Dover Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

DOVER CORPORATION, NORRIS DIVISION 955
Dover Corporation, Norris Division and United
Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO-CLC
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC and
Dover Corporation, Norris Division. Cases
16-CA-5224,16-CC-467, and 16-CB-780
June 25, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On December 17, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Ivar H. Peterson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Company and the Union
filed exceptions and supporting briefs, General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision and the Company filed a brief
in answer to the Union's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order only to
the extent consistent herewith.
To clarify the extent and basis of our decision we
shall briefly recite the pertinent facts. In May 1973
the Steelworkers began organizing employees at
Dover's so-called O'Bannon plant, one of three
Dover plants in the Tulsa area. The consolidated
complaint alleged that, on July 7, Company Inspec-
tor Sutterland told union adherent Clyde Waid that
he had better hope for a union victory. Otherwise,
according to Sutterland, he had been told by
Inspection Foreman Walter Rike that heads would
roll. The complaint further alleged that Rike himself
in conversations with union adherents Curry and
Thompson on July 13 and August 8, respectively,
stated that he had enough on union supporters to
have five of them discharged and that the people
pushing the Union would probably be fired if the
Union lost. All three conversations allegedly violated
Section 8(a)(1).
With respect to the Union, the consolidated
complaint alleged that by its picket line conduct
from on or about August 9 to August 20, 1973, the
Steelworkers sought to induce and encourage indi-
viduals employed by the Chief and Rose trucking
companies to engage in a strike.or refusal to handle
goods or perform services for their employers.
Furthermore, the complaint alleged that by its
conduct on August 13 and 14 the Union threatened,
coerced, and restrained supervisors of Chief and
Rose with the object of forcing or requiring Chief
and Rose to cease doing business with Dover. By the
above-described conduct the Union allegedly violat-
ed Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B), as well as Section
8(b)(1), of the Act.
Finally, the consolidated complaint alleged that the
Union violated Section 8(b)(1) of the Act by reason
of the conduct of pickets, on August 10 and
thereafter, directed against nonstriking Dover em-
ployees Myrna Hinds, Michael Jones, and Cheatam
Scott.
The facts giving rise to the 8(b)(4)(i) and ( ii)(B)
allegations of the complaint indicate that on August
9, following the Company's rejection of a written
union demand for recognition, Union Staff Repre-
sentative Carl Oldham visited company offices to
renew the demand. When Dover officials declined
further discussion, Oldham called the strike and that
same day established a picket line at the "O'Bannon"
plant. At no time were pickets established at the two
other Dover plants in the area, both of which the
Steelworkers already represented in a separate
bargaining unit.
On August 9, Herbert Clayton, a driver for the
Rose Truck Line, drove to the "O'Bannon" plant to
deliver freight. Clayton's whereabouts at the time of
the hearing were unknown and therefore the General
Counsel presented Wayne Roy, a nonstriking Dover
employee who testified to certain alleged occurrences
and conversation on that date .2
According to Roy, as he was about to unload the
Rose truck on August 9, the Rose driver stopped him
and announced that he would not make the delivery.
Roy testified that when the Rose driver started to get
back into his truck he was approached by about 10
men, some of whom were carrying picket signs and
were known by Roy to be strikers. The pickets
indicated to the Rose driver that they had taken the
keys from his truck and would not return them until
he agreed not to cross the picket line in the future.
Rose further testified that he saw pickets spread nails
under the truck's tires and heard them tell the Rose
driver that he would be handing his head to them if
he returned. After this the men threw the keys at the
driver and he left.
I The parties have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 Through inadvertence the Administrative Law Judge's Decision
indicates that the event of August 14, discussed hereafter , occurred on
August 9.
211 NLRB No. 98
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 13, James Mounce, the assistant safety
director of Chief Freight Lines, and John Ayres,
Chief's terminal manager, drove to the "O'Bannon"
plant to make a pickup. Mounce and Ayres were
called upon to drive the Chief truck because Chief's
regular drivers, who are Teamsters, had exercised
their contract right not to cross what they considered
a primary picket line at the Dover plant.
A brick and a piece of concrete were thrown at the
Chief truck while it was parked at the Dover plant.
Also, one of the pickets allegedly stood near the
truck yelling, "Boom! I just blew up your truck."
Shortly after these incidents occurred, Union Repre-
sentative Oldham in the company of several pickets
walked up to the truck while it was still parked at the
loading dock. Someone in the group asked Mounce,
"You're the first one to break our picket. Aren't you
Teamsters?" One of the other pickets who apparently
recognized Mounce and Ayres said that they were
supervisors and the pickets walked away without
further incident.
On August 14, Rose driver Clayton accompanied
by Rose's terminal manager, Clyde Buckner, drove
to the Dover plant to make a pickup. When Clayton
and Buckner crossed the picket line pickets called
out epithets and later an unidentified person or
persons did about $25 worth of damage to the Rose
truck while it was parked on the Dover premises.
Buckner subsequently complained to Dover officials
about plant security and indicated his unwillingness
to make future pickups and deliveries unless condi-
tions improved.
With respect to the 8(b)(1) charges, the complaint
alleged that on August 10 pickets questioned non-
striking Dover employee Myrna Hinds as she crossed
the picket line and told her that they knew her
husband belonged to a union. One of the pickets
intimated that her husband's union might take some
action if they found out she was crossing a picket
line. Mrs. Hinds was disturbed by this suggestion and
returned home to discuss the matter with her
husband who told her he did not believe his union
would be concerned. Mrs. Hinds' husband thereafter
escorted her across the picket line. On a later
occasion picket Clyde Waid took pictures of Mrs.
Hinds and her husband crossing the line and another
picket appeared to be taking down the license
number of their car.
Also on August 10, nonstriking Dover employee
Mike Jones was allegedly warned as he crossed the
picket line that he had better move his motorcycle or
it would not be in the same shape as when he left it.
He was subsequently cursed by pickets and someone
threw coffee on him as he entered the plant. On
leaving work that day Jones discovered that his
motorcycle tires had been slashed.
Finally, pickets Charlie Thompson and Frank
Roden allegedly followed nonstriking employee
Cheatam Scott to his car after he left work on August
10. Thompson and Scott engaged in a heated
conversation during which Thompson threatened to
assault Scott because in Thompson 's eyes Scott had
let him down by not joining the strike . The exchange
between the two ended with Thompson telling Scott,
"We'll be back to talk to you." Prior to his
conversation with Thompson , Scott told Union
Representative Oldham that the Union had no right
to call the strike and that he would not join it.
On the day after his argument with Thompson,
Scott found that his front porch had been splattered
with paint from a paint bomb made out of a light
bulb. Several days later, on August 15, Scott's car
mysteriously blew up in his garage.
With respect to the allegations of the consolidated
complaint as detailed above , the Administrative Law
Judge found the three conversations , involving union
adherents Curry, Thompson , and Waid on the one
hand and Sutterfield and Rike on the other , violative
of Section 8(a)(1).
Apparently on the basis of Union Representative
Oldham's presence during or just after alleged acts of
picket misconduct , the Administrative Law Judge
concluded that the Union could be held liable for the
conduct of pickets at the struck plant . Having found
that the activities of pickets against drivers and
supervisory personnel of the Rose and Chief truck
companies attempting to cross the picket lines
constituted illegal secondary pressure, he reasoned
that the Union by such activities violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
Moreover, the Administrative Law Judge found the
damage done to employee Jones' tires and employee
Scott's home and car was attributable to the strikers
and hence to the Union. Accordingly, he found that
the Union had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) as alleged.
Turning first to the allegations of union unfair
labor practices , we have considered the Union's
general defense that nothing in the record evidences
union authorization of unlawful conduct by pickets
and therefore the Union cannot be held liable for
such conduct . We disagree.
In support of its contention that it should not be
held liable for picket misconduct , the Union noted
that its only authorized agent, Carl Oldham, was
absent from the picket line for long periods of time
and in fact arrived at the struck plant only after some
of the incidents alleged in the complaint , including,
for example , the rock and concrete throwing incident
involving the Chief truck on August 13, had taken
place.
The short answer to the Union 's contention in this
regard is to point out that Oldham was actually
DOVER CORPORATION, NORRIS DIVISION 957
present during some misconduct. For example, the
Administrative Law Judge found that Oldham, in the
company of pickets Thompson, Waid, and Curry,
was present on August 10, during the several
incidents of alleged harassment and coercion direct-
ed against nonstriking employee Mike Jones. These
incidents included threats by Waid and Curry, as
well as the throwing of coffee on Jones by an
unidentified person as Jones sought to enter the
plant.
Nothing in the record indicates that Union Agent
Oldham did anything to restrain, reprimand, or
discipline any picket in connection with these
incidents. In fact it does not appear that Oldham
initiated any measures calculated to curtail or
prevent further misconduct, even though he was
aware that a state court had issued a temporary
restraining order against picket misconduct on
August 10 and citations for contempt of the order on
August 13.3 Furthermore, pickets Thompson and
Waid (both of whom were repeatedly involved in
incidents of alleged misconduct including the pic-
turetaking of employee Hinds and her husband, the
August 9 incident involving the Rose truck, and the
threats to employees Jones and Scott) were promi-
nent in the Union's organizing campaign and on the
picket line, and both were present on August 10
when Union Agent Oldham by his silence and
inaction in effect condoned picket misconduct.
As for the substance of the 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B)
violations found by the Administrative Law Judge,
we note at the outset that he failed to advance a
specific rationale for his findings other than the
conclusionary observation that an object of the
Union's picketing at the Dover plant was to
"enmesh" Rose and Chief employees and to cause
them to refuse to make their regular pickups and
deliveries. The Administrative Law Judge was
apparently persuaded that the abusive language and
threats directed at Rose and Chief employees and the
damage done to their trucks while at the Dover
3 It is well settled that when misconduct takes place in the presence of a
union agent who does nothing to disavow it or to discipline the offenders,
the union assumes responsibility for the conduct. Food Stores Employees
Union, Local 347 (Davis Wholesale Co., Inc.), 165 NLRB 264, In. 1; Local
918, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America (Tale-Lord Manufacturing Co., Inc.), 206 NLRB No. 102.
Although in cases where there has been only an isolated instance of
misconduct , the presence or absence of a union agent may be crucial on the
issue of union liability , when , as here, there have been repeated incidents of
alleged misconduct, some of which has been observed by a union agent, the
union cannot be heard to plead its lack of knowledge or participation. In
fact in instances where there have been repeated outbreaks of misconduct
not participated in or even observed by the union but the union has failed to
take steps to halt further outbreaks of such misconduct , union liability has
been found . Teamsters, Local 783 (Coca-Cola Bottling Company of
Louisville), 160 NLRB 1776. In this regard we note , contrary to the Union's
contention , that the unexplained and extended absence of the union agent
charged with overseeing the picket line from the picket line, after he has
reason to believe misconduct has occurred and may occur again, may itself
premises was sufficient to bring the Union's conduct
within the prohibitions of Section 8(b)(4).4 We
disagree.
It would indeed be remarkable if a union in
establishing a picket line at the premises of an
employer with whom it had a primary dispute did
not have as an expectation and object the halting of
regular pickups and deliveries by "neutral" employ-
ers. In short, the primary strike is aimed at applying
pressure by stopping the struck employer's day-to-
day operations. Just as clearly the fact that employ-
ees of "neutrals" honor the picket line and refuse to
pick up or deliver cannot by itself transform lawful
primary picketing into unlawful secondary conduct.
Such is precisely the import of the proviso to Section
8(b)(4) as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Local
761, International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO [General Electric Com-
pany] v. N.L.R.B., 366 U.S. 667 (1961).
Nor is it relevant in the context of an alleged
8(b)(4) violation that primary picketing may be
accompanied by violence. As the Supreme Court
pointed out in United Steelworkers of America
[Carrier Corp.] v. N.L.R.B., 376 U.S. 492, 509 (1964):
"[T]he legality of violent picketing must be deter-
mined under other sections of the statute or under
state law." Since in the instant case it is evident that
all picketing occurred at the premises of the struck
Employer and that the attention of the union pickets
was directed toward Rose and Chief employees only
as they attempted to cross the primary picket line to
make their regular pickups and deliveries, no
violation of Section 8(b)(4) has been made out.5
In addition to his findings with respect to the
8(b)(4) allegations, as indicated before, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge found that the Union violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) by threatening and coercing
nonstriking company employees who crossed the
picket line, and that the Company violated Section
8(a)(1) by statements made to certain employees by a
company supervisor.
be reason to draw the inference of union culpability.
4 The Administrative Law Judge failed to make specific findings with
respect to the allegation that the conduct of union pickets with regard to the
employees and trucks of the Rose and Chief companies was violative of Sec.
8(b)(l) as well as Sec. 8(bX4) of the Act. In view of the testimony of
employee Roy we find the August 9 conduct of union pickets violative of
Sec. 8(bxl). As for the incidents of vandalism and other alleged misconduct
on August 13 and 14 , however, we find the evidence of picket responsibility
at best is meager . Accordingly, and inasmuch as findings of violations as to
these incidents would be merely cumulative , we find it unnecessary to make
conclusory findings in this regard.
S This case is clearly distinguishable from Teamsters Local 695
(Wisconsin Supply Corp.), 204 NLRB No. 139, wherein the Board found the
union to have violated Sec. 8 (bX4) by its conduct in following up its
demands on neutrals to cease doing business with the struck employer by
damaging trucks and equipment belonging to the neutrals on the neutral's
premises . Compare , Puerto Rico Newspaper Guilr4 Local 225 (El Mundo,
Inc.), 201 NLRB 423.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Apparently through inadvertence the Administra-
tive Law Judge failed to find specifically that the
occurrences of August 10, and thereafter relating to
the attempt of nonstriking employee Hinds to report
to work, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A). As previously
described, these incidents included the questioning of
Mrs. Hinds by pickets with regard to the union
affiliation of her husband, as well as the intimation
by pickets (one of whom was known by Mrs. Hinds
to have relatives in her husband's union) that his
union might react adversely to her conduct in
crossing the picket line. Shortly thereafter a picket
photographed Mrs. Hinds and her husband as he
escorted her through the picket line and a picket
appeared to be taking down the license number of
their car. We conclude that the questioning of Mrs.
Hinds, coupled with the picturetaking and license
notation, was calculated to instill in Mrs. Hinds'
mind a fear of retribution because of her refusal to
join the strike. Accordingly, we find such conduct
violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Cf. Cleveland Local
No. 24-P, Lithographers and Photoengravers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO (Akron Engraving Company,
Inc.), 160 NLRB 949.
We also find, as did the Administrative Law Judge,
that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) with
respect to the August 10 incidents involving Mike
Jones. As discussed previously, Union Agent Old-
ham was present during most of the exchanges
between Jones and the pickets and was across the
street , but not more than 15 feet distant, when
someone threw coffee on Jones.6 We also agree with
the Administrative Law Judge that the Union may be
held liable for the damage done to Jones' motorcycle.
With respect to this finding we note that Jones was
specifically warned by striker Clyde Waid that he
had better move his motorcycle or he would not find
it "in the same shape" as when he left it. Union
Agent Oldham was standing nearby when Waid
issued this warning. After work that day Jones
walked to the employee lot across the street from the
plant where he discovered that the motorcycle tires
had been slashed.
Apparently based on the absence of direct evidence
of the identity of the person or persons responsible
for the misconduct, the Union contends that the
finding of striker responsibility for this act should
not be sustained. In view of the strong circumstantial
evidence of striker culpability, however, we are
satisfied that the Administrative Law Judge's finding
is warranted.? In this regard we note the concomitant
6 From the record it appears that only union pickets were in the vicinity
when coffee was thrown on Jones. At the time Jones was still carrying on an
exchange with Oldham who was seeking to dissuade him from going to
work.
r Compare, Teamsters Local 695 (Wisconsin Supply Corporation), 204
NLRB No. 139.
uttering of the warning or threat of damage to the
motorcycle and the occurrence of the damage, the
proximity of the parking lot to the picket line, the
fact that this misconduct was similar in kind to other
acts of vandalism charged against strikers, and
finally the fact that Jones was himself the target of
repeated picket abuse. Consistent with our earlier
discussion of the basis on which the Union may be
held responsible for the misconduct of pickets, we
conclude that the Steelworkers violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) by this and the other coercive acts
directed against employee Jones.
On the other hand, we do not agree with the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that the strikers
and hence the Union can be held responsible for
throwing paint on employee Cheatam Scott's porch
on August 11 and for blowing up his car on August
15. Both of these incidents were remote from the
picket line and, although Scott was involved in a
dispute with union picket Thompson on August 10,
they were unrelated to any specific threat made at
that time or thereafter. Furthermore, there was no
other probative evidence introduced at the hearing to
link any picket to either event and, insofar at least as
the damage to Scott's car is concerned, it is not
altogether clear on this record that the damage was
not the result of an accidental explosion.8
As for the initial confrontation between Thompson
and Scott on August 10, however, we conclude that
Thompson's conduct on this occasion was coercive
and we find it violative of Section 8(b)(1). The
evidence with respect to this incident is that
Thompson, accompanied by another striker, ap-
proached Scott as the latter walked to his car after
work. Thompson asked Scott what he was doing at
the plant. When Scott replied that he was working
and that the Union had no right to call the strike,
Thompson accused Scott of having let him down
(Thompson had solicited Scott's signature for the
Union during the campaign) and threatened Scott
with a physical beating. As Scott entered his car
Thompson and the second striker, Frank Roden,
shouted at him and Thompson said, "We'll be back
to talk to you." The responsibility of the Union for
Thompson's threats is established by the evidence
that earlier on August 10 Thompson had been
present during picket misconduct directed against
another nonstriker, Jones, and had witnessed Union
Agent Oldham's condonation by silence of such
misconduct.
We also agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
8 Even were it shown that the explosion was not accidental, in an
instance as here where the particular violent act differs so dramatically in
kind and degree from the acts of misconduct otherwise proven against the
Union, absent some independent evidence we are extremely reluctant to
draw an inference of union liability.
DOVER CORPORATION, NORRIS DIVISION 959
finding that the conversations between Foreman
Rike and union adherents Curry on July 13 and
Thompson on August 8 were violative of Section
8(a)(1).9 Although our colleague chooses to charac-
terize Rike as a "minor" supervisor lacking any
authority over the employees who were the targets of
his threats, the evidence is plainly otherwise. Thus,
for example, Rike himself did not disagree with
Curry's assertion that all employee work required
Rike's "OK." Nor was it controverted that inspectors
under Rike's control could require employees to redo
their work to the inspector's satisfaction. Conse-
quently, it is not difficult to understand why
employees might well be apprehensive about arous-
ing Rike's enmity. As for the Company's supposed
attempt to counteract the effects of Rike's coercive
statements , this consisted of little more than some
general bromides by the Company's counsel about
the Company's aims and good intentions. It is
significant that Rike was never himself disciplined or
rebuked because of his statements.
We find no probative evidence in the record,
however, to support the Administrative Law Judge's
finding of a violation of Section 8(a)(1) predicated on
an alleged remark by Company Supervisor Rike to
employee Clyde Waid. The record in fact shows only
Waid's testimony concerning an alleged statement by
employee Sutterfield to Waid to the effect that
Sutterfield understood that Rike had said that if the
Union did not get in some heads would roll. At the
hearing the Administrative Law Judge assured
counsel for the Company that, in view of the hearsay
nature of Waid's testimony, under no circumstances
would he make that testimony the basis for an unfair
labor practice finding. Despite his assurances the
Administrative Law Judge inexplicably and errone-
ously found the violation.
Finally, we find merit in the Company's exception
to that part of the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order requiring Dover to post remedi-
al notices at all its plants in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The
record here indicates that the Company's misconduct
was not pervasive and occurred only at the struck
Rockford Street plant. Furthermore, there was no
evidence that employees at the Company's other two
9 Chairman Miller cannot agree with his colleagues ' finding that the
Company violated Sec. 8 (a)(1) of the Act by remarks made by a minor
supervisor . The supervisor, Rike, allegedly threatened two employees Curry
and Thompson, with discharge for union activities . However, Rike did not
supervise these two employees and apparently had no authority to either
discharge them or recommend their discharges . The Company had no
knowledge , or any obligation to know, that the remarks were made.
Moreover, it had made every effort to inform employees that the Company
would protect their right to campaign for the Union. Indeed , prior to the
events in question , upon hearing rumors that the Union felt some employees
had been threatened , the Company made a full investigation . In spite of the
fact that supervisors denied threatening employees, the Company contacted
individual employees , including Curry and Thompson, and specifically
informed them that the Company would protect their rights to engage in
plants in Tulsa, who are already represented by the
Steelworkers in a separate bargaining unit, were in
any way affected by that misconduct. Accordingly,
we shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's
Order so as to require the posting of remedial notices
only at the Company's Rockford Street plant.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that:
A. Respondent, Dover Corporation, Norris Divi-
sion, Tulsa, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively warning employees that if the Union
was successful in its organizational program a
substantial number of union adherents would be
dismissed.
(b) Coercively warning employees that if they
continue their union activity the Respondent pos-
sessed sufficient grounds for discharging them.
(c) In any other like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at its plant at 400 South Rockford Street in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 10 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
16, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent Company has taken to
comply herewith.
union activity . In addition, notices were posted on the bulletin boards
informing all employees of their legal right to campaign for or against the
Union and that supervisors had been instructed not to interfere with these
rights. In these circumstances , Chairman Miller cannot infer that employees
would assume that Rike was either speaking for the Company or in a
position to carry out the threats that he made . Accordingly, he would not
find the Company responsible for this minor supervisor 's remarks, made
outside the scope of his apparent authority , and would dismiss the
complaint in Case 16 -CA-5224.
10 In the event that 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."
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Respondent, United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO-CLC, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner threaten-
ing, coercing, or restraining employees of Dover
Corporation, Norris Division, or of Rose Truck
Lines, in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B" 11 to each of its members and post
copies thereof at its business office and meeting hall
in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 16,
after being duly signed by the Union's official
representative shall, immediately upon receipt there-
of, be mailed to each member, posted and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspic-
uous places, including all places where notices to its
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that such notice is not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice to
the Regional Director for Region 16 for posting by
Dover at all locations where notices to employees are
customarily posted, if said company is willing to do
so.
(c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
11 See In. 10, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
WE WILL NOT coercively warn employees that if
the Union is successful in its organizational
program a substantial number of adherents of the
Union will be dismissed.
WE WILL NOT coercively warn employees that if
they continue their activity in behalf of the Union
we have sufficient grounds for discharging them.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
DOVER CORPORATION,
NORRIS DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 8A24,
819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 817-334-2921.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT in any manner threaten, restrain,
or coerce employees of Dover Corporation,
Norris Division, or of Rose Truck Lines, in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO-CLC
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 8A24,
819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele-
phone 817-334-2921.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IvAR H. PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge: I heard
this case in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on October 9, 10, and 11,
1973, based on charges, as amended , filed by United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein referred
to as the Union , against Dover Corporation, Norris
Division (16-CA-5224), consolidated with two other cases,
filed against the Union by the Company (l6-CC-467 and
16-CB-780). In substance , the consolidated complaint
DOVER CORPORATION, NORRIS DIVISION
alleged that the Company , by the actions of Walter Rike,
inspection foreman and an agent of the Company , warned
employees that if the Union were successful in its
organizational campaign a substantial number of union
adherents would be dismissed and that Rike also, on
August 8 , warned employees that if they continued their
union activity he possessed sufficient grounds for their
discharge . In addition , the complaint alleged that Chief
Freight Lines Co ., Inc., herein called Chief , and J . H. Rose
Truck Lines , Inc., herein called Rose , both motor freight
lines which made pickups and deliveries at the Company's
plant, were coerced , threatened, and restrained on or about
August 9 to 20, by officers , agents , and representatives of
the Union by means of picketing , requests, appeals, orders,
instructions , and other means to induce and encourage
individuals employed by the foregoing employers to
engage in a strike or refusal to transport or otherwise
handle goods or commodities or to perform services for
their respective employers.
The complaint further alleged that on August 13 and 14,
the Union , by its officers, agents , and representatives,
threatened, coerced , and restrained Mounce (a supervisor
of Chief) and Buckner (a supervisor of Rose), and other
persons engaged in commerce, by threatening them with
harm to their persons or equipment if they continued to do
business at the Company's plant. These activities, so the
complaint alleged , were engaged in, in order to force or
require Chief and Rose and other employers to cease doing
business with the Company or other persons. Finally, the
complaint alleged that commencing on or about August 9
and continuing through August 13, the Union, by its
officers and agents and representatives , restrained and
coerced employees of the Company in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights by various specified forms of conduct.
With respect to the Company , the complaint alleged that
the Company 's activities were violative of Section 8(a)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the acts of the
Union , described in the complaint , were violative of
Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
In its answer , duly filed on September 21, Dover moved
that the cases be severed and that insofar as the employer
was concerned they be dismissed. I denied the motions.
The Union , in its answer, admitted certain jurisdictional
allegations but denied those concerning unfair labor
practices on its part.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case , including
my observation of the witnesses as they testified and a
careful consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for all
parties on or about October 10, and a reply brief filed by
the Company on December 6, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Company, an Oklahoma corporation , maintains a
plant in Tulsa where it is engaged in the manufacture of oil
field equipment . The Company admits and I find that in
the past year it sold and distributed from its Tulsa plant
products valued in excess of $50,000, which products were
shipped to states other than the State of Oklahoma, and
that it is accordingly engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I further find
961
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Union began an organizational campaign at the
Tulsa plant sometime in May. Edwin Bechtold, in charge
of manufacturing, testified that he was familiar with prior
organizational activities at the plant and that he first
became aware of the current organizational activity around
the first of July. After picketing began Bechtold on several
occasions met with the supervisors "pointing out what they
could and couldn't do during this period of time."
Sometime early in August, the Union demanded recogni-
tion and the employer replied, suggesting that the Union
file an election petition . On August 9, Carl Oldham, the
union organizer, came to the plant in an attempt to see the
chief executive officer , Vice President Bechtold . Prior to
that time Oldham had received approval for a recognition-
al strike . Oldham, in company with several plant employ-
ees, sought to see Bechtold but the latter sent word that the
employees should follow the customary grievance proce-
dure and that Oldham should contact the attorneys for the
Company. After a relatively brief exchange , Oldham stated
"consider yourself struck," and he and the group of
employees with him walked out. They then proceeded to
make picket signs and began picketing at the various
entrances to the building . According to Oldham, he
instructed pickets "not to interfere with any trucks that
were coming in or going out, any employees coming in or
going out . They did have a right to talk to the people. They
didn't have to be a bunch of mummies."
It was during the period from about August 9 to 21 that
the Company allegedly engaged in several violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and that the Union engaged in
violations of Section 8(b)(1)(a) and 8(b)(4)(i ) and (ii)(B). So
far as appears from the record, all allegedly illegal activity
by either the Company or the Union ceased on or about
August 21.
B. Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) by
Company
James Curry, an employee who had worked as a turret
lathe operator for the Company for approximately 4 years,
testified that Walter Rike , a supervisor , spoke to him on
August 8, stating that "the people who are pushing the
Union, work for the Union, would probably be fired if the
Union failed to get in." I infer that what Rike meant by
this remark was that if in fact the Union became the
exclusive representative of the employees it would be in a
position to protect them from any disciplinary action by
reason of their union activity . Curry wore Union buttons
on his work shirt and testified that he actively engaged in
passing out literature and in talking to employees when he
had an opportunity. Rike was present one day when Curry
was passing out union literature during the lunch hour. On
that occasion, so Curry testified, Plant Superintendent
William Uto was present and told Curry and another
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee that they were not allowed to pass out union
literature on company property.
Charles Thompson , an employee who had worked for
the Company about 6 years, and who at the time of the
hearing was an automatic turret lathe operator , testified
that Rike was the supervisor over the inspection depart-
ment . According to Thompson , he had a conversation with
Rike on or about July 13. Rike, holding a document
purporting to be a Norris contract in his hand , made the
following remarks : "I don't see why you guys want a union
in here , because you have better benefits and wages than
the Norris plant does ." Later that afternoon , according to
Thompson , Rike said , "if you guys are going to play this
way, I have enough on five of you to get you discharged for
union activities ." Thompson had won union buttons and
had attended union meetings . Rike , so Thompson related,
had engaged Thompson in conversations concerning the
Union and had stated on one occasion that if the Union
came in it would be easier on him (Bike).
Clyde Waid, also a turret lathe operator the past 4 1/2
years , testified that when employees began exhibiting
interest in the Union he "vocally supported the Union,
wore campaign buttons [ and ] . . . put campaign stickers
on my tool box and on my automobile ." He also solicited
employees to sign union cards . Waid testified that he
solicited an employee named Sam Johnson in the presence
of Rike . According to Waid , Rike has four or five persons
directly under his control.
Mike Jones, an employee , testified that when he drove
up to the plant on his motorcycle on the morning of
August 10, to go to work , he was approached by Waid and
another employee . Waid, so Jones testified , stated that "if I
was planning on crossing the picket line" he had "better
move that . . . motorcycle if I wanted it in the same shape
it was, when I came back out." Oldham was present
throughout this conversation. Jones did move his motorcy-
cle and , as he crossed the street to enter the plant , Oldham
asked him if he was going in . When Jones replied in the
affirmative , Oldham stated , "You are making a mistake."
As Jones proceeded into the building, someone threw
coffee on him . Later in the day of August 10, Jones went
out on his lunch break and, when he returned, Oldham and
several pickets in his company , came to the plant entrance
and Waid blocked Jones' access to the door . When Jones
reached around Waid to open the door, Waid said, "You
had better leave that god damn helmet on if you know
what's good for you."' Curry, another picket , joined the
group and told Jones , "If you go through that door, you
are not coming back out of it again."
It should be observed that Oldham , Thompson, Waid,
and Curry were all placed at the scene during this incident.
And, more significantly, none of these refuted the
testimony of Jones.
When Jones left the plant that day, he discovered that his
motorcycle was definitely not in the same shape it was
when he parked it. The front and back tires had been
slashed . This damage to the tires cost Jones almost $50 and
he had to replace both tires on the motorcycle , which he
did not own but had borrowed from a friend. As a result of
this incident , Jones decided to stop working for the
Company, stating that he "got tired of being harassed and
cussed and coffee thrown on me."
About a half hour after the incident involving Jones,
Myrna Hinds, a nonstriker , was confronted by Oldham
and a group of strikers as she attempted to cross the picket
line. Oldham asked her if she was going to cross the line
and, when she answered in the affirmative , one of the
pickets asked her if her husband was a union member.
Hinds said that he was and one of the pickets , then asked
her what her husband's union would think about her
crossing the picket line. Hinds , somewhat apprehensive as
to what might happen in regard to her husband, went to
her supervisor and asked if her crossing the picket line
would affect her husband's job security . Her foreman took
her to Bechtold, who gave her permission to go home and
check with her husband on the matter . When she reached
home, her husband assured her that he did not think that
his union would take any action against him if she crossed
the picket line. Thereafter , Hinds' husband brought her to
work every morning . On one occasion , Waid took pictures
of Hinds and her husband as they drove up to the plant
and, as Hinds' husband left a picket stepped out behind the
truck and appeared to be taking down the license number
of the vehicle.
Later on August 10, following the incidents involving
Jones and Hinds , Thompson and another picket, Frank
Roden, followed nonstriker Cheatam Scott to his car.
Thompson told Scott, who had signed a union card, that he
had let the Union down by working. When Scott denied
this, Thompson threatened to "whip my ... ass." As Scott
started to drive away in his car, Thompson and Roden
began yelling at him and stated that they would be by to
talk to him later . The following morning, Scott found that
his house had been splattered with paint from a paint
bomb made out of a light bulb .2 On or about August 15,
some unidentified persons again visited Scott 's house. On
this occasion , his automobile was blown out of the garage
and totally damaged ; the damage to the garage was
approximately $800. Scott had no insurance on his
automobile . He discussed this incident with a neighbor,
who stated that she ran to the door when she heard the
blast and observed a car matching the description of
Thompson's automobile speeding away. Earlier, she had
seen several white men (she and Scott are black) around
Scott's house.
Waid further testified that, on July 7, he had a
conversation with Dallas Sutterfield , an inspector directly
under Rike's supervision . Waid was "running the automat-
ic" that day, inasmuch as the regular operator was on
vacation . A fellow employee, one Leon , "was questioning
me as to certain aspects of union membership ," and Waid
..was yelling them [the answers ] back" while Sutterfield
was in the area . According to Waid , Sutterfield "told me
that I had better hope that the Union got in , because if it
didn't, Walter Rike had told him that there were going to
be some heads rolling ." According to Waid, in his
conversation with Leon he alluded to a pension plan,
insurance , pay rates, and the fact that employees did not
I At that time Jones was wearing his motorcycle helmet.
2 It should here be observed that about 2 days before these incidents operations and that he (Scott) would not join in any picketing.
Scott had told Oldham that a strike would have no effect on plant
DOVER CORPORATION, NORRIS DIVISION
get time-and-a-half for overtime on the dual machine
operation.
Waid testified that on July 20, shortly after noon,
Attorney Mathias and Mr. Uto told Waid that no
disciplinary action would be taken against him for
engaging in union activity.
C. The Alleged Intimidatory Conduct and
Secondary Boycott Activity
Clyde Buckner, the terminal manager of Rose in the
Tulsa area, testified that on August 9, he and a Rose
employee named Herbert Clayton, a city pickup/delivery
driver, went to the Company's plant to pick up and deliver
some freight. According to Buckner, he and the driver
backed into the loading dock and loaded the freight.
During that time, about four men were standing around
their truck and "hollering at us," calling them "scabs," and
they also asked if Rose was paying for their insurance. On
this occasion, the left rear tail lights were cut and the right
front hydraulic brake line was put out of commission, but
Buckner did not see who was responsible for these
incidents. Also, a nail had been placed in the tread of one
of the truck' s rear tires . After the brake line had been
severed, the truck was "cautiously" moved off the street in
order to repair the brake line. Buckner testified that as he
opened the door on the passengers' side to remove a clip
board, he discovered that a burning cigarette underneath
the clip board had burned a hole in the seat. He testified
that the cost of repairing the truck was $21.66.3 After this
pickup, no additional pickups were made by Rose from the
Company's plant. Buckner testified that he had com-
plained to a representative of the Company that additional
security was needed at the Rockford plant, stating that he
did not wish to make further pickups and deliveries under
existing circumstances . According to Bechtold, in view of
Buckner's inability to guarantee that the same "sort of
thing" would not happen in the future, new shipping
arrangements were made. Thereafter, during the strike
period, major shipments were made through other freight
lines which included the rerouting of shipments in order to
use the Chief line.
The first delivery took place on August 13. This pickup
was handled by two employees of Chief, namely, James
Mounce, the assistant safety director, and John Ayres, the
terminal manager , inasmuch as the regular drivers had
refused to go to Chief's plant and make pickups because
they had been advised that a picket line was there. When
Mounce and Ayers arrived at the plant at about 4 o'clock,
they found that another truck was occupying the space
where the pickup was to be made. At about 4:30, the truck
was placed at the loading dock and, shortly thereafter,
Oldham drove up in a car, walked across the street to
where the loading was in progress and held a conference
with about 10 pickets. Oldham stated to Mounce, "you're
the first one to break our picket, aren't you Teamsters?" At
that time, other pickets identified Mounce and Ayers as
supervisors. The Chief pickup truck was at the plant
something more than an hour, and during that time a brick
3 Buckner testified that on an earlier occasion Clayton went out to
deliver some freight, and that as he backed into the dock a "couple of men"
came up and told him that they were on strike and that he should not
%3
was thrown at the truck but missed and a sizeable concrete
chunk was also thrown and struck the truck. According to
Mounce, the strikers kept hollering "boom" and that on
one occasion a striker said, "Boom, I just blew your truck
f,
UP.
Although Oldham was in the vicinity, there is no
evidence that he disapproved of or objected to the conduct
of the strikers. Employee Wayne Ray testified concerning
the conversation during the first attempt by Rose to make
a delivery, as he had been assigned by the Company to
unload the truck. He identified Thompson as being on the
picket line. No unloading occurred, apparently due to the
confusion on the picket line and the interference on the
part of the pickets. After making some effort to unload,
Clayton stated that he would come back later that evening,
and testified that about half of the pickets carried picket
signs . According to Ray, Clayton got out of the truck and
went into the plant. Strikers stood around him and, as Ray
testified, they were "trying to get him not to come in." He
also testified that the keys were taken from the Rose truck
and that the strikers would not let Clayton have them back
as he prepared to get into his truck. The strikers, according
to Ray, told the driver that they would give him his keys if
he would not come back. On cross-examination, the driver
was told by the pickets "that they would hand his head
back to him next time, if he came."
In the conversation between Rike and Thompson
"something was said about taking a page off of the bulletin
board that was the original page" from the Company's
"blue book." Thompson asked why Rike had removed the
page and Rike replied that he had taken it down because in
addition to the original printing there was some hand
writing on the page, in somewhat vulgar language.
According to Rike, nothing could be posted on the bulletin
board by employees without prior authorization. Rike
denied that Thompson told him that he was violating the
law by showing him the contract book, or that Rike told
Thompson that he had enough on five employees to have
them discharged for union activities.
Rike related that Thompson, Curry, and Waid had been
active in prior union campaigns, and that he had learned of
the activity of Curry and Waid from their testimony at the
present hearing. He denied that he had ever told any
employee that he had enough on five employees to
terminate them for union activity. Rike denied that he had
ever told Sutterfield or anyone else that if the Union got in
heads would roll. He did testify, however, that he
frequently made a "joke" to the effect that "if the Union
comes in, my job will be easier," because, being a working
foreman, if the Union came in it would not allow the
foreman to perform production work. Rike denied that he
had observed Waid solicit employee Johnson.
Assistant Plant Superintendent Uto, who had occupied
that position for some 18 or 20 months, had previously
been employed as a shop foreman in the machine shop for
some 2 1/2 years. In June of the current year Uto attended
a seminar at the Tulsa Junior College for some 5 weeks
dealing with labor relations problems, and he testified that
deliver the freight . Clayton left with the freight and brought it back to
Rose's yard.
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he had been involved in two union campaigns while
employed by the Company. He identified the bulletin that
he had posted, stating he first saw it around the middle of
August. About July 20, it came to his attention that
representatives of the Union had alleged that certain
supervisors of the Company had been engaging in unfair
labor practices. He was informed of this by Mr. Bechtold
and the Company's attorney, Mrs. Matthies. Upon
receiving this information, he went down to the plant and
asked one John Wilkins, an employee, if he would come up
to Mr. Bechtold's office. Uto went to Wilkins because he
had been informed that Wilkins was "one of the people
that felt like that he had been threatened." Wilkins told
Uto that he would not come unless the union representa-
tive was present at that meeting.
During the meeting, Mrs. Matthies told the approximate-
ly five employees that she had heard that they had felt that
they had been threatened by company supervisors and that
she wished to assure them that this was no "doing of the
Company and that they would take action on this if it were
true , and that they assured them that they had a right to
organize and could not be interfered with for trying to
organize , could not be fired from the Company for this."
Uto testified that on August 9, between the hours of
11:30 and 12:30, he was at the Rockford plant site . During
that time he had occasion to see Oldham at about 12:15 in
the office lobby. About 12:15 Uto was in Mr. Bechtold's
office when an office employee, Al Dunn, knocked on the
door. Dunn stated that "there's a group of Union people in
the lobby," and Mr. Bechtold called the Company
Attorney. Uto went down to the lobby, introduced himself
and told the employees "if you have problems, . . . I
suggest you take it through proper channels with your
immediate supervisors; and if this can't be resolved in this
form, then I will see you as individuals or on individual
terms." When Uto returned to the place where employees
and Oldham were gathered, he told Oldham what he had
told Bechtold and Oldham stated. "Okay. Consider
yourself struck."
Foreman Rike, who had worked for the Company a little
over 23 years, and as foreman for the past 9 years, has been
a member of the Machinist Union since 1951. He testified
that in the last 10 years there have been five attempts to
organize the Company's employees and that, before each
of these campaigns, he and other supervisors attended
meetings with the Company's attorney. He testified that
the supervisors were informed of employees' rights to
organize and that supervisors could not discriminate
against them , or threaten, interfere with, harass, or spy
upon employees. Approximately 2 years befor:_ the
hearing , Rike attended a management course in which the
Norris contract was explained and the rights of employees
were outlined. Pike also had taken a correspondence
course which dealt with management and covered the basic
rights of unions. For about 8 years he has been a member
of the Tulsa Management Club and has attended lectures
and seminars conducted by that organization concerning
labor relations. Rike testified that prior to the present
proceeding no labor organization or individual had filed
any charges with the Board alleging that he or any
supervisor of the Company had committed an unfair labor
practice. Rike, who works under the immediate supervision
of Chief Engineer Nyland Shelton, has three inspectors
under his supervision. He has no supervisory authority
over any employees of the Company other than the three
inspectors.
Rike testified that the Company has a progressive
discipline policy which he described as consisting first of
an oral warning, then a written warning and then
,suspension, followed by termination. With respect to the
inspection department, suspensions and discharges require
the approval of Shelton and Bechtold, but no approval is
required for oral warnings.
Rike denied that he told Curry that people who were
pushing the Union or working for the Union would be
fired if the Union failed to get in. Moreover, he stated that
he had never heard any supervisor or member of
management tell Curry or any other employee that union
supporters would be terminated or discriminated against
because of their activities on behalf of the Union. Rike
testified that he and Curry had several things in common
and related that both of them were farm boys and both
own horses and that they talk about horses and farming.
Also, Curry and Rike attended an American Red Cross
course and advanced courses in first-aid. Rike is safety
director for the Company and Curry is a member of the
safety committee. He related that in the foregoing
capacities he and Curry enjoyed a very good work
relationship.
According to Rike, in the early part of August he had
occasion to visit Curry at the latter's machine. Also present
was Machine Inspector Sutterfield and Leadman Jimmy
Jones. Sometime earlier, Sutterfield had informed Rike
that he was having some quality problems on Curry's
machine and asked Rike if he would go over and speak to
Curry. Rike answered that he preferred that Sutterfield
work through Jones first and that if the latter could not
take care of the problem Rike would go over there with the
leadman. That is what happened. While at the machine,
Rike spoke mainly to Jones. The incident was not recorded
in Curry's personnel file and Rike testified he had no
further "problems" concerning the quality of Curry's work.
Rike denied that he ever discussed the Union with Curry.
Concerning the testimony of Thompson to the effect that
Thompson told Rike that he and others thought it was
against the law for Rike to show employees the contract
book and that Rike replied that if the employees were
going to play that way he had enough on five of them to
cause their termination for union activity, Rike denied that
any such incident occurred. He testified, however, that
early in July he did have a conversation with Thompson
near his machine.
D. Discussion and Conclusions
Counsel for the Respondent Employer contends that the
Union's strike was a "violent one," involving "violence to
nonstriking employees, rock throwing, bomb threats,
damage to trucks, the bombing of a nonstriking employee's
car, tire-slashing, and other inconceivable acts."
After some 37 years in various aspects of labor relations,
representing the Government, employers, unions, and for
the last 12 years, in the position I now occupy, I am unable
DOVER CORPORATION, NORRIS DIVISION 965
to categorize the events in this case as amounting to a
"violent" strike. In the preceding sections I have attempted
to set forth the testimony in an objective fashion. In my
view what emerges is not a "campaign of terror against
nonunion employees and suppliers," but a rather "garden
variety" of incidents not unusual in a labor dispute
involving a strike. In substantial part, the incidents of a
"violent" character are not established to have been
committed by representatives or agents of the Union.4
Certainly, a fair appraisal of the evidence does not, in my
opinion, warrant characterizing the Union's charges in
Case 16-CA-5224 as "nothing more than fabrications,
designed to cast a smoke screen over the Union's unlawful
actions." In substance, Respondent Company's counsel
appears to me to be alleging that the Regional Director in
issuing the complaint, after investigating the Union's
charges, acted in a "frivolous" manner, with the result that
"costs and attorney fees [should be ] granted" the Respon-
dent Employer.
In my view, the relief sought by the Respondent
Employer-including "either an order barring the Union
from seeking voluntary recognition as the representative of
the affected employees for several years, or an order
directing a remedial election to determine the wishes of the
employees as to the representation by the Union"-is not
supported by the facts or appropriate. Nor do I regard this
case as warranting the award to the Respondent Company
of "costs and attorney fees" under the Tiidee rule,5 or
backpay for employees "intimidated by the picket line
violence."
To conclude, I find that Rike told three union supporters
that they would be discharged; while I am of the view that
he was talking to them in a friendly manner and on the
basis of his long union background and relationship with
them, I nonetheless believe and find that he made the
remarks attributed to him. These remarks, I find, were
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I further find that the Union engaged in an unlawful
secondary boycott, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
Thus, on August 14 when Buckner and Clayton drove to
the Rockford plant to make a pickup, pickets surrounded
the truck, engaged in name calling, and, in what to me
appears a threatening vein, inquired if Rose was paying
their insurance. I think it reasonable to infer that strikers
caused the damage to the truck, and I so find. After
Buckner told Bechtold that his concern "would not return
unless" Bechtold "could guarantee that this same sort of
thing would not happen in the future," new shipping
arrangements were made. Moreover, Chief's rank-and-file
drivers refused to go to the Dover plant to
4 For example, the persons who cut the rear tail lights of the Company's
truck on August 9 and put out of commission the right front hydraulic
brake line, were not identified , as Buckner did not see who committed these
acts.
5 Tiidee Products, Inc., 194 NLRB 1234, on remand from 426 F.2d 1243
make pickups. In addition, on August 13, when Chief's
supervisors, Mounce and Ayres, came to the Dover plant,
Oldham came to the plant, conferred with some 10 pickets,
came to the Dover truck and he or another striker stated
that Mounce and Ayres were the first "to break our picket"
and, during the period the truck was there a brick and a
concrete chunk were thrown at the truck. Oldham
witnessed some of this conduct but, so far as appears,
made no objection and took no steps to stop it.
As we have seen, Waid told employee Jones, as he
returned from lunch wearing a motorcycle helmet, that
Jones "better leave that god damn helmet on if you know
what's good for you." Further, Curry told Jones, as the
latter was entering the plant, "If you go through that door,
you're not coming back out of it again."
Finally, I conclude that the damage to Jones' tires,
amounting to some $51, was caused by strikers and that the
damage to employee Scott's home and automobile must
also be attributed to the strikers.6
As I view the matter a substantial part of the Union's
activity was directed at neutral employers and their
employees, and cannot, therefore, be regarded as lawful
primary picketing. I conclude that an object of the
picketing was not only to support a primary picket line but
also to enmesh the employees of secondary employers to
refuse to perform services for their employers and by such
means, force their employers to cease doing business with
Dover, the primary employer. As we have seen, as a result
of the Union's tactics Rose refused to do further business
with Dover and Chief refused unless security was augment-
ed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, I
conclude that the Union engaged in acts violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dover Corporation, Norris Division, Tulsa, Oklaho-
ma, is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The Respondent Company engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent Union engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1XA) and
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
(C.A.D.C., 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 950 (1970). In my view, the litigation
here undertaken was not "frivolous" or "clearly unwarranted."
6 Thus, a neighbor, so Scott testified , told him she had seen some "white
guys" around his house and one of them drove a car very similar to
Thompson's.