International Union of Electrical, Radio, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1713 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1713
tion of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, and has interfered with, restrained , and coerced
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act,
thereby violating Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act; and Respondent Filter Workers, by
supplying to Filtron the dues checkoff authorization cards for the purpose of dis-
tribution in the manner above described , has restrained and coerced employees in
the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8 ('b) (1) (A) of the Act.
3. Respondent Filtron, by coercively interrogating employees in regard to their
union activities , and by warning and informing employees that it knew of their
activities in behalf of the Union seeking to organize its plant , thereby making veiled
threats of reprisal against employees engaging in union activities , has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Respondent Filtron, by laying off employees Izzo and Beniamino because of
their IUE membership and activities , has discriminated against them within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondents Filtron and the Filter Workers have not, as alleged in the com-
plaint, violated Section 8( a).(3) and 8(b)^(2), respectively, by enforcing the unlawful
provisions of their collective -bargaining agreement.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, and its Agent, Robert J . Danckert ; International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
Local Union 905, and its Agents, Johnie Locke , Albert Cox,
Lee Roy King, and Neal Reece and The Sperry Rubber &
Plastics Company. Case No. 25-CB-450. December 29, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 6, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as it Order the Recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the modification that provision (2) read : "Notify the
134 NLRB No. 165.
630849-62-vol 134-109
1714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have
taken to comply herewith." I
, In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as the Appendix, the words "Pursuant
to the Decision and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "Pursuant to the Recom-
mendations of a Trial Examiner " In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of
a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a
Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of -the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed by The Sperry Rubber & Plastics Company, herein called
Sperry, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Acting
Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region issued his complaint dated June 9,
1961, against International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO, herein referred to as IUE, and its agent, Robert J. Danckert, and against Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union
905, herein called Local 905, and its agents, Johnie Locke, Albert Cox, Lee Roy King,
Carl M. Records, and Neal Reece, alleging that all these Respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(b).(1) (A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondents' answer generally denies
all allegations of statutory violation in the complaint. Copies of the complaint,
charge, and notice of hearing were served upon the parties hereto.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Brookville, Indiana, on August 1 and 2,
1961, before the Trial Examiner duly designated to conduct the hearing. All parties
were represented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to produce evidence was afforded all parties. After the
close of the hearing briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondents and
these have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS
The Sperry Rubber & Plastics Company is an Ohio corporation engaged at its
plants in Brookville, Indiana, in the manufacture and sale of extruded rubber,
plastic, and silicone products. During the 12-month period preceding issuance of
the complaint Sperry manufactured, sold, and shipped from its plants finished prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000, to points outside the State of Indiana. From the
foregoing facts, alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer, I find that
Sperry is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the purposes
of the Act will be effectuated by the assertion of the Board's jurisdiction over its
operations.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and
its Local Union 905 are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of
Sperry.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Local 905 was certified by the Board in February 1961 as the representative of a
unit of Sperry 's employees and thereafter bargained with Sperry for a contract.
When the negotiations foundered , Local 905 voted to strike . On April 17 picketing
started at the two Sperry plants of which one is in Brookville and the other is near
the town on Route 52. On May 5 a county court restraint limited the picketing.
Between April 17 and May 5 there allegedly occurred various acts of misconduct
in the course of the picketing which the General Counsel contends coerced and re-
strained employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in
violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) thereof . In addition there is an allegation of an
unlawful assault upon an employee on June 8. Attribution of responsibility to the
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1715
Respondent labor organizations for these acts is based upon participation in this
conduct and acquiescence or approval therein by agents of both Local 905 and the.
1UE.
In sum, the alleged misconduct involved the blocking of ingress and egress at the-
Sperry plant on Route 52 by the massing of pickets, threats of violence to person
and property and physical injury and property damage actually inflicted to compel
respect for picket lines and to punish those who crossed them, the placing of nails
on entrances to damage automobile tires of those crossing the picket lines, and
threats of physical harm to Sperry's agent for photographing the picket line activities
at the plant in Brookville. Numerous witnesses for the General Counsel gave
elaborate accounts of these instances. Witnesses for the Respondents gave other
versions. The testimony of these witnesses is incorporated in the following sum-
marization. Unless otherwise noted all incidents hereinafter described occurred at
the Sperry plant on Route 52.
A. Evidence relative to alleged misconduct
1. April 17, 18, and 19
By 5:30 a.m. on April 17 a picket line had been formed at the north entrance to
the plant. The south entrance had been barricaded, presumably by Sperry. Wilford
Cox, Sperry's personnel manager and secretary, was permitted to enter with his auto-
mobile when he arrived at that hour. He testified that shortly thereafter the num-
ber of pickets at the north entrance increased to 20 or 25. Among them were Robert
J. Danckert, an IUE international representative, Lee Roy King, Albert Cox, and
Neal Reece, respectively, the Local 905 president, chief steward, and sergeant at
arms and picket captain. At 6:30 a.m. Cox saw two automobiles drive from the
highway into the north entrance where their progress was halted by the pickets who
marched in front of them without breaking ranks. One car was driven by Harold
Jessop, Sperry's assistant to the chief chemist. The other, driven by John Back,
carried as passengers a number of Sperry employees. Both automobiles remained in
the driveway about 15 to 20 minutes while the pickets continued to parade. Cox
related that Albert Cox, Neal Reece, and two or three other pickets "heavily"
rocked Jessop's car and that be heard some declare they would tip it over.' Mean-
while, according to Wilford Cox, pickets were milling about on both sides of Route 52
calling persons trying to enter the plant scabs and other names and threatening them
with "bodily harm." Five or six other persons tried to drive their automobiles
through the north entrance but were stopped by the pickets. Cox identified Foreman
Woodrow Morrison and employees Walter Rusterholz 2 and Lola Lacey 3 as three of
the drivers.
Cox estimated that by 7 a.m. the number of pickets at the north entrance had
increased to about 60. He identified IUE International Representative Virgil Carey
as one of them. At about 7:50 a.m. the Sperry office force began reporting. Forty
to forty-five pickets were now at the north entrance according to Cox's estimate.
He heard one of the pickets shout "Here they come; stop 'em," and their ingress was
barred. Cox conferred with Danckert who in turn spoke to King. The latter there-
upon directed the pickets to let the office personnel enter the plant premises. Shortly
before 8 a.m. Cox observed the arrival of a truck owned by a Richmond, Indiana,
office supply firm driven by its salesman, Austin Clarkson. Cox testified that Clark-
son was prevented by the pickets from entering and was told by one of them in
Danckert's presence that it would be 2 months before he could make deliveries.4
'In describing this incident Jessop testified that when, after his automobile had been
stopped by the pickets, he tried to move forward, Albert Cox and two or three other pickets
picked up the front end of his automobile and moved it back a foot or so
2 Clement Moore Is Rusterholz' son-in-law. Moore was one of the Local 905 pickets at
the Sperry plant during the morning of April 17 He testified that he saw Rusterholz
approach the plant with his automobile and that he parked about 1000 feet from the plant.
Then, according to Moore, he left his car for about a half hour, returned, and drove off in
the direction of Brookville. Moore maintained he did not again see Rusterholz come to the
picket line that morning. He conceded, however, that he did not remain constantly at the
north entrance, but alternated between there and the south entrance
J When Lacey was later called as a witness by the General Counsel, she testified that she
has no driver's license and does not drive an automobile.
' It would appear from Cox's testimony that Clarkson had tried to enter via the north
entrance Louis Bodnar, Sperry's plant superintendent, testified that he saw Clarkson try
to enter through the south entrance where there were 20 or 25 pickets among whom he
1716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wilford Cox related that during an unstated hour on April 17 he observed the
arrival at the plant of an Interstate Motor Frate System truck at the south entrance
where the pickets blocked its passage. The truck then tried to proceed through the
north entrance but when it was also blocked there by the pickets it drove away.5
Sperry's second shift arrived at the plant at 3 p.m. on April 17. Cox went to the
north entrance to observe; 20 to 35 pickets were there. He saw Foreman Joe Chap-
pelow and Maintenance Supervisor George Peters try to drive into the plant. When
they were blocked by the pickets they proceeded to the south entrance. There
about eight pickets, including Albert Cox, encircled their automobiles. Then, after
some conversation with the pickets, Chappelow and Peters drove away from the
plant. Bodnar claimed also to have witnessed Chappelow 's unsuccessful attempt to
drive his automobile into the plant . Admittedly , Bodnar 's recollection of this event
was hazy.
Bodnar related that he reported to the plant on April 17 at about 5 a.m., ac-
companied by Assistant Plant Superintendent Ralph Hiner and Supervisor Jim
Jackson. When they tried to drive their automobile through the north gate they
were barred by six or eight pickets who included Albert Cox, Neal Reece, and
Johnie Locke. Cox placed his hand on the fender and said "Stop; go no further."
After remaining at the entrance for a few minutes Hiner, the driver of the auto-
mobile , backed into the highway and proceeded to the south entrance . Because this
entrance was barricaded , Hiner drove across a lawn to enter the plant premises.
Then Bodnar got out of the automobile and went to the north gate to observe
events. It was now approximately 6 a.m. Bodnar saw Ivan Reester , the tuberoom
foreman, drive up and try to enter. A double line of pickets marching across the
driveway blocked his automobile. After waiting a few minutes he moved down the
road. Then Bodnar saw the arrival of Harry Kunkel, a toolmaker, shortly before
7 a.m. Kunkel also pulled up and stopped at the north gate where the picket line
prevented his entrance. After waiting several minutes Kunkel also drove off. Violet
Reece, an inspector in the Sperry plant, arrived shortly after Kunkel. She, too,
was unable to go through the picket line which by now numbered approximately 30
or 35 walking in double file across the driveway.
E. David Gordon, Sperry's vice president and general manager, came to the
plant on April 17 at 5:15 a.m. and went to the north entrance. He testified that he
saw Mr. Kaiser, Sperry's chief chemist, arrive in his automobile at 5:30 a.m. and
attempt to enter through the north entrance. Kaiser, he related, was blocked by the
pickets on the driveway among whom were Albert Cox and Danckert. Gordon
claimed he saw Cox reach for two rocks from a pile which had been assembled in
the middle of the driveway to support the Local 905 picket sign and raise these
rocks to shoulder height while standing directly in front of Kaiser 's car , and that he
threatened to throw them if Kaiser moved his car further. Danckert stood by while
this went on.
identified Johnie Locke and Emma Ledford, respectively, steward and vice president of
Local 905, as well as International Representative Carey He related that when the
pickets prevented Clarkson's entrance he drove away. Clarkson testified that he tried to
enter first at the north and then the south entrance and was blocked by pickets at both
locations. He then drove away without making his delivery. Tucker Deanton, a Local
905 picket captain, testified that on April 17 he had seen Clarkson drive through the north
entrance at a 20 to 25 mile-per-hour rate and that he almost struck the pickets. Intending
to admonish Clarkson for his recklessness, Deaton claimed that the pickets marched across
the entrance as he was leaving Clarkson nevertheless did not slow down and almost ran
down Deaton as he drove through. Thereupon Deaton and sereval other pickets pursued
Clarkson as he drove to Brookville but were unable to halt him When Clarkson reached
Brookville he went to the county sheriff followed by the pickets Deaton complained to the
sheriff about Clarkson's conduct, but the sheriff, according to Deaton, remained silent.
The incident closed with these words from Locke to Clarkson, "You try one more time, and
I'm going to get you." Danckert testified that when Clarkson arrived at the plant in his
truck on April 17 he was stopped by the pickets who merely asked him to respect their
picket line Clarkson told Danckert he had no interest in the strike and desired only to
make his delivery. Thereupon Danckert assertedly stepped back and Clarkson drove his
truck into the plant.
B Bodnar claimed he had seen an Eastern Truckline truck come to the north entrance at
about 2 p in. on April 17, and that 25 to 30 pickets, including Danckert, were then marching
across the driveway. The pickets did not open their ranks and the truck drove away.
Danckert testified that when the Interstate truck arrived on April 17 he personally spoke
to the driver and asked him to honor the picket line. The driver said he would have to
call his own union for instructions . Thereafter the pickets opened ranks to permit the
truck's entry to the plant.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1717
On April 18 Cox again arrived at the plant at about 5:30 a.m. and stationed him-
self at the north entrance where there were approximtely 17 or 18 pickets including
Danckert, Albert Cox, and Reece. He saw several automobiles arrive and try to
enter but again they were turned away by the pickets. Among the persons who
tried to drive through with their automobiles were several production employees.
At about 8 a.m.,the office force began to arrive and these employees tried to enter
with their automobiles. The first of their cars was stopped and one of the pickets
insisted that the driver was not a member of the office force. This car was re-
quired to back up and leave. Four of approximately ten cars driven by office
employees were permitted to enter. The rest were turned away by the pickets.
Among the pickets at these times were Danckert, Albert Cox, and King.
Cox was at the plant on April 19 at approximately 5:30 a.m. Again he went to
the north gate where there were 20 to 25 pickets. He observed that some employees
tried to get in but were unsuccessful. Others were permitted to cross the picket
line. Those who could not get in were forced to drive away because the pickets
would not let them pass. He recalled that when employees Hurschel Allen and
Wilbur Lynch tried to enter in an automobile that Albert Cox told them that he
"would bash their heads in for doing that." Cox testified that Danckert, King,
Johnie Locke, and Reece were present at the time.
Danckert had maintained close contact with Local 905 in his capacity as inter-
national representative providing it with guidance and assistance during its early
formative period and during the prestrike negotiations with Sperry. When the strike
started he continued to give advice and guidance to the Local. He testified that
before the strike began he had instructed the members of Local 905 concerning
proper conduct of a picket line. He assertedly told them that there was to be at
least 2 or 3 feet of space between each picket, that they were not to form large
crowds at the plant gates, and that under no conditions was there to be any violence
on the picket line because he wanted to provide no justification for the procurement
of a court injunction. Danckert was present at the picket lines during the first 3 days
of the strike.
He acknowledged that picket lines formed early in the morning of the first day of
the strike on April 17 but that the picket lines kept moving with proper distance
maintained between pickets. He claimed that when an automobile approached the
picket fine a picket would speak to the driver to explain that a strike was in progress
and would ask the driver to respect the picket line by not crossing it. He claimed
that about 15 to 20 automobiles went through the picket line into the plant on
April 17; that whenever an automobile approached and the driver insisted on enter-
ing the plant that the pickets would open ranks to permit the car to go through.
The same situation prevailed on April 18 and 19. In refutation of Vice President
Gordon's testimony concerning the threat on April 17 by Albert Cox to throw rocks
at the automobile driven by Chief Chemist Kaiser, Danckert testified that he did not
see Cox pick up rocks from the driveway and raise them to shoulder height. In
apparent reference to testimony by Wilford Cox concerning the incident involving
the attempt by employees Hurschel Allen and Wilbur Lynch to drive their auto-
mobile into the plant on April 19, Danckert testified that at no time during that day
did he hear Albert Cox say to anyone that he would "bash their heads in."
When Danckert came to the picket line at 5:30 am . on April 17 the sheriff was
already there with two deputies. Danckert emphasized that at no time during the
picketing did the sheriff come to him or any other union official in his presence to
complain about the conduct of the picket line. Nor did the sheriff or his deputies
ask him or other union officials to open up the picket line.
2. April 25
Vice President Gordon testified that on April 25 he and two or three Sperry em-
ployees were photographing picket line activities at Sperry's plant in the town of
Brookville when a truck arrived at 1 p.m. IUE International Representative Robert
T. Paul objected to Gordon's taking pictures of him because he was standing at the
road. Gordon nevertheless continued with his picture taking, whereupon Paul said
to him "You are asking for it, mister." Gordon still continued to take pictures and
Paul backed away. Then Gordon went to the truck which had been moved into
position for unloading. Wilford Cox was present along with several Sperry em-
ployees and pickets. Paul approached and declared to Gordon that he would
"bust this] God damn mouth in with the camera if [he] took any more pictures,"
that "he didn't want anything more like that going on." Gordon maintained these
latter words were spoken when both he and Paul were on Sperry's premises and in
the presence of 8 or 10 pickets. Gordon acknowledged, during his cross-
examination , that he had made the following statement in an affidavit to the Board's
agent during the investigation of the case:
1718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
About an hour later a truck entered to unload some plastic. I was taking pic-
tures of it, and Paul came up to a few inches from me and told me never to take
his picture again "like that." He was referring to the fact that I was standing
on public property while taking his picture,, and he seemed to feel that this was
improper.
Gordon explained that the foregoing excerpt from his affidavit referred to the first
encounter with Paul concerning which he had testified, and not the second incident
which occurred when both he and Paul were on Sperry's premises.
3. Tacks on the driveway
Robert Farmer, employed by Sperry as a truckdriver after the strike started,
testified that about 3 weeks before the county court injunction was obtained on May 5
he had returned from the Brookville plant to the plant on Route 52. As he was
proceeding through the north entrance he noticed tacks or roofing nails across the
driveway placed 6 or 8 inches apart. He backed his vehicle from the driveway and
cut across a lawn to enter the premises. Having reported these circumstances to
Cox he was instructed to pick up the nails if he so desired. When he went to the
entrance for this purpose, King, the aforementioned president of Local 905, asserted
that he was not supposed to be there. Farmer declared that the driveway was Sperry's
property and that Cox had directed him to pick up the nails. King put his foot on
Farmer's hand and said "All right, you pick any more up and we're going to fight."
Farmer replied it made no difference to him but that he would first consult Cox. The
latter told Farmer to forget about the matter and return to work. Farmer judged
that there were 15 to 20 pickets present during the incident.
Frances Denham, a Sperry employee who worked during the strike, testified that
on a day sometime after the issuance of the "second injunction" she was returning
to the plant from lunch in her automobile. As she went through the south entrance,
the sole picket there, Harry Hobart, made a "swinging motion with his hand." She
did not see any tacks thrown, nor does she know that Hobart threw tacks. There
was no flat tire on her automobile that day.
4. May 5
When Lola Lacey reported for work on May 5 at about 6:45 a.m. she and several
other employees stood in front of the plant building and watched a group of men
rocking a green Chevrolet automobile which was turning into the south entrance.
From the manner in which the automobile was being rocked she concluded that these
men were trying to turn it over. The automobile finally was driven away.
Lester Parks, Sperry's chief engineer , was on camera duty at the south entrance in
the morning of May 5. Approximately 20 pickets were there at about 6:25 a.m.,
including Tucker Deaton, Lee Roy King, Johnie Locke, and Emma Ledford. He
witnessed a Chevrolet automobile coming into the entrance at about 6:45 a.m.
Apparently this is the same automobile concerning which Lacey testified. The pickets
blocked its passage and the driver stopped to avoid striking them. Someone shouted
to the driver, a woman, "Get out of here or we'll roll you over." The driver hesitated,
whereupon four or five pickets took hold of the automobile on her side and began
to rock it violently. After six or seven such attempts the pickets paused and the driver
backed off and drove away. Parks identified Tucker Deaton as one of the pickets
who rocked the automobile.
Harold Jessop was also on camera duty on May 5, at the north entrance. At
about 7 or 8 a.m., a blue Chevrolet driven by a woman drove up to the 10 or 15
pickets who formed a line across the driveway and was required to stop there.
Jessop claimed that Albert Cox took something from his pocket with which he tapped
the window nearest the driver and said to her "you see what we have." After a short
conversation between the driver and the pickets they took hold of her automobile and
began to rock it. Finally she drove away. Jessop could identify only Cox as one of the
pickets who rocked the automobile. He claimed also that Danckert was about 25
feet from the automobile while it was being rocked and that he did or said nothing.
At 6:45 a.m. Parks saw a green Chevrolet station wagon attempt entry through
the south gate. This vehicle was also stopped by the pickets and again someone
shouted to the driver to leave or the automobile would be rolled over. Then six
,or seven pickets seized the automobile and rocked it violently. Finally the driver
backed out to the highway and started to drive away but stopped quickly.6 Someone
6 Cliff Bulach, a Sperry foreman, testified concerning the incident involving the Chevrolet
station wagon and gave substantially the same account as Parks. He added that as the
station wagon got into the highway and started off one of the pickets struck it with a
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1719
shouted "He tried to hit her . Let's drag him out of there ." 7 Several pickets did so.
Among them Parks recognized Tucker Deaton and Lee Roy King. Next he saw a
group of pickets encircling the driver and beating him. While this was going on
Frank Offill , one of the pickets , smashed the windshield of the station wagon with
a log. The driver broke loose and ran over a bank at the side of the road with
several pickets , including Deaton , in pursuit . Parks saw him return about 5 minutes
later with blood under his nose. He tried to start his station wagon but was unable
to do so. At the request of the pickets a passing farmer pushed the station wagon
with his truck toward Brookville . Parks identified Johnie Locke as one of the
pickets present at the scene of the violence . He did not attribute participation to him
in this conduct.
. Danckert, who was with the pickets on May 5 until about 8 : 30 or 9 a .m., testified
that he had seen an automobile driven by a person named Richard J. Reidenbach first
approach the plant at the north gate. This is apparently the vehicle which has been
referred to by the preceding witnesses as the green station wagon. Danckert testified
that Reidenbach stopped his automobile at the picket line where he was asked by the
pickets to honor their line and that he thereupon backed off and drove away.
Danckert claims he later saw Reidenbach 's automobile as it approached the south
gate. His attention was directed to the automobile because he heard shouting and
saw people running. He himself began to run in that direction when he heard the
commotion . When pickets from the north entrance ran from there in the direction
of the south entrance he stopped them and requested them to return to their picket-
ing. He asked Lee Roy King who was with him to do the same . Then he asked
Albert Cox to go to the south entrance to see what the trouble was and instructed him
that if there was trouble with pickets involved that he was to break it up . Then he saw
a number of persons running across the road over a bank . He did not recognize any
of them. About 5 minutes later they all returned from the direction in which they
had run and went back to Reidenbach 's automobile which had been left in the middle
of the road and was holding up traffic . He then saw Reidenbach 's automobile being
pushed by a truck . He claims that he observed nothing further with respect to the
incident.
Curtis Hogan, Jr., now employed by Sperry , applied for work at Sperry 's plant
at approximately 1 p.m. on May 5. He entered the plant premises driving a Ford
pickup truck. With him was his brother and another person . As they entered the
plant through the north gate the pickets at this location referred to them as "SB"
and said that they wouldn 't get out . Hogan was unable to identify the persons who
made these comments nor did he recognize any of the pickets . Hogan and his com-
panions went into Sperry's office and left about 2 p .m. As they departed through
the south gate they had to go through a picket line of 25 or 30 pickets standing on
the driveway . They stopped there and remained about 2 or 3 minutes. Then one
of the pickets , Paul Wolfe, tried to get into the truck and said "Where in the hell do
you think you're going ?" Then the pickets began to rock the truck. • Paul Wolfe
was one of those doing the rocking . Hogan could not recognize the three or four
other pickets who were involved in this activity . Next the pickets began to throw
rocks. The rocks , which were as large as oranges or apples , broke two side windows
in the truck and the windshield . Among the pickets at the south gate at the time
identified by Hogan was Tucker Deaton . Cliff Bulach testified that he had seen a
red pickup truck go through the north entrance in the afternoon of May 5 and that
he later saw this truck leave through the south gate . He related that as the truck
was leaving there were about 20 pickets at the south entrance who got in front of
the truck causing it to stop and that about 3 of the pickets began throwing rocks at
thrown rock This explains why, as both Parks and Bulach testified , the driver stopped
his vehicle after he got it into the highway. Bulach witnessed the incident from a point
in the plant 238 feet distant from the highway . Harold Jessop also testified that he had
witnessed the incident involving the green station wagon and his account of what happened
to the vehicle and its driver is essentially in accord with that of Parks' As related above,
Jessop had been on camera duty that morning. When he saw the driver of the vehicle
being chased over a hill by pickets he ran in that direction but was interrupted by a picket
named Parrett who picked up a rock and told Jessop that if he took his camera over the
hill he would never take another picture.
7 Florence Honeycutt who picketed on May 5 testified that a station wagon driven by
Richard Reldenbach drove into the entrance "pretty fast" and would have hit her and other
pickets if she had not screamed As she screamed her warning the car stopped . Honeycutt
related that it was immediately thereafter "when some problem developed with Mr. Relden-
bach." I assume that Honeycutt was referring to the station wagon incident concerning
which both Parks and Bulach testified.
1720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the windshield. Harold Jessop testified that he also had seen the departure of the
red pickup truck through the south gate and related that he had seen pickets shake
the front end of the truck when it stopped at the picket line and then throw stones
at it.
At 10 a.m. on May 5, Henry Banks, now employed by Sperry, applied at the plant
for employment. Acompanied by a companion, he drove his automobile through
the north entrance where the few pickets on duty there made no attempt to stop him.
Nor did he hear them say anything. As he got out of his automobile at Sperry's
office one of the pickets shouted to him from the road "You goddamn son-of-a-bitch
we'll get you on your way out." Twenty or thirty minutes later he departed through
the south gate. As he went through the driveway the window in his left rear door
was broken either as result of a thrown rock or because it was struck with a fist.
Banks claimed he recognized Albert Cox and Robert McCreary and several others
among the pickets at the south gate. Sheriff Tebbe of Franklin County, Indiana,
however testified that Cox had been in his custody on May 5, from 8:45 a.m. to 11:15
a.m. and later that day from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
At about 4 p.m. on May 5, the sheriff posted a restraining order issued by the
county court on barricades at each of the entrances to the plant. Wilford Cox gave
this account of what he saw as Sperry employees were leaving the plant later that
afternoon. As employee Hurschel Allen was driving through one of the gates, a
person named Tom Hartford, identified by others as a picket, jumped in front of
Allen's automobile and began pounding the hood. Mack Swigert, Sperry's attorney,
was at the scene with Cox. Swigert raised the court order and informed Hartford
he was forbidden to hinder persons coming to or leaving the plant, whereupon,
Hartford lunged at 'Swigert. The sheriff then placed Hartford under arrest and con-
fined him in his automobile. The pickets meanwhile were grouped on Route 52 on
the side opposite the plant entrance. As the employees drove out in their auto-
mobiles they were subjected to a barrage of stones thrown by the pickets. One
stone, which Cox saw thrown by a Kermit Cobb, went through the windshield of
employee Kenneth Grimes' automobile. Employee L. B. Davidson's station wagon
was struck by stones. Cox identified Lee Roy King as one of the pickets on the
highway. Jessop and Bodnar testified that they also witnessed the stoning of auto-
mobiles as they left the plant. Lola Lacey testified that a picket named Tom
Hartman (probably Hartford) "swiped" at automobiles with an umbrella as they
left the plant that afternoon. Frances Denham related she too had seen Tom Hart-
ford with umbrella in hand cavorting in front of an automobile, and that he had
lunged at Attorney Mack Swigert.
5. Robert Farmer Incidents
Farmer was mentioned above in connection with the altercation with Lee Roy
King over the removal of tacks or nails from the plant entrance . He testified that
he was involved in other incidents with pickets on which the General Counsel relies
in support of the complaint allegations . On about May 5 Farmer was leaving the
plant at 6:30 or 7 p.m. in Sperry's station wagon. As he proceded through the south
gate two or three men about 300 feet from the gate picked up rocks. One of them,
identified as Stanley Stone, whom Farmer had seen picketing, threw a rock through
the windshield. The others, whom Farmer had also seen before on the picket line,
broke both glasses in the back doors of the station wagon.
About a month after Farmer was employed by Sperry on April 24 he was accosted
while leaving the plant by International Representative Paul who said to him in the
presence of pickets "The day the union comes in will be the day you'll go out."
On June 5 or 6, while driving on an errand for Sperry, he observed a Ford auto-
mobile in front and a Chevrolet behind his station wagon. He had seen both auto-
mobiles before at the picket line. The driver of the Ford applied his brakes while
the Chevrolet at the rear increased speed. When Farmer reached the plant and
proceeded to turn into the entrance he applied his brakes and reduced speed. Then
the Chevrolet, driven by Aaron Parrett, lightly bumped Farmer's station wagon.
Farmer cut his engine. As he tried to start it again Parrett backed up his Chevrolet
and then bumped Farmer's vehicle, this time hitting him hard. A number of pickets
by now were running to the scene. Farmer left and called the sheriff. When he
returned two tires on his station wagon were flat. The vehicle was removed from
the highway by a wrecker.
In the morning of June 8, Farmer had gone to the post office in Brookville to
deliver Sperry's mail and had parked the station wagon in an alley near the post
office. According to Farmer, when he returned to his vehicle a few minutes later
he noticed two persons standing on the opposite side of the street in front of a tavern
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1721
called the Village Bar. He recognized them as pickets he had seen at the plant.
As he walked to the station wagon he saw in front of it two other persons named
Wolfe and Offill whom he also recognized as pickets. The two pickets from the other
side of the street moved to his rear and he now found himself between the two groups.
Wolfe declared, "We've got you now, and we're going to put you in the hospital."
Farmer said he did not want any trouble, but one of the persons to his rear stated
to his companions , "You get some rocks , and we'll hold him here ." Then they ran
around a corner behind the post office. Farmer reached for a belt on the seat of
his car and placed it in his pocket. As the persons returned from the direction of
the post office, Farmer hit the individual behind him. Then he ran to the sidewalk
pursued by his attackers swinging at him. Farmer kept backing up the street. One
of his attackers motioned to some other persons and Albert Cox and three or four
others made their appearance. Farmer continued his retreat by running and turning
about from time to time to swing at his pursuers. As he reached a corner where a
gasoline service station was situated, Cox picked up a board which he broke into
sections and distributed to a couple in his group who began swinging with them at
Farmer. The latter made a break for a truck which he saw coming through the
intersection and made his escape by boarding it. Farmer is 24 years old. When
he was 21 he was convicted for the crime "cutting to wound, and cutting to kill."
His sentence was probation for 3 years. At the time of the hearing he was still on
probation. The belt which he had on the seat of the station wagon and which he
used in the affray had a metal buckle with sharpened edges.
George Smith gave the following version of the encounter with Farmer. He had
been one of the striking pickets and had left the picket line on June 8 at 10 a.m.
From there he went to the Village Bar with Paul Wolfe, Harold Cummins, James
Bowling, and a fourth companion whose name he could not recall. Having refreshed
themselves with soft drinks they left the tavern 20 to 30 minutes later. Upon leav-
ing, Smith saw Farmer going to his station wagon . He walked toward him and said
"Hey there , I want to speak to you a minute." His asserted reason for this action
was merely to find out from Farmer how he got his job with Sperry. Farmer
responded to his remark by reaching to his seat and extracting a leather belt which
he swung at him. The metal piece at the end of the belt struck Smith and cut him
on the hand and shoulder with resultant bleeding. Smith claimed he did not know
where his companions were at this moment. Farmer kept swinging his belt at him
exclaiming, "You sb's, you've been asking for it; come and get it." By now, people
on the street had crowded about them. Farmer backed up for a half block, turned
and ran across the street from where he left on a passing truck. Smith claimed that
Albert Cox had not been with him and that when he first saw him he was sitting in
a parked automobile at the corner servic station. Cox, he said, merely got out of
his automobile and remained standing there. Smith denied that he pursued Farmer
with stick in hand. He maintained he stayed in one place and bled. 'He claimed not
to have seen Cox with a club. It was stipulated that had Wolfe, Cummins, and
Bowling been called as witnesses , their testimony would have been the same as
Smith's.
Winifred Gassman works in an office on Main Street in Brookville located oppo-
site the Village Bar. She testified that from her office window she had seen Farmer
pursued by a group of men carrying clubs and that he had tried to protect himself by
waving an object in front of him. She identified Albert Cox, Paul Wolfe, and Tucker
Deaton as members of the group with clubs. Gassman works part time as a cashier
in a restaurant near the Sperry plant on Route 52 and for several years has known
Sperry's officials who eat there.
Morris Bradburn, the owner of the Village Bar, recalled that he had served soft
drinks to Paul Wolfe and a group comprised of four or five men on June 8. He saw
them leave. Subsequently he saw these persons backed up against the window of
his establishment with Farmer twirling a belt in front of them. He regarded the
event "pretty serious ." He watched for 2 or more minutes and then ceased paying
attention as he got busy and served his customers.
B. Findings of fact
With a few exceptions , the testimony of the General Counsel 's witnesses concern-
ing picket line events is unrefuted . Nothing appears in the record to convince me
these were not credible witnesses . Nor was there anything in their demeanor while
testifying to persuade me not to believe them. Granted that Wilford Cox testified
that Lola Lacey drove an automobile to the plant which beyond doubt she did not
do, and that Henry Banks said he saw Albert Cox at the picket line at a time when
he was in the sheriff's custody, I am not persuaded that Wilford Cox or Banks
deliberately fabricated this testimony . Instead, I am satisfied that these were honest
1722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mistakes which reflect human capacity for error in observation or recall particularly
when the events observed or recalled occurred under the pressures and excitement
of the picketing in this case . I do not discredit Cox and Banks because of their
unintentionally erroneous testimony . I have also taken into account the laborious
testimony of Louis Bodnar who while testifying admittedly was under sedation for
relief of pain . I do not credit his testimony concerning Joe Chappelow because his
memory as to this circumstance was concededly hazy. But, I am satisfied that his
memory as to other incidents concerning which he testified was sufficiently good to
permit reliance thereon in making my findings of fact , particularly as his testimony
was consistent with and substantially corroborated by the testimony of other credited
witnesses.
Except for International Representative Danckert , no person who was positively
identified by the General Counsel 's witnesses as participating in or being present
at the picket line events above described testified in denial or explanation of his
participation in or presence at the time of their commission . This has been an influ-
ential factor in my determination to believe the testimony of the General Counsel's
witnesses concerning these events. While Danckert 's categorical insistence that no
persons were prevented from crossing the picket line with their automobiles, and
that he at no time while at the picket line heard the threats described by the General
Counsel's witnesses and saw no violence may be regarded as refutation of the Gen-
eral Counsel 's witnesses I do not regard his testimony as being of sufficient weight,
even if given credit, to match the preponderating mutually corroborative testimony
of the General Counsel 's credited witnesses concerning what they actually observed.
As to certain matters about which Danckert testified , I have given him full credit.
I shall subsequently advert to them. As to those findings based on the credited testi-
mony of the General Counsel 's witnesses which may be regarded in conflict with
Danckert's testimony I do not credit the latter.
Specifically, I make these findings:
1. In accord with the testimony of Wilford Cox, Jessop, Bodnar , and Gordon
on April 17, 18, and 19 , pickets prevented entrance to the plant of Sperry's super-
visors and employees and others doing business with Sperry by forming picket lines
across driveways and refusing to open ranks to approaching vehicles, by rocking auto-
mobiles and threatening to turn them over , and by threatening to inflict bodily
harm on those who entered or damage to their vehicles. Directly participating in
these acts or present during their commission were official agents of the Respondents
including International Representatives Danckert and Carey and Local 905 officials
King, Albert Cox, Neal Reece , Emma Ledford, and Johnie Locke.
In connection with the foregoing finding I credit Gordon's testimony that on
April 17 Albert Cox held a rock in each hand and threatened to throw them at Chief
Chemist Kaiser's automobile if he drove into the plant, and testimony by Wilford
Cox that Albert Cox on April 19 threatened to bash in the heads of employees
Hurschel Allen and Wilbur Lynch if they drove into the plant. It may be that
Danckert who was present at each of these incidents neither "saw" nor "heard" what
Cox did or said, as he testified, but his failure to see or hear does not convince me
that Cox did not engage in the conduct ascribed to him.
In view of Clemont Moore 's account , which I credit , of the actions by employee
Walter Rusterholz on April 17, I do not rely on Wilford Cox's testimony that he saw
Rusterholz' automobile blocked by pickets as he tried to enter the plant. Because of
Cox's patent confusion in the erroneous identification that morning of Lola Lacey as
the driver of an automobile denied access to the plant , I am satisfied that Cox was
also mistaken in his identification of Rusterholz as another driver denied access.
I credit the testimony of Cox , Bodnar, and Clarkson concerning the prevention
of the latter by pickets from entering the plant on April 17. I do not credit
Danckert's conflicting testimony that Clarkson drove his truck into the plant grounds
that day after he was merely requested to honor the picket line. I do not reject
Tucker Deaton 's account of what occurred between him and Clarkson, but find that
the incidents concerning which Deaton testified occurred not on April 17 but on
another day during the same week. Clarkson acknowledged that he makes more
than one trip weekly to the Sperry plant . When Deaton was first questioned con-
cerning Clarkson he responded to a question relating to an event during the week of
April 17. It was my impression when Deaton was again asked on cross-examination
to state the date of this event but he was not certain of the exact date. His answer
was "April 17, I think."
I credit Danckert's testimony that when the Interstate Motor Frate System truck
arrived at the plant on April 17 he personally asked the driver to respect the picket
line and that the driver after checking with his union decided to drive into the plant
without encountering opposition from the pickets . Although it may be inferred
from Wilford Cox's and Bodnar's (I assume the latter's reference to an Eastern truck
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1723
was meant to be Interstate) general accounts that the pickets prevented the truck's
entry, they did not hear what was said by anyone to the truckdriver, and it is believ-
able in view of Danckert's specific explanation, that he was merely requested to
honor the picket line. That the driver did not enter when he came to the picket
line, as Cox and Bodnar related, is explained by Danckert's account that he com-
municated with his own union for instructions. Cox and Bodnar probably did not
observe the truck's entry, as described by Danckert, after the driver received his
instructions.
2. I find, as Vice President Gordon testified, that International Representative Paul
on April 25 threatened him with physical violence if he took pictures of strike
activities, and that Paul's threat was made in the presence of pickets and employees.
In crediting Gordon's testimony I have considered the argument of Respondents'
counsel that Gordon had given a contradictory affidavit before the hearing. I find
no such contradiction.
3. 1 find that in April, Local 905 President King prevented Sperry's employee
Farmer from removing tacks or nails from the plant driveway by stepping on his
hand and by a threat of physical force. I infer from these circumstances that King
either placed these tacks or nails on the driveway himself or that it was done at his
behest or with his approval. Obviously, the intention was to puncture the tires of
automobiles entering the plant. I place no reliance on the testimony of Frances
Denham in support of the allegation that the Respondents had placed tacks on
driveways.
4. Concerning events of May 5, I find from testimony of Parks, Bulach, and
Jessop that the vehicle driven by Reidenbach was blocked by pickets when it tried
to enter the plant, that it was violently rocked by the pickets, that it was struck by a
rock thrown by a picket as it departed, that pickets attacked and beat Reidenbach
and then pursued him on foot with intent to inflict further harm, that a picket
smashed the windshield of his vehicle, and that employee Jessop was threatened with
physical harm by a picket if he took photographs of the incident. I further find that
Lee Roy King participated in these acts of violence and that Johnie Locke was
present. I believe the testimony of Florence Honeycutt that as Reidenbach entered
the driveway he almost hit her and others and that she screamed. This circumstance
does not alter the fact as related by the foregoing witnesses that the vehicle was
rocked while it was in the driveway to intimidate the driver and to prevent him from
entering the plant. I do not believe the stoning of the vehicle as it departed nor its
aftermath were related to Miss Honeycutt's scream.
From the credited testimony of Lola Lacey, Parks, and Jessop, I find that on
May 5 other automobiles were rocked by pickets who threatened to overturn them
and that the drivers were prevented from entering the plant by the pickets. Albert
Cox actively participated in this conduct and Danckert, King, Locke, and Ledford
were present.
On May 5 employee Hogan's truck was stopped by pickets, rocked by them, and
then stoned with resultant damage to the vehicle, and this was in retaliation for
crossing the picket line to apply for employment. I rely on testimony by Hogan,
Bulach, and Jessop to support these findings. On the same day employee Banks'
automobile was damaged by pickets as it was driven from the plant. This action
also was in retaliation for crossing the picket line to apply for employment. Among
the pickets present was Robert McCreary, a member of the Local 905 election com-
mittee. I make these findings from Banks' credited testimony.
From credited testimony of Wilford Cox. Jessop, and Bodnar I find that on
May 5 after the posting of the court restraint a picket lunged at Sperry's attorney
with intent to assault him, that this same picket interfered with the departure from
the plant of employees in their automobiles by swinging an umbrella and pounding
the hood of an automobile, and that pickets threw stones which damaged the auto-
mobiles of the departing employees. Among these pickets was Local 905 President
King.
5. I find that on June 5 or 6 the vehicle driven by employee Farmer was dan-
gerously impeded while driven on the highway on Sperry's business by the automo-
biles of pickets, and that one of these pickets deliberately struck Farmer's vehicle as
it was entering the plant with resultant damage to it. I further find that on June 8
Farmer was threatened with physical harm and was assaulted in Brookville by a
group of pickets, and that this conduct, as well as the above incident involving his
vehicle, were in retaliation for Farmer's acceptance of employment during the
strike With respect to the affray in Brookville, I credit Farmer's testimony that the
pickets approached him with a threat of harm and that he used his belt and buckle
as a defensive weapon. I do not credit Smith's testimony, which I deem implausible,
that he had merely approached Farmer to ask how he got his iob As Farmer re-
treated up the street from his pursuers, he was also attacked by Albert Cox who
1724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
armed himself and others with sections of board which they used as clubs to assault
Farmer. I infer that Cox's participation in the assault was also a retaliatory act
against Farmer because he had accepted employment during the strike. No necessity
appeared for Cox's participation as Farmer's assailants were then pursuing him and
required no defense from Cox. In crediting Farmer I have considered his criminal
record, but this circumstance has not militated against my belief that he was a
truthful witness.
Each of the foregoing acts as to which specific findings has been made has a
coercive and restraining effect on employees in their exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act within the meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A) thereof.8 In
this case these acts demonstrated to employees that they would be subjected to harass-
ment and violence if they refused , as they had a guaranteed right to do, to honor
the picket line and not to work during the strike. Such conduct, if attributable to
a labor organization and its agents , is violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
With the exception of Carl M. Records , who apparently was included in the com-
plaint by error, the record establishes the responsibility of all the named Respondents
for this conduct.
It is clear that the strike against Sperry was conducted jointly by the official repre-
sentatives of the IUE and Local 905. Accordingly, I conclude that both labor
organizations were cosponsors of the strike or joint ventures therein and that they
are consequently jointly and severally responsible for the unlawful actions of each
committed during the course of the strike.9
Responsibility is attributed to all the Respondents not only for the particular mis-
conduct of the officials , functionaries , and representatives of the IUE and Local 905,
but for all conduct committed by pickets both at and away from the picket line.
Practically each elected and appointed official of Local 905, including picket captains,
and three international representatives of the IUE participated in the misconduct
which these officials and representatives failed in any manner to repudiate or to
prevent , thereby acquiescing in and giving approval to these acts. As should have
been expected , the pickets followed the examples of their leaders and adopted their
unlawful tactics as a course of action for themselves both at and away from the
picket lines . In these circumstances the Respondents are statutorily responsible for
the conduct of the pickets at and away from the picket lines.10 Having attributed
responsibility to all the Respondents , except Records , for the misconduct herein
found to have been committed , I find that each thereby violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents , set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Sperry described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) of the
Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
From the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
and its Local 905 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
' International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union, C 10. (Sunset Line and
Twine Company ), 79 NLRB 1487 ; International Woodiaoikers of America , AFL-CIO, et al
(W. T Sm?th Lumber Company ), 116 NLRB 507 ; United Packinghouse Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (R. L Zeigler, Inc.), 123 NLRB 464. In the latter case the Board held
that a picket line assault upon the struck company's attorneys by pickets was violative
of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. I would in the instant case have found the attempted
assault upon Attorney Swigert to be violative of the Act except that it is not covered by
any allegation of the complaint.
0 Sunset Line and Twine Company, supra.
10 District 50, United Mine Workers of America , et al (Tungsten Mining Corporation),
106 NLRB 903, 922
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, ETC. 1725
2. The Sperry Rubber & Plastics Company is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The foregoing labor organizations and their agents, Robert J. Danckert, Johnie
Locke, Albert Cox, Lee Roy King, and Neal Reece have jointly and severally violated
Section 8(b)^(1)(A) of the Act through the commission of acts of restraint and
coericon which interfered with the exercise of rights of employees guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The allegations of the complaint with respect to Carl M. Records have not
been sustained.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 905, their officers, agents (including
Robert J. Danckert, Johnie Locke, Albert Cox, Lee Roy King, and Neal Reece),
representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from restraining and coercing the employees of the Sperry
Rubber & Plastics Company by barring ingress to or egress from Sperry's plants
by employees, supervisors, applicants for employment, or persons doing business
with Sperry during the course of a strike against it by blocking entrances with forma-
tions of pickets, by rocking and damaging automobiles of employees and other
persons crossing the picket lines, and assaulting or otherwise molesting these em-
ployees and persons and threatening them with physical injury by placing tacks or
nails in driveways to puncture the tires of automobiles entering the plant, by threat-
ening supervisors with physical injury for taking pictures of strike activity, or by
threatening and assaulting persons who apply for or accept employment during the
strike, or by any like or related conduct restraining or coercing Sperry's employees
in the right of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection and to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the business offices of Local 905 where notices
to members are customarily posted copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the responsible officials of each
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondents to make sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region, signed copies
of the notice marked "Appendix" for posting, Sperry willing, for a period of 60 days
on Sperry's bulletin boards where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for .the Twenty-fifth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless within 20 days from the date of the receipt
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order the Respondents shall notify
said Regional Director, in writing, that they will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respond-
ents to take the aforesaid action.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO AND OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 905
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby give notice that:
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain the employees of Sperry Rubber & Plastics
Company by barring ingress to or egress from Sperry's plant by employees,
1726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervisors , applicants for employment, or persons doing business with Sperry
during the course of a strike against it by blocking entrances with formations of
pickets, by rocking and damaging automobiles of employees and other persons
crossing the picket line, by assaulting or otherwise molesting these employees and
persons and threatening them with physical injury, by placing tacks or nails
in driveways to puncture tires of automobiles entering the plant , by threatening
supervisors with physical injury for taking pictures of strike activities, or by
threatening and assaulting persons who apply for or accept employment during
the strike.
WE WILL NOT by like or related conduct restrain or coerce the employees of the
Sperry Rubber & Plastics Company in the exercise by them of the right of self-
organization , to form , join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection and to refrain from any or all such activities.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, AND ITS AGENT
ROBERT J. DANCKERT,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL UNION
905, AND ITS AGENTS, JOHNIE LOCKE, ALBERT
Cox, LEE Roy KING, AND NEAL REECE,
Labor Organization.
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.
Customer Control , Inc. and District 65, Retail , Wholesale and
Department Store Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-7986.
December 29, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 18, 1961, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this pro-
134 NLRB No. 170.