Gabriel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1252 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership, activities, and desires, under circumstances consti-
tuting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT seek to induce our employees to revoke authoriza-
tions previously signed by them designating Teamsters, Chauf
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 439, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers:
of America, as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
S. H. KRESS & Co.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,.
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material..
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Room 703, 830 Market Street, San Francisco 2, California, Tele-
phone Number, Yukon 6-3500, Extension 3191, if they have any ques-
tion concerning this.notice or compliance with its provisions.
The Gabriel Company Automotive Division and International-
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and
Helpers of America, Teamsters Union Local No. 293, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 8-RC-4217. July 11, 1962
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF THIRD ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,.
executed July 27, 1961, an election by secret ballot was conducted on
September 19, 1961, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Eighth Region among the employees in the
stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election the parties were.
137 NLRB No. 130.
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1253
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
`950 eligible voters, 902 cast valid ballots of which 480 were for the
Petitioner, 419 were for the Intervenor, District No. 54, International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,' 3 were against the participat-
ing labor organizations, and 2 cast challenged ballots. Thereafter
the Intervenor filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results
of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on October 26,
1961, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections,
in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and the
Petitioner be certified as the bargaining representative in the stipu-
lated unit. On November 6, 1961, the Regional Director issued and
served upon the parties an amendment to his report. The Intervenor
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report and a sup-
porting brief.
On December 11, 1961, the Board issued an order directing hearing 2
by a hearing officer to be designated by the Regional Director to
resolve the issues raised by objection No. 2, especially as to whether
the alleged incidents detailed in the Regional Director's report in fact
occurred.
Pursuant thereto the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing
on objections to election, and Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel was
designated as hearing officer. A hearing was held from January 15
through 18, 1962. All parties to this proceeding were represented by
counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues.
On April 10, 1962, the hearing officer issued his report and recom-
mendations on objections to election, in which he recommended that
objection No. 2 be sustained, the election set aside, and a third election
directed. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report and a
supporting brief.' The Intervenor filed a brief in support of the
hearing officer's findings and recommendations.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 The Petitioner and the Intervenor are sometimes referred to herein as the Teamsters
and the IAM, respectively.
2 Not reported in NLRB volumes.
3 The Petitioner 's request for oral argument is denied as in our opinion , the record,
exceptions , and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties. The
Intervenor filed a motion to strike affidavits attached to the Petitioner 's brief in support
of exceptions , and the Petitioner filed an answer thereto . However, we need not, and
do not , rule on the Intervenor's motion as the allegations of fact contained in the
affidavits would not alter our decision herein to reject the Petitioner ' s exceptions.
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio,
plants, as stipulated by the parties, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining within Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including working fore-
men, but excluding direct representatives of management, such as
executives, superintendents, salaried foremen, time-study men, office
employees, engineers , draftsmen, payroll clerks, outside truckdrivers,
and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, as amended.
5. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing
officer's report, attached hereto, the exceptions thereto, and the briefs
of all parties, and hereby adopts the hearing officer's findings and
recommendations, with the following additions :
The conduct found objectionable by the hearing officer involved
anonymous and persistent telephone calls of a threatening nature to
five JAM officials. The hearing officer found that the scope of these
calls revealed a systematic plan to inhibit the IAM officials from as-
serting their leadership for the JAM in the election campaign, and he
linked the making of these calls to Teamsters adherents. The conduct
also involved direct threats of reprisal by Teamsters adherents to IAM
committeemen, the tampering with machinery and work of IAM ad-
herents by Teamsters adherents, and the reckless operation of a tow-
motor by a Teamsters adherent in such a manner as to endanger the
lives of JAM officials and to harass them in the performance of their
official duties.
The Teamsters, in its exceptions, contends that the conduct referred
to above did not in any way deter or intimidate the IAM officials from
asserting their leadership and fell far short of interfering with em-
ployee free choice.4 The exceptions misconceive the thrust of the hear-
ing officer's rationale . The hearing officer properly did not concern
himself with the task of assessing the actual impact of the conduct
complained of upon the quality of leadership asserted by the affected
IAM officials, or upon the individual employees who voted in the elec-
tion. The vice of conduct of the character here engaged in is the threat
and actual use of strong-arm methods to still opposition. Such tactics,
' As further support for such contention the Petitioner submitted certain affidavits as
part of its exceptions . The Intervenor ' s motion to strike these affidavits has been dis-
posed of in footnote 3, above.
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1255
if extensive enough, have a tendency to coerce free choice. Here,
where aimed at the opposition leadership, they are, as concluded by
the hearing officer, clearly corrosive of the atmosphere of free choice
which the Board seeks to preserve for the elections it conducts. For
these reasons, we agree with the hearing officer that the election must
be set aside and a third election conducted.
Accordingly, we shall order that the second election be set aside
and direct that a third election be held.
[The Board set aside the second election held on September 19,
1961.]
[Text of Direction of Third Election omitted from publication.]
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON
OBJECTIONS TO ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 24 , 1961, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen , and Helpers of America , Teamsters Union Local No. 293, herein
called the Teamsters , filed a representation petition seeking the Board 's certifica-
tion as exclusive collective-bargaining representative for the production and main-
tenance employees of The Gabriel Company Automotive Division , herein called the
Company. These employees for several years past had been represented by Local
233, District No. 54, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, herein
called the IAM. In the ensuing election conducted by the Regional Director the
IAM secured a majority of the valid ballots cast ,' but the results of this election were
set aside for certain improprieties by the IAM.' Subsequently , on July 27, 1961, the
parties signed a stipulation for certification upon consent election which was approved
that day by the Regional Director . On September 19, 1961 , a second election was
held with the following results . Of the 950 eligible voters, 904 cast ballots. The
Teamsters had 480 in its favor , 419 favored the IAM , 3 ballots were against both
organizations , and 2 ballots were challenged.
On September 25, 1961 , the IAM filed timely objections to the election. There-
upon the Regional Director conducted an investigation in accordance with the
Board 's Rules and Regulations and on October 26, 1961 , issued his report on ob-
jections to the Board in which he found all the objections without merit and recom-
mended that they be overruled and a certificate of representative be issued to the
Teamsters . On November 6, 1961 , the Regional Director issued an amendment
to report on objections which did not affect the substance of his foregoing findings
and recommendations . Thereafter the IAM filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director 's report . Objection No. 2 filed by the IAM to the election charged com-
mission by the Teamsters ' agents of "numerous threats of bodily harm directed toward
supporters of the" JAM, "to restrain them and interfere with their active campaign-
ing for the" JAM. Contrary to the Regional Director 's findings and recommenda-
tions concerning this objection , the Board felt that the objection and its supporting
evidence raised serious issues as to whether the alleged conduct created "an atmos-
phere of fear which vitiated a free election ." Believing that these issues could best
be resolved by a hearing , the Board thereupon ordered a hearing for such purpose.
On December 11, 1961 , the Board issued its order directing hearing by a hearing
officer to be designated by the Regional Director "to resolve the issues raised by
Objection 2, especially as to whether the alleged incidents detailed in the report in
fact occurred" and further ordered the hearing officer designated to conduct the
hearing to prepare sand serve upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the
credibility of witnesses, findings of fact , and recommendations to the Board . There-
after , Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel of the Board was designated by the Board's
I Of the 904 ballots cast, the TAM had 460 in its favor , the Teamsters had 440 In its
favor, and 4 ballots were cast against both organizations.
2 Distributing marked sample ballots to the employees
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chief Trial Examiner to conduct the hearing. Pursuant to notice, and in conformity
with the Board's order, a hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, from January 15
through 18, 1962. All parties to this proceeding were represented by counsel and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. After the close of the hearing the
LAM and Teamsters filed briefs which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Scope of the Evidence
There is only one issue framed by the Board's order and that is whether in the
course of the campaign preceding the last election in this case certain conduct was
committed which created an "atmosphere of fear" preventing the holding of a valid
election whereby the Company's employees could freely register their choice of a
bargaining representative. As stated by the Board 3 and recently reiterated 4 the
cutoff date for the consideration of objections to a consent election is the date of
signing by the parties of the consent-election agreement. That date in this case
is July 27, 1961. Accordingly, no evidence of conduct supporting objection No. 2
has been considered by me on the merits as a basis for my findings and recom-
mendations which occurred before July 27, 1961, or after the date of the election
on September 19, 1961. There was evidence received at the hearing concerning
conduct occurring before July 27, but such evidence was offered and considered only
to the extent that it help provide clearer insight to the conduct occurring after that
date and its impact in the case.
The present contest between the JAM and the Teamsters is a later development
of friction between the IAM and its former Local 233 president, company employee
Robert Kopec, who was also the chief steward for the Company's employees, which
started in early 1960 and culminated with Kopec's ouster by the JAM from his union
offices. Eventually the IAM's differences with Kopec blossomed into a factional dis-
pute with the Company's employees divided into hostile camps of IAM and Kopec
adherents. It was not until January 1961 that thought was given by dissident em-
ployees to alignment with the Teamsters, and it was not until about 3 or 4 days before
March 24, 1961, the date of the filing of the representation petition in this case, that
the Teamsters actively began organizational activities at the Company's plant. I
limited the receipt of background evidence to the period beginning with the Team-
sters advent in the plant. I did so because as the hearing developed I felt no need
for remoter evidence to enable me adequately to understand the nature of the post-
July 27 conduct and to appreciate the impact of that conduct on the Company's
employees. Review of the record after the close of the hearing satisfies me that
the conduct charged as objectionable is sufficiently illuminated without need for
background evidence beyond that already received.
Summary of the Evidence
The supporting and countervailing evidence relative to objection No. 2 may con-
veniently be categorized as (a) threats and harassment by known ]persons, (b)
threats and harassment by unknown persons, and (c) towmotor incidents. The
evidence is hereinafter summarized in accordance with these groupings.
A. Threats and harassment by known persons
Employee Joseph Razum replaced the aforementioned Kopec as chief steward for
the Company's employees and has held this post since January 6, 1961. He related
that about August 15 or 22 he received a telephone call from a person who identi-
fied himself as Emil Garopic. It appears from the record and the Teamsters brief
that Garopic is a milk truck driver in Cleveland and a member of a Teamster local
other than the one herein involved and that his services were obtained by Kopec to
assist the Teamsters in the election in this case. Razum related that Garopic referred,
among other things, to the "bad people" in the plant and declared that he would see
to it personally that these people, whom he did not identify, would be fired when the
Teamsters got in.
Razum further testified that during the July 27 to September 19 preelection period,
employee Adelbert Groudle, wearer of a Teamster badge identifying him as a sup-
3 Tennessee Packers. Inc., 123 NLRB 1755
4 Haynes Stellite Company , Division of Union Carbide Corporation, 136 NLRB 95.
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1257
porter of that organization, several times called him obscene names with vulgar sex
references and spat at him. On these occasions Razum was accompanied by employee
John Ackerman who is an ,JAM committeeman and assistant shop steward. Em-
ployee Santorelli, also a Teamster badge wearer, was with Groudle on 8 or 10 of
these occasions and called Razum "scab." Other employees who were present and
heard Groudle's and Santorelli's remarks to .Razum laughed but said nothing.
Nerther Garopic, Groudle, nor Santorelli was called as a witness by the Teamsters.
The aforementioned John Ackerman testified that Groudle called him a "scab"
and made vulgar sex references to him when he passed him in the plant during the
July 27 to September 19 period, and that ,this happened about five times.
Employee Lawrence Weber has been an IAM committeeman in one of the Com-
pany's departments since January 1961. He identified Michael Unatic, also referred
to in the record as Unatech, as the wearer of a Teamsters badge. Weber testified that
sometime around August 10 Unatic spoke to him in the plant and said, "Larry, your
house is going to be bombed tonight." Aside from Weber's reply, "So you think so?"
there was no further comment between them at this time. Weber related that on other
occasions Unatic called him filthy obscene names and said to him, "Out old man."
He related that on one occasion Unatic tried to pull his IAM badge from his shirt and
said, "The Machinists were no damn good."
Weber testified about incidents occurring during the July 27 to September 19
period involving employee Ludwig Prevesk whom he identified as the wearer of a
Teamster badge. According to Weber, Prevesk in the early part of September pointed
to a wheeled object in the plant called a carriage and said, "Larry, I want to measure
you for a coffin." Then he pretended to measure him. At the same time he called
him filthy names and disparaged the IAM by an obscene reference. In the latter part
of August or in September Prevesk repeated a pantomine in Weber's presence in
which he had in the past engaged at least a dozen times. According to Weber's de-
scription Prevesk took a shop rag which was used as an -apron and twisted it around
his neck to suggest a noose and then stuck out his tongue as if he were strangling.
He pointed to Weber to suggest that he was the victim. Employees standing around
witnessing this portrayal laughed. Weber also pointed out that Prevesk in the same
period said to him that after the Teamsters were certified that he would get his.
Weber identified employee Howard Valjean as the wearer of a Teamster badge. He
testified that Valjean said to him in August, "If I had my way you would be put be-
fore a firing squad." Then Valjean yelled, "To the wall, to the wall." At this point
five or six employees took up the same chant. Weber characterized this at the hear-
ing as "baby stuff, kid stuff."
Weber identified employee Ronny Patfield also as a Teamsters badge wearer.
Weber testified that in September Patfield called him a "fink and scab" and that he
engaged in the same hanging pantomime as that enacted by Prevesk. Weber related
that Patfield also threatened that when the Teamsters got in "they were going to take
care of me definitely" and that with a movement of the thumb toward the door Pat-
field said to him, "Out, old man. Out."
According to Weber, employee Pete Fedorka also wore a Teamster badge. Weber
testified that before the election Fedorka said to him that "he would be the frame-up
man, a frame-up man against me." He related that Fedorka also called him a "scab,"
"fink," and "stoolpigeon."
Patfield was not called by the Teamsters to testify. Unatic denied saying the
precise words attributed to him by Weber about a bombing, but admitted that from
a distance of about 60 feet from Weber in the plant he had by gesture or pantomime
indicated the setting off of an explosion and that both he and Weber laughed about
it. He claims he did this because a few days or a week before this incident Weber
had characterized the Teamsters as crooks, gangsters, or bombers. There was no
denial by Unatic of the other conduct ascribed to him by Weber. Ludwig Prevesk
denied everything attributed to him by Weber but admitted calling him a drunken
lush as modified by an obscene adjective and that he did so after Weber had threat-
ened that he was one of the top 10 on a list who would get "canned" when the IAM
won the election. Prevesk claimed that profanity among the men in the plant and
indeed even among the women is common. Valjean acknowledged making a "to
the wall" remark to Weber but said that it occurred during a discussion between
Weber in his capacity as JAM committeeman and employees over a grievance con-
cerning pay. Valjean claimed that he had made the remark in a "kidding" way
and that Weber laughed. He denied that it had anything to do with rivalry between
the TAM and the Teamsters. He testified that he and Weber were friends to the very
end of the election campaign and that Weber had tried to persuade him to switch his
allegiance to the IAM. He denied that he ever threatened Weber or called him
names. Fedorka admitted calling Weber a "fink" and a "scab," but explained that
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he did so because Weber had turned his friend Patfield in to the Company apparently
for alleged misconduct which Fedorka believed Weber should not have done in his
capacity as an JAM committeeman. He claimed that the fact that Weber was an
IAM adherent had nothing to do with the name calling.
Lawrence Halk is an LAM committeeman. His wife, Catherine, is an JAM com-
mitteewoman. Edward Abranovich is a former JAM assistant shop steward who, ac-
cording to Halk, wore a Teamsters button during the campaign. Halk testified that
on or about August 21 Abranovich spoke to him in the plant and told him to tell his
wife to keep her mouth shut about some of the things she said about him. Otherwise,
related Halk, by the next Sunday Abranovich would "start something about our per-
sonal life." Halk testified that he asked Abranovich what he meant, but that he
replied only "you just remember what I told you." Abranovich did not testify.
Carl Pinzarroni is an IAM committeeman. He testified that Frank Prevesk, brother
of the aforementioned Ludwig Prevesk, tried to persuade him about 3 days before the
September 19 election to come over to the side of the Teamsters. In the course of
the ensuing argument Prevesk said to Pinzarroni, according to the latter, "When the
Teamsters get in, we will get you." He furthermore told Pinzarroni that he was
aware of the newspaper stories concerning him. Pinzarroni had been involved in
juvenile court proceedings in 1942 or 1943 when he was 17 years old. Pinzarroni's
father had also been involved in a criminal case. Prevesk's newspaper remark,
Pinzarroni believed, referred either to his own involvement with the courts or to his
father's. Pinzarroni further testified that during the preelection period an employee
named Delzoppo called him a "scab" and used profane language. Frank Prevesk and
Delzoppo were not called as witnesses.
Employee Anthony Mandato is an JAM adherent and wore the badge of this
organization during the election campaign . In August the IAM distributed to the
Company's employees matchbooks which carried an appeal for their support in the
election . In addition there appeared on them the names of a number of employees
who supported the JAM. Mandato's name was included. Directly after distribution
of these matchbooks he stood in a line of employees leaving the plant . Behind him
were employees Adelbert Groudle and Pete Fedorka previously referred to as
Teamsters' supporters. One of them shouted, referring to Mandato, "There is the
red-headed scab bastard." For purposes only of adding meaning to the aforestated
remark evidence was offered and received with respect to an incident which occurred
in June 1961 in the plant when Groudle had said to Mandato, "Now, if you don't get
in that toolroom fast enough J will splatter you all over the ground."
As already noted Groudle was not a witness at the hearing. Fedorka was called
by the Teamsters to testify but was not questioned concerning the incident related
by Mandato.
Employee Myrtle White was an IAM supporter during the election campaign and
was identified as such by the badge she wore. She testified that in mid-August she
was walking on the Company's driveway with two other female employees on her
way home from work about 3:30 p.m. At,that time employee Mike Rossi approached
in his station wagon and shouted to her to move over before he hit her in the buttocks.
She told him to "go to hell." White related another incident in the Company's
cafeteria when Rossi and the aforementioned employee Delzoppo shouted to her to
go to the end of the line. She also described how employees Bulska and Robbins,
both of whom wore Teamsters buttons, would annoy her with shouts and "funny
noises" when she passed them at their places of work ,and that it got so bad that she
avoided passing ,them. Finally she testified that employee Ludwig Prevesk had told
her in either August or September that the JAM badge she was wearing was a "scab
badge" and to take it off.
Although ^Prevesk testified for the Teamsters with respect to other incidents in
the case, he was not questioned concerning the remark attributed to him by White.
None of the other employees mentioned by White in her testimony was called as a
witness.
Employee Joseph Pajestka wore an IAM badge during the election campaign.
About 2 weeks before the September 19 election while in the company coffee line,
aforementioned employee Patfield called him a "scab." Paiestka related that he in
turn made a gesture to another employee indicating that Patfield was crazy. At this,
Patfield jumped over a table and shouted to him, "You four-eyed bastard, I will get
you." This reference to Pajestka's paternity was resented by him and he was pre-
vented from tangling with Patfield only by the intervention of another employee.
Pajestka described another incident a week or two before the election involving the
aforementioned Frank Prevesk. Employee John Ackerman, mentioned earlier, had
just left the toolroom where Pajestka worked. As Ackerman left, Pajestka heard an
argument between him and Prevesk. Pajestka said to Prevesk, "Why don't you leave
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1259
the guy alone?" Prevesk replied, "Look, I will get you, especially you. You dirty
s.o.b." Pajestka repeated, "Why don't you leave the guy alone." He then walked
away.
Pajestka's testimony concerning Patfield's and Prevesk's conduct was not refuted
as neither was called to testify.
Employee Thomas G. Davis was an IAM supporter whose name appeared in the
matchbook put out by the IAM during the campaign. Sometime after the books were
distributed, Davis had a discussion with employee Tom Delassio. Davis testified
that Delassio was a Teamsters supporter and wore this organization's button He
claims that in his discussion with Delassio the latter threatened to smack him in
the mouth and invited him to the parking lot. He also remarked, "We wouldn't be
around there too much longer."
Delassio testified that he wore no union button during the campaign. He admitted
having an altercation with Davis, but explained it came about because he had
complained to his superintendent over the fact that Davis was working 10 hours a day
and getting more overtime than he did. The superintendent had promised to equalize
their overtime. As a result, said Delassio, he and Davis had words over the matter
and Davis stated he was going to file a grievance. Delassio admitted he got hot and
threatened that if he ever caught Davis outside, it would be "too bad." He stated he
would punch him in the mouth. He denied that any union was discussed by them.
He claimed he had no interest in either union during the campaign.
Employee Earnest Hartup was an IAM committeeman and wore this organization's
badge indicating his office. He testified that in August he had conversations with
employee Eddie Crane who was a wearer of a Teamster badge. Crane said to him
several times that "Teamster henchmen" were going to get him because he was on the
.committee. This testimony is unrefuted as Crane was not called as a witness.
Employee Catherine Krynitsky showed her support for the IAM during the
campaign by wearing the organization's pin and earrings made out of union buttons.
About 2 or 3 weeks before the election she spoke to employee Rose Yeckel who was
a Teamster supporter. According to Krynitsky, Yeckel criticized her IAM activities
and -told her that when the Teamsters got in she would be booted out. Krynitsky
further related that employee Ken Lowery, wearer of a Teamster badge, told her
one evening as she passed him in the plant to take off her "ugly earrings" and that he
made an attempt to take them off. She claimed this occurred just before the Septem-
ber 19 election. Yeckel denied saying the things attributed to her by Krynitsky.
She testified that Krynitsky had said in the conversation she had with her that if the
Teamsters won the election she would quit her job, but that if the IAM were
to win Yeckel would be out of a job. Employee Anna Balzano corroborated Yeckel's
testimony. Lowery admitted that he had told Krynitsky on the night of the election
after the ballots were counted "the election is over now. Why don't you take those
silly earrings off." He claimed that she replied, "I will slap you in the face." He
denied ever touching her or trying to do so in an attempt to remove her earrings.
Employee John Coleman wore an IAM badge during the campaign. He testified
that an employee with whom he worked, Irving Ratner, wearer of a Teamster badge,
had several times told him before the September 19 election to switch to the
Teamsters and that he had remarked to him that "Babe's wife had a cement factory
and they already had my shoes set up for me." The reference to Babe was to
Teamster Official Triscaro. He claimed that he in turn called Ratner "a lot of dirty
names, told them to get out of my face because that didn't scare me." Coleman
related that Ratner on another occasion told him that there was a bomb in his
automobile. These remarks by Ratner were assertedly made in the presence of
other employees some of whom also commented about the cement shoes. Cole-
man claimed that Ratner also called him a "scab" and told him he was stupid,
apparently for being an IAM adherent. He admitted that Ratner jokes a lot. He
did not call the police about the bomb which he was told was in his automobile but
went to it and started it although he claims he did so apprehensively.
Ratner conceded that he is a Teamster supporter. He denied having made the
remark to Coleman about the bomb in his automobile. He explained that he had
made the remark about the cement shoes while he and Coleman, with whom he is
friendly, were joking and laughing. Coleman, he said, had told him that he had
a razor which he would like to try out on his throat and that he had replied, "I
think I can get you a pair of cement boots so when you go swimming you can
float better." He claims that Coleman was convulsed with laughter when he made this
remark. Ratner testified the day following Coleman's testimony. He related that
when Coleman came to the plant at night after testifying he laughed so hard his false
teeth slipped from his mouth. The reason for ,the laughter was that Coleman knew
Ratner would have to be a witness in the case because of his testimony. Ratner
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
considered himself the comedian of the department where he worked. He insisted
that there was lots of joking among the employees in his department about the
election and that there was no tension.
Employee Frank Krause testified for the Teamsters that he had spoken to Cole-
man in the last few weeks and had said to him, "John, don't you think all these
charges-[are] a lot of foolishness?" Coleman assertedly replied, "Hell, yes, them
guys they are like a bunch of babies." Then Coleman, he related, told him that the
threats to put cement boots on him and to throw him into the lake was just a lot of
kidding, and agreed that when the election was all over he would be the best Teamster
of all. Krause admitted he wore a Teamsters badge.
Coleman testified in rebuttal. He said that when he came back to the plant at
night after testifying he saw Ratner but smiled at him only faintly and this was his
only contact with him that day. He denied ever saying to Ratner that he had
bought a razor and would like to try it on his throat. He also denied the comments
ascribed to him by Krause. He recalled that Krause had raised the subject of the
unions in a conversation with him and that he, Coleman, had said he would be glad
when the issue was settled and admitted saying that he might be a Teamsters if that
union were to prevail. He denied saying that he knew that the employees were
kidding when they talked about putting cement boots on him and throwing him into
the lake. He conceded that he had wagered $200 with Krause that the Teamsters
would not be certified.
Employee Donald Rice is an executive committeeman for the IAM. He testified
that about 3 weeks before the election he had an argument with the aforementioned
Groudle about the Unions and that Groudle had said to him "he wouldn't worry
about hitting [him] with his car because he was insured." Rice claimed that
Groudle had said the same thing to him on other occasions and that other employees
were around when these remarks were made. Rice further testified that the afore-
mentioned employee Patfield had told him he would take his IAM committee badge
and shove it down his throat and that this occurred just before the election. He
related that Patfield had also told him he was going to meet him outside the plant
and "beat the heck" out of him. This occurred in the presence of other employees.
Rice related that the aforementioned Frank Prevesk had been critical of the IAM
executive committee sometime in the latter part of July or early August. Rice
told him he would not listen to him unless he filed a grievance, whereupon Prevesk
said, "None of you are any good, I'm going to meet you outside and kick the hell out
of you." Rice testified about a conversation with the aforementioned Mike Unatic
in August when Unatic said to him, "Don't ever get in front of me when I am
driving my car because I am liable to hit you. I'm insured. I won't worry about it."
This was said in the course of an argument about the IAM committee. Finally Rice
related a discussion with employee Arle Ferrell in late July in which he commented
about certain statements which the aforementioned Lawrence Weber was supposed
to have made. Referring to Weber, Ferrell remarked, "He better watch himself or
he is going to find himself in the hospital" or words to that effect.
With the exception of Unatic none of the other persons mentioned by Rice in his
testimony testified. The comments ascribed to them are therefore unrefuted. Unatic
denied saying to Rice that he would run him down with his automobile. He testified
that there had been an argument between him and Rice over an incident having to
do with the performance of certain work by Unatic which Rice told him he was not
permitted to do despite Unatic's insistence that he had the right to perform this
work. Rice thereupon reported the matter to a supervisor and turned in another
employee for doing the same thing. This other employee took up the matter with
the IAM chief steward, Razum, who reprimanded Rice for taking the matter to
management rather than to the union office. Thereupon Rice offered his apology
to Unatic but the latter told him that he did not want it.
B. Threats and harassment by unknown persons
The aforementioned IAM Chief Steward Joseph Razum testified that about 7 p.m.
on August 8, 1961, he received a telephone call from an unidentified person who said
"tonight is your night. We are going to get you tonight." Razum further testified
that on the night of September 17, 1961, his brother called him on the telephone to
state that he was going to spend the night with him because he had overheard a con-
versation by unidentified persons in a tavern that they were "out to get Joe Razum."
Razum's brother came to the former's house to spend the night with him.
The aforementioned IAM Committeeman John Ackerman related that starting
sometime in June and continuing through the July 27 to September 19 period, he
received telephone calls at his home from anonymous callers. He related he received
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1261
as many as eight calls nightly. On one occasion he was threatened with being blown
up. Another time he was told his car would be blown up. He was called filthy
names. About three times a woman's voice repeated, "You will die." When the
calls became more numerous before the September 19 election he stopped answering
the telephone. Ackerman also related that in the last week of July when he left the
plant at the end of the day to return home he discovered that someone had tampered
with his automobile which was parked on the Company's lot. The ignition wires
had been pulled from the spark plugs and snarled, and the plugs had been loosened.
He had to call a tow truck and the plugs and distributor points required replacement.
The aforementioned IAM Committeewoman Catherine Halk testified that she
received anonymous telephone calls in August warning that if she were caught on
the street she would be beaten up, and that if she were not careful of what she was
doing about her union business she would be taken to court. When she asked her
caller to identify himself she was told to mind her own business. She claimed that
she recognized the voice of the caller as that of a person named Modest Angelo who
is the husband of one of the girls working in the factory. She related receiving other
calls in August about 2 or 3 a.m. When she picked up the receiver the caller would
not answer.
Mrs. Halk and her husband, Lawrence, previously identified in this case as an IAM
committeeman, testified that they received a visit from the aforementioned Emil
Garopic to their house in August. Mr. Halk specified that the visit was on a Sunday
afternoon on August 20. According to the Halks, Garopic stated that he had been
sent by Robert Kopec and urged them to switch their support to the Teamsters.
They told him about the threatening telephone calls which they were receiving and
he promised that if they were to support the Teamsters there would be no more calls.
Mrs. Halk admitted that as a result of the telephone calls she obtained an unlisted
telephone number. She could not recall the exact date when this was done. She
was sure that the change was not made before July 1 but was not certain whether
it was accomplished before July 15.
Stella Angelo testified that during the time when Mrs. Halk received the telephone
calls which she claimed were made by her husband, Modest Angelo, he was recover-
ing from a spinal fracture which necessitated the wearing of a cast. Because of the
pressure of the cast on his chest his voice was abnormally raspy. Although he was
not prevented from using the telephone, he was required to lie down and could
speak over the telephone only with difficulty. Mrs. Angelo is employed by the
Company. Her husband is not. To her knowledge her husband has never met Mrs.
Halk and does not know her. She has never heard him mention her name.
The aforementioned Anthony Mandato whose name appeared on the IAM match-
book testified that he received a telephone call about 1 a.m. one morning in August
and that when he answered the call he was told that he would be "next" and that the
caller then hung up. Subsequently he received other telephone calls at 1 or 2 a.rn.
but when he answered nobody spoke to him.
Mandato works for the Company as a toolmaker. In the performance of his
duties he operates a milling machine and the other machines of his trade. In August
he had a job on a milling machine on which he was cutting metal with a 7-inch
cutter. He testified that when he left work at the end of the day he had the dials
of the machines set for resumption of the cutting operation in the morning. When
he reported the next morning he discovered that the dial settings had been changed.
He claimed that had he not checked the machine before he started it and reset the
dials that someone would have been seriously injured because the cutter would have
run into the metal and either it or the metal would have broken and flown out from
the machine. He testified that there were other times when his work or settings
were tampered with although the possible consequences were not as serious as they
could have been in the aforementioned situation. They nevertheless caused loss
of time and were very upsetting. At the time of the incident involving the milling
machine there were about 12 employees around who saw what happened.
The aforementioned employee Joseph Pajestka, an IAM supporter, testified that
during the July 27 to September 19 period on several occasions when he came to
work he found that his work was disarranged and discovered notes making reference
to the LAM and containing admonitions stating, "You better wake up." One note
said, "You better wise up, that we will take care of you," or words to that effect.
Employee Charles E. Nunally is the IAM chief steward on the second shift. Be-
fore attaining this post on September 1 he had been an IAM departmental com-
mitteeman. He testified that subsequent to July 27 he and his wife received tele-
phone calls from persons who would merely laugh and then hang up. His wife
received calls while he was at work. Because of these telephone calls his wife
pressured him to give up his post as committeeman and he did so about August ,1. Im-
mediately thereafter the anonymous telephone calls stopped. A week later he re-
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sumed his committeeman's post and then the telephone calls began again . In Sep-
tember he spoke to employee Richard Kowalski who is identified in the record as a
Teamster supporter and who was the wearer of a Teamsters badge. Nunally related
that he told Kowalski that he would hold him personally responsible for the tele-
phone calls, but that Kowalski disclaimed knowledge concerning them. Subsequent
to this conversation with Kowalski the telephone.calls stopped. Nunally further re-
lated that on Sunday, July 30, about 10:30 a.m., he was notified Eby a neighbor that
someone was "messing" with his car. When he went out to his automobile the man
was gone. Nunally discovered that the wires under the dashboard had been pulled
out.
Kowalski denied ever having had the conversation with Nunally related by the
latter.
C. Towmotor incidents
Razum testified that on August 11, 1961, he was together with another employee
in the plant when employee William Livingstone approached driving a machine
called a towmotor. This is a vehicle which is propelled by a gasoline engine and
which has a lift-fork attachment in front of it used for lifting and transporting heavy
objects throughout the plant. As the towmotor came near Razum, Livingstone blew
a horn and passed about a foot or two from him. He then stopped his vehicle and
declared to Razum, "Get the hell out of the way or I will run you over." Razum
replied, "Like hell you would," and Livingstone rejoined with, "You get in my way
and I will show you whether I will or not." I observed at the hearing, and I do not
believe that anyone in the case will contest this observation, that if a towmotor were-
to strike someone that it could seriously injure him. Razum testified that Livingstone
was wearing a Teamster button.
The aforementioned John Ackerman testified that on August 10 Livingstone drove
rapidly by him with his towmotor and came within an inch of him. Livingstone
having stopped the towmotor, Ackerman approached him to caution him about his
driving. Livingstone responded with a curt lockerroom vulgarism. Ackerman also
described a September 5 incident involving Livingstone and his towmotor. On that
date Ackerman was walking through the plant with Catherine Halk when the tow-
motor grazed her and went on without stopping. Ackerman further related that
Livingstone, during the July 27 to September 19 period, parked his towmotor at the
door of the office in the plant reserved by the Company for the IA'M. This room,
called the union office, was located in the area of the Company's shipping depart-
ment where packing cases and other objects are often piled and which must be
moved by towmotors. Ackerman claimed that at least nine times he saw Living-
stone park the towmotor so that the rear of the vehicle faced the open door of the
union office which became filled on these occasions with exhaust fumes which rolled'
in "like clouds." On these occasions Livingstone would open the throttle and tinker
with the engine or just leave it running while he roamed around. Ackerman insisted
there was other space in the area where the towmotor could have been parked.
Lawrence Halk testified that he also saw Livingstone on several occasions in
August back the towmotor to the open door where he gunned the engine and shot
fumes into the office. On these occasions Livingstone would sometimes sit on the
towmotor and at other times he would get off and tinker with it.
Catherine Halk testified that she also saw Livingstone park the towmotor at the
door of the union office and shoot black, nauseating fumes into it. She also referred
to the incident when she was with Ackerman when Livingstone brushed her dress
with the towmotor and left certain grease marks on it which could not be removed
even after several washings.
Concerning his experience with Razum, Livingstone testified that Razum had told
him to slow down and that he had denied going fast. He admitted he swore at Razum
and told him he would hit him with the towmotor if he did not stay out of his way.
Regarding the incident with Ackerman, Livingstone testified that he blew the horn
of his towmotor to signal his approach but that Ackerman merely slowed down and
failed to get out of his way. He claimed he was compelled to apply the brakes with
the result that the towmotor skidded on the slippery floor. He said that Ackerman
"sort of walked into the tow motor" and that he then jumped back and spilled
coffee he was carrying on a tray Thereupon, testified Livingstone, he said he was
sorry but could not help himself and that Ackerman merely said, "Yes, yes, yes 'r
There was, he asserted, nothing else to the incident, but conceded that at some point
he swore at Ackerman.
As to the grazing and soiling of Mrs. Halk's dress, Livingstone testified he knew
nothing of the incident when it happened and that when Mrs. Halk later spoke to him
about it he told her he was sorry.
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1263
About shooting fumes into the union office, Livingstone admitted parking the tow-
motor near the door of the office only once and this he explained was because of
carburetor or fuel pump trouble. He stated he tried to move the vehicle away but
the engine kept stalling. He admitted there were tunes in the course of his operation
of the towmotor when he had to gun the engine as he went by the office door with
consequent emission of exhaust fumes. This, he maintained, was unavoidable
because the area was so crowded with boxes and equipment he had no room to
maneuver.
Livingstone testified that he had voted for the Machinists in the first election and
that he did not become a supporter of the Teamsters until the latter part of August.
While he doubted that he had worn a Teamsters button or badge on his work uniform
in early August when the incidents with Razum and Ackerman occurred, he con-
ceded the possibility that he might have been wearing it at that time.
Employee Sophia Kopec, wife of the aforementioned Robert Kopec, testified that
she is employed in the shipping department where the aforementioned incidents with
the towmotor took place and emphasized the fact that the area is dangerous because
of the movement of the towmotors and that she was so told by her supervisor. She
claimed that there were times she herself was almost struck by Livingstone's tow-
motor who came so close to her as he passed her that she was required to jump out
of the way.
Vincent Finelli is a company supervisor apparently in charge of the shipping
department including the towmotor operations by Livingstone. The August 10 inci-
dent involving Ackerman and Livingstone came to him as a complaint with the
result that he discussed the matter with both parties and wrote an official company
report pertaining to it. He had written in his report "one word led to another and
William Livingstone threatened to run over him (Ackerman)." Although he indi-
cated that he had made this entry in his report on the basis of what Ackerman had
told him, he testified that Livingstone agreed that this entry was correct when he
spoke to him about it. He had written further, indicating what Ackerman had said
to him, "and went so far as to say he would kill him with the towmotor." He testified
that Livingstone did not deny that he had said this to Ackerman. Concerning testi-
mony by other witnesses with respect to Livingstone's parking of the towmotor in such
a position that the fumes from the exhaust entered the union office, Finelli sought to
give the impression by his testimony that this was not done deliberately by Living-
stone but that he had to position the towmotor at that location because of the crowded
area in which he was working. Livingstone, however, had testified that the reason
he had to stop the towmotor in'front of the union office and gun the engine was so that
he could lift up the forks to raise the weighty objects from the floor. He conceded
that he would not lift the forks unless he had them under the cases or crates and would
not have lifted them by gunning the engine if he were a number of feet away from
them. Although Livingstone testified that at the time in question the floor area near
the union office door was crowded with boxes and other material which he had to
move with his towmotor, I observed from his reference to the photographic exhibits
in evidence there was 10 or more feet clearance between the office door and the
objects to be lifted.
Specific Findings of Fact
Before stating my findings, it is appropriate first to refer to certain contentions
vigorously pressed by the Teamsters concerning the credibility of the IAM's wit-
nesses and the value of their testimony. Howard D. Hughes, the Company's director
of employee relations, testified that during the July 27 to September 19 period the
Company's foremen were instructed to make written reports of employee com-
plaints and to summarize the investigation of these complaints on a special form
provided by the Company. These complaints were to be accepted by the foremen
directly from the complaining employees or were to be forwarded to them by the
Company's personnel department. Hughes identified a sheaf of documents which
was received in evidence as the summaries of all complaints reduced to writing
during the aforementioned period. The Teamsters presented these documents for
the purpose of showing that the conduct related by these IAM witnesses at the
hearing was, with slight exception, not complained of by witness to the Company.
From this the Teamsters would have me infer that the conduct did not occur, or,
if it did, it was not seriously considered by the employees affected. The IAM dis-
counts the Teamsters theory by emphasizing the facts that there was no showing
that the Company's employees were advised to complain to their foremen about
such incidents as those detailed at the hearing. The IAM further notes that Hughes
could not say that all complaints received were recorded, and that he, in fact,
implied they were not. Other arguments were presented to minimize the effective-
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ness of the Teamsters contention . Substantially these arguments assert the usual
unwillingness of persons to be complainers or other factors , such as fear of reprisal,
which might have deterred them from filing complaints.
I have inspected all the complaints and except for the reports concerning the
Ackerman-Livingstone towmotor incident , the observations by foremen themselves
of harassment of Weber by Patfield , Ludwig Prevesk, and Fedorka, and the alterca-
tion between Pajestka and Patfield in which the latter called the former a "four-
eyed bastard ," the numerous documents do not pertain to the incidents concerning
which there was testimony at the hearing. Mindful that many of these incidents
were not controverted by testimony from the offending persons and did actually
occur, as I shall hereinafter specifically find, I am impressed with the logic of the
IAM argument . The absence of complaints about these numerous uncontroverted
incidents, as reflected by the lack of written reports, satisfies me that the Company's
employees, generally, were not in the habit of running to foremen or other super-
visors to report the offenses of their fellow employees . I therefore do not regard
the absence of written reports as meaning that the incident did not in fact occur.
Nor do I regard their absence as proof that the employees who were the targets of
the incidents did not regard them seriously . In any event, I have taken the absence
of complaints to the Company into account along with all other evidence in the case
in evaluating the seriousness of the incidents which I find to have occurred and in
measuring the impact of these incidents on the preelection climate in this case.
It was shown in the cross-examination of the IAM's witnesses that none of them
had reported the threats concerning which they testified to their local police to secure
protection. It was also shown that some who had signed affidavits for the Regional
Director in his investigation of the IAM's objections had not mentioned all the
incidents related by them in their testimony. The Teamsters contend that these
also are circumstances which tend to prove that the threats were not made or were
not seriously regarded by the IAM's witnesses. The IAM has offered various ex-
planations for the failure of these witnesses to report to the police or to the Board's
agents. Some explanations were also offered by witnesses . I shall not dwell on
these arguments and explanations . Suffice it to say that I have taken the absence
of these reports either to the police or to the Regional Director 's agents into account
along with all other pertinent circumstances in evaluating the evidence, particularly
in determining whether the incidents occurred and their impact in the case.
Certain testimony by JAM witnesses as to conduct by named Teamsters adherents
was not controverted by testimony from these persons. No explanation was offered
for the Teamsters failure to call these persons to contradict the accounts of their
conduct. For this reason, and because I judged these IAM witnesses to be credible,
I find , in accord with their testimony , that the following conduct was committed:
(1) Emil Garopic told Joseph Razum on August 15 or 22 that there were "bad
people" in the plant and that he would personally see to it that they were fired when
the Teamsters got in.
(2) Adelbert Groudle several times called Razum obscene names and spat at
him during the July 27 to September 19 period , and employee Santorelli called Razum
"scab" while in Groudle 's company.
(3) Groudle on about five occasions during July 27 to September 19 called
Ackerman a "scab" and made obscene references to him.
(4) Michael Unatic several times called Weber obscene names, said to him,
"Out old man ," tried to pull Weber's IAM badge from his shirt , and said the IAM
was "no damn good." This occurred between July 27 and September 19.
(5) Pete Fedorka said to Weber sometime before September 19 that he would
be the "frame -up man" against him . He also called Weber a "scab," "fink," and
"stoolpigeon."
(6) Ronny Patfield called Weber a "fink" and "scab," enacted a hanging panto-
mime depicting Weber as the victim, threatened that when the Teamsters got in they
would "take care" of Weber , and remarked , "Out old man" to him. This occurred
between July 27 and September 19.
(7) Edward Abranovich told Lawrence Halk on August 21 that if his wife per-
sisted in her remarks about him he would "start something " about their personal life.
(8) Frank Prevesk told Carl Pinzarroni about 3 days before the September 19
election that when the Teamsters were elected they would "get" him . He also
informed Pinzarroni he was aware of the newspaper stories which involved either
him or his father . During the election campaign employee Delzoppo called Pin-
zarroni "scab" and spoke to him profanely.
(9) Groudle or Fedorka called Anthony Mandato a "gyred-headed scab bastard."
This occurred in August . Groudle had threatened Mandato in June 1961 to
"splatter" him "all over the ground."
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1265
(10) Mike Rossi shouted to Myrtle White in August as he was driving his station
wagon to get out of his way or he would hit her in the rear. Employees Bulska and
Robbins annoyed her with shouts and funny noises so that she felt compelled to
avoid passing them in the plant. Ludwig Prevesk told her to take off her IAM
"scab badge."
(11) Patfield called Pajestka a "scab" in September and responded to Pajestka's
remark that he was crazy by jumping over a table to reach him shouting, "you
four-eyed bastard, I will get you." Frank Prevesk said to Pajestka when the latter
urged him to let John Ackerman alone that he would "get" him and called him an
obscene name.
(12) Eddie Crane told Earnest Hartup in August that "Teamster henchmen"
were going to get him because he was on the IAM committee.
(13) Groudle said to IAM Committeeman Rice about 3 weeks before Septem-
ber 19 that he would not worry about hitting him with his automobile because he
was insured. Patfield threatened to shove Rice's IAM badge down his throat and to
"beat the heck" out of him. This was said just before the election. Frank Prevesk
threatened to "kick the hell" out of Rice. This was said in latter July or early
August in the course of an argument about the IAM committee. Arle Ferrell said
to Rice in late July that Weber had better watch himself or he would find himself
in a hospital. This was said with reference to remarks by Weber which had dis-
pleased Ferrell.
With respect to conduct by unidentified persons, I find:
(14) Razum received a telephone call on August 8 from a person who said,
"Tonight is your night. We are going to get you tonight."
(15) Ackerman received numerous telephone calls during the July 27 to Septem-
ber 19 period. On one occasion he was threatened with being blown up. Other
times the threat was to blow up his automobile. A woman's voice several times
said, "You will die." Ackerman's automobile was also vandalized during the last
week of July while it was on the company parking lot.
(16) Catherine Halk received calls in August warning that she would be beaten
up on the street and that she would be taken to court. I do not find that the calls
-were made by Modest Angelo. In view of the failure to show by foundation how
Mrs. Halk was able to distinguish Mr. Angelo 's voice, and the credited testimony of
Mrs. Angelo about her husband's infirmity, his changed voice characteristics and
his lack of familiarity with Mrs. Halk, I regard the latter 's claimed recognition of
Angelo 's voice as too suspect to warrant reliance thereon . I find only that she
received the call from an unidentified person.
(17) Mandato received an early morning call in August and was told he would be
"next." He received other early morning calls but nothing was said by the callers. On
,one occasion there was dangerous tampering with Mandato 's milling machine with
possible serious consequence to him and other employees. On other occasions his
machine was tampered with but with less serious possible consequence.
(18) Pajestka's work during July 27 to September 19 was disarranged and notes
were left warning him that he had better "wise-up, that we will take care of you" or
words to that effect.
(19) Nunally and his wife received calls after July 27 from persons who merely
laughed and said nothing. These calls ceased after Nunally gave up his IAM com-
mitteeman post on August 1, but resumed after he took back this post. I credit his
account of the conversation in the washroom with Richard Kowalski, the Teamster
supporter, in which he warned Kowalski he would be held accountable for the
calls, and Nunally's testimony that the calls ceased directly after this conversation.
Nunally's automobile was vandalized on July 30 while it was parked on the street near
his home.
Concerning controverted accounts relative to objectionable conduct, upon con-
sideration of all the evidence, including the demeanor of the witnesses, I make these
findings of fact:
(20) On August 10 Michael Unatic went through the motions of setting off
an explosion and conveyed by gesture to Weber that the significance of this panto-
mime was intended for him. I do not find that Unatic told Weber in precise words
that his house would be bombed.
(21) I reject Ludwig Prevesk's denial that he had measured Weber for a coffin,
called him filthy names, enacted a hanging pantomime for Weber's benefit, and said
to him that after the Teamsters were certified he would "get" him. I find, in accord
with Weber 's credited testimony , that Prevesk had done and said all these things.
649856-63-vol. 137-81
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(22) I do not credit Howard Valjean's denial that he had said to Weber in August
that if he had his way he would put Weber before a firing squad. I do not believe
he would, as he admitted, have cried out "to the wall" without having first, as Weber
credibly related, made the firing squad remark. I do, however, credit Valjean's
testimony that his remark was made in the course of a discussion between Weber
and ,a group of employees, of whom Valjean was one, concerning a grievance over
pay.
(23) I do not credit Fedorka's testimony that he had called Weber a "scab" and
"fink" merely because he had made a complaint to the Company against Fedorka's
friend, Patfield. I am convinced that he did so because of Weber's support during the
campaign for the TAM. I am satisfied from the entire record that Weber was
the particular object of harassment during the election campaign by Patfield, Ludwig
Prevesk, and Fedorka.
(24) I do not credit Unatic's denial that he had threatened to hit Donald Rice
with his automobile if he got in his way. I credit Rice's testimony that this was said.
I am, however, satisfied this was said in the course of an argument, as related by
Unatic, over the latter's insistence that he was permitted to perform certain work
which Rice disputed. Rice's testimony that Unatic's comment was made during an
argument over the IAM committee seems consistent with Unatic's version that he
was critical about Rice's conduct as TAM committeeman in turning in a complaint
against him to the Company rather than processing the matter through union
channels.
(25) Although I find, in accord with the testimony of Thomas G. Davis, that Tom
Delassio threatened to assault him and also remarked that they, apparently referring
to TAM supporters, "wouldn't be around there too much longer," I also find, in accord
with Delassio 's testimony , that these remarks were made in the course of an alter-
cation with Davis resulting from equalization of their overtime work. I credit
Delassio 's testimony that unions were not discussed by the disputants and that
Delassio did not wear the button of any union during the campaign.
(26) As to the conflicting versions of Catherine Krynitsky and Rose Yeckel con-
cerning which of them had threatened the other with loss of a job depending upon
which union won the election, I -am satisfied that each made that threat to the other.
I further find, in accord with the credited testimony of Ken Lowery, that he had not
forcibly tried to remove Krynitsky's union button earrings but had merely told her to
take the "silly" things off and had made this remark after the ballots were counted
on the night of the election.
(27) I do not rely on the testimony of John Coleman concerning his verbal inter-
changes with Irving Ratner and Frank Krause. Coleman's $200 wager that the
Teamsters would not be certified in this proceeding demonstrates too much interest
on his part to permit my acceptance of his testimony as wholly truthful. I do not
credit Krause's testimony for the same reason. I also do not credit Ratner's testimony
because I was not favorably impressed with his sincerity while he testified. He left me
with the feeling that he was not the good-natured comic he pretended to be. I
regarded his feigned innocence as artificial and contrived. In short I place no reliance
at all on the testimony of Coleman, Ratner, or Krause. Whatever the truth may be
as to what transpired between Coleman and Ratner or between Coleman and Krause,
it cannot, so far as I am concerned, be determined from this record.
(28) Concerning Livingstone's towmotor activities, I find, as related credibly by
Razum, Ackerman, and Catherine Halk, that he narrowly avoided striking them
with his vehicle on August 11 and 10 and on September 5, respectively. I am
satisfied that there was no necessity for Livingstone to have come so dangerously
close to these persons in the reasonable operation of the towmotor, and infer will-
fulness from the repetition of these incidents particularly as each involved an TAM
official. This inference is bolstered by my further finding that Livingstone delib-
erately positioned his towmotor on several occasions during the preelection period
in such manner that he caused obnoxious exhaust fumes to enter the TAM union
office. Livingstone during these times was wearing -a Teamsters' button, as shown
by the credited testimony, revealing his support for that organization.
I further find that Livingstone had told Razum to get out of his way or he would
run him over and had said to Ackerman that he would kill him with the towmotor.
I do not regard either comment as a threat that these victims would be hunted out
and deliberately run down and killed by Livingstone on his towmotor because of
their TAM connections. I do construe Livingstone's actions as a deliberate attempt
to harass these TAM officials, and his remarks as the ill-advised defensive retort of
vehicle operators, whether of towmotors or automobiles, who in defending their
recklessness seek to shift their blame to the innocent victims by warning that the next
time it will be fatal.
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1267
As to filling the union office with exhaust fumes, I have no doubt Livingstone had
ample room to maneuver his vehicle, even under the crowded conditions described
by him, so that he did not need to gun his engine while it was backed directly to the
office door. Obviously, this was done to fill the room with fumes which would
necessarily compel its occupants to leave and to terminate their union activities
in the office.
Analysis and Conclusions
No evidence was adduced attributing to agents of the Teamsters commission of the
conduct concerning which the foregoing findings were made. While I am satisfied
that each of the persons committing these acts was a Teamster adherent or supporter,
as evidenced by the Teamsters badge or button he wore as well as by his remarks and
conduct, not one was shown to be an officer or lesser functionary of that organization
vested with authority to act in its behalf. Mere advocacy of the Teamsters by these
employees did not constitute them the agents of that organization .5 The Board will
not set aside the results of an election won by a union whose adherents engaged in
objectionable conduct absent a showing that these persons are its agents or that the
union ratified or adopted their conduct, unless the conduct created a general atmos-
phere among the voting employees of confusion and fear of reprisal for failing to
vote for or to support the union 6 The fact that in this case Teamsters agents were
not involved in the commission of the numerous acts which I found were indulged in
is, therefore, not dispositive of the question before me, for, it is enough to warrant
setting aside the results of the election favoring the Teamsters if those acts created
an atmosphere of confusion and fear among the Company's employees.
Before turning to a consideration of the incidents concerning which I made findings
to determine their consequence, it may here be appropriately stated that the Board is
not in such proceedings as this concerned with whether in fact the conduct complained
of affected the results of the election. As stated in Allied Plywood Corp., 122 NLRB
959, 961, "in evaluating preelection conduct, the Board concerns itself with whether
the specific act reasonably tends to interfere with a free choice of representatives,
and not with the subjective reaction of employees to the alleged interference." In
the same decision the Board stated another principle governing the evaluation of the
alleged objectionable conduct in this case, namely, that in determining its effect on
the Company's employees less weight is to be accorded the conduct because it was
committed by rank-and-file employees than would have been required had the conduct
been committed by the Teamsters agents?
I accord no weight as a fear contributing factor to the name calling which I found
occurred whether the words spoken were of the milder variety such as "scab," fink,"
or "stoolpigeon," or whether they were of the unmentionable variety consisting of
sexual obscenities. I have no doubt, as several witnesses testified without refutation,
that the Company's employees are not strangers to this sort of language in their
ordinary conversations at work. .I do not condone this language, nor does the Board.
Reasonable sophistication, however, compels my view that the name calling and de-
grading language to which certain IAM supporters were subjected by Teamsters ad-
s Poinsett Lumber and Manufacturing Company, 107 NLRB 234, 235.
°Diamond State Poultry Co., Inc, 107 NLRB 3. The Board declared in this case:
It is not material that the 'fear and disorder may have been created by individual
employees and nonemployees and that their conduct cannot be attributed either to
the Employer or to the unions The important fact is that such conditions existed
and that a free election was thereby rendered impossible
71n Orleans Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 630, 633, the Board rationalized this
principle as follows.
While the Board will consider conduct not attributable to any of the parties in de-
termining whether an election should be set aside, the Board accords less weight to
such conduct than to conduct of the parties. The Board believes that the conduct
of third persons tends to have less effect upon the voters than similar conduct
attributable to the Employer who has, or the Union which seeks, control over the
employees' working conditions Furthermore, were the Board to give the same weight
to conduct by third persons as to conduct attributable to the parties, the possibility
of obtaining quick and conclusive election results would be substantially diminished.
The employer and the Union are deterred from election misconduct by the unfair
labor practice provisions of the Act and by the trouble and expense which repeated
elections impose upon them. The absence of similar deterrents against third persons
who wish to forestall a conclusive election may make them more prone to engage in
conduct calculated to prevent such a result
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herents did not frighten or shock the Company's employees into a state of intimidation
in the election .8
I furthermore regard certain other conduct as mere annoyance which did not
reasonably tend to create confusion and fear. I refer, for example, to Unatic's at-
tempts to pull Weber's badge from his shirt, the annoying shouts and noises directed
at Myrtle White by Bulska and Robbins, and Ludwig Prevesk's directive to her to
take off her "scab badge."
Next I consider the remarks to the effect that IAM adherents would lose their jobs
if they continued their support for this organization and if the Teamsters were to win
the election. Certainly, a meaningful threat of loss of jobs tends to create fear
among employees. An idle threat of loss of employment does not. In view of the
Company's neutrality, the fact that the threats were from rank-and-file employees
with no power or authority to carry out their threats, and the lack of perceivable
means by which these employees could make the threats effective I do not regard
them as so aggravated in character as tending to create general confusion and fear .9
This conclusion is also applicable to the threat by Garopic to Razum that he would
personally see to it that the "bad people" in the plant would be fired when the
Teamsters got in. There was no reasonable basis for belief that Garopic could ac-
complish this result.
I now reach a category of incidents which includes threats of various kinds de-
scribed in items (9), (10), (11), (13), (22), (24), and (25) in the foregoing find-
ings of fact. In my opinion none of this conduct had a general confusion or fear
producing effect which prevented a free choice of representative. In none of these
situations was there present intimidation to compel a change of vote in the pending
election, or to compel employees from voting as they might choose, or to compel them
to abstain from voting. The threats involved in these incidents were mostly made in
the course of private arguments and could not reasonably have been regarded by
employees not concerned with these -arguments as directed to them in any way be-
cause of their support for the LAM. I am not persuaded by the argument that when
Groudle or Fedorka called Mandato a vile name in August that a threat of physical
violence was thereby conveyed because Groudle had threatened to "splatter" Mandato
all over the ground in June. Rossi's shout to Myrtle White to get out of his way or
he would hit her with his station wagon was not even connected by evidence with the
election, and in any event was more in the nature of an unmannerly remark than a
threat. Patfield's threat to "get" Pajestka was a bellicose exclamation in a near fight
between them in which each had insulted the other. Frank Prevesk's remark to
Pajestka that he would "get" him also indicated a personal animosity and does not im-
press me as the kind of threat which would instill general fear among employees. I
similarly regard Ferrell's remark to Rice about Weber finding himself in a hospital
and Fedorka's remark to Weber that he would be the "frame-up" man against him
whatever that meant. Groudle's implied threat to run Rice down with his automobile
may have had some connection with Rice's union activities but this is not established
by the record and could not be found to be so without conjecture. Likewise Pat-
field's threat to shove Rice's LAM badge down his throat and to beat him up was not
shown to have arisen in a context of intimidation to alter Rice's support for the IAM.
It may just be reasonably be inferred that there were hard feelings between Pat-
field and Rice of a personal nature. Frank Prevesk's threat to assault Rice was
clearly an outburst in the course of an argument between them pertaining to the IAM
committee and cannot be interpreted as having a generally coercive impact upon
employees. Valjean's firing squad remarks to Weber were not, as I have found, re-
lated to rivalry between the competing unions. This is also true, as I have found,
concerning Unatic's threat to hit Rice with his automobile if he got in his way. This
also was a threat made in the course of an argument not related to the rivalry be-
tween the unions. The same is also true about Delassio's threat to assault Davis with
his accompanying remark that Davis would not be around much longer. This hap-
pened in the course of a dispute between the two men concerning overtime work.
1 come now to other conduct involving threats which in my view did reasonably
convey the impression to employees that they, even if not directly threatened, would
be the targets of violent action if .they continued their support of and adherence to
8In Reade Manufacturing Company, Inc., 100 NLRB 87, the Board stated it "has re-
peatedly held that it will not attempt to police the unrestrained activities which some-
times regrettably appear in heated union elections. It is common knowledge that em-
ployees' language often exceeds polite, parlor-room speech during the course of strongly
contested union campaigns."
Pittsfield Shoe Company, Inc, 119 NLRB 1067; Westinghouse Elect'ic Corporation,
91 NLRB 955, 960.
THE GABRIEL COMPANY AUTOMOTIVE DIVISION 1269
the TAM. This conduct, unlike the threats discussed in the preceding paragraph, was
not merely an outcropping of altercations or arguments on a personal level, but was
committed in a context from which it was evident that the threats were deliberately
intended to restrain employee support for the TAM.
Foremost in this category of fear-instilling conduct are the numerous telephone
calls received by the JAM committee members. The scope of this conduct and its
persistence reveals a systematic plan to frighten the IAM officials in the plant from
continuation of their leadership in the election. The threats of death and assault de-
livered by the anonymous callers were not just outbursts of anger in a private dispute
which might have been dismissed as heated talk of the moment. These were coldly
deliberate messages of doom and disaster. It is not reasonable to assume that the
impact of this activity was confined to its immediate victims. Others who doubtless
learned of these telephone calls from the threatened employees must reasonably have
feared that they too would be vulnerable to serious reprisal if they were to assume
leadership for the ]LAM.
I am persuaded that these calls did create an atmosphere of confusion and fear
which warrants setting aside the results of the election. Employees were not
necessarily deterred by this conduct from voting, but I am convinced that it did tend
to frighten employees from asserting leadership in the election campaign. This in
my view is a sufficient basis for invalidating the election. Elections are won or
lost by the events of the campaign before the votes are finally cast. If leaders are
scared off, if others are frightened from speaking their minds, their cause inevitably
suffers. Impressionable voters, and they exist in all electorates, are influenced by
the vigor with which campaigns are conducted. Timidity by leadership in waging a
campaign is regarded by them as reason for withholding their support at the polls.
A valid Board election is, therefore, one which provides not only tranquillity at the
polling place, but abolute freedom during the period before election day to persuade
employees to vote in a particular way. The threats to the IAM leaders tended
to destroy that freedom and thus to nullify the free choice of voters in the election.
The Board has in earlier cases rejected evidence of anonymous telephone calls
as a basis for setting aside the results of elections won by unions. These cases are
factually distinguishable from the present case and their holdings are not, therefore,
controlling here. In Tampa Crown Distributors, Inc., 118 NLRB 1420, there were
only two anonymous telephone calls received by employees. One call was a clear
threat of reprisal if the employee failed to vote for the "Union." The other call
merely warned an employee to "watch out how [he] voted in the election" with no
indication as to how the caller wanted him to vote. There was no evidence that any
employees had either received other threats or had heard of employees being
threatened relative to the election. The Board did not believe that these two
"anonymous and unpublicized" calls created the general atmosphere of fear requiring
the invalidation of the election. The telephone calls in the instant case were exceed-
ingly more numerous than two. They had a clear intimidating purpose which, as I
have stated, tended toward achievement. They were bound to become notorious
among the employees and not to remain unpublicized, and the fearful effect of the
calls tended to spill over to the employees and to create general confusion and fear
of reprisal. Moreover, as I shall soon state, there were other contemporaneous
threats to employees which underscored the gravity of the telephone warnings and
aggravated their effect. Finally, it was clear to the employees that the telephone
messages, though from anonymous callers, came from Teamsters supporters. This
is established by the evidence that Nunally's calls stopped when he gave up his IAM
committee post, continued when he resumed his post, and terminated after his
warnings to Kowalski, an active and leading Teamster adherent, that he would hold
him accountable for them. The promise by Garopic, active in the promotion of the
Teamsters' campaign, to stop the calls to the Halks in consideration for their
abandonment of the IAM in favor of the Teamsters is further indication that em-
ployees understood the calls to have come from the backers of the latter organiza-
tion, and, moreover disclosed to them the objective of this intimidation.
In the other case decided by the Board in which anonymous telephone calls did
not invalidate an election won by a union, there were several calls of a seriously
threatening nature received by employees warning them either to abstain from voting
or to vote for the union. In this case, Thomas Lanier and Sartain Lanier d/b/a
Happ Manufacturing Company, 124 NLRB 202, the Board noted the absence of
evidence tending to show that the employees who received the calls or any others
failed to vote because of them. Consequently, the Board held, these calls did not
establish a general atmosphere of fear of reprisal which required setting aside the
election results. As I have explicated, the evidence in the present case provides basis
for finding that the telephone calls tended to scare off the IAM leadership in the
campaign as well as others who might have been more outspoken for the IAM
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that in this respect a general atmosphere of confusion and fear resulted. The
Happ case, like Tampa Crown, appears to be devoid of any other evidence of threats
to employees which could have an aggravating effect on the telephone calls. Such
threats, as I shall next discuss, were present in this case contemporaneously with the
telephone threats.
The tampering with Mandato's milling machine which would probably have caused
serious injury to him and other employees but for his fortuitous discovery of the
danger before he started it was clear evidence that the telephone warnings to him
and the others were not to be lightly dismissed. The implications of this action were
likewise apparent to the employees who were present when Mandato made his dis-
covery. Pajestka's work was also tampered with on several occasions and the
threatening notes which were left were evidence that these actions were taken by
Teamsters adherents. It is reasonably inferrable that Mandato's machine was
tampered with by the same persons and for the same reasons. The dangerous action
against Mandato was an object lesson to other employees leaving little to be
imagined. I regard this conduct as productive of general fear of reprisal.
Crane's warning to Hartup that Teamsters "henchmen" would "get" him because
he was an IAM committeeman was a deliberate, unprovoked threat of reprisal. So
was Prevesk's threat to Pinzarroni that the Teamsters would get him. This threat
was magnified by a threat to rake up past misdeeds calculated to force him to
relinquish his IAM support.'° Livingstone's reckless pranks with the towmotor also
reflected a dangerously arrogant disregard for the personal safety of Razum, Acker-
man, and Mrs. Halk, all IAM committeemen, which tended, reasonably to convince
other employees of the hazards to which they also would be subjected if they were
to assert leadership for the IAM in the election campaign.
These actions," coupled with the fearful telephone threats, created a sinister image
of a group of angry men ready to inflict harm on those who championed the IAM
cause during the election. They tended to induce timidity when there should
have been opportunity for unbridled courageous expression. They deprived the
employees of the conditions which the Board declared in its landmark General Shoe
Corporation case, 77 NLRB 124, must exist to insure a valid representation election.
What the Board said then still obtains as the test by which election conduct must be
judged. The Board's statement bears repetition.
In election proceedings, it is the Board's function to provide a laboratory in
which an experiment may be conducted, under conditions as nearly ideal as
possible, to determine the uninhibited desires of the employees. It is our duty
to establish these conditions; it is also our duty to determine whether they
have been fulfilled. When, in the extreme rare case, the standard drops too low,
because of our fault, or that of others, the requisite laboratory conditions are
not present and the experiment must be conducted over again.
There have already been two elections among the Company's employees. The
wasted time, energy, and expense of these elections should be profoundly regretted
by all concerned. It is to behoped that if, as I recommend, the results of the second
election are set aside and a new election is held, that the good sense of the employees
will prevail and that they, together with the labor organizations of their choice, will
cooperate to insure that in the next election there will prevail the requisite laboratory
conditions permitting determination of their uninhibited desires of a bargaining
representative.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found that objection No. 2 has been sustained by the evidence, I recom-
mend that the election last conducted in this proceeding by the Regional Director
be set aside, and that a new election be ordered at the earlest possible date consistent
with administrative convenience.
10I do not similarly regard Abranovich's threat to "start something" about the Halk's
personal life as it appears this was a retaliatory remark for things which 'Mrs. Halk may
have said about Abranovich and which he personally resented
111 have chosen not to attach a broader implication to the hanging and coffin measur-
ing pantomimes at Weber's expense than to regard them as personal gestures for, crude
as these actions may have been, I believe they were regarded by witnessing employees as
mere attempts to humiliate Weber and not as threats to other persons. I attach no
significance to Razum's hearsay testimony concerning the conversation his brother allegedly
overheard in a tavern Nor do I consider the vandalization of Ackerman's and Nunally's
automobiles significant in this case as this conduct was not traced to the Teamsters or
its adherents and thus given the appearance of a threat tending to intimidate employees
for supporting the IAM.