International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 342 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO and Elsing Manufacturing Co. Case
16-CB-496
October 31, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On June 8, 1970, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett
issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the Respondent and
the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent , International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO , its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order.
1 The Charging Party has excepted to the failure of the Trial Examiner
to make a specific finding of violations by mass picketing. A review of the
record and the Trial Examiner's Decision indicates that the Respondent
did engage in mass picketing, which resulted in the blocking of ingress and
egress to the plant. This conduct occurred on the morning of November 19,
1969, when the vehicle of Bill Bunch was halted by a group of 40 pickets.
Within a short period of time thereafter, several other vehicles were
similarly halted. On the morning of December 1, 1969, this conduct was
again repeated, when approximately 50 to 55 pickets halted several vehicles
attempting to enter the plant. We note that the Trial Examiner has
provided a full remedy for such violations in his Recommended Order and
Notice.
2 These findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility
determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has
excepted. The Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the
clear preponderance of all relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find no basis
for disturbing those findings. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB
544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S. BENNETT, Trial Examiner: This matter was
heard at McAlester, Oklahoma, on February 2, 3, 4, 5, 23,
and 24, 1970. The complaint, issued January 8, 1970, and
based upon a charge filed November 24, 1969, by Elsing
Manufacturing Co., herein the Employer, alleges that
Respondent Union, International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union, AFL-CIO, had engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act. Briefs have been submitted by all parties. The
Charging Party has also asked that notice be taken that on
April 24, 1970, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma in a Section 10(j) proceeding,
enjoined the alleged conduct in essence litigated herein.
The findings below are made solely upon the record
litigated before me.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Elsing Manufacturing Co. is an Oklahoma corporation
operating two plants in McAlester, Oklahoma, where it is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of ladies' clothing.
The Employer annually purchases and directly receives
goods and materials from points outside the State of
Oklahoma valued in excess of $50,000 and likewise sells
and ships products valued in excess of said amount directly
to points outside that State. I find that the operations of the
Employer affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the Issue
A strike under the auspices of the Union was commenced
by the Employer's previously unorganized employees on
November 19, 1969, and is still current. Much of the
activity litigated herein took place at the plants, each of
which is approached by a driveway from the highway with
official picket lines established at these locations. The
cutting room plant is approached by a 20-foot wide gate
some 40 feet back from the highway. The entrance to the
main plant is by a road which bridges a culvert as it leaves
the highway which is approximately 35 feet wide at that
point.
At issue herein are a number of allegations including
picket line violence, assaults upon nonstrikers, damage to
186 NLRB No. 54
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION 343
vehicles of nonstrikers and related incidents. There is a
marked conflict in the respective versions. The testimony of
the witnesses for the General Counsel reflects aggravated
assaults and at times a Donnybrook. The version of the
witnesses for Respondent reflects a pastoral and serene
scene with pickets set upon by nonstrikers.'
Some incidents took place away from the picket line and,
as will appear, agency and union responsibility is
established. A majority but not all of the incidents litigated
will be set forth for, in my view, the evidence becomes
cumulative and the flavor is substantially established by
those detailed below.
B. Agency and Union Responsibility
Mrs. Jerry Jackson is a full-time paid organizer for
Respondent Union and was assigned to the stake prior to
November 19, 1969. Eva Chambers has an identical
position and commenced strike duty on November 20.
Other organizers were on the scene and, as Chambers
admitted, there was usually more than one organizer on
duty each day. John Curtis is also an organizer who was on
the scene daily, at least in the early days of the strike. Glen
Clay and Frank Pierce are respectively assistant director
and manager of the Union's local region and were in overall
supervision of the strike. Only Jackson and Chambers
testified herein. Jackson admitted that she supervised the
pickets, explaining her duties as "just about anything that
pertained to the picket line." The inference is well
warranted on this record that Chambers had equal
authority.
A union meeting was held the night before the strike by
Clay and Jackson; I find that Organizer Curtis was also
present. Jackson denied that the subject of picket captains
was discussed.
Gerald Sellers was a striker for 4 to 5 days, attended three
union meetings and then returned to work. He testified, and
I find, that the topic of picket captains was discussed at a
meeting the following morning. He claimed that he
attended a meeting at 9 a.m. on November 19, the first day
of the strike, at which they were addressed by Clay and
Organizer Curtis with Organizer Jackson not in attendance
on this occasion.
He stated that Clay named four picket captains to be in
charge of the pickets signing in for duty. He recalled only
the names of Luella King and Bernice Pink; the latter
figures prominently in the incidents set forth below. While
Jackson, whose memory was not impressive herein, claimed
at one point that Pink was not a captain, she admitted that
Pink could have so functioned. And while it is claimed that
picket captains were not named for 2 weeks, it was
conceded that Brenda Scherman was a picket captain
sometime during the week commencing November 19.
Jackson, although later backing away, admitted that it is
the duty of captains to keep records of those who serve on
I It is true that conduct by agents of the Employer was the subject of a
complaint in a CA case which was settled Certain of the incidents were
developed herein in an effort by Respondent to establish that they
provoked counter measures by Respondent Union or the strikers The
incidents treated below were divorced in time from this other conduct.
While it is understandable that one may return a punch, this is not the case
here because there is a distinct dichotomy in time and one type of
misconduct as such does not warrant unrelated conduct of the type
the picket line and to make a record of any picket line
incident. It may be noted that pickets were paid $30 a week
strike pay commencing the third week of the strike.
Organizer Chambers deprecated the role of the captain,
but initially admitted that captains write down and turn in
reports of all picket line incidents. She admitted that a
captain is one "who knows the people needed to assume a
little responsibility." She initially also asserted that the
captain recorded the names so that pickets could obtain
stake pay and also had the duty to keep in touch with them.
She later shaded this by claiming that the pickets would
receive the pay even if the captains failed to record their
names.2
The record discloses that Jackson was injured at the
picket line on November 19 and absent for about I week
thereafter. It also discloses that Union Organizer Curtis, as
Gerald Sellers uncontrovertedly testified, was present at the
picket line at the main plant every morning from November
19 or 20 on until Sellers returned to work.
I find that all picket lines were officially authorized and
that union organizers were regularly in attendance. Indeed,
Organizer Jackson participated in incidents both at the
picket line and elsewhere. Responsibility of Respondent for
the conduct of Jackson and Chambers is clear, particularly
so in the absence of any disavowal thereof. While I do not
rely on the fact per se that Respondent provided legal
counsel for strikers involved in incidents, the fact is that it
knew thereof and repudiated none of it.
As for the picket captains, I find their conduct
attributable to Respondent. Indeed Pink, as will appear,
engaged in certain incidents in the presence of Jackson and
other strikers without repudiation. While there is evidence
that strikers were told to conduct themselves peacefully, the
fact that organizers acted otherwise along with picket
captains was manifestly a demonstration to rank-and-file
employees that nonpeaceful conduct was acceptable and
even desirable if necessary to accomplish strike objectives. I
find that in all of the incidents set forth below union
responsibility is established upon a preponderance of the
evidence. See N.L.R.B. v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers
and Taxicab Drivers Local 327 [Hartmann Luggage Co.] 419
F.2d 1282 (C.A. 6) enfg. 173 NLRB No. 220; N.L.R.B. v.
Suffolk County District Council of Carpenters, 387 F.2d 170
(C.A. 2) Teamsters Local 738 (Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of
Louisville), 160 NLRB 1776; United Mine Workers District 2
(Solar Fuel Co.), 176 NLRB No. 178; Teamsters Local 115
(E.J. Lavino and Co.), 157 NLRB 1637; and United
Furniture Workers of America AFL-CIO (Jamestown
Sterling Corp.), 139 NLRB 1279.
C. Restraint and Coercion
1. The Jewell Johnson incident
At 7 a.m. on November 19, the first day of the strike,
developed herein.
2 Striker Ruby Eldridge testified, in an attempt to refute Sellers, that she
attended a union meeting on November 19 and that Clay did not name
captains However, the meeting she attended was in the evening and the
testimony of Sellers places the meeting at 9 a.m Eldridge also admitted
that the topic of captains had been discussed prior to the stake I therefore
credit Sellers herein
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jewell Johnson started to drive her truck into the driveway
at the main plant. Pickets surrounded her car and she
stopped in order to avoid striking them. Organizer Jackson
invited her to join the strikers and Johnson declined.
Jackson, in response , reached through the open window
and snatched the eye glasses Johnson was wearing. Johnson
requested their return and Jackson turned to the strikers
and asked if anyone had seen Johnson wear glasses.
Johnson rejected Jackson's invitation to fight with the
strikers and was ultimately permitted to enter. At the end of
the day, Johnson found the glasses in the rear of her pickup
truck.
During the time the Johnson vehicle was forcibly stopped
by the pickets for approximately 10 minutes,3 the pickets
beat the car with signs and kicked it. Captain Bernice Pink
jerked the rear license plate down and both she and Jackson
kicked at it in an ostensible effort to break it off; other
pickets threw stones at the vehicle. I find that the snatching
of the glasses, halting the car, throwing of rocks, and
beating on the car, to say the least, constituted restraint and
coercion by the Union within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.4
2. The Blevins incident
A vehicle driven by Sonny Blevins, with his sister Janet
and mother Rosella, as passengers, was next in line to enter
behind the Johnson vehicle on November 19. After that car
was permitted to enter, the pickets similarly nonpeaceful
and in the presence of Jackson and Pink, turned their
attention to the Blevins vehicle. The car was promptly
surrounded, preventing entry without striking pickets
stationed in front of the car. Striker Brenda Scherman slit a
plastic rear window with a sharp instrument. The Blevins
car was stopped for approximately 10 minutes during which
time the pickets, still in the presence of Jackson and Pink,
beat upon, kicked the car and also threw rocks at it,
inflicting dents therein. I find that the blocking of the car,
beating on the car, throwing of rocks and slitting of the rear
window constituted restraint and coercion.5
3. The Bill Bunch incident
Bill Bunch entered the plant without incident at 6:45 a.m.
on November 19. Initially, his vehicle was surrounded by 40
strikers, he rejected Jackson's offer to join the strikers and
she then directed the strikers to permit him to enter because
he was a supervisor. At 8 or 8:30, he and Personnel
Manager William SanMillan left on an errand in a
company truck and returned shortly thereafter.
As they entered the driveway, Striker Alan Mitchell, in
the presence of other strikers, struck the windshield with a
piece of lumber measuring I by 2 and approximately 3 feet
in length. The stick shattered, although the windshield did
not. Jackson and Captain Pink were present. I find that this
assault constituted restraint and coercion .6
3 I find that if Johnson had proceeded she would have injured the
pickets. This I equate with forcibly stopping the vehicle. Indeed, the
striking of pickets by a moving car was the subject of the CA charge and
was relied upon herein by Respondent Union.
4 These findings are based upon the mutually corroborative testimony
of Johnson; Janet Blevins , a passenger in a car about to enter the plant;
and that of her mother Rosella also a passenger in that car.
4. The Ethel Effinger incident
At approximately 9 a.m. on November 19, Bunch and
SanMillan left the main plant and proceeded to the cutting
room plant to pick up some fabric. They discovered that the
20 foot wide gate was shut with a chain, not provided by the
Employer, looped through the center where the two halves
met.
According to the testimony of Bunch and SanMillan,
which I credit, Bunch stopped the vehicle and SanMillan
got out and started to remove the chain from the gate. As he
did so, Striker Ethel Effinger came to the gate and grasped
his arm in an effort to prevent this move by him. SanMillan
shoved her aside and Effinger renewed her efforts.
SanMillan ultimately pushed her aside, opened the gate and
the vehicle entered.
Effinger testified that Jackson had authorized her to
picket at this location. She admitted telling SanMillan that
he would not open the gate and contended that truck
continued to advance and struck her.
The simple answer is that Effinger admitted grabbing the
arm of SanMillan at the center of the gate and I find that
she attempted to interfere with the progress of the vehicle
into the plant. While Effinger had the right to picket
peacefully, she did not have the right to forcibly interfere
with the progress of the vehicle and she did precisely that.
Effinger was in front of the car through her own volition
and deliberately placed herself in a position of peril.
Assuming, on her version, which I do not credit, that she
was struck by the car, SanMillan was equally vulnerable
herein, hardly a move that driver Bunch would undertake.
I find that Bunch did not attempt to injure Effinger on
this occasion. Needless to say, the picket line is far removed
from a tea party, but the fact is that Effinger took the
initiative here in an effort to interfere with the entry of the
company vehicle. I find that this effort to prevent the
opening of the gate constituted restraint and coercion.
5. The Bernard and Smart incident
Immediately after the Blevins car was permitted to pass
into the parking area, Production Manager Leon Bernard
and a machinist, D. Smart, started to leave the premises in a
company van. They were compelled to stop because of
pickets in their path. The pickets opened the van door and
Captain Pink attempted, unsuccessfully, to pull Smart from
the vehicle. I find that this assault constituted restraint and
coercion.?
6. Nails in the driveway
Danny Hall, not an employee, frequently takes his wife to
and from work with the Employer. He observed the
following conduct on an afternoon he placed between the
start of the strike, November 19, and December 4.
Hall was passing the plant and, because of congestion,
5 This finding is based upon the mutually corroborative testimony of
Janet and Rosella Blevins. Jackson, in essence , generally denied all
violence and Pink and Scherman did not testify.
6 This finding is based upon the uncontroverted testimony of Bunch;
Mitchell did not testify.
r This finding is predicated upon the uncontroverted testimony of Janet
Blevins.
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION
slowed down to a speed of approximately 5 miles per hour
while on his way to a pickup spot to collect his wife. The
picket line was operating and Organizer Chambers was
standing near the open trunk of her car across the highway
from the picket line. As Hall testified, he saw Chambers
handing roofing nails to strikers who then proceeded to the
picket line. He withstood a searching cross-examination
and insisted he had seen nails.
Similarly, Edith Barton testified that she was at the main
plant on December 10 and placed Organizer Chambers on
the scene. Barton was standing near the plant, awaiting a
ride home, and observed several pickets, including Linda
Barlow , making a throwing motion in the direction of the
driveway. More specifically, she saw Barlow reach into a
paper bag and make an underhand throwing motion along
the driveway. She also saw Barlow pick up an object from
the driveway and place it in front of the right rear wheel of
a departing vehicle which had been stopped at the picket
line. She placed Organizer Chambers about 10 feet from
Barlow as this took place. The record elsewhere amply
demonstrates that considerable nails were found in the
driveway and that many cars suffered flat tires.
In addition, Rosella Blevins, shortly after 7 a.m. on
November 26, observed striker Wanda Grey reach into her
pocket and make a throwing motion in the direction of the
rear wheels of entering vehicles. She was not certain
whether Organizer Jackson was present but, as found, a
union representative was present on these occasions. In
fact, Jackson returned to the picket line 5, 6, or 7 days after
November 19.
Linda Barlow did not testify herein. Chambers denied
handing out nails to any striker, although she admittedly
parked in the location where Hall placed her car. She
claimed that she transported in her car only matter such as
food and firewood for the strikers. She denied seeing
Barlow scatter nails. Chambers claimed that she, Cham-
bers, was a rock collector, that she and the girls would stoop
down to pick up interesting stones and that they collected
them. Indeed, she produced at the hearing certain stones
decoratively mounted on cardboard as reflecting what the
girls had picked up and were doing on these occasions.
I do not credit this testimony by Chambers. Were this a
geological or archeological search party, her version might
have some credence. The simple answer is that the strikers
were interested in keeping nonstrikers away from the plant,
that they made throwing motions in the direction of the
driveway, and that nails were found. Indeed, as will appear
below, Organizer Jackson was personally involved in a nail
incident. I find that Respondent Union scattered nails in an
effort to damage cars of nonstrikers, that this was
successful , and that this conduct constituted restraint and
coercion.
7. Jackson and the nails
Late on the afternoon of November 28, two company
vehicles entered the driveway of the main plant. This was
not a workday and no pickets were present at the time.
William SanMillan, Bill Bunch, and Leon Bernard entered
345
in a truck and Elsing Jr. followed in a pickup truck.
Noticing debris, boards, broken glass, and nails at the side
of the driveway, both vehicles stopped. The men picked up
all this matter and placed it in the rear of the Elsing pickup
truck. As the task was completed, two cars with pickets
arrived at the scene. Jackson jumped out, visibly agitated,
and leaped into the rear of the pickup truck as SanMillan
testified, shouting that this was "our personal property, you
have no right to it." She also addressed some choice
epithets at several of the nonstrikers. Jackson proceeded to
throw all of the material out of the truck in approximately
the same area where the men had picked it up. This was in
the vision of the strikers and nonstrikers, including Captain
Pink. It appears that the wood had been provided by the
Union ostensibly as firewood, although it had been used in
the striking of cars.
Jackson admitted casting the nails in the direction of
SanMillan or Bernard, telling them that these were the
Employers' nails which the Employer had been putting "in
our driveway." I find that Respondent Union threw the
nails on the driveway on this occasion and that this
constituted restraint and coercion of employees.8
8. The Linda Shed incident
On November 28, 1969, nonstriker Linda Shed and two
other girls, her cousins, visited a local variety store. The
other two were not employees and one of them, Susan
Barlow, was 15 years old and a student.
As they left their automobile, another car with four
women pulled up. The occupants were Organizer Jackson,
Strike Captain Pink, and two female strikers. Jackson
attempted to talk to Shed and Shed replied that she was not
interested. Both groups entered the store. The Shed trio was
at the cosmetic section and Jackson again spoke to Shed
who repeated that she did not wish to talk to Jackson who
in turn responded that "When the Union comes in" Shed
would be "fired." As the Shed trio proceeded to the
checkout stand, Jackson started to bump and shove Shed.
Jackson also challenged Shed to a fight and Shed declined.
After leaving the store, Shed went directly to her car and
bent over to insert the car key into the lock. At this
moment, Captain Pink approached her, shoved Shed away
from the car, tossed her down, and started pulling her hair.
Pink was sitting on Shed's stomach and was also beating
her head against the pavement. This continued for some 2
or 3 minutes and Shed in turn managed to get hold of Pink's
hair. Jackson and the other two strikers stood by and
observed this. The two suggested to Jackson that they assist
but Jackson replied "No, leave them alone." Jackson did
not intervene at this point.
A male customer of the store asked the Jackson
entourage to leave Shed alone and Jackson responded
"leave them alone, it's none of your business." A female
bystander also attempted to persuade Jackson to stop the
attack, similarly without success. Ultimately, Pink aban-
doned the attack, apparently due to the efforts of the male
bystander, and the Shed trio was able to leave. Photographs
8 This finding is based upon the mutually corroborative testimony of
SanMillan and Bernard and , in effect, was admitted by Jackson
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
taken directly thereafter disclose that she was bruised about
the head.
These findings are based upon the testimony of Barlow as
corroborated by Shed. Barlow impressed me most favora-
bly as a witness. Although young and manifestly embar-
rassed at being placed in the role of a witness, she gave a
clear, lucid, and forthright version of the incident.
Although Shed was, to say the least, in a disadvantageous
position underneath Pink, she corroborated Barlow's
version in very substantial measure.
Ruby Eldridge testified that she was in the Jackson
group. Her testimony is silent as to any threats in the store
or any shoving. She claimed that Shed was unlocking her
car door and that Pink happened to pass by. Shed
straightened up, grabbed Pink's hair, and Pink returned the
compliment. Another female attempted to intervene and
Jackson told the female that she, Jackson, would take care
of it. Jackson grasped Pink and a man helped Shed to her
feet.
I do not credit the testimony of Eldridge. It is manifest
that Shed consistently was trying to get away from the
Jackson group and had no difficulty with Pink. Indeed,
prior to the strike, they had been close friends. It borders
upon the fanciful to place Shed, attempting to get into her
car and escape, as launching an attack upon Pink.
I find that the shoving in the store, the threat of loss of
employment in the event of unionization, and the physical
assault upon Shed in the parking lot in the presence of
employees constituted restraint and coercion.
9. The Vanciel incident
On December 1, the misconduct of the Union went into
high gear, as it were.9 Deputy Sheriffs James Garrison and
J. D. Roberson were on duty on this occasion and the
findings below are predicated upon their testimony. They
impressed me as objective witnesses who reported the facts
as they saw them. Indeed, a perusal of the record reflects
that they bent over backwards with respect to the strikers.
As Garrison testified, at 7:15 a.m., there were 50 to 55
strikers in the driveway of the entrance to the main plant as
it leaves the highway. They parted from time to time to
permit vehicles to enter. He observed Ollie Vanciel between
a stopped company van and a car. Roberson asked her to
leave, Vanciel refused, and Roberson was attempting to
remove Vanciel from in front of the vehicle to permit that
car to enter. Vanciel, however, faced and placed her hands
upon the front of the rear automobile which was attempting
to proceed very slowly into the plant.
At this point, Organizer Jackson approached Roberson
and grabbed him by the shoulder. In addition, Captain
Pink grasped Roberson around the waist from the rear and
locked her legs around his. Roberson threatened Pink with
arrest and Pink responded that she desired precisely that.
Jackson and Roberson had a similar exchange. Vanciel did
not get out of the line of entry and I find that she could
have done so had she desired.
As Roberson testified, there was about 2 feet of space
between the two vehicles. Vanciel and Billie White
attempted to present a different version. Vanciel portrayed
herself as attempting to get away from this area but being
unable to do so. I do not credit this because there is ample
specific and credited testimony to the contrary.
For example, Jewel Williams was an occupant of the rear
automobile and testified how Vanciel was forcibly removed
from the area on this occasion and how Captain Pink
attempted to break off a headlight on her vehicle. The
testimony of her daughter, Gwen Williams, and that of
Brenda Young, both in the same vehicle and impressive
witnesses, discloses that during this incident Ellis Mitchell
banged on the windshield and rocked the car. The
testimony of Young discloses also that Jackson had been
blocking the car in front of the stopped truck and was
forcibly removed despite her kicking, punching, and
scratching of officers.
I find that on this occasion by blocking the driveway,
striking and damaging vehicles of nonstrikers, and by
impeding efforts to remove human road blocks from the
scene, Respondent has engaged in conduct constituting
restraint and coercion under the Act.
10. Captain Pink on December 1
Shortly later, about 9:15, Deputy Sheriff Garrison was
alone on duty at the entrance to the main plant. As he
uncontrovertedly testified, and I so find, a vehicle with two
ladies, Brenda Nichols and Juanita Holden, attempted to
enter the driveway. There were 15 to 20 strikers in the area
and 2 or 3 stood in the path of the car, preventing its entry
unless the driver chose to run them down. Several male
strikers then began to rock the vehicle and, as Garrison
approached, they desisted.
A picket opened the driver's door and jerked the driver
out of the car and onto the ground. Captain Pink then
opened the door on the passenger's side and began to strike
the passenger with her fist. The passenger fell to her left on
her stomach and Pink proceeded to straddle her and
continued to beat upon her head.10
Garrison attempted to pull Pink from the vehicle and
Jackson grasped Garrison's arm and impeded his efforts.
Garrison asked Jackson to get Pink out of the car.11
Jackson, in turn, told Garrison to leave Pink alone.12
Garrison worked his way around the left side of the car
where Pink was pulling on the passenger's hair. He got Pink
out of the car with the assistance of Jackson who ultimately
told Pink to get out of the vehicle. The passenger at no time
struck at Pink and, indeed, was in no position to do so.
Several of the strikers grasped Garrison during this incident
and impeded his activity. I find that the rocking of the
vehicle, the impeding of the officer who was endeavoring to
prevent violence against nonstrikers, and the assault upon
the nonstrikers constituted restraint and coercion.
9 A state court injunction restricted the picketing activity on December effort to prevent violence. This further reflects on his objectivity and
4. reliability as a witness against Respondent.
10 This, it may be noted, was similar to her offensive technique against 11 This also is consistent with Jackson 's conduct during the Shed
Shed several days earlier. incident.
11 Garrison desired, as he testified, to keep the nonstrikers out in an
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION 347
11. The Bessie Sam incident
About 1 hour later on December 1, Garrison was again
sorely tried. A vehicle with job seekers Bessie and Lola
Sam, and another, entered the premises and then attempted
to leave. The pickets stood in its way and Garrison noticed
that they were beating and striking at the car. As he
testified, Jackson, wearing gloves, was beating at the
window next to the driver. The glass broke and Jackson
then worked it loose and dropped it along the side of the
road. He insisted that it was Jackson's blows, and hers
alone, that caved in the window, although he conceded that
another might have previously cracked it.
As Bessie Sam put it, she and two others applied for work
and then attempted to leave the premises. The pickets
prevented her departure and rocks were thrown, cracking
several windows. At this point, a female I find to be
Jackson stopped her conversation with a policeman on
duty, came over to the car, grabbed the driver's window
andjerked it out.
I find that Jackson on this occasion further shattered a
window previously damaged by a rock and pulled it from
the car. I further find that the assaults, rockthrowing and
damage inflicted on the vehicle in this manner constituted
restraint and coercion.13
12. The Evelyn Kerns incident
Evelyn Kerns was a striker on the picket line December 1.
Organizer Jackson was on duty that afternoon and
Organizer Chambers was placed on the scene some minutes
after the incident. Officer Roberson uncontrovertedly
testified, and I find, that Kerns had a wrench concealed
beneath her coat. As the respective automobiles with
workers passed by, she would remove the wrench and strike
the windshields, thus cracking them. Kerns, who did not
testify, was ultimately led away by officers. As nonstriker
Linda Mason drove out that afternoon, her rear window
was shattered by other strikers on the picket line. I find that
these attacks on vehicles of nonstrikers constituted restraint
and coercion.
13. Attack upon the Bunch car
Bill Bunch was assigned to drive nonstrikers to their
homes from a common meeting place. Thus, on December
1, he left with four passengers from the boys club in
McAlester in a company vehicle. He drove approximately
one-half mile to the home of one of them, Sullivan, making
some turns during the process, and noticed that a vehicle
kept following him. He later ascertained that it was driven
by striker Glen Bramblett. Although Bunch had stopped at
the Sullivan home, he decided because of this not to drop
her off. He started up and drove about a bit, but the car
remained behind him.
He then decided to drive to the Elsing farm which is
located 2 miles north of an intersection with a mayor
highway. He arrived at the highway and started north. This
13 The testimony of Ollie Vanciel , which I do not accept, in effect places
Jackson in the role of a good samantan trying to remove the dangling
window as it was about to fall out who then carved it to the side of the
road out of the way of pickets. As I see it, a picket commenced the assault
with a rock and Jackson completed the task I find that Jackson inflicted
is a divided road with a wide island, two lanes in each
direction, and a level shoulder or service road on all sides.
Bunch was in the right or slow lane and the Bramblett
vehicle was still behind him. He decided to move to the left
or fast lane, turned on his left turn indicator, and moved
over. As he arrived in this position, he heard a loud
thumping noise on the left side of his vehicle. He looked to
his left and discovered that the Bramblett car was passing
him, using the shoulder on the left to do so. Striker Rito
Lasano had his arm extended through the open right rear
window and was banging on the Bunch car with a three
quarter inch pipe some 30 inches long as they passed;
Lasano did this approximately five or six times.
The Bramblett car then took a position in front of Bunch
and promptly slowed down to 8 or 10 miles per hour,
forcing Bunch to do likewise to avoid a collision. This was a
65 mile per hour zone at that hour. The Bramblett car then
speeded up and, as they came to the Elsing ranch, Bunch
turned in without further incident. As the Bramblett car
passed, Bunch did observe the occupants and they included
Organizer Jackson and Captain Pink.
Bramblett gave a rather fanciful version of the incident.
He was in the vicinity of the boys club in McAlester at the
end of the day, the identical spot where the Bunch vehicle
had started its trip. He denied following the Bunch car to
the Sullivan home. To the contrary, he had suggested to
Organizer Jackson that they drive to Eufaula, some 30 miles
north, to persuade workers who lived in that town to join
the Union. They decided to do so and he agreed that
Lasano, Pink, and Jackson were in his car.
They first came upon the Bunch vehicle before they
reached the highway intersection and followed it onto the
highway.14
Bramblett claimed that he passed the Bunch car which in
turn passed him. Bramblett attempted to pass again and, as
he did so, Bunch turned his car into the Bramblett car, his
bumper striking the right rear door of the Bramblett car.
Bramblett described the injury to this door. This contact
knocked the Bramblett car over onto the shoulder of the
road.
I do not credit Bramblett herein. He admitted that he had
been behind the Bunch vehicle, which was slower than his,
for some three or four miles. And the use of the pipe by
Lasano, who did not testify herein, was undemed. Indeed,
Bramblett was uncertain just where Lasano was in the
vehicle. And it certainly takes some time to open a window
and extend a pipe. Stated otherwise, this is more consistent
with premeditated action rather than a reflex action taken
after being struck by another car. And the trip some 30
miles north to visit union supporters departing at the
precise time and from the identical spot where workers
assemble to return home stretches one's credulity. And they
never did get to Eufaula. Indeed, as will appear below,
union supporters worked over another female employee,
Westmoreland, that same afternoon at the very location
from which they departed.
Bramblett was reminded that he previously testified in a
the major portion of the damage and did not operate in a humanitarian
manner on this occasion.
14 The principal route to Eufaula is the same highway which passes the
Elsing ranch.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
state court proceeding that he was at the boys club in order
to take strikers to the union hall. He then, herein, testified
that they did go to the union hall later.
I credit the testimony of Bunch and find that Respondent
engaged in conduct violative of the Act by extensive
following of the Bunch vehicle, cutting around it on the
highway, impeding its progress, and by striking at it with a
pipe.
14. The Westmoreland incident
As stated, the strikers worked over Rosie Westmoreland
in rather thorough fashion that afternoon of December 1.
After work, Westmoreland was driven to the boys club area
where she was to get her ride home. She was walking in the
direction of the transporting car, as Westmoreland testified
and I so find, when striker Ima Eller, who did not testify,
approached her. Westmoreland ignored some profanity
from Eller, who then struck her several times in the right
shoulder stating that she, Eller, would "fix" her and that
Westmoreland would not work the next day. Deputy
Sheriff Garrison intervened at this point and restrained
Eller.
Garrison directed Westmoreland to enter her car but, as
she endeavored to do so, striker Ima Jane Little struck her
in the face and clawed at her. Little apparently was no
mean antagonist because her blow spread Westmoreland
backward over the hood of the car. Little again availed
herself of the opportunity to strike Westmoreland and claw
her face and then restrained Westmoreland's hand.
This opportunity was not lost upon Eller who returned to
the fray and beat upon Westmoreland, striking her
shoulder, and clawing at her eyes. This onesided attack
lasted some 5 to 10 minutes. Several other strikers availed
themselves of the opportunity to strike Westmoreland,
including Captain Pink. One of them, Captain Scherman,
took Westmoreland's purse but the deputy sheriff inter-
vened and directed its return.
It is to be noted that Organizer Jackson was not a
disinterested onlooker. She was among a group of strikers
who observed this incident and she did not intervene.
Indeed, as Westmoreland was bent backward over the hood
of the car, she noted that Jackson was observing the attack.
In addition, Westmoreland observed Jackson in the
immediate area with strikers directly before the attack.
Westmoreland was a deliberate although perhaps not
overarticulate witness . An effort was made to controvert
her testimony by Donna Smith. Smith testified that there
had been an incident involving an obscene gesture made to
her, Smith's, husband. Jackson was on the scene to
investigate and Jackson then walked away. Smith testified
that she saw Westmoreland in the back seat of her car
crying, upset, and shaking her fist at the strikers. She last
saw Jackson some 3 to 5 minutes before the incident.
It may be noted that there was direct evidence, in the
form of press photos, of this assault upon Westmoreland as
well as to identify her assailants. Westmoreland impressed
me as an honest witness, although with limited communica-
tion, and Smith's testimony in essence was evasive and not
directed to the issue. I find that by the assaults upon
Westmoreland Respondent has engaged in conduct
constituting restraint and coercion.
15. The Post Office incident
Claude Stark, newly hired by Respondent , was one of a
crew that took some packages to the Post Office on the
afternoon of December 1. Stark is 67 years of age, 5 feet 5
inches in height , weighs 155 pounds and is manifestly not
an athlete, although Jackson, in turn, is a short woman.
Stark was in the van of a company truck which had
backed up to the loading dock of the post office to unload
packages when Jackson appeared on the scene. Jackson
had pulled in with a car load of strikers and they were about
the van. There is evidence they had followed the van to the
post office.
As Stark put it, Jackson cursed him and he warned her
against a repetition. Jackson cursed him again and
threatened to whip him if he alighted from the vehicle;
Stark did so. Jackson, a much younger person, kicked at
him and he duly punched her; several blows were
exchanged. There is some indication that Stark may have
struck the first blow.
The fight was broken up and Jackson then threw an
aerosol paint can at Stark. Shortly after the scuffling
stopped, Traffic Manager John Sullivan of the Employer
who was on the truck observed that the word "scab" had
been sprayed on both sides of the truck which had been
unmarked on its departure from the plant. He saw the can
in Jackson's hand just prior to the time she threw it at Stark.
While an assault by a woman on a male may under
designated circumstances not be coercive , this is not the
case here. Jackson had an entourage with her and set on
one who, in my observation, was far from a young athlete. I
find that her implementation of the challenge to fight was
coercive as it reflected what might be done to others who
did not support the strike. I also find that Jackson sprayed
the company truck and that this damage of property was
equally coercive under the Act.
16. Spraying of Paint
Laura Nance uncontrovertedly testified that on the
afternoon of December 1 she was driving out of the plant.
The cars were being stopped from time to time by the
officer directing traffic. She observed strikers spraying
paint on the sides of the departing cars including her own.
As noted, Jackson was on duty that afternoon. I find that
this conduct constituted restraint and coercion.
17. Nails on December 15
On the morning of December 15, Sonny Blevins drove to
the cutting room gate accompanied by employee Steve
Sullivan. A picket captain was on duty. When Sullivan
alighted to open the gate, striker Christine Bramlett who
had been on the left side of the car walked around to the
right side, removed something from her pocket, bent down,
and placed it in front of the right rear tire.
Sullivan testified that this was a nail driven through a
fruit jar lid (in order to achieve stability). Sullivan told
Blevins to stop and attempted to push the nail out of the
way. At this point, Bramlett started kicking at the hands of
Sullivan and he pushed her away. As Sullivan went for the
nail a second time, Bramlett grasped his coat.
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION 349
Ollie Vanciel assisted Bramlett in this restraint, both
women hitting at and kicking at Sullivan. After the car
finally went forward, Vanciel threw a rock at Sullivan. I
find that Bramlett placed a nail in front of the tire of the
vehicle driven by nonstrikers about to enter the plant, that
Bramlett and Vanciel assaulted Sullivan in an effort to
prevent his removing the nail, and that Vanciel threw a rock
at him, all this constituting restraint and coercion under the
Act.15
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. The
Board not yet having awarded damages to employees for
losses in a context as this, a request by the Charging Party
for such an award is not accepted.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Elsing Manufacturing Co. is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees of Elsing
Manufacturing Co. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, it is recommended that International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, its officers,
representatives, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing the
employees of Elsing Manufacturing Co., or applicants for
employment, by engaging in mass picketing of plant
entrances; by defacing company or employee vehicles, with
paint or otherwise; by preventing automobiles or personnel
from entering the plant; by damaging property or
automobiles; by following or threatening physical violence
to employees of Elsing; by throwing or placing nails in
entrances or driveways; and by attacking or inflicting
injury on employees or job applicants, or in any other
manner restraining or coercing them in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting hall, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 16 Copies
of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 16, after being duly signed by an official
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a
period of 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 16, signed
copies of the aforementioned notice for posting by Elsing
Manufacturing Co., the latter willing, in places where
notices to its employees are customarily posted. Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 16 shall, after signature by Respondent as
indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional Director
for such posting.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.17
15 This finding is based on the mutually corroborative testimony of
Sullivan, Blevins, and Ella Moms who observed the incident . Striker
Josephine Davis, in behalf of Respondent , had Sullivan knocking over
Bramlett as the latter bent over to adjust her shoe laces ; this I do not
accept, as this was hardly a time to tie shoe laces. Moreover, Davis
conceded that Bramlett was stooping over near the right rear tire. I also
reject the testimony of Vanciel that Sullivan initiated the assault.
16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
17 In the event that that Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing of entrances
to Elsing Manufacturing Co.
WE WILL NOT deface company or employee vehicles
with paint or otherwise.
WE WILL NOT prevent automobiles or personnel from
entering the plants.
WE WILL NOT damage property or automobiles of
employees.
WE WILL NOT follow or threaten physical violence to
employees.
WE WILL NOT throw or place nails in entrance of
driveways.
WE WILL NOT attack or inflict injury upon employees
orjob applicants.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees of Elsing Manufacturing Co. in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, as
amended, including the right to refrain from engaging
in any or all such activities.
350
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL LADIES'
GARMENT WORKERS'
UNION, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions , may be directed to the Board's Office, Room
8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort
Worth , Texas 76102 , Telephone 334-2921.