days the pickets exceeded
the allowable number and in some instance held up vehicles
trying to cross the picket line for from 5 to 10 minutes. He
arrived at the plant at 5 a.m. on June 25 and observed 25
to 30 picketers blocking and holding up vehicles trying to
enter. That afternoon as the workers were leaving over 100
pickets gathered at the gate through which workers were at-
tempting to exit. The pickets surrounded and stopped their
vehicles, cursed at them and told them: ‘‘I’m coming to get
you, I know where you live.’’ He observed pickets
videotaping the workers as they exited and saw Union Presi-
dent Klenzing doing what appeared to be writing down their
license numbers, as he would look in the direction of the li-
cense plate as vehicles went by, and in some instances those
standing nearby would repeat the license numbers. On June
26, he arrived at the plant between 5 and 5:30 a.m. and saw
80 to 90 pickets present. A short time later the number grew
to as many as 200, spread out among the entrances. He ob-
served the vehicles of both office and replacement workers
and delivery vehicles being stopped, surrounded and beaten
on. Klenzing Sr. was present until the group of pickets broke
up about 8:30 a.m.
Ewing testified that between June 26 and July 23, he regu-
larly picked up nails scattered at the picket line. At times,
after picking up a cupful of nails and disposing of them he
would return to the picket line and find more nails when
only pickets had been in the area. Ewing said that he was
responsible for approving payment for repairs to the tires of
workers crossing the picket line and that on some days there
were as many as 30 or 40 flat tires from nails at the plant
entrances. Security guard Ralph Blake testified that through-
out the summer of 1990 guards were constantly picking up
nails thrown in both entrances. There were also nails being
dropped in the entrances in the period from February through
April 1991 with the worst being near the end of March when
he counted as many as 300 nails picked up in a single night.
The record contains many nails Blake identified as having
been picked up by him at the picket line in April 1991.
Striker Victor Diffenderfer who had served as a picket cap-
tain before being banned from the picket line testified to see-
ing guards frequently picking up nails at the main entrance
to the plant.
Ewing testified that several pickets made threats to him.
Walter Klenzing Jr., the son of the Union’s president, told
him three different times that he was going to kick his ass
either at the picket line or at a football game. Picket Gary
Hawbecker also told Ewing he would get him at the football
game. Picket Clyde Thomas told him he would not live to
see the end of the strike. On July 20, when the north gate
was opened to let employees leave, picket Bob Marshall
jumped out of a pickup truck and said, ‘‘I’m going to get
you, you son of a bitch.’’ Ewing testified that picket Ken
Flory was at the picket line primarily on Friday afternoons.
He would walk in front of vehicles and block them, curse
the occupants and say he was going ‘‘to kick their ass,’’ that
he knew where they lived and that he was coming to their
house.
Curtis Culbertson was an office employee who took a job
in the shop after the strike began. He testified that on June
27, after leaving work, he noticed that he was being closely
followed by another vehicle for several miles. He turned off
and drove into his uncle’s driveway in order to get behind
the vehicle and take down its license number. When he
pulled back onto the street the vehicle was stopped about 100
yards up the street in what was his grandparents’ driveway.
He pulled up behind the vehicle and asked the two occu-
pants, both of whom he recognized as strikers, what the
problem was. The driver got out and said he was a ‘‘scab.’’
He said he was not and the driver asked if he was
‘‘Bumbaugh,’’ the name of a replacement worker. When he
said he was not the driver said he was sorry. Culbertson tes-
tified that they must have thrown nails in the driveway be-
cause the next day the vehicles of his grandfather and his
mother’s boyfriend got flat tires from nails. He did not see
the occupants of the vehicle throw any nails in the driveway
and he did not know of any nails being found in the drive-
way.
Replacement worker Jury Sollenberger testified that when
he arrived at the plant on June 11 at 7 a.m., approximately
100 pickets were in the entrance to the parking lot and pre-
vented him from entering. He phoned the plant and was told
to try again as the police would be escorting people in. He
returned in about an hour and although two police officers
tried to help him through the picket line, a mob of people
prevented him from entering. He attempted to enter a third
time through the main plant entrance and was blocked by
pickets. He went to another entrance which was also ‘‘com-
pletely full of strikers,’’ who broke off the bug shield on his
truck and kicked his driver’s side door. At that point he
abandoned his attempt to enter the plant. Sollenberger also
1331AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 695 (T. B. WOOD’S)
testified that during the first or second week of July when
he was stopped at the entrance by pickets walking in front
of his vehicle, picket Larry Thomas, who he knew from a
previous employment elsewhere, told him that he should not
be coming to work there, that he knew that Sollenberger had
two children and while they didn’t know where he lived,
they were trying to find out.
Replacement worker Charles Reed testified that when he
arrived to begin work at about 7 a.m. on June 11, although
the police tried to escort him in, he only got halfway across
the picket line. There were 75 to 100 pickets who surrounded
his truck, pounded on the hood, bent the antenna, and caused
over $1000 damage to his truck. He left after a policeman
advised him to try again later. Reed returned to the plant on
June 12 but could not get through the line. He did get into
work on June 13 after being escorted through 50 to 100 pick-
ets. He testified that about June 26 when he followed Super-
visor Dick Houser’s vehicle through the picket line, he saw
picket Thomas Eyer attempt to scratch it with a key or piece
of metal. When he went through the line, Eyer and Carbaugh
kicked his car doors. As a result of charges he filed with the
police, Reed was reimbursed by Eyer for between $600 and
$800 for the damage to his vehicle.
Replacement worker Celia Caldwell testified that when she
arrived to begin work between 6 and 7 o’clock on June 11
there were approximately 150 to 200 pickets blocking the en-
trances to the plant and pushing cars out into the street. She
drove around the plant four or five times until, while the
pickets were ganging up on another car, she was able to slip
through the line. That afternoon when she attempted to leave
through the main entrance but was prevented from exiting by
a gang of pickets. She was able to get out through the north
entrance but as she pulled out onto the street a picket broke
the mirror on the driver’s side of her vehicle. She testified
that on June 25 when the car she was riding in as a pas-
senger was stopped in traffic across from the entrance to the
plant, picket Charles Cummings exposed himself and made
an obscene comment to her. This testimony was corroborated
by that of replacement worker Cindy Rook who was driving
the car in which Caldwell was riding. Photographs taken at
the scene on the morning of June 25 by a professional pho-
tographer engaged by the Employer and identified by
Caldwell show Rooks’ car passing numerous pickets, one of
whom is making an obscene gesture at the occupants of the
car, and also show Cummings with his hand on the zipper
of his pants. The photos show Klenzing Sr. in the back-
ground observing what is going on. Caldwell testified that a
criminal charge was brought against Cummings as a result of
the incident and he was convicted and fined $150.
Caldwell testified that in early July after leaving the plant
she noticed that her car was being followed. After she real-
ized she was being followed and attempted to lose the fol-
lower, she reversed directions and eventually got behind the
other car and followed it back to the plant in order to photo-
graph the driver. When she left the plant the second time,
she was followed by a different individual. She again at-
tempted to lose the follower but was unable to do so and
pulled into a convenience store about a mile and a half from
the plant. She took out her camera and took photographs of
the individual and his license plate. As she did so he held
up a piece of brick and told her it was going to go through
her windshield. Both of the individuals were identified as
strikers from the photos she took.
Cindy Rook also testified that when she left the plant on
her first day of work, she crossed the picket line in the car
of Allan Reed. Picket Larry Thomas said to Reed, ‘‘Go
ahead and fuck her, I already did.’’ He said to Rook, ‘‘I
didn’t need an escort whenever I used to work here.’’ He
then commented to other pickets, ‘‘Well, she’s lucky she’s
with him or we’d just pull her out of the car and rape her
right here.’’ A short time after she started working at the
plant, Rook suffered an injury and left work early at about
1:30 p.m. She drove out across the picket line and when she
stopped at a stop sign about three or four blocks away on
Grant Street she saw the driver and passenger in the vehicle
in front of hers, one of whom was Larry Thomas, get out
and switch seats. The vehicle with Thomas in it continued
to drive slowly in front of her. After she turned onto another
street the vehicle came along beside her and Thomas threw
a handful of pennies at her window, saying, ‘‘here’s what
you make,’’ and he also said he was going to rape her.
Replacement worker Teresa Mickey testified that when she
arrived to begin work at about 6:45 a.m. on June 11 she was
unable to enter the parking lot because of the pickets who
stood in the entrance and pushed her car back. She went
home, phoned the plant, and was told to try again as the po-
lice were present. When she returned to the plant entrance
she was stopped behind a pickup truck and saw pickets pull
the bug shield off the truck. As her car passed through the
pickets shouted and spit at her and one jumped onto her
hood and pulled the windshield wipers off. Mickey testified
that on June 18 as she passed through the picket line on her
way to work pickets got one of the doors on the passenger
side of her car ajar. After she parked, she found a long
scratch in that door which had not been there the previous
day. She testified that on July 30 it took her nearly 45 min-
utes to exit through the picket line after work. As she drove
south on Fifth Street a short distance from the plant, near a
bridge, she had rolled down her windows and someone threw
a cup of soda through the passenger side window into her
car.
Carlton Heston worked for the Employer in research and
development and was not a member of the bargaining unit.
He testified that when he arrived at the main gate at between
7:15 and 7:45 a.m. on June 25 there were 50 to 150 pickets
blocking the entrance. He blew his horn to attract the atten-
tion of a guard and the pickets surrounded and began slap-
ping his car. He attempted to back out but could not do so.
Pickets opened his car door on the passenger side and spit
on Heston and his car. When the pickets pulled open his
driver’s side door he began to pull forward and saw two peo-
ple rolling off his hood. As he drove into the parking lot he
was pursued by ‘‘a solid wall of people’’ who chased him
into the building and banged on the door after he entered.
Replacement worker David Hershey testified that when he
arrived at the plant on June 13 at about 6:25 a.m. there were
about 200 pickets blocking the entrance. They surrounded
and beat on his car and it took him about two minutes to
get through the line. As he passed through the picket line a
picket beat on his window with his fists and with a rock
while another, Tom Eyer, scratched the paint on the side of
his car, causing damage that cost $164 to repair. He pressed
charges with the police and was eventually reimbursed for
1332 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the paint damage by Eyer. Steven Warnick, who was in the
car with Hershey, testified that there was a crowd of close
to 100 pickets at the entrance. He confirmed that picket
Clifford Carbaugh beat on the car window with his hand and
a rock. After entering the parking lot they got out of the car
and Carbaugh called to him about ‘‘getting’’ him and his
family and threatened to kill Warnick. Hershey testified that
he heard Carbaugh threaten to get Warnick.
The Employer’s safety director, Brad Martin, testified that
on the morning of June 26 he observed picket Tom Eyer
making contact with vehicles and scratching them with an
object as they crossed the picket line. The record contains
several photographs taken by Martin which show Eyer’s
hand making contact with the sides of vehicles and the dam-
age done to the vehicles by Eyer and other pickets that
morning. Martin testified that on July 20 he was in the park-
ing lot observing the picket line and had a camera with him
in case any problems arose. He saw picket named Sanders
pretend to be struck by a replacement worker’s vehicle as it
was attempting to leave. Sanders lay on the ground and said
that he needed an ambulance. Martin had a radio with him
and contacted security to request that an ambulance and the
police be called. The replacement worker asked Sanders if he
needed help and Sanders got up, laughed, and said he was
fine. As Martin was inquiring about the ambulance, Sanders
ran at Martin and yelled that he was going to kill him. Sand-
er ran into him, knocked him down and tried to strike him
with his fists, but was pulled away by security guards and
other picketers. Sanders was found guilty on criminal charges
as a result of this incident and also had to reimburse Martin
in a civil action for $89 worth of damage to his camera.
Employee Jeffrey Piper testified that he participated in the
strike but returned to work on August 22. About a week be-
fore he went back, Tom Eyer came to his house and said that
he had heard that Piper was going back. Eyer told Piper that
he would get his truck, that it might this week or the next
but that he would get the truck. On the morning of the Fri-
day he returned to work, as he crossed the picket line, some
pickets bumped against his truck. When he parked he looked
at the driver’s side of the truck and found a scrape about 3
feet long that had not been there before.
Replacement worker Alan Kiser testified that he began
work on June 14. He went to the plant about a week before
he started work there. As he was leaving, he passed a group
of 25 to 50 pickets at the main entrance and someone threw
a sparkplug at his car which passed within a few inches of
his head. On June 14, he arrived at the main gate at 6 a.m.
and saw ‘‘a big mob’’ of pickets who swarmed around his
car and prevented him from entering for about 15 minutes.
On June 25 or 26, as he crossed the picket line his car was
damaged to the extent of nearly $1500. The paint was
scratched by one picket and another named Stoner kicked
and dented the passenger side door and damaged the turn
signal on the passenger side. Stoner called him ‘‘scab’’ and
said he knew where Kiser lived. Kiser testified that in March
1991 at a gas station on Second Street, Dwight Crawford
came up to him as he was getting in his car, reached through
the car window, grabbed him by the throat, and threatened
to kill him. He knew who Crawford was because he had
threatened him previously and he had picked him out in pho-
tographs taken of pickets by Brad Martin. Also in March
1991, Kiser was followed several times when he left work
at 11 p.m. On one occasion, the car pulled up beside him
at a stop light and the person on the passenger side told him
that he knew where Kiser lived and that he was going to kill
him. Kiser had seen the person doing picket duty at the
plant. Kiser also testified that at the beginning of April 1991,
as he was leaving the plant through the main entrance, pick-
eter Dwight Crawford told him that he was going to cut him
up and feed him to his dogs one night. Kiser pressed harass-
ment charges against Crawford, there was a hearing before
a magistrate, and Crawford was fined. Also in April 1991,
as Kiser left the plant and drove down Grant Street about a
block, someone dropped several bricks on his car, breaking
a window and damaging the car body. He returned to the
plant and called the police. After the police were finished,
as Kiser was again crossing the picket line, Crawford who
was doing picket duty stuck his head in the car window and
said that Kiser ‘‘had some other windows to be broken.’’
Jean Pierre Conte is a member of the Employer’s board
of directors. He went to the plant at 7 a.m. on June 11 and
observed a large mob of people forming a wall at the south
entrance. Although he was able to follow another car through
the picket line, it took longer than 5 minutes for the cars to
enter the parking lot. At 11 a.m. he went to the south en-
trance to assist a delivery truck that was attempting to enter.
When he got there he observed about 150 people forming a
wall across the entrance. The truck was unable to enter and
after it stopped the pickets pounded on it and shouted at the
driver. About 10 minutes later the police arrived and walked
the truck through the line but before doing so one of the po-
lice officers was assaulted by a picket.
Chambersburg police officer John Kriner testified that he
and two other police officers went to the plant about 11 a.m.
on June 11. He observed a group of more than 50 pickets
spread out across the entrance. As they were escorting a
truck through the picket line, he was struck across the back
by picket Richard Ewan. As he attempted to run away, Ewan
was subdued and arrested.
Replacement worker Anthony Cupillari Sr. testified that he
arrived for work at about 6 to 6:15 a.m. on June 26 riding
in the car of another employee. As they approached the en-
trance their vehicle was stopped by a line of 30 to 40 pick-
ets. One picket approached the passenger side where
Cupillari was seated, said ‘‘have a nice day scabbie,’’ and
spat chewing tobacco through the window onto Cupillari’s
forehead.
Maintenance Supervisor Wayne Heiser testified that on
June 22 he was standing in the shipping office observing cars
driving into the plant. He observed picketer Steven Pogue
who worked for him in the maintenance department strewing
nails at the entrance. A short time later in his direct testi-
mony, he corrected himself and said this incident occurred
on July 6. On cross-examination, he said that he saw Pogue
make a throwing motion but did not actually see him throw
nails. On June 25, he observed a picket climb up on the cab
of a Cressler delivery truck as it came through the main en-
trance and beat on the driver’s door with his closed fists. On
June 25 or 26, he observed a truck trying to enter which was
blocked by about 20 pickets milling around in the driveway.
After about 10 minutes, the driver gave up and pulled away
from the plant. A short time later, he observed Carlton
Heston trying to cross the picket line and saw about 20 pick-
ets surround the car and begin rocking the car, preventing it
1333AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 695 (T. B. WOOD’S)
4 Celia Caldwell also testified that there were numerous days that
eggs were thrown at vehicles as they left the plant.
from moving. A picket opened the car door at least twice
and, as Heston pulled away, a picket was struck and another
was thrown over the hood. A mob of pickets chased Heston
into the plant building. On the afternoon of September 26,
as Heiser was standing near the picket line observing vehi-
cles exiting, picket Gary Hawbecker said that he would
‘‘get’’ him or ‘‘get even’’ with him. Picketer Richard
Eckenrow who was standing nearby made a comment that
you could only push a dog so far into a corner then it will
come after you. Later that day, as Heiser was exiting the
driveway, Eckenrow lunged at his car and did $137.50 dam-
age to the paint on his hood. Heiser pressed charges and was
reimbursed for the damage.
Heiser testified that at about the time the replacement
workers began to work, about June 11 through 30, on an al-
most daily basis picket Larry Thomas would videotape the
replacement workers and their license plates as they crossed
the picket line. Photographs taken by Brad Martin on the
morning of June 26 show Thomas pointing a video camera
at cars crossing the picket line. Heiser testified that in late
July, he observed Klenzing Sr. at the picket line appearing
to write down license plate numbers of replacement workers’
vehicles. A photo taken by Martin at the picket line on the
afternoon of July 16 shows Klenzing holding a camera. Mar-
tin testified that a few moments after the photo was taken
he saw Klenzing point his camera at the rear of a replace-
ment worker’s vehicle as it exited and the flash go off. A
photo taken by Martin on the afternoon of September 28
shows pickets blocking a truck at the entrance and a picket
aiming a camera at the occupant. Ewing testified to seeing
picket Robert Melius on several occasions photographing
drivers and their license plates as they exited the plant in the
afternoon.
Heiser also testified that in early May 1991 sometime
around midnight he was called to the plant and found that
a door with a full pane of glass near the cafeteria and adja-
cent to Fifth Avenue had been broken. While he was work-
ing to secure the door a passing vehicle slowed down and
an occupant, who he identified as Walter Klenzing Jr., asked
if he needed any help.
Crawford Zimmerman testified that he was employed as a
delivery driver for Service America which provided food
service at the plant. At about 6 a.m. on August 16, as Zim-
merman attempted to drive his vehicle across the picket line
into the main entrance to the plant, a picket shattered the
driver’s side window with his fist causing glass to enter Zim-
merman’s eye. Zimmerman identified the attacker as George
Kline, who was charged, convicted, and fined as a result.
Plant Manager Donald Michael testified that he witnessed the
attack on Zimmerman’s vehicle by Kline. He said that before
smashing the window, Kline had stopped the vehicle by
walking in front of it. After he stepped away, the vehicle
started forward and Kline unsuccessfully tried to jump in
front of it again. As the vehicle passed him, Kline struck and
shattered the window.
Michael testified that on June 29 while he was outside ob-
serving vehicles entering and exiting the plant at lunch time
he saw a picket who was wearing a ski mask, notwith-
standing temperature in the 80s or 90s , and carrying a large
club, 5 or 6 feet long, which he waved at the vehicles while
walking in front of and sometimes stopping them. When the
picket later removed the mask, Michael recognized and iden-
tified him as Dennis Sanders. Brad Martin testified that on
June 29 he observed Sanders in the ski mask carrying a large
object which he was shaking in an intimidating manner. A
photograph he took at the picket line in mid-July shows two
pickets standing in the entrance with large sticks in their
hands. Martin identified a photo he took in mid-July showing
a picket with a bandana over his face and carrying a union
sign. He testified that the picket was swinging the sign at
cars as they exited. Photos taken by Celia Caldwell at the
picket line in late June or early July show two different pick-
eters, one in a ski mask, carrying long sticks. Ewing testified
that during the period from June 26 through July 23 he often
observed three or four pickets carrying golf clubs, and other
clubs and swinging them in a threatening manner at vehicles.
Heiser testified that at different times he saw picket Larry
Thomas carrying a golf club near the picket line. On one oc-
casion he observed Thomas and other pickets carrying base-
ball bats, golf clubs and large pieces of wood and swinging
them while walking back and forth among vehicles coming
and going through the main entrance.
Replacement worker Paul Emerick Jr. testified that as he
left the plant on the afternoon of June 22, he was driving on
Fifth Street between the two entrances when his car was hit
by an egg as he passed a single picket standing there.4 He
backed up to where the picket had been standing and saw
him with a 3-foot club or tree limb in his hand coming to-
wards him along with other pickets. The picket struck his car
with the club and dented the roof, while others called for
him to get out of the car. Emerick testified that, on July 23,
as he drove down Fifth Street after leaving work, there were
pickets standing on the grass by the sidewalk just before the
bridge. One of the pickets moved his arm in a sweeping mo-
tion and he saw objects he thought were nails bouncing in
the street ahead of his car. He pulled over and checked his
tires but found no nails in them.
Replacement worker Robert Ranck testified that around
July 20 he was impeded in crossing the picket line both
going in and when leaving. Pickets also spat on the wind-
shield of his truck. Ranck testified that on a day in August
he left the plant on a motorcycle and proceeded down Grant
Street. As he passed a blue car parked at the curb about 50
to 60 yards from the plant entrance, the car abruptly pulled
out into his path, causing him to have to go into the oncom-
ing traffic lane in order to avoid being struck. Ranck pulled
over and stopped by the Knouse Company down the street
and the blue car pulled through the Knouse Company gate
and went around behind the building. When the blue car
came back out, he wrote down the license plate number and
got a look at the driver. As the car passed him, the driver,
who was later identified to him as striker Marlon Perry,
called him a scab, used some profanity, and left. Ranck testi-
fied that between February and April 1991, he observed sev-
eral cars that had gotten flat tires from roofing nails while
driving into the parking lot and that on one occasion he had
gotten three flat tires in his own vehicle while entering.
Ranck also testified that in mid-April 1991 as he was cross-
ing the picket line, a picket told him, ‘‘We’re going to get
your ass.’’
1334 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 McAuliffe testified that in May 1991 Fry had told him he was
going to Alaska. He subsequently received a postcard from Fry say-
ing he was doing well but he was not sure if it was from Alaska
or not. As far as he knew, Fry had not returned to the Chambersburg
area.
Replacement worker Jason Ranck testified that the day he
began work, about June 12, as he was standing in the park-
ing lot a picket yelled some obscenities to him and said that
they knew where he went to church, that they were going to
‘‘get’’ him and were going to ‘‘get’’ his vehicle. He said that
one of the pickets attended his church. He testified that in
June as he was driving his father’s pickup across the picket
line, a picket grabbed and broke off the antenna. He also tes-
tified that a few days after the antenna incident, as he left
the plant and had driven less than a block, near the bridge,
his vehicle was struck by a rock. Robert Ranck testified that
the antenna was broken off his truck when his son drove it
across the picket line. A striker was charged in the incident
and reimbursed him for $34 of damage. A photograph identi-
fied by Martin as one he took on June 26 shows the incident.
Employee James Hardy was not a member of the bar-
gaining unit and continued to work during the strike. He tes-
tified that on June 15 when he was leaving the plant and
stopped while waiting for traffic, he was approached by three
pickets, one of whom had a cigarette in his hand. After some
conversation, during which the picket with the cigarette put
his hands on Hardy’s car door, as he pulled away he noticed
the picket no longer had the cigarette in his hand. He looked
behind his seat and found a burning cigarette which left a
burn mark on the vinyl molding. During the conversation in
which the pickets asked if he knew what was going on in
the plant foundry, Hardy mentioned that he was leaving town
that evening. One picket responded that he might wake up
the next morning and find his refrigerator missing. Another
picket then said that ‘‘you never know’’ and that he could
use a new refrigerator.
Replacement worker Terry Wadel testified that on Novem-
ber 12 as he was about to turn into the entrance to the park-
ing lot, picket Nelson Hurst attempted to jump in front of
his car and when he was unable to do so kicked the side,
denting the passenger door. Hurst eventually had to reim-
burse him for $249.10 worth of damage to the car.
Supervisor Elmer Haapala Jr. testified that on February 6,
1991, when he passed the picket line at about 9:15 p.m., he
heard a thump on the side of his truck. When he got out he
found some abrasions and two chips in the fiberglass panel
on the rear passenger side. He testified that in April 1991
when he was leaving the plant at about 12:30 a.m., he saw
numerous roofing nails in the north entrance which he
stopped to pick up. He testified that while that entrance is
near the area of the plant where castings that have nails in
them are used, the nails he picked up that night were not the
type used in the castings.
Replacement worker Mark Brooks testified that, on a date
in December, he left work in the evening and drove to his
fiance’s residence in an apartment complex. As he was get-
ting something out of his car, he saw the vehicle of striker
Greg Rosenberry parked at the end of the alley. When he
made eye contact with the driver, the vehicle pulled away.
He testified that in mid-March or April 1991, while crossing
the picket line, he got two nails in his tires. Brooks testified
that in early April 1991 he observed picket Bill Edwards
aiming a video camera at the drivers and license plates of
vehicles as they exited the plant. He testified that in January
1991, as he crossed the picket line Rosenberry said to him,
‘‘I’d hate to see you have to replace your windshield.’’ He
also testified that on a Friday evening in March 1991 as he
was crossing the picket line a picket said to him, ‘‘there’s
25 ways to kill a man with your bare hands.’’ Another pick-
et, Ken Flory, told him that he wanted ‘‘to kick his ass.’’
Jeff Hautekeete was a security guard assigned to work at
the plant from August 1990 to May 1991. He testified that
he observed Edwards show up at the picket line for 2 to 4
hours a days in April 1991 and use a camera or a video cam-
era to photograph or videotape drivers and the license plates
of vehicles entering and exiting the plant. A series of photo-
graphs taken by Hautekeete during the period from April 15
through 19, 1991, shows Edwards at the picket line carrying
and pointing a camera or a video camera.
Employee Charles Fickes testified that he participated in
the strike but returned to work on August 8. On a day in Au-
gust as he drove across the picket line while leaving work
in the evening, picket Garnet Houpt hollered that he was
‘‘going to get’’ Fickes. He testified that in the fall of 1990
picket Jim Beecham told him, ‘‘I’ll get you.’’ He also testi-
fied that in the fall of 1990, picket Clyde Thomas challenged
him to get out of his car and said, ‘‘we’ll see what kind of
a man you are.’’
Replacement worker Kenneth Horn testified that on a day
in August as he was leaving work at about 3:30 p.m., pickets
approached his vehicle and one, who was subsequently iden-
tified to him as Ken Flory, pointed his finger at Horn and
said that he was ‘‘going to kill’’ Horn.
Replacement worker Jeffrey Eckenrode testified that on a
day in December, as he was leaving the plant in the after-
noon, a picket who he did not know walked up to his car
and said, ‘‘I am going to kill you and your family.’’
Replacement worker Randy Zeger testified that on several
occasions during January 1991, as he crossed the picket line,
picket Robert Melius, with whom he had previously worked
at a different employer, said to him he was ‘‘going to get’’
Zeger and his family.
Replacement worker James McAuliffe testified that he
began work on the morning of June 11. After seeing the
pickets at the gate he parked his pickup on the street a block
or two away and walked into the plant. After work that day
as he, replacement worker Jim Fry, and another employee
were walking out of the parking lot onto the grass next to
it, two pickets ran up to them and one grabbed Fry by the
arm. This picket was pulled away by the other one who told
him he was drunk and was being videotaped. According to
McAuliffe, Fry had a red mark and a scratch on his arm
where he had been grabbed. Fry did not appear as a witness.5
The picket who grabbed Fry was identified by McAuliffe
from photographs shown to him at the hearing as Ted Strine.
Strine, who testified that he served as a picket captain, ad-
mitted to being involved in the incident but said he merely
tapped Fry on the shoulder to ask him how it felt to take
away their jobs. When he did so the man tried to swing at
him with a piece of pipe. Although McAuliffe also testified
that on the afternoon of June 12 he found the windshield of
his truck which was parked near the plant had been smashed
with a hammer, I cannot find any complaint allegation which
1335AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 695 (T. B. WOOD’S)
6 While there was evidence that some pickets who were involved
in some of the most egregious incidents, thereafter, did not appear
at the picket line, there was none to establish that this was the result
of any action by the Union. On the contrary, it appears they were
removed by court order.
encompasses this incident and will not make any findings
concerning it.
Security guard Blake testified that at the end of January
1991 while he was looking for nails in the entrance, he was
struck in the back by an object at a time when about 15
pickets were present. He testified that he observed picket
Victor Diffenderfer dropping nails in an entrance on April 4,
1991, and took a photograph of him doing so. A short time
later, Diffenderfer went to the other entrance and Blake went
to see what he was doing there. When he got there,
Diffenderfer told Blake he was going to blow him away.
Blake testified that one night in April 1991, picket Bob
Kochert told him they were going ‘‘to get him’’ and give
him ‘‘a blanket party,’’ meaning throw a blanket over him
and beat him up. Picket Danny Barnhardt stated that they
knew where he was staying and a third picket repeated
Kochert’s threat to Blake.
Debra Stevens testified that on March 27, 1991, she drove
her boyfriend, replacement worker Richard Lynch, to the
plant and dropped him off. As she left the plant with her two
sons in her car, there was a car parked by the entrance and
its occupants were talking with some picketers. As she pro-
ceeded down Grant Street she saw that the car that had been
parked at the plant entrance was closely following her car.
When she saw it, she pulled into the Knouse parking lot and
the car followed her in. Two occupants, later identified to her
as striker Glenn Keith Sr. and his son Glenn Keith Jr. got
out of the car and began calling her and her sons ‘‘scabs.’’
She told them that none of them were employed at Woods,
but they responded that it did not matter as they had crossed
the picket line. Keith Sr. pulled open her car door and her
18-year-old son Gary got out of the other side of her car. As
he did so, Keith Jr. hit her son and began fighting with him.
When she got out to try to assist her son, Keith Sr. grabbed
her, held her around the neck and, when she tried to assist
her son, the man threw her to the ground. Her younger son
got out of the car and went back to the plant to ask the guard
to call the police. She got loose and went to her car and took
out a billy club. Keith Sr. took it away from her and later
Keith Jr. began using it on her son. After the police arrived,
Keith Jr. struck a police officer with the club before he was
finally subdued by three police officers. Her son was taken
by ambulance to the hospital where she was also treated for
injuries suffered in the incident. Their medical expenses ex-
ceeded $500. When she again crossed the picket line that
night to drop off Lynch, who had accompanied her to the
hospital, pickets taunted her about being beaten and tried to
take her picture.
Gary Stevens II testified as they exited the plant he no-
ticed that the car that had been sitting at the picket line
began to follow their car. When they pulled into the Knouse
lot to let the car go by, it followed them in. The two men
in the car began calling them ‘‘scabs.’’ The driver of the car
got out and came up to the driver’s side of their car. When
Keith Jr. got out of his car and came up to his side of the
car, he opened the door. Keith Jr. pulled him out and began
yelling at him, bumping and pushing him. His mother came
to his side of the car and Keith Sr. threw her to the ground.
As he tried to go to her, Keith Jr. pulled his coat up over
his head, pushed him down and began dragging him around
the parking lot by his hair. The police arrived and subdued
both Keith Jr. and Sr. According to Gary, his mother took
out the billy club after the altercation started. He got it from
her and struck Keith Sr. with it before Keith Jr. took it away
from him and began using it on him.
Plant Manager Michael testified that on the night of March
27 he was notified about the attack on the Stevenses and
went to the plant. He drove into the parking lot and as he
got out of his car there were three or four pickets standing
by the entrance about 40 yards away. One of them said to
him, ‘‘you are next.’’
Analysis and Conclusions
The foregoing testimony was credible and, except as here-
inafter discussed, largely uncontradicted. This testimony and
the other evidence establishes that numerous incidents of
misconduct occurred at or near the picket line at the T. B.
Wood’s plant and were perpetrated by pickets. Given the na-
ture of the incidents, many of which involved large crowds
of pickets who were unfamiliar to the replacement workers
who testified about them, and the clandestine nature of some
of the pickets’ actions, it is not surprising that in some in-
stances the witnesses could not identify the perpetrators by
name or did so on the basis of hearsay evidence. Under the
circumstances, I find that these factors did not detract from
the credibility of the testimony nor do they excuse the Re-
spondent from responsibility for the pickets’ unlawful ac-
tions. Meat Cutters Local 248 (Milwaukee Meat Packers),
222 NLRB 1023, 1034 (1976).
It is undisputed that the Respondent authorized and main-
tained the picket line at the plant throughout the period dur-
ing which these incidents occurred. Having done so, it was
obligated to maintain control over it or be liable for the con-
sequences of its failure to do so. The rule is longstanding
and clear:
[W]here a union authorizes a picket line, it is required
to retain control over the picketing. If a union is unwill-
ing or unable to take the necessary steps to control its
pickets, it must bear the responsibility for their mis-
conduct. If a union authorizes a picket line without su-
pervision or control, it must bear responsibility for mis-
conduct on the picket line. If a union exercises control
and supervision on a picket line, properly disavows and
corrects misconduct, naturally such misconduct would
not appear to be pursuant to its authority. [Boilermakers
Local 696 (Kargard Co.), 196 NLRB 645, 647–648
(1972).]
In the present case, the picket line misconduct was in many
instances open, visible, and continuing and done in the pres-
ence of Union President Klenzing and/or picket line captains
who, according to Klenzing, were present on every shift.
There was a marked absence of any evidence that the Union,
its officers or agents engaged in supervision of the pickets
or took any action whatsoever to disavow or correct their
misconduct.6 By ignoring obvious and blatant misconduct,
the Respondent condoned and encouraged it. Boilermakers
1336 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7 There was testimony by Randy Zeger concerning someone who
may have followed him from the plant and yelled at him; however
the testimony fails to establish that the person actually followed him,
what was said to him or that the person was a striker. I find no vio-
lation has been established by this testimony.
Local 1 (Union Oil), 297 NLRB 524, 525 (1989); Meat Cut-
ters Local 248 (Milwaukee Meat Packers), supra at 1035.
I find that the evidence establishes that on several occa-
sions, including on June 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 25, and 26 and
on other occasions during July and September, the Respond-
ent’s pickets restrained and coerced employees exercising
rights guaranteed by Section 7 and violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by engaging in mass picketing at the
entrances to the Wood’s plant which interfered with and im-
peded employees’ ingress and/or egress, including the inci-
dent on June 11 when they prevented a worker’s vehicle
from entering by surrounding and pushing it back into the
street. Carpenters (Reeves, Inc.), 281 NLRB 493 fn. 3
(1986). The Respondent also violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
when, on some of those occasions as detailed in the credited
testimony discussed above, they attacked and inflicted dam-
age on the vehicles of nonstriking workers by climbing on,
rocking, denting and scratching them, smashing windows,
breaking off mirrors, antennas and other accessories, attempt-
ing to open vehicle doors, throwing a lighted cigarette into
a worker’s vehicle, spitting and throwing objects at vehicles
and their occupants. Lumber Workers Local 3171 (Louisiana-
Pacific), 274 NLRB 809, 814 (1985); Laborers Local 721
(Crouse Nuclear Energy Services), 256 NLRB 195, 200
(1981). These violations included throwing a sparkplug at the
vehicle of Alan Kiser on June 14, hitting the car of Paul
Emerick with an egg and a tree limb on June 22 and throw-
ing a soft drink into the car of Teresa Mickey on July 30.
While the latter two incidents occurred after the workers had
exited through the picket line and driven a short way down
the street, both were within view of the picket line, were at-
tributable to the Respondent’s pickets and were extensions of
picket line activity. Broadway Hospital, 244 NLRB 341, 349
(1979).
While the evidence does not conclusively establish the
identity of the pickets who threw nails at the plant entrances,
except for Diffenderfer on one occasion, it does establish that
nails were strewn in the entrances by pickets on numerous
occasions and that they caused considerable damage and in-
convenience to workers crossing the Union’s picket line.
These actions violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). Boilermakers
Local 1 (Union Oil), supra.
There was uncontroverted evidence that numerous pickets
carried sticks and clubs and brandished them in a threatening
manner as workers crossed the picket line. The Respondent’s
brief seems to suggest that this was justified as a defensive
measure because of an altercation at the picket line in which
a replacement worker struck picket Robert Kochert with a
hatchet. Even accepting as true Kochert’s version of the inci-
dent, that he was the victim of an unwarrantedly violent (al-
though, perhaps, not completely unprovoked) assault, there is
nothing to establish that the carrying of clubs by pickets was
a result of this incident or that such a response was reason-
able or necessary. The repeated carrying and brandishing of
these clubs was obviously intended and served to threaten
and intimidate workers who crossed the picket line. Doing so
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). Railway Carmen, Local 543
(North American Car Corp.), 248 NLRB 285 (1980).
The evidence establishes that on numerous occasions the
Respondent’s pickets gave the appearance of photographing
or videotaping the license plates and occupants of vehicles
as they crossed the picket line and that Union President
Klenzing either recorded or gave the impression that he was
recording the license plate numbers of such vehicles.
Klenzing’s alleged justification, that he was keeping track of
how many replacement workers there were or that he was re-
cording only the licenses of persons involved in ‘‘incidents
on the line,’’ was not credible and cannot serve to justify the
repeated instances of photographing and videotaping work-
ers’ vehicles. It appears the Respondent’s pickets engaged in
these activities as a means of instilling fear of retribution in
the minds of replacement workers and/or others who did not
support the strike. In so doing, the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A). Plastic Workers Union Local 18 (Grede
Plastics), 235 NLRB 363, 382–383 (1978); Dover Corp., 211
NLRB 955, 958 (1974).
I credit the testimony of James McAuliffe that on June 11
as he and another replacement worker Jim Fry were leaving
work and walking off the plant premises they were accosted
by pickets one of whom, Ted Strine, grabbed Fry by the arm,
leaving a red mark and a scratch, and had to be pulled away
by the other picket. I did not believe the self-serving testi-
mony of Strine that he merely tapped Fry on the shoulder
and was threatened with a piece of pipe. Although Strine
identified Victor Diffenderfer as the picket who was with
him, Diffenderfer was called as a witness by the Respondent
but was not asked to corroborate Strine’s version of the inci-
dent. I find this unprovoked assault violated Section
8(b)(1)(A).
The credible testimony of Celia Caldwell, Cindy Rook,
Alan Kiser, and Curtis Culbertson establishes that after leav-
ing the plant their vehicles were followed by strikers who
harassed and threatened them.7 These incidents began at and
were a direct result of their having crossed the Union’s pick-
et line. The threats and harassment directed to these workers
were similar to and an extension of those engaged in and
condoned by the Union at its picket line. I find that the Re-
spondent is responsible for these incidents and that they vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A). Meat Cutters Local 248 (Milwaukee
Meat Packers), supra at 1035; Service Employees (Our Lady
of Perpetual Hope Nursing Home), 208 NLRB 117, 121–122
(1974). While I find that the following of Culbertson was in-
tended to intimidate him and was unlawful, I do not find that
the evidence establishes that the strikers who followed him
put nails in his grandfather’s driveway. He did not see them
do so or find any nails in the driveway. His testimony is not
sufficient to establish that the damage allegedly sustained by
the vehicles came from nails in that driveway and there is
nothing to suggest that the strikers, who apparently did not
know his correct identity, would know that the driveway in
question belonged to one of his relatives. I also do not find
that the evidence establishes that Mark Brooks was followed
from the picket line by striker Greg Rosenberry. Although I
credit Brooks’ testimony that he saw Rosenberry in the vicin-
ity when he arrived at his fiance’s apartment after leaving
work, from all that appears, their encounter was a coinci-
dence. Rosenberry did not say anything to Brooks or do any-
1337AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 695 (T. B. WOOD’S)
8 In a rare instance of contradictory testimony, striker James Bee-
cher denied the threat attributed to him by nonstriker Charles Fickes.
While I have no reason to doubt Beecher’s denial, particularly in the
face of numerous violations that have gone unchallenged, I do not
find it establishes that no threat ‘‘to get’’ Fickes was made. He may
have been mistaken as to who made the threat, but I credit his testi-
mony that a threat was made by a picket and find that the Respond-
ent was responsible for the violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) occasioned
thereby.
9 I credit the testimony of Blake over by striker Robert Kochert’s
denial that he threatened Blake with ‘‘a blanket party’’ based on
their demeanor while testifying and the fact that I find it unlikely
that he would fabricate such an unusual threat. I also credit Blake’s
testimony over striker Diffenderfer’s denials as I found him to be
an untrustworthy witness who denied any wrong doing but admitted
to being banned from the picket line. Striker Barnhart did not deny
making threats to Blake. I found his testimony that he was respond-
ing to taunting by Blake lacked credibility.
thing on that occasion to threaten or harass him. I find that
this incident did not involve a violation of the Act.
The credible and and almost totally uncontradicted testi-
mony of Caldwell, Rook, Sollenberger, Eckenrode, Brooks,
Zeger, Fickes, Kiser, Robert and Jason Ranck, Hershey, and
Warnick, described above, establishes that on numerous oc-
casions replacement workers and nonstriking employees were
subjected to threats ‘‘to get’’ or ‘‘to kill’’ them and to threats
of violence against their person, families and/or property by
pickets at the Respondent’s picket line.8 These threats ranged
from the brutally specific, as in the cases of one striker’s
threats to rape Cindy Rook and another’s threat to Jeffrey
Eckenrode that he would kill Eckenrode and his family, to
the general, as in the cases of strikers who threatened ‘‘to
get’’ or beat up various workers who crossed the picket line
or told them they knew where they lived, implying, that in
addition to the abuse they underwent entering and leaving the
plant, they would be subject to more at their homes, and
from the offbeat, as in the case of the striker who told Mark
Brooks there were 25 ways to kill a man, to the inane, as
in the case of the strikers who implied that they were going
to steal James Hardy’s refrigerator. In each instance de-
scribed in the testimony workers were threatened with harm
because they sought to exercise rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act. The threats served to restrain and co-
erce them in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Similarly, I find
that that obscene remarks directed by a picket to Rook as she
crossed the picket line and the picket exposing himself to fe-
male replacement workers constituted serious misconduct and
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
Several of the complaint allegations involve threats and
acts of intimidation by strikers directed at nonemployees,
guards, and supervisors. The violent and intimidating attacks
on delivery driver Zimmerman and police officer Kriner oc-
curred at the picket line during regular working hours and
were of such a nature as to be observed or heard about by
nonstriking employees as well as the numerous strikers who
were present. Such conduct, although directed towards non-
employees, can reasonably be expected to coerce employees
who witness or hear about it and regard it as an indication
of what may befall them if the fail to support the strike.
NLRB v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 540 F.2d 1, 6 (1st
Cir. 1976); Iron Workers Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-ton), 243
NLRB 340, 346 (1979). I find this to be particularly true in
the case of the assault on the police officer, a symbol of au-
thority charged with protecting nonstriking employees in
connection with their attempts to enter the plant, since it in-
dicated a disregard not only of the Act but of criminal stat-
utes as well. This could not help but send a powerful mes-
sage to all employees, strikers as well as nonstrikers. Also
violative was the damaging of the vehicles of supervisors
Haapla and Heiser as they crossed the picket line, the threat
by a picket ‘‘to get’’ Heiser and the physical assault on Man-
agement Official Martin by a striker at the picket line. Like-
wise, the incidents in which security guard Blake was struck
in the back by an object when only pickets were present and
was threatened by pickets9 were violations of Section
8(b)(1)(A). When each of these incidents occurred there were
employees, albeit in some cases only other striking employ-
ees, present. This constituted restraint and coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Service Employees (Our
Lady of Perpetual Help Nursing Home), supra at 119; Boiler-
makers Local 696 (Kagard Co.), supra at 648. I find that the
evidence fails to establish that when any the various threats
recounted by Personnel Director Ewing were made to him
personally, they were made in the presence of other employ-
ees or that any employees learned of these threats. Accord-
ingly, I find that these threats did not constitute violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A). Plastic Workers Local 18 (Grede Plas-
tics), supra at 384. I also find that the evidence fails to estab-
lish that the Respondent was responsible for the broken door
at the plant in May 1991. The fact that at least one striker
passed by while the door was being repaired and commented
about it to the supervisor who was attempting to fix it may
be suspicious but it does not establish that a striker did the
damage or that the Respondent was involved. No evidence
was presented concerning the complaint allegation (par.
6(fff)) that in June 1991 a picket threatened ‘‘to get’’ a guard
who had summoned police and no violation has been estab-
lished.
I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Debra and Gary
Stevens concerning the assault upon them by striker Glenn
Keith Sr. and his son. Insofar as there are differences in their
versions of the incident, they appear to be the result of their
differing perspectives while being subjected to a violent at-
tack. I do not find that they cast any significant doubt on
either’s credibility. They were the victims of an attack a
short distance from the Respondent’s picket line which re-
sulted from their having crossed the line in the course of
dropping off replacement worker Richard Lynch at the plant.
That by introducing a billy club into the fight the victims
may have inadvertently caused an escalation in the degree of
violence does not change the fact they were innocent victims
of an unprovoked vicious attack. The attack was clearly in-
tended to intimidate Lynch and was of a such nature as to
become known to other employees, as evidenced by the fact
that Stevens was taunted about the attack by strikers at the
picket line a short time later. I find that the Respondent is
responsible for this assault which violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
Boilermakers Local 696 (Kagard Co.), supra at 649. I also
find that a picket’s threat to Plant Manager Michael when he
went to the plant that night that he would ‘‘be next’’ was
an obvious reference to the assault on the Stevenses. It was
made in the presence of two or three other picketing employ-
ees and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
1338 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that the evidence establishes that the Respondent is
responsible for the threats, harassment, and property damage
inflicted on replacement worker Alan Kiser by striker
Dwight Crawford and other unidentified assailants. Bricks
were thrown at and damaged Kiser’s vehicle in close prox-
imity to and immediately after it crossed the picket line. A
short time later after Kiser had returned to the plant in his
visibly damaged vehicle, Crawford threatened him with addi-
tional damage. Crawford had previously accosted and har-
assed Kiser and had voluntarily admitted to replacement
worker Richard Lynch that he had broken windows in
Lynch’s parked vehicle. I also find that the Respondent is re-
sponsible for striker Marlon Perry’s pulling his vehicle into
the path of replacement worker Robert Ranck’s motorcycle
as he drove away from the plant after crossing the picket
line. Any question I had that this was a coincidence as op-
posed to an intentional attempt to harass and/or injure a re-
placement worker was dispelled by Perry’s demeanor, his ad-
mission that he was aware that the motorcycle belonged to
a replacement worker and his cynical tale that he imme-
diately thereafter followed Ranck into the nearby Knouse
parking lot after nearly knocking him down because he ‘‘was
going to Knouse anyway’’ to get an application. I find that
this was yet another unlawful act of harassment which arose
at or near the Respondent’s picket line and which its inaction
served to encourage and condone.
D. Incidents Occurring Away From the Picket Line
Replacement worker Celia Caldwell who, as discussed
above, was followed from the picket line in early July and
threatened with a brick by a striker, testified that, in October,
a stone was thrown through a window at her home and that,
in February 1991, her car window was broken. She did not
know who was responsible for either incident.
Mark Brooks testified that in December, about 2 weeks
after he observed striker Greg Rosenberry near the apartment
complex he drove to after work, as he was leaving for work
in the early morning he found that his vehicle had been
spray-painted and that his back window was ‘‘shot out.’’ He
did not know who did the damage and to his knowledge
there were no witnesses. Brooks said that later when he
crossed the picket line, Rosenberry asked him if he enjoyed
his Christmas present. In January 1991, as Brooks crossed
the picket line one day, Rosenberry said to him, ‘‘I’d hate
to see you have to replace your windshield.’’ About 2 weeks
later, after leaving a lounge where he had spent about an
hour in the evening, he found that ‘‘somebody had taken a
shot at’’ and put a hole in the windshield of his vehicle
which was parked outside. He reported it to the police but
never learned who had done the damage. During questioning
by counsel for the Charging Party, Brooks testified to an-
other incident right after Christmas, in which another win-
dow of his vehicle was ‘‘shot out.’’ He also said that after
this damage had been repaired, as he was crossing the picket
line, Rosenberry said that he had heard that Brooks had an-
other window shot out. Rosenberry testified that he knew
who Brooks was and had heckled him at the picket line. He
said that Brooks’ vehicle had some broken windows and a
couple of times he asked if Brooks wanted to buy a window.
He denied that he had ever followed Brooks, that he knew
where Brooks lived, that he ever broke any glass on Brooks’
vehicle, that he ever told Brooks he’d hate to see him have
to replace his windshield or that he asked Brooks if he en-
joyed his Christmas present.
Replacement worker Randy Zeger, who testified con-
cerning picket line threats by Robert Melius to get Zeger and
his family, also testified that, in January 1991, when he was
living with his parents, someone shot a rifle bullet through
the front door of their home during the night. The incident
was reported to the police but he never found out who did
it. In March 1991, he discovered that someone had damaged
his truck by throwing a piece of a concrete block at it during
the night and on another occasion his tires were slit.
Replacement worker Richard Lynch testified that the rea-
son he needed a ride to work on the March 1991 night that
the Stevenses were assaulted after dropping him off at the
plant was that his own car had been disabled. Earlier in the
month, his car had stopped running and he had to leave it
in a store parking lot overnight. When he went back the next
morning, he found the windshield and two side windows had
been smashed. Some time later, he received a telephone call
from striker Dwight Crawford, who admitted doing the dam-
age, apologized and agreed to pay for the windows.
Crawford paid him $700 for the damage.
Employee Amos Neil testified that he had been off work
due to an injury when the strike started and that he went
back to work for about 6 or 8 weeks during the strike. About
a week before he returned to work, a coworker, Lee Beam,
came to see him at his home and tried to persuade him to
join the strike. About 3 weeks later, during March 1991, a
vehicle passed his house going slowly and nails were thrown
from the vehicle into his driveway. He did not see who was
driving but he recognized the vehicle as belonging to Beam,
with whom he had worked for several years and with whom
he had gone hunting, fishing, and done other things. His
home is located 17 miles from the plant. Neil also testified
that, in March 1991, he had driven into an auto parts store
parking lot and after he came out of the store his son told
him that they had been followed into the lot by Beam’s vehi-
cle. He observed Beam and Walter Klenzing Jr. sitting in the
vehicle laughing. When he left the parking lot Beam’s vehi-
cle followed for a few hundred yards before pulling away
when Neil stopped.
Replacement worker Shane Butts testified that on the
morning of June 9, 1991, a Sunday, he discovered that one
of the windows of his vehicle was broken. When he crossed
the picket line the following Wednesday with all the win-
dows of his vehicle open, striker Robert Melius asked him
if he had bought a new window yet. Butts said that he had
worked with Melius previously at a different plant and that
Melius knew where he lived because he had delivered a
pizza to Butts’ house sometime late in 1990, before Butts
started to work for T. B. Wood’s. On the following Sunday
morning, Butts found that overnight a second vehicle he
owned had been damaged. There was a hole the size of a
BB in one of the windows which had been shattered.
Replacement worker Fred Dixon testified that in June
1991, on a Sunday morning, he discovered that the rear pas-
senger side window of his car had been shot out by a pellet
gun while parked in the driveway overnight. Dixon repaired
the damaged window and the following Saturday he sat up
all night. At about 3 a.m. on Sunday morning, he observed
a blue car drive up and stop near where his car was parked.
He saw striker Marlon Perry get out of the passenger side
1339AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 695 (T. B. WOOD’S)
of the car carrying ‘‘a long gun.’’ Before Perry could do
anything, Dixon fired a shot into the air and Perry jumped
back into the car and fled. Dixon was familiar with Perry be-
cause their wives had been friends and Perry’s wife had been
to the Dixon residence.
Employee Karmon Franklin testified that he participated in
the strike for about 6 weeks before he returned to work. On
the evening of the day he went back, June 8, he received a
phone call from striker Bill Edwards who said that he did
not think that Franklin ‘‘would stab people in the back like
that.’’ Edwards also said that, while he would not do any-
thing to harm Franklin, ‘‘he knew people that would.’’
About 10:30 that same evening, the tenant in rental property
he owned reported to him that a window had been broken
at the property. He said that although he was not living in
the house, which is located in Waynesboro, it was listed in
his name in the telephone book. Employee Jada Smith testi-
fied that she participated in the strike before returning to
work in August. On the evening of June 8, Franklin had
called and informed her and her boyfriend that he had re-
turned to work that day. Later in the evening, at a bar across
from the plant, they told another employee that Franklin had
returned to work in the course of a conversation about
whether they would also go back. When they returned to
their apartment, Smith and her boyfriend were approached in
the parking lot by strikers Bob Marshall and Ronnie Liniger,
whom they invited inside. They asked if Franklin had
crossed the picket line and when they were told that he had,
Marshall was ‘‘very mad’’ and wanted to know where Frank-
lin lived because he wanted to do something to him. They
looked up Franklin’s name in the telephone book and found
an address in Waynesboro. Marshall invited Smith and her
boyfriend to accompany them but they declined. The fol-
lowing day they saw Marshall at the picket line and when
they asked if ‘‘they had done’’ Franklin’s house, Marshall
said, ‘‘yes, we got him real good.’’ There was evidence that
Marshall was a picket captain during the strike, but that he
did not become one until after he got off ‘‘sick and acci-
dent,’’ about 2 months into the strike. Marshall admitted to
going to Smith’s apartment in June and discussing the fact
that Franklin had returned to work, but he denied knowing
where Franklin lives, going to his house, threatening to dam-
age it or looking up the address in the telephone book. He
said that when he left the apartment he walked to his home
which was right down the street.
Replacement worker Paul Emerick Jr. testified that on a
night at the end of June he was sitting in his car in a parking
lot a few blocks from the plant discussing the strike with a
girlfriend. As they were talking a man walked near his car
and listened to their conversation. When the girl walked
away, the man asked him if he worked at T. B. Wood’s and
if he liked his car. When Emerick answered affirmatively,
the man said, ‘‘ if you go to work tomorrow, you and your
car will be history.’’ He has not seen the man since and does
not know if he was a striker.
Replacement worker Timothy Baker testified that, in Au-
gust, after leaving the plant on his way home in his van, he
noticed that he was being followed by a red pickup truck.
On a two-lane road, the pickup pulled along side his van and
began edging over toward him to force him off the road. At
some point he saw another vehicle coming toward them and
since it did not look like the pickup was going to yield, he
pulled off to the side of the road where he struck a rock and
damaged his van. He also suffered a concussion when he
struck his head. He did not see who was driving the pickup
but later identified Walter Klenzing Jr. from a photograph,
as the person riding in the passenger side of the pickup. He
said he has seen the pickup parked near the picket line. He
reported the incident to the state police but no action has
been taken as a result. In his testimony, Klenzing Jr. denied
being involved in the incident.
Analysis and Conclusions
None of these incidents occurred at or near the picket line
or could be said to have originated there. Although it is al-
leged that Baker was followed from the picket line, his testi-
mony was that he was ‘‘in the habit of watching’’ to make
sure he was not being followed, but he did not notice the red
pickup truck behind him until he was more than 10 miles
away from the plant. I find that the evidence fails to estab-
lish that Baker was followed from the picket line. I found
Baker’s story about the pickup causing him to leave the road
to be less than credible. I also find it strange that although
he said that he later saw the same pickup at the picket line,
he made no effort to report it to the police. Given these fac-
tors and Klenzing’s credible denial of involvement, I am un-
able to conclude that this incident was related to the strike
or to find that the Respondent was involved or responsible.
I find no basis to conclude that the Respondent has any
responsibility for the threat made to Paul Emerick. The per-
son who made the threat has not been identified as a striker
and there is nothing to connect him to the picket line or to
the Respondent.
I credit the testimony of Celia Caldwell concerning the
damage done to her house and car; however, the evidence
does not establish a sufficient nexus between those incidents,
which were remote from the picket line, and the threat made
to her by a picket more than 3 and 7 months, respectively,
before those incidents. There was no evidence to establish
who was responsible for the damage and no reasonable basis
for considering either of these incidents an extension or con-
tinuation of the incident involving the threat or attributing ei-
ther to the Respondent. I also find that the Respondent is not
responsible for the threat by striker Tom Eyer to Jeffrey
Piper that if he returned to work Eyer would damage Piper’s
vehicle. The threat was not made at or near the picket line
and there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent was
aware that the threat was made or that Eyer was acting as
its agent when he spoke to Piper. I have previously found
that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) as a result of
the more than one instance in which Eyer was responsible
for damaging vehicles as they crossed the picket line.
The credible testimony of Zeger concerning the threats by
picket Melius creates the suspicion that there is a connection
between those threats and the damage done to his house and
car and, that of Butts, creates the suspicion that Melius was
involved in the damage to his car. Similarly, the credible tes-
timony of Brooks creates a very strong suspicion that striker
Rosenberry was involved in the damage done to his car.
However, in none of these cases is there sufficient evidence
to prove that Melius or Rosenberry was the perpetrator. None
of the damage involved in the foregoing incidents can be at-
tributed to the Respondent. Massachusetts Coastal Seafoods,
1340 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
293 NLRB 496, 501 fn. 12 (1989); Lumber Workers Local
3171 (Louisiana-Pacific), supra at 815.
I find that the incident described by Neil in which he en-
countered strikers in the parking lot of the auto parts store
fails to establish that he was followed there or that the strik-
ers did anything that could be considered intimidating or oth-
erwise unlawful. I find that Neil’s testimony is sufficient to
establish that striker Lee Beam was responsible for throwing
nails in Neil’s driveway. Neil identified Beam’s vehicle as
being involved and his testimony establishes that he was fa-
miliar with the vehicle and unlikely to be mistaken about it.
Beam did not testify and Neil’s credible testimony about the
incident is uncontradicted. The credible and uncontradicted
testimony of Lynch establishes that striker Dwight Crawford
was admittedly responsible and made restitution for the dam-
age done to Lynch’s vehicle. I find, based on the credited
testimony of Dixon, that striker Marlon Perry came to his
house with a gun on a Sunday morning in June but was
scared off by Dixon before he had a chance to do anything.
I do not credit Perry’s denials. Based on their demeanor
while testifying, I found Dixon to be a believable and trust-
worthy witness and Perry to be just the opposite. Perry’s ac-
tions in coming to Dixon’s residence during the night and
displaying a weapon were intimidating and coercive. I also
find there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, given the
similar timing and the type of damage done, to conclude that
Perry was responsible for shooting out the window in Dix-
on’s vehicle on the previous Saturday night/Sunday morning.
While the evidence also creates the suspicion that Perry was
responsible for the similar damage done to Butts’ vehicle on
a Saturday night in June, it is not sufficient to establish that
as a fact. Based on the credible testimony of Jada Smith, I
find there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude
that striker Robert Marshall was responsible for the damage
done to the property of nonstriking worker Karmon Franklin
in June. The remaining question is whether the Respondent
is responsible for the actions of Beam, Crawford, Perry
and/or Marshall.
I find that the evidence establishes that, in each of these
instances, damage was done to the property of a nonstriking
employee or replacement worker because they crossed the
Respondent’s picket line or otherwise failed to support its
position with respect to the strike. However, as noted above,
none of these incidents arose at or near the picket line nor
could be considered a continuation or extension of picket line
conduct. With the exception of Marshall there was no evi-
dence that these strikers held an office with the Union or
served as a picket captain. Marshall did serve as a picket
captain after he got off sick leave and joined the strike but
that was not until after the damage was done to Franklin’s
property. While I have found that in numerous instances at
or near the picket line the Respondent encouraged and con-
doned the misconduct, the evidence fails to establish that any
officer of the Union had advance notice of any of these inci-
dents or, having learned about any, failed to disavow it. The
brief for the General Counsel points to no authority to sup-
port holding the Respondent responsible for these incidents
and the cases cited in the brief for the Charging Party are
factually distinguishable. I find that the Respondent cannot
be held to have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by reason of
these incidents. Teamsters Local 812 (Pepsi-Cola New-
burgh), 304 NLRB 111 (1991).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 695, AFL–CIO, is a labor organization with-
in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. T. B. Wood’s Sons Company is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
3. By engaging in mass picketing; interfering with ingress
and egress; placing nails in plant entrances; surrounding,
climbing on and beating on vehicles; throwing objects at and
into vehicles; damaging vehicles; swinging clubs in an in-
timidating manner; videotaping and photographing employ-
ees; videotaping, photographing and/or recording license
numbers; physically threatening and spitting at employees;
physically assaulting an employee, a supervisor, a policeman
and companions of an employee at or near the picket line;
threatening to get and to kill employees and to harm their
persons, families and property; threatening to rape, making
obscene comments and indecent exposure to female employ-
ees; following employees from the picket line; threatening
and damaging the property of supervisors, a delivery driver
and a guard in the presence of employees at or near the pick-
et line; the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent did not engage in any unfair labor
practices alleged in the consolidated complaint not specifi-
cally found herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. I find that the Respond-
ent’s unfair labor practices, which were numerous, varied and
serious and continued for an extended period, demonstrate a
proclivity to violate the Act as well as a general disregard
for employees’ fundamental statutory rights and warrant im-
position of a broad remedial order. Teamsters Local 812
(Pepsi-Cola Newburgh), supra; Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB
1357 (1979).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
The Respondent, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local 695, AFL–CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
1341AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 695 (T. B. WOOD’S)
11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of T. B. Wood’s
Sons Company in the exercise of their rights under Section
7 of the Act by engaging in mass picketing; interfering with
ingress and egress; placing nails in plant entrances; sur-
rounding, climbing on or beating on vehicles; throwing ob-
jects at or into vehicles; damaging vehicles; swinging clubs
in an intimidating manner; videotaping or photographing em-
ployees; videotaping, photographing and/or recording license
numbers; physically threatening or spitting at employees;
physically assaulting employees, their companions, super-
visors or police at or near the picket line; threatening to get
or to kill employees or to harm their persons, families or
property; threatening to rape, making obscene comments or
indecent exposure to female employees; following employees
from the picket line; threatening and damaging the property
of supervisors, delivery persons or guards in the presence of
employees at or near the picket line.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees
in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its meeting halls and offices in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appen-
dix.’’11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(b) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient cop-
ies of the notice for posting by T.B. Wood’s Sons Company,
if willing, at all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of T.B.
Wood’s Sons Company in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, by engaging
in the following activities:
1. Mass picketing; blocking ingress and egress, sur-
rounding, climbing on or beating on vehicles; throwing ob-
jects at or into vehicles; damaging vehicles; swinging clubs
in an intimidating manner; videotaping or photographing em-
ployees; and videotaping, photographing or recording license
numbers.
2. Physically threatening or spitting at employees; phys-
ically assaulting employees, their companions, supervisors or
police at or near the picket line; threatening to get or to kill
employees, or to harm their persons, families or property;
and threatening to rape, making obscene comments or inde-
cent exposure to female employees.
3. Following employees from the picket line.
4. Threatening or damaging property of supervisors, deliv-
ery persons, and guards in the presence of employees at or
near the picket line.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce em-
ployees of T. B. Wood’s Sons Company in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IM-
PLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 695,
AFL–CIO