Int'l Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-3

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 912 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
like that of an experienced mechanic who directs the work of helpers
in the performance of their joint task.
In view of the foregoing, and the entire record in this proceeding,
we conclude that the chief and assistant marine engineers do not pos-
sess the requisite statutory indicia of supervisory authority and we
therefore find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.,
Accordingly, we find that a unit of all chief and assistant marine
engineers at the Employer's operation in Chicago, Illinois, excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Sections 9(b) and 2(6) and (7) of the Acct.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 See Graham Transportation Company, 124 NLRB 960.
International Woodworkers of America , Local Union 3-3, AFL-
CIO and Western Wirebound Box Co . Case No. 36-CB-298.
September 30, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 2, 1963, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate 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 attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. The Charging
Party filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, exceptions,
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
i The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent 's use of a horse on the picket line on or
about September 25, 1962, tended to restrain and coerce persons desiring to cross the picket
line. The Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from "using
horses as pickets ." While agreeing with the Trial Examiner's finding in the circumstances
of this case , we deem it appropriate to modify the language of his Recommended Order
and appendix to the Intermediate Report to make it clear that what is being proscribed
is Respondent' s use of horses so as to obstruct persons desiring to enter or leave the plant
premises.
144 NLRB No. 85.
INT'L WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 3-3 913
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner, with the following modifications :
1. Paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order is amended by deleting
the clause "and by using horses as pickets",and substituting therefor
"and by using horses so as to block ingress and egress to and from the
plant.5)
2. The appendix attached to the Intermediate Report is amended by
changing the next to last substantive paragraph thereof, so that it now
reads :
WE WILL NOT use horses so as to block persons desiring to enter
or leave the plant.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett at Portland, Oregon,
on January 29, 30 , and 31, and on February 12, 13 , 14, 15 , 18, 19, and 20, 1963. The
complaint I alleges that on various occasions subsequent to September 1962, Re-
spondent , International Woodworkers of America , Local Union 3-3, AFL-CIO, had
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of
the Act by various acts, including mass picketing , blocking access to the plant,
damaging cars of nonstrikers , and inflicting physical injury upon nonstrikers with
hot coffee and otherwise . Oral argument was waived and briefs have been submitted
by all parties.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Western Wirebound Box Co. is an Oregon corporation maintaining a place of
business at Portland, Oregon , where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
wirebound boxes. It annually ships products valued in excess of $100,000 to points
outside the State of Oregon . I find that the operations of the Employer affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it would
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-3, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue; introduction
Respondent Union had enjoyed contractual relations with the Employer as the
representative of approximately 150 production and maintenance employees for a
period of 15 years prior to expiration of the most recent contract on June 1, 1962.
Negotiations for a new contract having proven unfruitful, a strike in support of
economic demands commenced on June 11 , 1962, and the Employer did not attempt
to operate the plant or to replace the strikers for several months. Late in Sep-
tember, it decided to resume operations and advertised on or about September 20
for replacements ; actual operations were resumed on September 24.
It is clear that the decision by the Employer to operate its plant-and Respond-
ent Union does not contend that an employer may not do so-served only to arouse
the hostility of the strikers , because picketing operations were immediately expanded
' Issued December 18, 1962, and based upon a charge filed October 25 , 1962, in behalf
of Western Wirebound Box Co., the Employer involved herein, by its attorney
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and enhanced. It is in this latter period, attendant upon the resumption of manu-
facturing operations, that the conduct complained of by the General Counsel took
place.
Respondent Union has claimed that the Employer's prestrike bargaining technique
was violative of the Act. Needless to say, that issue is not before me and, as
stated at the hearing, the processes of the Board are available to Respondent for
consideration of such charges. And, in any event, a purported refusal to bargain
cannot constitute a defense to allegations as these. In addition, attempts were made
by Respondent to litigate alleged provocative conduct by the Charging Party or
by replacement workers. Some of this was excluded because of remoteness in time
and the lines were restricted to incidents directly related in point of time to those
under consideration herein.
It may be noted that the record is marked by direct conflicts of testimony and
by some instances of prevarication, as well as one instance of the destruction of
documents in an effort to prevent their utilization in evidence, unimportant as they
probably would have been. Some witnesses for both sides endeavored to present
testimony in a light favorable to their respective interests and I believe that the
truth probably falls between the respective versions.
B. The situs
The premises of the Employer are located several miles outside the city of Port-
land, Oregon, on the banks of the Willamette River. The only land approach is via
Highway 30 from which a short access road turns downhill at a sharp angle toward
the plant gate which is approximately one-eighth to one-fourth of a mile distant. This
access road is about two cars wide at its mouth near the highway but narrows to
one car width as it descends the hill; a broad flat area lies between the base of the
hill and the gate. The road also serves as an approach to the premises of an
adjacent moorage.
The ownership of the road is not entirely clear although it appears that the
Employer owns that portion of it between Highway 30 and the intersecting railroad
tracks of the Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway which parallel the highway. The
Employer has an easement over the lower portion of the access road between the
railroad tracks and the bottom of the hill; in any event, the Employer keeps the
full length of the road in repair. Almost all the employees drove or rode to work
via this road.
The conduct complained of herein took place primarily at two locations. One
was the plant gate itself, constituting the entrance to the plant premises through
which workers customarily drove their cars and parked in an employee parking lot.
This area is sometimes referred to in the record as the bottom of the hill. Just outside
the gates stand two temporary buildings erected by Respondent Union and utilized
as a meeting place and commissary by strikers. The other location is the point on
Highway 30 where the access road departs down the hill. The topography is such
that a car would necessarily enter this road at a rate of speed substantially reduced
from highway speeds. There is a stop sign at this location, applicable to cars leaving
the plant premises.
Almost all of the incidents considered herein took place (1) shortly prior to 7:30
in the morning, the hour work started, when striker replacements approached these
areas, or (2) in the afternoon, after 4 p.m., when they left the plant premises. In
the interest of brevity, some incidents concerning which the testimony is vague or
unclear have not been treated.
C. Responsibility of Respondent
Respondent Union's officials consist of the following: Eugene Tucker was president
at the time the strike commenced on June 11, 1962, and was succeeded by Rolland
Hansen who was installed on July 28, 1962; at that time Tucker became recording
secretary. Elwood Coulter is Respondent's financial secretary and business agent
and is the only full-time paid employee other than clericals.
Prestrike negotiations, as well as some meetings during the strike, were conducted
by a duly designated plant committee consisting of Chairman John Hobizal, June
Simpson, and Doris Mann; all three attended each prestrike meeting. This committee
had been authorized by the membership to call a strike and they, together with
Business Agent Coulter, instructed the membership to quit work on June 11.
Respondent attempts to distinguish between the foregoing committee and a strike
committee which was set up on June 11. It in effect argues there is a dichotomy
between the plant committee and the strike committee, the latter set up to administer
certain aspects of the strike and scheduled to pass out of existenoe at the end of the
INT'L WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 3-3 915
strike. But this contention, and the testimony of Business Agent Coulter that the
plant committee was not interested in the conduct of the strike or involved therein,
does not hold up.
The strikers assembled outside the plant on June 11 immediately after the plant
committee had called them out on strike, and Business Agent Coulter informed them
that they would have to select a strike committee before they left the premises that
day .2 Chairman Hobizal of the plant committee personally proceeded to select a
four-man strike committee consisting of Chairman Rolland Hansen, Ralph Spencer,
and two others, Kristin and Hanson.3 This selection of the committee by Hobizal
was then approved by the membership.
Another significant move shedding light on Respondent's responsibility herein
was made at the time and is reflected in the testimony of Ralph Spencer, a strike
committee member who testified herein for Respondent. According to Spencer, it
became necessary to obtain help in order to carry out various tasks. Accordingly,
the strike committee appointed a subcommittee to the strike committee consisting
of Doris Mann and June Simpson; the latter two, as noted, were and are members of
the plant committee. Spencer expected the subcommittee in his absence to do any-
thing he would have done to take care of what the situation might demand. He
testified that the existence of the strike committee was generally known to the
membership. The direct participation of the foregoing persons in various incidents
is described below.
Spencer also placed Organizer Robert Dugger on the strike committee and,
in any event, Dugger was on the scene officially. He is employed by Western States
Regional Council No. 3, to which Respondent belongs, and on September 10 or 15
was assigned to assist Local 3 in the strike. His services were accepted and utilized
without restriction by Local 3. He appeared at the plant gate and surrounding
area approximately every other day prior to October 4. On that date, Business Agent
Coulter suffered a heart attack and did not appear at the plant until approximately
January 1. Dugger thereafter appeared on the scene, as he put it, "Practically every
morning" when the employees were "coming into work."
It may also be noted that Coulter had participated in several meetings of the strike
committee and, as Spencer testified, gave instructions to members of the latter.
The president of Respondent, originally Tucker and now Hansen, is automatically
on the strike committee, according to Business Agent Coulter, as part of his duty
to keep all committees active.
Almost all of the incidents set forth below took place when at least one of the
foregoing agents of Respondent was on the scene. Nor was there any disavowal
of same; either the respective versions differ markedly, there was outright ignorance
thereof, or they were denied. While in a few cases it is not entirely clear if these union
agents were on the scene, in terms of identification by name, Respondent is held
to be responsible for these few incidents because the inference is well warranted
that the authenticated examples under the aegis of official leadership set an example
dutifully followed in several other cases and indicated to pickets that such conduct
would be condoned and approved. See International Woodworkers of America,
AFL-CIO (Pioneer Lumber Corporation) 140 NLRB 602, and International Wood-
workers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. (W. T. Smith Lumber Company), 116
NLRB 507.
To sum up, the duties of the strike committee are limited by the by-laws to
handling strike finances whereas the plant committee protects union interests,
negotiates contracts, and called the instant strike. Indeed it continued to meet with
the company during this strike. Its very chairman selected the strike committee
and two members of the plant committee were substitute members of the strike
committee. I find that members of both committees as well as the union officials
are agents of Respondent and that their conduct is attributable to Respondent.
D. Sequence of events ; conclusions
Perhaps an introductory note is in order at this point. Section 13 of the Act
guarantees employees the right to strike. But it does not guarantee them victory
3 The bylaws of Respondent provide in essence that a strike committee is to be set up to
run a commissary in the case of an authorized strike. Such a commissary was later set
up outside the plant gate. As Coulter put it, it is necessary to select a strike committee
in order to qualify for financial strike assistance from the parent region of Respondent.
3 During July the last two obtained employment elsewhere and left the scene ; the
vacancies as such were not filled.
727-083-64-vol. 144-59
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the attainment of their economic objective. One purpose of a strike, as the
instant one, is to withhold services and thereby prevent the employer from operating
its plant. And it is readily apparent that if an employer is able to recruit permanent
replacements for strikers and operate , the strike is for all practical purposes lost and
the objective of the strikers unattainable.
In the present record, the inference is warranted that precisely this state of affairs
inevitably led the leadership of Respondent Union, for, after all, it was their leader-
ship and recommendations on strike activity that were being weighed in the arena
of the strike, to engage in the conduct described below.4 Respondent has made much
of various assigned reasons as purported provocations which resulted in what may be
termed "retaliation" by the strikers. These claims by Respondent simply do not with-
stand scrutiny. Respondent has devoted much attention herein to the claim that a
worker during the strike deliberately exposed himself on the riverbank within the
vision of union pickets in a boat. Totally aside from whether or not the incident took
place as Respondent's witnesses contend, this can hardly contribute to picket-line
incidents at an earlier date. The fact that a worker during the strike jumped out of an
automobile and swung a slagdipper or homemade mace can hardly have contributed
to a striker throwing gravel or stones through the window of the automobile directly
before the employee jumped out of the car.
Of no more weight is the fact that the employer hired a guard service to protect
its property shortly before September 24 and that on September 24 and 25, but not
thereafter, guards peacefully attempted to prevent strikers from driving their cars
down the access road maintained by the Employer. This can hardly justify physical
retaliation by Respondent.
The claim that outsiders were attracted to the scene, or that outraged husbands of
strikers performed certain acts, rather than the strikers themselves , means little
in view of the fact there is no evidence identifying such persons. Significantly,
Business Agent Coulter and Organizer Dugger admitted that they knew relatively few
of the employees by sight and could not identify outsiders as such. And while
Respondent developed evidence that the president of the Employer allegedly attempted
to run down a striker on the access road, a fact which is squarely and fully con-
troverted, this lends itself rather to the filing of a charge by Respondent against
the Employer. This is totally aside from the fact that President Green testified that
the striker, Witten, either through an overabundance of caution or through a sense
of guilt resulting from admittedly rocking his automobile as she walked by the stopped
vehicle some moments before, jumped aside as Green drove down the narrow one-
lane road.
Blockage of the Webster Automobile
The earliest incident relied upon by the General Counsel was fully litigated and took
place on the morning of September 20, or a day or so later, and involved Ronald
Webster, an applicant for employment in response to the Employer's advertisement,
in the local press. Webster was a reluctant witness for the General Counsel, but his
testimony is corroborated by that of President and General Manager Walter Green
and Vice President and Superintendent William Oliver of the Employer. Green
and Oliver impressed me as honest witnesses who did not endeavor to embellish their
testimony for partisan reasons, unlike some other witnesses herein, and their testi-
mony as well as that of Webster is credited.
As Webster drove to the plant gate, he encountered 15 to 20 persons in the vicinity
of the gate. He came to a stop pursuant to a picket's request and his car was rapidly
surrounded. Webster could not have proceeded forward without hitting a picket.
He decided not to go forward and, in fact, attempted to back up. He was unable to
back up his automobile and noted that the rear of his car was elevated and that he
was unable to obtain "good traction." After the pickets moved away from his auto-
mobile, traction suddenly returned.
He specifically testified, and I so find, that women and men were in front of the
car after he came to a stop, that they had their hands on the engine hood and front
fenders, and that they were trying to prevent his car from going forward. It was
then that he decided to retreat and started to back up. It was also then that he dis-
covered that his tailpipe had been broken off and was dragging on the ground. Spe-
cific identification of participants is presented by Green and Oliver. Green observed
the incident from his office window inside the plant gate. He saw the group in
front of the car and identified Plant Committee Chairman Hobizal and members
* This is not to deprecate the sincerity of workers of long tenure who risked their jobs
for what they believed in. This is to point out that their rights under the Act went only
so far
INT'L WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 3-3 917
Doris Mann and June Simpson. These two women were not only members of the
plant committee but were also members of the strike subcommittee. Oliver specifi-
cally identified June Simpson as pushing backwards on the front of the automobile
and heard her shout, "Come help and let's hold it."
Green also placed striker Winnie Witten on the scene. Witten's testimony con-
cerning this incident and her denial of being present was vague, and I credit Green
herein, although Witten's presence or absence adds little to the incident. Hobizal,
Mann, and Simpson were not called as witnesses.
Respondent has adduced evidence that what really happened was that a woman
named "Bates" had her leg caught in the front bumper of the car. Bates did not
testify, but Strike Committee Chairman Rolland Hansen, who was on the scene, gave
his version thereof. He told a lengthy story about a woman being in front of the
car, catching her leg in the bumper, and screaming loudly until her foot was extri-
cated only after the pickets, including himself, pushed the car back. His attempt
at explanation of the leg incident was less than satisfactory and he finally admitted
that he did not see her leg in the bumper. He testified that it was her knee that was
involved and he ultimately admitted under cross-examination that it was not "clear"
to him just how Bates' leg got caught; nor is it to the Trial Examiner. While Busi-
ness Agent Coulter initially attempted to corroborate Hansen, his testimony ulti-
mately disclosed that he did not witness the incident and that he arrived on the scene
only after it was all over.
I credit Oliver that no one yelled about an injured leg and that there was no such
occurrence I find, as set forth above, that Respondent, under the auspices of its
agents Hobizal, Mann, and Simpson, physically blocked entry of an automobile
into the plant, shoved it back, raised its rear wheels off the ground in an effort to
block entry to the plant, and damaged the car.
Mass Picketing and Other Restraint and Coercion on September 24 and 25
On September 24, picketing was expanded to two locations: (1) the point where
the access road leaves the highway and (2) the plant gate. At all times, 2 or 3
banner-carrying pickets were at each of these locations and shortly before the 7 30
a.m. starting hour, 20 to 40 pickets were present at the plant gate. Respondent ad-
mits responsibility for the conduct of the banner-carrying pickets who were periodi-
cally taken from a roster of strikers. In the immediate area were Chairman Hobizal
of the plant committee and Simpson and Mann who held dual posts on the plant
committee and on the strike subcommittee. Also on the scene were Business Agent
Coulter and Vice President and Strike Committee Chairman Hansen.
The group at the plant gate so stationed themselves that it was impossible for a
worker to walk through them without making physical contact and forcing one's
way in. In some instances, doors of automobiles driven by workers attempting en-
trance were opened or attempts were made to do so. On many occasions, the group
of pickets stood still, shoulder to shoulder. June Simpson and Doris Mann leaned
on cars attempting entry to the plant. I find that Respondent blocked entry of cars,
as alleged.
At the same hour on September 25, there were 20 to 50 "pickets" 5 assembled at
the plant gate and the same union officials or representatives were in attendance.
Pickets hit and kicked at cars. On both dates, Mann and Simpson not only rested
on the hoods of cars but also, by standing in a shoulder-to-shoulder technique, at-
tempted to prevent female workers from entering the premises. I find that the entry
of personnel was blocked and that cars were struck. Frequently, by the device of
standing still in the line of advance of the automobiles, the pickets compelled these
automobiles to stop and I find that Respondent thus prevented their entry into the
plant.5
5 For the purposes of this case, this term is used to include anyone on the picket line
While they may not have been wearing union banners , the fact is that union agents on the
scene adopted the services of these persons. Most if not the great majority of them were
employees and strikers and the fact is that this was an official picket line maintained by
Respondent There is no evidence that Respondent did anything other than to ratify the
participation in the picket line of all who were present. I find, therefore, that Respondent
is responsible for their conduct
s These findings are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Grcen and
Oliver. Coulter admitted being on the scene daily at this time and so did Hansen, al-
though the latter two viewed the action quite differently and as being peaceful. Even
Recording Secretary and ex-President Tucker placed himself on the scene The testimony
of Coulter and Hansen is not credited herein. For one thing, they presented testimony
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Leroy Ward Incident
Leroy Ward, reporting for work, approached the access road at the top of the
hill between 7:10 and 7.20 a.m. on September 25. He observed approximately 15
or 20 persons in that area . As he slowed down to 2 or 3 miles per hour in order
to avoid striking pickets standing in front of his car, a male picket broke off his
radio antenna and a female picket scratched the side of his car with a sharp object.
Others kicked the car and banged on the hood. He did not identify Hansen as being
present when the damage was inflicted , but stated that he saw him "practically every
day." Hansen did not recall being present at any such incident , but was on duty every
day prior to October 4, at this hour, although he covered this location as well as the
lower location at the plant gate. I find that Respondent is responsible for this inci-
dent where pickets were following the example set on that day , the previous day, and
on September 20 by union officials or representatives . This incident conforms to a
pattern already established by union agents as described above on September 20
and 24; it was, therefore , in effect instigated by them and is attributable to Re-
spondent under the circumstances . See International Woodworkers of America,
AFL-CIO ( W. T. Smith Lumber Co.) 116 NLRB 507, 509.
Warren Golladay
(1) Warren Golladay, whose name also appears in the record in other spellings,
played an aggressive role at the picket line. Chief attention herein was drawn to
one incident described below, the truth of which I find to lie between the respective
versions. A number of witnesses for Respondent testified that it occurred shortly
after 4 p.m. on September 27, or during the latter part of September, as the morning
shift left the plant. Carl Smith, in behalf of the General Counsel, placed it on Oc-
tober 1. Although the date is relatively unimportant, I find, consistent with the wit-
nesses for Respondent, that September 27 is the approximate date.
Automobiles leaving the plant at that hour customarily proceeded in single file
via the access road to the highway junction where each stopped at the stop sign and
then proceeded onto the highway. On this occasion, Smith was a passenger in a
car driven by one John Manning. When the car came to a stop at the stop sign,
Golladay was in the forefront of a group on the left side of the road and he was
approximately 4 feet distant from the driver's window which was open several
inches. Golladay quickly threw a handful of rocks and gravel in the direction of the
driver. Part of this went through the window which was shattered and broken by
the impact.
Both Manning and Smith leaped out of the automobile on their respective
sides. Golladay immediately ran down the hill in the direction of the plant gate
closely pursued by Manning who, after a short chase, abandoned the effort and
returned to the automobile. At the same time, Smith walked around the rear of
the car and turned toward the group from which Golladay had so abruptly departed.
He swung a slagdipper, consisting of a pipe with a lead ball on the end, in a semi-
circular swing with the arc coming very close to the group. There was testimony that
the ball came within a foot of an observer but other testimony lends itself to the view
that Smith was attempting to intimidate the group into not taking further steps. As
Manning returned to the car, Smith did likewise and they promptly left the scene.
Present at the scene was Organizer Dugger who testified that Golladay had walked
to this picketing location with him from the lower level with other strikers. Golladay
did not testify nor did Manning who is no longer in the employ of the company.
Dugger, Sylvia Barnwell, Winnie Witten, Edith Tice, and Laurence Miller all agreed
that Golladay was at this location and that the driver of the automobile chased Golla-
day. In their respective versions, they either were silent as to what Golladay
did prior to taking off at a rapid rate of speed; claimed that they first noticed Golladay
when he started to run; or claimed that they had been watching the automobile rather
than Golladay. I have credited Smith as to Golladay's conduct on this occasion and
further find that it took place in the presence of Dugger.
Smith and Glen Lusk testified that Smith rather than the driver chased Golladay.
Lusk, I find, was in error and Smith apparently wished to avoid placing himself with
his slagdipper in the neighborhood of the strikers. I find that Respondent is re-
sponsible for the conduct of Golladay on this occasion in that it was committed at
the official picket line maintained by Respondent and in the presence of an agent
concerning incidents on October 1 and 2, treated below, which defies credence. Their
versions of a manifestly ugly situation show it as being no more than a pleasant tea
party and they conveniently absented themselves from the scene at the same time. Ac-
cordingly, their testimony is credited neither here nor there.
INT'L WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL UNION 3-3 919'
of Respondent who at no time disavowed it. I further find that Golladay's conduct
on this record, in running down the hill, was consistent with having committed the
offense attributed to him by Smith, and that Manning's conduct in chasing Golladay
was consistent with his outrage in having been assaulted.
(2) It would seem that Golladay was emboldened by his success on September 27
and by the lack of any reproach by Respondent, let alone disavowal thereof, be-
cause he was similarly aggressive at the picket line on October 1. It is to be noted
that all three members of the plant committee, two of them on the strike subcom-
mittee, were at the two picket lines on October 1 and 2 as were Business Agent Coulter
and Organizer Dugger. The latter two placed themselves at these areas and the
previous three agents are uncontrovertedly placed on the scence by Plant Super-
intendent Oliver as well as by other evidence. Chairman Hansen of the strike
committee also placed himself on the picket line on October 1 and 2. The presence
of these agents of Respondent is also relied upon in findings made below as to certain
subsequent incidents on these dates.
Thus, employee Audrey Houston uncontrovertedly testified, and I so find, that
on the afternoon of October 1 she drove from the plant at the close of the day shift
together with her husband. As their car stopped behind another car at the stop sign
at the highway intersection, she observed that Golladay had "a rock in his hand"
and that he was "scratching a stopped car" in front of them. Golladay then threw
the rock away and Houston personally observed the damage to the automobile. I
find that Respondent is responsible here as well.
(3) As a related matter, employee Michael Shelby drove his car through the plant
gate on the morning of October 1 and felt a thump on the side of his car. He later
discovered that it had been scratched. He observed Golladay as among those present
at the picket line although not necessarily as the perpetrator of the act. Golladay
was also placed on the scene by Maryellen Anderson whose job it was to take
down for Respondent license numbers of the cars entering the plant.? Anderson did
admit that because of her chore in writing down numbers she could not have seen
Golladay kick the car had he done so. I credit the uncontroverted testimony of
Shelby therefore, and find that this act did take place. I further find that Respondent
is responsible therefor because of the presence of its agents on the scene.
(4) Superintendent Oliver uncontrovertedly testified, and I so find, that one morning
between October 1 and the end of the month he observed an employee driving
Oliver's truck through the plant gate. When the truck passed by Golladay at the
picket line, Golladay, holding a shiny object in his hand, proceeded to drag his hand
along the right side of the truck. Oliver inspected the truck immediately thereafter
and observed that it had been scratched. I find that Respondent is responsible
for this conduct at its official picket line.
(5) Don George uncontrovertedly testified, and I so find, that he drove his car
through the plant gate on the morning of October 3 at approximately 7 a.m. As
he did so, the same Golladay dragged a stick with a sharp object affixed to its end along
the side of the car. George inspected the car thereafter and discovered a 4-foot long
scratch. He testified that no union officials were present, but his testimony, on
closer inspection , discloses that he was referring to their absence at the time he made
his inspection. In view of Golladay's prior uncensured conduct, the inference is war-
ranted that Golladay with ample justification believed that Respondent was giving
him carte blanche at the picket line and I find that Respondent is responsible for his
conduct.
Other Incidents on October 1
(1) Beverly Thomas uncontrovertedly testified about a picket line incident which
I find took place on October 1 when Thomas drove to work accompanied by her
sister-in-law, Darlene Thomas. She passed through a group of 20 pickets at the top
of the hill, including several wearing banners, at approximately 6:40 a.m. and certain
damage was done to her car by some of them. The rearview mirror beside the driver
was pulled off; the window beside the driver was cracked; a taillight was broken;
and the radio antenna was pulled off completely. The record makes amply clear, and
I find, that this hour as well as the departure hour at the close of the shift were the
times at which union representatives endeavored to be present to greet arriving or
departing day-shift workers. I find that Respondent is responsible for this incident.
7 Anderson denied seeing Golladay kick the car. She however manifestly attempted to
color testimony in the Struzan incident, described below, and also destroyed her notes so
as to prevent their use herein, insignificant as they probably would have been. Hence her
testimony is not deemed reliable.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) On the afternoon of October 1, Raymond McCallum left the plant as a
passenger in a pickup truck driven by one Langworthy. McCallum uncontrovertedly
testified, and I so find, that Langworthy made the required stop at the highway stop
sign. As he did so, a picket whom he had seen on the picket line almost daily threw
a lighted cigarette through the open window and this struck McCallum just above
the eye. The description of the picket as a little man in levis, approximately 5 feet
3 inches tall, tallies closely with the description of Golladay given by other witnesses.
Be that as it may, I do not consider this evidence as sufficient identification of
Golladay. I do find, however, that Respondent is responsible for this incident for, in
addition to other reasons set forth herein, it chose not to police its duly established
picket line.
(3) Lee Struzan passed through the picket line numbering about 20 at the top of
the hill at approximately 7 a.m. on the morning of October 1. Struzan uncon-
trovertedly testified, and I so find, that pickets on both sides of the car banged and
kicked the car. They also bent her radio antenna in such a manner that it broke
off shortly thereafter. I find Respondent responsible here as well.
October 2
Picket-line activity on this date was, euphemistically, the most boisterous of the
strike. Union representatives were very much on the scene, including Coulter,
who admitted that approximately 75 persons were grouped at the top of the hill;
Rolland Hansen who testified that he was present every morning when the workers
reported for work, that he was in charge of both picket lines and that "it was up to
them [the pickets] to conduct themselves in a proper manner"; Dugger, who has
been described by a guard as directing the picketing; and Tucker, who chose to stay
in his automobile 1,000 feet distant because of a cold. The plant committee was
also on the scene as Superintendent Oliver uncontrovertedly testifieds
(1) Beverly Thomas testified, and I find, that she drove her car to work on the
morning of October 2 and was following a car driven by her sister-in-law, Connie
Thomas. Both cars were apparently proceeding at a very slow pace through the
pickets in front of the plant gate. At this point, Beverly Thomas saw coffee thrown
through the driver's window at Connie Thomas by one of the pickets. The coffee
struck the latter on the face and shoulder. Connie Thomas immediately jumped
from her vehicle and struck the picket who is elsewhere identified as June Simpson.
This testimony is corroborated by that of Leroy Ward, who, I find, testified about
the same incident and observed the driver leap out of the car with a stained outer
garment.
The testimony of Thomas is further corroborated by Lt. George Wallick of the
guard service employed by the Company during the strike. Wallick impressed me
as an honest witness who did not attempt to exaggerate what he saw. He heard that
the incident had taken place and that the two women had fought. He testified, and
I find, that he asked June Simpson if she was the one involved. Simpson replied
that "somebody had bumped her arm and coffee went in the car window." He further
identified Simpson as present in the hearing room.9
Maryellen Anderson placed herself on the scene 8 feet distant from Simpson and
claimed that immediately after the first car stopped she saw Simpson and Organizer
Dugger chatting in front of the picket shack with steaming cups of coffee in their
hands. She put Thomas in the role of the aggressor in that Thomas allegedly
knocked Simpson's coffee from her hand. Dogger also testified that he and Simpson
were drinking coffee, that Thompson jumped out of her car and accused Simpson
of throwing the coffee, and that Simpson could not have thrown coffee because
there was still coffee in the cup. Simpson then denied doing so, and the two girls
got into a fight.
Anderson, as noted, was primarily busy in copying the license numbers of auto-
mobiles and the unreliability of her testimony has been previously noted. The fact
that some coffee remained in Simpson's cup does not necessarily mean that some
8 As the Charging Party points out, all of the incidents, according to Respondent's testi-
mony, occurred in a period of several minutes when, fortuitously, Coulter went down the
road to inspect an accident and Dugger went down the road to get some cigarettes from
his automobile. While I find this to be more than a natural coincidence and accordingly
do not credit their testimony, the fact still remains that other union agents were on the
scene.
g The testimony of Wallick is substantially unchallenged, although there is a conflict
between him and Witten as to her presence on an occasion described below. In any event,
no adverse findings are m ade predicated upon Witten 's presence on that occasion.
INT'L WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 3-3 921
of it had not been previously thrown. I do not credit Dugger herein. I find that
Simpson did throw the coffee at Thomas through the car window and further that
Respondent is responsible therefor.
(2) Lieutenant Walhck testified, and I find, that 20 or 25 pickets, including 2
with banners, were present at the top of the hill near the highway entrance on the
morning of October 2. As cars passed from the highway to the access road, various
pickets began to inflict damage to automobiles. Wallick saw Chairman John Hobizal
of the plant committee kick off a rearview mirror on the side of a car and also tear
off windshield wipers on "different cars." Still others tore off windshield wipers
and one picket broke off an antenna. Doris Mann scratched the side of a car for
its entire length with an object in her hand. Hobizal and others spat into car windows
as the cars passed.
Wallick placed Business Agent Coulter as standing at the side of the road on
this morning, although not participating personally in this conduct. He was 8 or 10
feet distant from members of the group who would convene with him from time
to time. Banner-carrying pickets were among the crowd, although Wallick did not
recall any of them as inflicting the damage. This is the occasion, as noted, when
both Coulter and Dugger allegedly absented themselves, the former to inspect an
accident and the latter to get cigarettes. While Coulter on his return discovered a
rearview mirror lying in the street, he merely saw fit to tell the pickets to stay on
the curb, and his testimony is silent as to any instructions concerning refraining
from violence. I find that Respondent is responsible for the conduct of the pickets
on this occasion, as described above.
(3) At approximately 7:20 a.m. on October 2, Virgil Bowman approached the
access road very slowly because a picket was walking in front of his car. Banner-
carrying pickets, as well as other pickets, were on the scene. By coincidence, a
newspaper photographer was present and took a picture of the action. As luck
would have it, this picture, which is in evidence, shows Chairman Hobizal in the
act of breaking off the radio antenna from the left rear fender of Bowman's car. At
the same time, another broke the right windshield wiper and still another broke
the antenna on the right rear fender. The picture shows two banner-carrying pickets
on the scene, one addressing the driver as Hobizal in the rear breaks off the antenna.
The other banner-carrying picket is in close proximity to the right rear fender and
June Simpson, whose titles are elsewhere set forth, is standing nearby.'° Needless
to say, Respondent is responsible for all this damage done under the very leadership
of its designated officials.
(4) On the morning of October 2, Audrey Houston encountered approximately
20 pickets at the same location. As she approached, it was necessary to stop her
car in order to avoid striking pickets in her line of travel. As the car stopped, the
pickets kicked at the car and struck it with rocks in their hands. A male picket
tore off a chrome strip from a rear door. For reasons set forth above, Respondent
is responsible for this incident.
(5) Much testimony was developed concerning conduct allegedly leveled at
Don George and Gilbert Kerns, who worked during the strike. In part, at least, it
appears that their identities have been confused by witnesses. Be that as it may,
George testified that Witten threw coffee at him on October 2 as he drove through
the plant gate, that he stopped his car and got out and grabbed her, and that he did
not shake her. Witten testified that she was not present on October 2 because she
went for her unemployment compensation check. In this respect, I credit her.
On the other hand, Business Agent Coulter originally placed this incident as occur-
ring on September 27 immediately before he came on the scene. He later changed
his testimony and placed it on October 4, although his calendar entry places it on
September 27. Paradoxically, he claimed that in October he could not have made
the entry on his September calendar. Nevertheless, as this incident would at best
be cumulative, no findings adverse to Respondent are predicated thereon.
As for Kerns, approximately on October 4, he started to drive through the plant
gate one morning. On his version, he saw Witten run over to get a piece of wood
and concluded that she intended to strike his automobile with it; other evidence dis-
closes that the pickets kept a supply of firewood beside the road in close proximity
10 These identifications from the picture were made by Superintendent Oliver whose testi-
mony I credit here as elsewhere . He withstood a searching cross-examination and I find
him to be a forthright and reliable witness. His testimony is completely unchallenged by
any union official, or the named participants, except in one minor aspect. He identified
one Viola Tetz as among those in the picture, but Tetz testified that she was home that
day. It is noted that the person so identified is not prominent in the picture.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the picket shack and also, it may be noted, close to passing automobiles. Kerns
denied grabbing and shaking Witten.
Witten placed this incident on October 4 and claimed that Kerns accused her of
throwing a rock. She and other union witnesses all testified that Kerns proceeded
to shake her at length. Here, as well, no findings adverse to Respondent are predi-
cated upon this incident; nor as indicated above, could this incident, on Respondent's
version, have constituted provocation for prior union conduct on October 1 and 2.
(6) One incident at the plant gate involved damage done to a car in which
Carl Smith was a passenger. As the automobile approached the gate at approxi-
mately 7:15 a.m., there were at least 15 pickets present including 2 wearing banners.
Two or three of the group stepped in front of the car, this compelling the car to
come to almost a complete stop lest it strike the pickets At this point, one of the
pickets snapped off the antenna of the automobile. Here as well, because of the
admitted presence of union agents, and the utter absence of any evidence that this
conduct was disavowed, I find that Respondent has ratified it and is responsible
therefor.
The "Depantsing" Incident
This incident took place in mid-afternoon, November 5, 1962. A truckdriver
brought a load of material to the plant but was apparently unwilling to drive through
the picket line at the gate. Accordingly, John Verbout, a shipping clerk, drove his
car out some distance to a point between the plant gate and the adjacent moorage
whose restroom facilities were used by the pickets.
Verbout and the truckdriver exchanged vehicles at this point and Verbout drove
the truck into the plant. The truck was unloaded and Verbout drove back to the
original transfer point where he parked directly beside his own car. The vehicles
were approximately 10 feet apart with the truck facing away from the plant and the
automobile facing the plant. They were so positioned that Verbout merely had to
alight from the driver's seat of the truck and cross directly to the driver's seat of his
own car. Verbout alighted from the truck, handed certain documents to the truck-
driver who busied himself about the truck, and attempted to enter his own car. At
this point, events developed rapidly.
It is undisputed that Witten and June Simpson, the latter a member of the plant
committee and of the strike subcommittee, were involved. I also find that Verbout
observed Simpson approaching the vehicles from the direction of the plant gate
whence he had just come.
Verbout testified, and I find, that as he started to get into his Ford sedan, Witten
appeared on the scene. Simpson made the first move and grabbed Verbout by the
upper front of his one-piece coverall; in the process she used sufficient force so as
to tear off two or three buttons from this garment as well as three buttons from the
shirt he wore underneath. The starter of his car being on the left side of the dash-
board, Verbout attempted with his left hand to start the car and almost immediately
found his left arm grasped by Witten who, together with Simpson, attempted to pull
Verbout from the automobile. Both women were operating side by side next to the
driver's seat during this melee.
At this point, it is readily apparent that Verbout was hardly in a position to display
any respect for womanhood, as such. He found himself in the predicament of hav-
ing the two women pulling on his clothes and body in an effort to drag him out of his
automobile. In self-defense, he grasped the steering wheel with his right hand. As
he would attempt to turn the starter key with his left hand, the women would belabor
him in that area and pull his hand away.
Two or three women, unidentified, utilized the opportunity to open the rear door
of the car and throw in gravel. Still another woman pounded on the roof with a
board. This commotion ultimately attracted the attention of a guard, Soderquist,
who hastened to the scene from the plant and broke it up by ordering the women to
desist. They complied and Verbout was permitted to drive his car back into the
plant.
These findings are based upon the testimony of Verbout which I credit in full.
Simpson, as noted, did not testify. Witten attempted to portray this as a quasi-
humorous occasion, but I find that it was not. She testified that as she passed be-
tween the two vehicles on her way to the restroom in the moorage, she criticized
Verbout for working in a plant where his mother-in-law was picketing; this was the
fact, although the record does not disclose on what terms Verbout and his mother-
in-law were. At this point, Verbout allegedly shoved the car door at Witten and
she returned the compliment.
Simpson happened to pass at this moment on her return from the restroom, and de-
cided to take a part in the controversy. According to Witten, an unidentified voice
in the background, but apparently not that of Simpson, cried, "Let's depants him."
INT'L WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 3-3 923
It was pursuant to this suggestion that the two women allegedly grabbed Verbout
fore and aft on his coveralls. Witten claimed that Verbout grabbed a hammer on
the front seat with his right hand and struck Simpson with it on the hand. Because
of this the two women desisted and walked away.
Witten is substantially contradicted by Soderquist whose testimony corroborates
that of Verbout. Soderquist was some 40 feet away inside the plant when his at-
tention was attracted to the commotion; he observed one woman on the right
side of the car beating on the roof with a board 3 or 4 feet long. He also saw Witten
and another woman "beating" the driver. Soderquist erroneously identified Simpson
as the woman with the board rather than as the woman who was collaborating on
the other side of the car with Witten, whereas Verbout and Witten placed Simpson
in the company of Witten. It is significant that none of the women said anything
to Soderquist about the "depantsing" theory or about being struck by the hammer.
In view of the foregoing, I think it far more likely that Verbout, a man of slight
build, was hanging onto the steering wheel for dear life rather than engaging in the
conduct attributed to him by Witten. Considering all the foregoing factors, I have
credited the testimony of Verbout as to what took place on this occasion. I further
find that Simpson's participation, if not inspiration and direction, renders Respondent
responsible therefor.
The Lady on Horseback
One other incident involved striker Anna Hales who happens to own a show horse
which at the time under consideration herein was approximately 131/2 years old.
On or about the morning of September 25, Hales brought her horse to the picket
line. It happened to be her turn to do picket duty and wear a banner at the plant
gate. She proceded to put the banner on the horse, mounted the animal, and then
rode her horse in the picket line from 7 until 8:30 or 9 a.m. at which time she re-
turned the horse to its trailer.
There is no evidence that this met with the disapproval of any union officials and
I find that it was ratified and approved. Hales guided the horse between the cars,
as she testified, but also rode directly across the path of oncoming cars.
I believe and find that this type of conduct would tend to restrain and coerce em-
ployees. Needless to say, the use of horses by mounted policemen and their effec-
tiveness in various situations is too well known to require comment. I deem it un-
necessary to decide whether the use of the horse would constitute mass picketing
per se, but I do believe that the picket line is no place for a heavy animal as this.
Entirely aside from concepts of free speech as presented by the banner on the horse,
the presence of the animal under the guidance of an agent of Respondent would
reasonably tend to restrain and coerce persons desiring to cross the picket line. I
so find.
I find that in the respects heretofore noted, Respondent has engaged in conduct
violative of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act. See District 65, Retail, Wholesale &
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (Eastern Camera & Photo Corp.), 141 NLRB
991.
Other Alleged Conduct
(1) Much testimony was adduced concerning a hole in the roadway in front of
the plant gate. Apparently this hole was about 1 foot in diameter but it grew as
time went on. The thrust of the General Counsel's case was that agents of Re-
spondent placed nails in the hole and obscured them with a covering of dirt and
gravel. Thus, unsuspecting drivers would pass over the spot and incur tire damage.
Witnesses for Respondent in turn claimed that President Green of the Employer
was wont to deliberately drive over this area after a rainstorm in an effort to splash
the pickets. In return, evidence was adduced that there was very little rainfall dur-
ing the critical period. While some nails were found in the hole on one occasion
by the Employer, I find the evidence insufficient to attribute responsibility to Re-
spondent therefor. Accordingly, no adverse findings are predicated upon this.
(2) There was also much evidence concerning nails and tacks causing flat tires
on the cars driven by workers during the strike. It is clear that much damage of
this nature was done. There is also evidence that certain workers, after incurring
this damage, retaliated by tossing nails at strikers.
Respondent has contended that the initial nails were distributed by agents of the
Employer. The logic of this escapes me I would assume that a struck employer
who chooses to operate his plant is interested in getting people into the plant to work
rather than to filling stations for tire repairs, hardly a morale builder. While the in-
ference may be warranted that the strikers did spread nails liberally in areas where
they would be most effective, I do not believe that the record will support a finding
that Respondent may be held responsible for this conduct, and accordingly no ad-
verse findings are predicated thereon.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) Guard Sidney Whitman was employed by the guard service which protects
the Employer's plant. At 10 or 10:30 a.m. on November 7, Organizer Dugger, ac-
companied by Golladay, came to the guardhouse which is located inside the plant
gate. Dugger explained that a large rock had been dropped on the picket shack
from an overhead bridge the previous evening and that it had gone through the
roof. A rock purporting to be the original was later brought into the hearing room
and it was indeed substantial in size. Dugger then stated that "The next scab that
walks across that picket line, they would work him over [so] that we would have
to pack him back over."
I believe that this statement was made by Dugger in anger caused by the rock
incident of the previous evening which I find did occur. While the presence of
Golladay whose previous offensive conduct may tend to cast the incident in a more
ominous light, the fact is that Golladay's ventures took place only in crowds.
Moreover, Dugger, in Whitman's eyes, was admittedly not the "kind" to carry out
the threat. I therefore do not predicate any adverse findings upon this incident.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Employer, set forth 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 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.
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 Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-3, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Western Wirebound Box Co. is an employer within the meaning of Section
2 (2) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees of Western Wirebound Box 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 foresaid 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 Woodworkers of America, Local Union 3-3, AFL-
CIO, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing the employees of Western Wire-
bound Box Co., or applicants for employment, by engaging in mass picketing of plant
entrances; by preventing automobiles or personnel from entering the plant; by striking
at or damaging property or automobiles; by attacking or inflicting injury on em-
ployees; by throwing coffee and spitting at employees; and by using horses as pickets,
or in any like or related 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, meeting hall, and picket shack copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official rep-
resentative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained 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
' If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner."
If the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, this
notice shall be further amended by substituting for the words "A Decision and Order" the
words "A Decree of the United States Court of Alppeals, Enforcing an Order."
LOCAL 7, INT'L ASSN. OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ETC. 925
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region signed copies of the
aforementioned notice for posting by Western Wirebound Box Co., the latter willing,
in places where notices to its employee are customarily posted. Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall,
after signature by Respondent as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Regional
Director for such posting.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.12
12 If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of
this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
UNION 3-3, AFL-CIO, TO OUR OFFICERS, REPRESENTATIVES, AND AGENTS, AND
TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF WESTERN WIREBOUND BOX CO.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing of entrances to Western Wirebound
Box Co.
WE WILL NOT prevent personnel or automobiles from entering the plant.
WE WILL NOT strike at or damage automobiles or property of employees.
WE WILL NOT attack or inflict injuries upon employees.
WE WILL NOT throw coffee or spit at employees.
WE WILL NOT use horses as pickets.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of
Western Wirebound Box Co. in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act, as amended, including the right to refrain from any or all concerted
activities.
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL UNION 3-3, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327
Logan Building, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, extension 553,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Local 7, International Association of Bridge , Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO [Waghorne -Brown Com-
pany] and John C. Lydon and John P. Cradock. Case No.
1-CB-793(1-2). September 30, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 14, 1963, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
144 NLRB No. 90.