International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 694 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America and Oakwood Chair Manu-
facturing Co., Inc. Case 4-CB-4583
Margaret M. McGovern, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Norton H. Brainard, III, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia, for the Respondent.
25 November 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 21 March 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen R. Benard issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in sup-
port of the judge's decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' findings,2
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order. 3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Teamsters
Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolution unless the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
2 We adopt the judge's finding that Thomas Quinn's conduct of 28 Jan-
uary 1983 is attributable to the Respondent We therefore find it unneces-
sary to pass on her characterization of Quinn as a "union representative"
in part 3 of the "Analysis and Conclusions" section of her decision.
3 The judge recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from "in any other manner" restraining or coercing employees
of Oakwood Chair or any other employer in the exercise of their protect-
ed Sec 7 rights. In H,ckmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), we held that
such broad injunctive language is warranted only when a respondent has
been shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act, or has engaged in
such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general
disregard for the employees' fundamental statutory rights. The Respond-
ent's violations in this case when viewed against the backdrop of other
similar unlawful conduct by the Respondent, including the extensive and
prolonged egregious 8(b)(1)(A) violations recently found in Teamsters
Local 115 (Gross Metal Products), 275 NLRB 1547 (1985), and cases cited
at fn 3 therein, meet this test Accordingly, we shall adopt the Order
recommended by the judge
Member Dennis agrees that a broad order is warranted, but does not
rely on Teamsters Local 115 (Gross Metal Products), surpa, in which she
dissented from the majority's failure to accept a formal posthearing settle-
ment containing a nonadmission clause.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARY ELLEN R. BENARD, Administrative Law Judge.
The original charge in Case 4-CB-4583 was filed on
February 1, 1983, by Oakwood Chair Manufacturing
Co., Inc. (Oakwood or the Employer) against Teamsters
Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the
Respondent). On March 11, 1983, the complaint issued
alleging, in substance, that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act by
various acts of misconduct in connection with a strike
against Oakwood. The Respondent filed an answer in
which it denied the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
A hearing was held before me on June 4 and 5, 1984,
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Following the hearing the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which
have been considered.
On the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc. is a Pennsyl-
vania corporation which, at relevant times, was engaged
in the manufacture and wholesale and retail rental and
sale of table and chairs from its plant in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. During the 12-month period preceding is-
suance of the complaint, a representative period, the ,,Em-
ployer in the course and conduct of its business oper-
ations sold and shipped from its Philadelphia plant prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The answer admits
and I find that Oakwood is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and I further find
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
During the time of the events at issue,' Oakwood was
in the business of importing and assembling chairs for use
in restaurants and of renting folding chairs and other
items for large parties. The Company's sole facility was
i The parties stipulated that Oakwood ceased doing business in June
1983
277 NLRB No. 68
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 (OAKWOOD CHAIR)
on Callowhill Street in Philadelphia and comprised a
building and parking lot. The parking lot was behind a
fence with a sliding gate and led to the firm's loading
dock.
Following a Board-conducted election, the Respond-
ent was certified in August 1982 as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of Oakwood's approximately 15
full-time, regular part-time , and seasonal drivers, assem-
blers, and helpers. Oakwood and the Respondent held a
number of bargaining sessions in September , October,
and November 1982, but never reached agreement on a
contract. Jack Pinheiro, the president of Oakwood, cre-
dibly testified that the last bargaining session was on No-
vember 30, 1982, and that at that meeting one of the
members of the Respondent's negotiating team advised
him that a strike would begin the next day. However, it
is undisputed that no strike was called at that time, al-
though J. Pinheiro further credibly testified that Oak-
wood's management was certain that there would be a
strike at some point.
B. The Strike
1. The events of January 24
Barry Pinheiro, Jack Pinheiro's brother and, at rele-
vant times, Oakwood's treasurer, was responsible for the
day-to-day operations of the Company. Barry Pinheiro
testified that on January 24, 1983,2 he was driving to
work about 6:30 or 6:45 a.m. when a George Cokes, who
sometimes worked for Oakwood as a janitor, stopped
him and told him there was a large group of men at the
plant. Pinheiro told Cokes to get in the car and the two
men then drove to Oakwood's facility, where Pinheiro
saw a group of 25 to 35 picketers massed in front of the
gate to the parking lot. According to Barry Pinheiro,
when he drove up to the plant a dozen or more picketers
surrounded his car and when he got out of his car they
surrounded him, shouting and cursing at him. Pinheiro
said that he wanted to open the gate to the parking lot,
but when he started forward some of the picketers asked
him if he was going to leave his car. He replied some-
thing to the effect that he was covered by insurance and
tried to push through the crowd, but found it difficult to
do so because the picketers continuously bumped him
with their shoulders, asking him what he was trying to
do and telling him he had "better watch it."
When Barry Pinheiro eventually reached the gate to
the parking lot, he found that he was unable to insert his
key into the padlock on the gate. He then walked to the
front door to Oakwood's offices, but picketers again
blocked his way. When he finally arrived at the door he
again discovered that his key would not fit into the lock,
so he made his way back to his car; as he did so, accord-
ing to Barry Pinheiro, the picketers called him names,
such as "mother-fucker" and "faggot," and applied simi-
lar terms to Cokes. It is undisputed that two organizers
for the Respondent, Richard Hart and Robert Hen-
ninger, both of whom were full-time employees of the
Union, were present throughout the incident, and Barry
Pinheiro testified that at some point Henninger, who
2 All dates are 1983 unless otherwise indicated
695
held some papers in his hand, told him to "sign the con-
tract."
Barry Pinheiro further testified that he left the build-
ing and that as he did so he noticed that no one was at
the rear entrance . In consequence , after driving to a tele-
phone and calling Jack Pinheiro , Barry Pinheiro returned
to Oakwood's premises and gained access to the building
through the unguarded door. At some time between 7
and 7:30 a.m. employees of Oakwood began to arrive; al-
though some employees picketed , most of them were sta-
tioned at the rear of the building.
Jack Pinheiro testified that after his brother telephoned
and told him about the picketing, he drove to the plant
with his son, Mitchell, arriving about 7:45 or 8 a.m. Ac-
cording to Jack Pinheiro, as he and Mitchell approached
the plant they saw 20 to 30 picketers massed in front of
the gate to the lot. All of Oakwood 's regular employees
were also present, but most of them were standing across
the street from the Oakwood facility. Jack Pinheiro testi-
fied that he tried to walk up the ramp leading to the
front door, but was blocked by picketers, who stood
shoulder-to-shoulder, yelled profanities, told him to "sign
the contract," and shouted, "[Y]ou'll be sorry." Accord-
ing to Jack Pinheiro, he would "inch forward," the pick-
eters would give way slightly, and in that manner he
made his way up the ramp. Two or three picketers stood
in front of the door, initially preventing Jack Pinheiro
from opening it, but he eventually entered the building.
Barry Pinheiro testified that later that morning he
learned that the battery cables and distributor wires on
Oakwood's trucks had been cut, and that a tow truck
was called to take the trucks to be repaired. When the
tow truck arrived, Barry Pinheiro went to open the gate;
however, according to both Pinheiros, the picketers
blocked the entrance to the lot, preventing the tow truck
from getting to the trucks. Jack Pinheiro testified that he
called the tow truck company, asked why the truck had
not come in, and was told, apparently by the owner of
the company , that the driver was frightened . Jack Pin-
heiro said he would call the police civil disobedience
squad and ask for officers to be present when the truck
came back; the owner said that the driver refused to
return, but that he would come himself. Accordingly,
Jack Pinheiro arranged for the civil disobedience squad
to come to the plant and while they were there the tow
truck owner arrived. It is undisputed that this individual
was a "very big" man, and that he was accompanied by
a very large dog. The tow truck removed the Oakwood
trucks from the lot, apparently without further incident.
Anthony Schrader, a locksmith, testified that about
8:30 or 9 a.m. on January 24 he was called to the Oak-
wood facility. According to Schrader, when he arrived
at the plant there were about 15 men standing in front of
the gate to the lot. One of the men asked Schrader what
he was going to do and he replied that he was there to
fix the locks. Some of the men laughed and Schrader
started to walk away, but then turned around and asked
Hart if his truck was safe; Hart said that it was not.
Schrader testified that notwithstanding this response he
went to the front door of the building and someone let
him in and explained the situation. Schrader then re•.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
moved the lock from the door and took it to the truck
where he repaired it. He then went back toward the
door, but a group of picketers blocked his way. Accord-
ing to Schrader, he just stopped to let the men go
around him and they did, passing him shoulder-to-shoul-
der and brushing against him. When he again returned to
the truck, the picketers told him to pack up his tools and
leave. Schrader testified that he had more work to do
inside the building but did not want to be out of sight of
his truck, so he went to work on the lock on the gate.
However, as he started to cut the lock with his boltcut-
ters, a couple of the picketers came up to him and told
him not to cut the lock, and another said that he had
better not cut the lock or the speaker, whom Schrader
subsequently identified as Hart,3 would kick his "fucking
ass." Schrader further testified that despite this threat he
cut the bolt and nothing happened.
Both Pinheiros testified that when customers came
toward the gate the picketers shouted at them and
crowded in front of the gate and that everytime the gate
was opened the picketers shut it again, so no vehicles
could enter the lot, and that in consequence Oakwood
was unable to conduct any business the first day of the
strike. Jack Pinheiro further testified that when custom-
ers approached the building the picketers would block
their path, calling them "scabs" and telling them to take
their business to Oakwood's competitors.
The Respondent's witnesses gave a significantly differ-
ent version of the events of January 24 than that provid-
ed by witnesses for the General Counsel. Thus, Hen-
ninger, Hart, and Carlos Matos, a part-time employee of
Oakwood, testified that there were only 10 or 15 picket-
ers at the Oakwood facility that day. According to Hen-
ninger and Hart, they were standing by the front door to
the plant when Barry Pinheiro arrived that morning; as
Barry Pinheiro approached, Henninger advised him that
the Union was on strike and that he should settle the
contract and end the strike. The two organizers testified
that Pinheiro said, "Fuck you," that Henninger respond-
ed, "Well, fuck you, too," and that Pinheiro then opened
the door, slamming it into Henninger and, according to
the latter, "practically knocking me over," and went
inside. Henninger and Hart further testified that although
they were at the picket line all day, they did not observe
any of the picketers jostling or blocking either of the
Pinheiro brothers; Henninger's and Hart's testimony
about these issues was also substantially corroborated by
another picketer, Thomas Quinn, who was a member of
9 When Schrader initially testified about the conversation concerning
the safety of his truck he identified Hart, who was in the hearing room,
as the individual who told him that his truck was not safe Later, howev-
er, Schrader testified that he did not recognize any of the picketers who
spoke to him as being in the room Still later, during his cross-examina-
tion, Schrader identified Hart as the individual who made the threat
when Schrader went to cut the bolt on the gate Although this identifica-
tion may, at first blush, seem to be inconsistent with Schrader's earlier
statement that he did not recognize any of the persons who spoke to him
as being in the hearing room, I am convinced that Schrader was confused
at the time of the earlier statement and did not intend the answer he
gave Schrader was an extremely impressive and essentially disinterested
witness who seemed to attempt to honestly recount events I therefore
credit him
the Respondent but was unemployed at the time of the
events in issue.
Henninger further testified that there was no problem
with the locks to the parking lot gate or the front door
and both Henninger and Quinn testified that they did not
see Schrader come to the facility on January 24.4 Hart
conceded that a locksmith came to the plant and fixed
the locks that day, but denied making any threats to him
or suggesting that his truck would not be safe.
With respect to the tow truck incident, Henninger tes-
tified that a tow truck arrived at the premises about mid-
morning, but that Matos, who Henninger believed was
acquainted with the tow truck driver, talked to the
driver and after that conversation the driver left. Again,
Henninger's testimony was substantially corroborated by
Quinn and Hart. In further corroboration, Matos testified
that he was acquainted with the driver and asked him to
respect the picket line, and the driver agreed to do so.
Henninger and Quinn also testified that when potential
customers of Oakwood approached the premises they
would be told that there was a strike and asked to honor
the picket line; they were also advised that if they
wanted to rent chairs, there was another firm which
would gladly rent to them. According to Henninger,
customers either entered Oakwood's building or left, but
he did not see any potential customers try to drive into
Oakwood's parking lot. Hart testified that he did not see
any customers that day.
I did not find most of the testimony by the Respond-
ent's witnesses to be credible. Henninger , Hart, Quinn,
and Matos did not appear to be at all candid or forth-
right but, on the contrary, seemed to be more anxious to
tailor their testimony to fit the Respondent's defenses
than to provide me with an accurate account of events.
In contrast, both Barry and Jack Pinheiro seemed to tes-
tify honestly and to exhibit good recollection. Further,
the testimony of the Pinheiros with respect to the prob-
lems with the locks was corroborated by Schrader, who,
as noted above, I found to be honest and credible. I
therefore find that the various incidents and situations of
January 24 occurred as the Pinheiros and Schrader de-
scribed them.
2. The events of January 25 and 26
Barry Pinheiro testified that there were only about
one-fifth as many picketers at Oakwood on January 25 as
there had been the previous day. Jack Pinheiro testified
that on January 25 and 26 a few customers crossed the
picket line and that although on the first 2 days of the
strike he parked his car off Oakwood 's premises by the
third day he had decided that it was senseless to pay to
park elsewhere and so he parked in Oakwood's lot.
However , according to Jack Pinheiro , each day for the
first week or so of the strike he was required to cut the
lock on the gate in order to get into the lots Jack Pin-
4 Quinn also testified that he did not know of any problem with the
locks
5 According to Jack Pinheiro, the Company bought two boxes of
locks, all fitting the same keys, at wholesale price Every night the gate
was locked, if the key did not work the next day the lock would be cut
and a new lock put on the gate
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 (OAKWOOD CHAIR)
heiro further testified that the first day he drove into the
lot the picketers told him that "something could happen"
to his car if he parked it there, suggesting that "stones
could fall off the railroad tracks and maybe break your
window."
Schrader testified that he returned to Oakwood on
January 26 and that there were about 15 picketers
present at the time, but that he did not have any conver-
sations with any of them.
For the reasons stated above , I credit the Pinheiros
and Schrader.
3. The events of January 28
Barry Pinheiro testified that on January 28 he picked
up one of the Oakwood trucks at the garage where it
had been repaired and then drove the truck to pick up a
load of chairs that had been rented to a customer the
previous week . He then drove back to Oakwood 's facili-
ty, accompanied by two striker replacements , Anthony
Weaver and Raymond Howard. According to Barry Pin-
heiro, he did not have any difficulty driving the truck
across the picket line because the truck's speed was
about 30 miles per hour at the time. After unloading the
rental chairs from the truck , Barry Pinheiro , Weaver,
and Howard reloaded the truck with some chairs Oak-
wood had assembled for a Chinese restaurant located in
South Philadelphia, got back in the truck, and, about
12:30 p.m ., left to deliver the chairs. Pinheiro testified
that he was apprehensive about making the trip because
it was the first time since the strike began that Oakwood
had tried to go in or out of the parking lot with one of
the company trucks.
It is undisputed that Henninger , Hart, Quinn, and
Matos saw Barry Pinheiro and the helpers leave the
Oakwood lot and that they followed the truck in the car
which the Respondent provided to Henninger for his
use. Pinheiro testified that when he arrived at his destina-
tion he parked the truck on the street and Henninger
drove past ; Pinheiro and the helpers then got out of the
truck and let down the tailgate. According to Pinheiro,
just as he got the tailgate down Henninger and his com-
panions appeared on the sidewalk nearby. Pinheiro testi-
fied that Matos started yelling at Weaver and Howard,
and that Quinn knocked to the ground a camera that
Howard had been carrying on his shoulder . Pinheiro fur-
ther testified that the camera bounced on the sidewalk,
and that when he went to retrieve it Quinn stepped on
the camera , crushing it, and then threw the film car-
tridge toward Pinheiro . Pinheiro bent over to pick up
the pieces of the camera and Quinn moved toward him,
so that , according to Pinheiro , his head was almost
touching Quinn 's knees. Pinheiro then tried to straighten,
but. something was behind him, preventing him from
moving back . At that point Quinn, who had a lighted
cigarette in his mouth , leaned toward Pinheiro . Pinheiro
testified that he brushed the cigarette aside, without
touching Quinn, and that Quinn then started to hit him.
Henninger and Hart then joined in the attack on Pin-
heiro, trying to pin his arms when he tried to hit back.
Eventually , according to Pinheiro , his attackers succeed-
ed in holding his arms, and at that point, while he was
unable to move, he was hit over the head and on his
697
back and shoulders with some object he was unable to
identify . Pinheiro started to bleed from the head wound,
and was unable to see , but testified that he heard some-
one say, "Okay , he's had enough," and also heard some-
one say that the police were coming . It is undisputed
that at that point the fight ended.
Weavers corroborated Pinheiro 's testimony that the
fight started when the camera was grabbed from
Howard and that Quinn, Henninger , and Hart then all
started hitting Pinheiro . However, Weaver testified that
he thought it was Henninger or Hart and Henninger
who took the camera and that Henninger had the ciga-
rette in his mouth , and that the object used to hit Pin-
heiro in the head was a pipe. Weaver also testified that
he was pretty sure that the truck used to transport the
chairs that day was a yellow Ryder truck , and not one
of the trucks owned by Oakwood, which were red.
Again, the Respondent 's witnesses all presented a very
different version of the incident from the account given
by Pinheiro . The Respondent 's witnesses testified that
they followed the Oakwood truck in order to establish
an ambulatory picket line , and that the fight occurred
substantially as follows: when the truck arrived at the
restaurant to unload the chairs it sideswiped a car, and
then backed into the corner . Henninger pulled up and let
Quinn, Matos, and Hart out of the car, and then went to
find a parking place . While Henninger was walking back
toward the truck and the others were standing near it,
the camera fell. Quinn went to pick it up, and Pinheiro
snatched it out of his hand . Then Pinheiro, who was
holding the camera in his right hand with the strap
wrapped around his hand , swiped at Quinn with the
hand holding the camera . Quinn backed off, Pinheiro
turned as if to walk away, and then Pinheiro suddenly
wheeled back and swung the camera at Quinn's head.
Quinn put up his left hand to block the blow, and the
camera consequently hit his hand. At that point, Hen-
ninger arrived on the scene. Pinheiro grabbed him by the
jacket, hitting him repeatedly in the forehead with the
camera. Henninger looked down , saw a 1-gallon gasoline
can on the ground, and hit Pinheiro across the head with
it. , Pinheiro started bleeding and fell back, and Hart
jumped on his back. Pinheiro then started hitting Hart
with the camera , while Henninger and Quinn tried to pin
Pinheiro's arms. Eventually Pinheiro broke the camera
over Hart's head , and the fight broke up. After the
police arrived Pinheiro took a towel or rag he had been
using to wipe his face and threw it to Matos, saying,
"Come on you motherfuckers , you're not so tough, I can
take you on ," or words to that effect.
It is undisputed that the police insisted that Pinheiro
go to the hospital, and Pinheiro testified that he received
15 stitches in his scalp and 5 stitches on the bridge of his
nose, and that he had "lots of contusions all over me."
Pinheiro also testified that he had no recollection of
throwing the towel at Matos, or of offering to renew the
fight. Henninger and his companions told the police that
Pinheiro had started the fight and that they wanted him
6 Although Howard was subpoenaed by the General Counsel, he failed
to appear
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be arrested, but the police took Henninger, Hart,
Quinn, and Matos into custody instead. Henninger, Hart,
and Quinn were all charged with and subsequently adju-
dicated guilty of simple and aggravated assault in state
criminal proceedings. It is undisputed that Matos was not
involved in the fight and that he was not charged with
any criminal conduct.
Henninger and Hart testified that they were injured in
the fight and consequently sought and received medical
treatment. However, the medical records in evidence
show only that they complained of injury, and are of no
probative value on the issue of how those alleged injuries
were received.
For the reasons stated above, I credit Pinheiro.
Weaver, although he appeared to testify candidly, did
not exhibit good recall, and I therefore do not credit him
to the extent that his testimony was inconsistent with
that of Barry Pinheiro. Also for the reasons given above,
I specifically discredit Henninger, Hart, Quinn, and
Matos to the extent that their testimony conflicted with
Pinheiro's. In this regard, I emphasize that I was far
from favorably impressed by the demeanor of the Re-
spondent's witnesses, and that in discrediting Henninger,
Hart, and Quinn, I do not rely on their criminal convic-
tions, particularly inasmuch as they still had a right of
appeal as of the date of the instant hearing. In light of
these credibility resolutions, I find that Henninger, Hart,
and Quinn, in the presence of employees Weaver and
Howard and without provocation, assaulted Barry Pin-
heiro.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The agency status of Henninger , Hart, and Quinn
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that Hen-
ninger, Hart, and Quinn were, at material times, agents
of the Respondent . As discussed above, Henninger and
Hart were employed full time by the Respondent as or-
ganizers , and were in charge of the picketing at Oak-
wood . In these circumstances it is clear that they were in
a position to act and speak for the Respondent with re-
spect to the picketing and attendant situations or inci-
dents . I therefore find that they were agents of the Re-
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act
and that in consequence their conduct is attributable to
the Respondent.
Inasmuch as Quinn, at least with respect to the inci-
dent on January 28 , acted in the presence of and in
accord with Henninger and Hart, I also find that his ac-
tions were attributable to the Respondent . I therefore
find it unnecessary to determine whether Quinn was also
an agent of the Respondent within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The alleged mass picketing, blocking of entries,
jostling of supervisors, and threats
As discussed above, I have found that on January 24 a
mass of picketers impeded Barry and Jack Pinheiros' en-
trance to Oakwood's premises, jostled them, indicated to
Barry Pinheiro that his car might be damaged, and
threatened Jack Pinheiro that he would be "sorry" if he
did not sign the contract. As also discussed above, I have
found that on January 26 the picketers indicated to Jack
Pinheiro that his car would be damaged if he parked it in
the Oakwood lot. I have also found that Henninger and
Hart were present on the picket line at these times, and
that insofar as these events concerned Barry Pinheiro
they were witnessed by George Cokes, an employee,
and, insofar as they concerned Jack Pinheiro, they were
witnessed by a number of the Company's regular em-
ployees.
It is well established that mass picketing and obstruct-
ing of entrances violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.7
Further, as the Board has noted, 8
It has long been settled that restraint and coercion
directed against supervisors and managerial person-
nel under circumstances where the conduct became
or was sure to become known to the Company's
striking or nonstriking employees constitutes re-
straint and coercion of employees in the exercise of
their statutory rights within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
I therefore find that the mass picketing, the jostling of
the Pinheiros, and the blocking of their access to the
plant are attributable to the Respondent and that by that
conduct the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
I further find that the comments made on January 24
about Barry Pinheiro's car and that Jack Pinheiro would
be "sorry" and the comment to Jack Pinheiro later in the
week about the possibility that "something could
happen" to his car were unlawful threats. Although
these comments might be considered innocuous in them-
selves, in the context in which they were made they
were clearly threats of harm to the Pinheiros' property
and/or persons, and I so find. I therefore further find
that the threats violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
It is also well settled that a union acts unlawfully
when it restrains or coerces third parties by conduct
such as that directed against Schrader.9 I therefore find
that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by
blocking Schrader's access to the plant, jostling him, and
indicating to him that his truck was not safe, and by
Hart's threat to him when Schrader went to cut the lock
on the gate to the parking lot.
With respect to the tow truck incident and the at-
tempts of customers to enter the plant, although it is per-
fectly lawful for picketers to ask third parties to honor a
picket line,' 0 the conduct of the Respondent here went
far beyond that which "is merely incidental to primary
picketing activity which is permitted under the Act."""
Maywood Plant of Grede Plastics, 235 NLRB 363 (1978).
a Mine Workers District 20 (Harbert Construction), 192 NLRB 565, 566
(1971) Accord. Service Employees Local 254 (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), 218 NLRB 1399, 1400-01 (1975)
9 See, e g., Longshoremen ILA Local 1291 (Trailer Marine), 266 NLRB
1204, 1207 (1983); Iron Workers Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.), 243
NLRB 340, 346 (1979)
to Interstate Cigar Co, 256 NLRB 496, 498 at fn. 1 (1981)
11 Interstate Cigar Co., supra
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 (OAKWOOD CHAIR) 699
Inasmuch as I have credited the Pinheiros' testimony
that the picketers blocked the entrance to the parking lot
when the tow truck driver initially attempted to turn
into the lot, and that when customers approached the
premises the picketers blocked the entrance, shouted at
them, and called them "scabs," I further find that this
conduct violated Section 8(b)(1)(A).
3. The alleged assault on Barry Pinheiro
Having found that Henninger, Hart, and Quinn assault-
ed ]Barry Pinheiro on January 28 in the presence of
Weaver and Howard, and that the conduct of the three
union representatives is attributable to the Respondent, I
further find that this conduct would reasonably tend to
restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by the Act, and therefore violat-
ed Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc. is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Local 115 a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in mass picketing, jostling supervisors
of the Employer, blocking the ingress and egress to the
Employer's plant of said supervisors, threatening supervi-
sors with bodily harm and with property damage, block-
ing the ingress to the Employer's facility of third parties,
threatening such third parties with property damage and
bodily harm, and assaulting a supervisor of the Employ-
er, all in the presence of employees, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in var-
ious unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from such
conduct and to post the usual notice. In addition, inas-
much as Oakwood is no longer in business, I shall rec-
ommend that the Respondent be ordered to mail copies
of the notice to all persons employed by Oakwood at the
time of the unfair labor practices found.
Finally, it is noteworthy that in several other cases this
Respondent has been found to have committed unfair
labor practices similar to those found herein. Thus, in
Philadelphia Ambulance Service, 238 NLRB 1070 (1978),
the Respondent was found to have unlawfully threatened
physical violence against employees, damaged and
threatened damage to property, and hindered ingress and
egress to employers' premises. More recently, in Team-
sters Local 115 (Carol Lines), Case 4-CB-4649, in which
the administrative law judge's decision issued March 19,
1984, the Respondent was found to have engaged in un-
lawful blocking of egress.
I recognize that no exceptions were filed to the judge's
decision in Carol Lines. However, in Operating Engineers
Local 12 (Associated Engineers), 270 NLRB 1172 (1984),
the Board held that an administrative law judge's deci-
sion to which no exceptions are filed may be considered
by the Board in determining whether a respondent had
demonstrated a proclivity to violate the Act. In light of
that decision I find that the Respondent has demonstrat-
ed a proclivity to violate the Act. I shall therefore rec-
ommend a broad cease-and-desist order in this case.12
On the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and on the entire record, I issue the following recom-
mended13
ORDER
The Respondent, Teamsters Local 115 a/w Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehou-
semen and Helpers of America, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Engaging in mass picketing, jostling supervisors of
Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc., or any other
employer, blocking the ingress and egress to Oakwood
Chair's plant of supervisors, threatening supervisors with
bodily harm and with property damage, blocking the in-
gress to the Oakwood Chair facility of third parties,
threatening such third parties with property damage and
bodily harm , and assaulting supervisors.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees of Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc., or
any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its office and meeting halls in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."14 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
12 Another case in which the Respondent was found by an administra-
tive law judge to have committed numerous unfair labor practices in con-
nection with a picket line is Teamsters Local 115 (Gross Metal Products),
Cases 4-CB-4845 and 4-CB-4845-2, in which the judge's decision issued
on January 22, 1985 However, I am advised by the Board's Office of the
Executive Secretary that exceptions have been filed to that decision In-
asmuch as that case is thus pending before the Board, I have not consid-
ered it in determining that a broad order is appropriate in the instant
case.
13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
14 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al 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 "
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Sign and mail copies of the notice to all persons
who were employed by Oakwood Chair Manufacturing
Co., Inc. as of January 24, 1983.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Oak-
wood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc., or any other em-
ployer, by engaging in mass picketing , jostling supervi-
sors, blocking the ingress and egress to Oakwood Chair's
plant of supervisors , threatening supervisors with bodily
harm and with property damage. blocking the ingress to
the Oakwood Chair facility of third parties , threatening
such third parties with property damage and bodily
harm, or assaulting supervisors.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees of Oakwood Chair Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
or any other employer, in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 115 A/W INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA