Livernois Moving & Storage

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 299 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

LIVERNOIS MOVING & STORAGE
Livernois Moving and Storage Co. and Local 243,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
Cases 7-CA-20708(1) and 7-CA-21041
21 March 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 15 April 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached decision.
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief, and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and
conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Livernois
Moving and Storage Co., Detroit, Michigan, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all of
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
' In sec. III,B of his decision describing the events of 16 December
1982, the judge inadvertently stated that Russell and Stead indicated they
attempted to chase "Patrick"; the correct reference should be "Lewkut."
In agreeing with the judge's conclusions, we find it unnecessary to rely
on the judge's citation of Interbono Contractors, 157 NLRB 1295 (1966),
enfd. 388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967). It is clear that the grievance activity in
this case was protected concerted activity since the Union was involved.
See NLRB v. Adams Delivery Service, 623 F.2d 96 (9th Cir. 1980).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSON, Administrative Law Judge.
These consolidated cases were heard at Detroit, Michi-
gan, on January 7 and 19, 1983, pursuant to charges filed
by Local 243, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(herein referred to as the Union) in Case 7-CA-20708(1)
on May 21, 1982,1 and in Case 7-CA-21041 on August
11 and a consolidated complaint issued on September 29.
'All dates referred to are in 1982 unless otherwise stated.
269 NLRB No. 55
The consolidated complaint, which was amended at
the hearing, alleges Livernois Moving and Storage Co.
(herein referred to as the Respondent) violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (herein re-
ferred to as the Act) by unlawfully threatening employ-
ees with discharge; threatened to break the union stew-
ard's legs for filing a grievance; hit the union steward's
truck with a vehicle in order to discourage him for fol-
lowing struck work; assaulted strikers' vehicles with
clubs and bats; shot a striking employee on the picket
line with a pellet gun; told employees it was not going to
sign a contract because it would have to bring all the
striking employees back to work which it did not wish
to do because the employees had filed grievances; told
striking employees they would all be out of a job be-
cause the Company was going to go out of business;
threw nails in the driveway of a striking employee;
caused damage to a picketing employee's vehicle by
throwing objects at it; threatened to blow up or burn
down picketing employees' houses; and assaulted striking
employees with crowbars and chains and damaged their
vehicles by pouring gasoline on them. It further alleges
the Respondent refused to comply with the terms of an
informal settlement agreement in Case 7-CA-20708(1) by
engaging in similar acts of violence and ordered the
withdrawal of the approval of the agreement and vacat-
ed such agreement.
The Respondent in its answer dated October 12, which
was amended at the hearing, denies having violated the
Act and asserts as affirmative defenses that the Union
failed to serve the charges on the Respondent as provid-
ed by the Rules and Regulations of the Board and that
the Union engaged in and sanctioned continuous acts of
violence, sabotage, and intimidation whereby they should
be denied the benefits of the Act and/or any remedial
relief requested in the complaint. s
The issues involved are whether the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in unlawful
statements and threats, assaulting strikers, assaulting and
damaging strikers' vehicles, shooting a striker with a
pellet gun or throwing nails in a striking employee's
driveway. An additional issue is whether a settlement
agreement in Case 7-CA-20708(1) was properly vacated
and set aside because the Respondent violated the terms
and conditions of such agreement.
s The affirmative defense that the Union should be denied benefits or
remedial relief under the Act was rejected at the hearing. Further, no
credible evidence was adduced to establish with regard to any of these
unlawful incidents herein dicumed that the Union did arything on those
particular occasions to cause or precipitate the Respondent'rs unlawful
conduct. Although Sec. 102.14 of the Board's Rulekr and Regulations and
Sec. 101.4 of the Board's Statements of Procedure provide that the
charging party is responsible for the timely and proper service of a copy
of the charge on the parties against whom such charge is made, these
provisions also provide that the Regional Director will cause a copy of
such charge to be served. Inasmuch as copies of charges in the instant
cases were served on the Respondent by the Regional Director for
Region 7, who under Sec. 11(4) of the Act can serve the charge through
certified mail the affirmative defense urged by the Respondent that the
Union failed to serve the charges lacks merit and is hereby rejected. See
T.LB. Plastics Corp, 266 NLRB 331 (1983); and NLRB v. Ann Arbor
Pres, 188 F.2d 917, 926 (6th Cir. 1951).
299
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the entire record in these cases and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the brief filed by the Respondent,3 I make the following 4
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a corporation organized under and
existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan
and with its office and place of business located at De-
troit, Michigan, is engaged in the business of the trans-
portation of freight and commodities. During the calen-
dar year 1981, the Respondent in the course of its oper-
ations derived gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the
transportation of freight and commodities in interstate
commerce pursuant to arrangements with and as agent
for various motor truck freight carriers, including Atlas
Van Lines, which operates between and among various
States of the United States. The Respondent by virtue of
such operations functions as an essential link in the trans-
portation of freight and commodities in interstate com-
merce.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 243, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent is engaged in the transportation of
freight and commodities. It has two facilities located at
Detroit, Michigan. The office, repair garage, truck park-
ing, minimal storage, and a public scale are located on
Schaefer Highway (herein referred to as the Schaefer fa-
cility). The other facility located approximately 1-1/2
miles away on Hubbell (herein referred to as the Hubbell
warehouse) is used for storage, crating, and uncrating of
import-export household goods and truck parking.
Edgar Patrick is the sole owner of the Respondent.
His son David Patrick and his nephew Jeffrey Russell
both work there. None of these three persons has a job
title.5 Russell 6 performs duties as a driver, warehouse-
man, packer, and helper. The dispatching of jobs is per-
formed by both Edgar Patrick and David Patrick.
The Union has represented the Respondent's employ-
ees for approximately 43 years. The last collective-bar-
gaining agreement between them expired the end of May
and, since about June 1, the Union has been engaged in a
strike against the Respondent. During the strike the Re-
spondent's striking employees have picketed both the
Schaefer facility and the Hubbell warehouse. Additional-
3 Neither the General Counsel nor the Charging party submitted briefs.
4 Unless otherwise indicated the findings are based on the pleadings,
admissions, stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record
which I credit.
Both Edgar Patrick and David Patrick are supervisors under the Act.
e No evidence was proffered to establish that Russell was a supervisor
under the Act.
ly, they have engaged in ambulatory picketing by fol-
lowing the Respondent's trucks to picket them when and
where they make deliveries. These proceedings arose out
of conduct occurring both before and during the course
of the strike and picketing.
B. Unlawful Statements, Threats, Assaults, Damages,
and Other Conduct
Edward Kalis filed a grievance against the Respond-
ent 7 claiming David Patrick had made a baggage deliv-
ery which was Kalis' work and he was entitled to be
paid for it. Kalis testified he presented this grievance to
David Patrick. Although he first testified this occurred
on May 28, his later recollection was it occurred on
April 28. According to Kalis shortly thereafter while he
and another employee Ernest Shaw, who was in the
office when he gave the grievance to David Patrick,
were in the parking lot by the building talking, David
Patrick came out of the building with the grievance in
his hand to where they were, cursed them and said that
because of what Kalis had done, "Don't worry Kalis.
Before this is over I'm going to have both your legs
broken." Patrick, using profanity in referring to them,
also said it really did not matter because in 2 weeks none
of them were going to be working for him anyhow.
Ernest Shaw, who testified he was present, corroborat-
ed Kalis' testimony about his presenting the grievance to
David Patrick and the statements Patrick made to them
on the parking lot on April 28.
David Patrick acknowledged talking to Kalis about
the grievance Kalis had filed which he said irritated him
because he thought it was a waste of time. According to
Patrick he received the grievance from his father s rather
than Kalis and placed the incident as occurring on May
7.9 Patrick denied threatening to break Kalis' legs or to
fire Kalis or that Shaw, who he said left as he came out
of the building, was present when he talked to Kalis.
Patrick's version of the conversation was that after ques-
tioning Kalis about his filing a nit-picking grievance be-
cause Kalis had asked to be off early the day the deliv-
ery had to be made Kalis cursed him and claimed Pat-
rick was doing his work and he wanted to get paid for it.
According to Patrick they then became involved in a
screaming match. Patrick however denied being able to
recall everything he said and acknowledged he may have
cursed Kalis.
Jeffrey Russell testified that near the end of April he
saw Kalis give the grievance to Edgar Patrick and that
while he was in the bathroom that same day he over-
heard the conversation between David Patrick and Kalis
outside the bathroom window in the parking lot. Russell,
who corroborated David Patrick's testimony, denied
hearing Patrick tell Kalis he would break his legs or fire
him. Russell also said when he looked outside the bath-
Kalis, who was the union steward, has previously filed grievances.
s Although his father Edgar Patrick testified he did not testify about
receiving this grievance.
9 David Patrick said he based the date on information taken from the
grievance which he no longer had a copy of and on Kalis' timecard
which was not offered as evidence.
300
LIVERNOIS MOVING & STORAGE
room window he saw David Patrick and Kalis but not
Shaw.
I credit both Kalis and Shaw rather than David Pat-
rick and Russell whom I discredit and I find that about
April 28 David Patrick threatened to break union stew-
ard Kalis' legs and threatened to discharge the employ-
ees because Kalis had filed a grievance. Apart from my
observation of the witnesses in discrediting both David
Patrick and Russell their overall testimony concerning
this and other incidents about which they testified, dis-
cussed infra, does not appear plausible.
On June 7 several employees including union steward
Kalis and John Gray were picketing at the Hubbell
warehouse when Jeffrey Russell left the warehouse driv-
ing a truck. Kalis and Gray got into Kalis' pickup truck
with Kalis driving and began following the truck Russell
was driving. Kalis gave as his reason for following the
truck was to picket it if a delivery was made. While pro-
ceeding in the proper lane northbound on Hubbell,
which is a two-lane road with a center dividing line,10
Kalis estimated they were following the truck by a dis-
tance of approximately 6 to 10 feet and traveling at a
speed of approximately 25 to 35 miles per hour. Kalis
testified that David Patrick, who was driving his own
pickup truck traveling in the same direction, pulled up in
the southbound lane alongside his truck at which time
Patrick turned his truck into Kalis' truck hitting it and
trying to force it off the road. Upon impact Kalis' truck
swerved to the right and Patrick's truck swerved a little
to the left but then came back and struck Kalis' truck
again. Kalis stopped his truck but Patrick kept going in
his truck. According to Kalis, his truck received over
S1800 worth of damages as a result of this collision.
Under cross-examination, Kalis acknowledged that when
Patrick came up beside him in his truck he did not put
on his brakes and that he was not going to let Patrick
turn in between him and Russell's truck.
Gray corroborated Kalis' version of the incident.
David Patrick admitted his pickup truck collided once
with Kalis' pickup truck; however, he denied it was in-
tentional and claimed it was an accident. According to
him on noticing that Kalis accompanied by Gray began
following the truck Russell was driving after it had left
the Hubbell warehouse he got into his own pickup truck
and after catching up to them he pulled his truck up
alongside Kalis' truck which he said was about 5 feet
behind Russell's truck and tried to wave Kalis off when
the collision occurred. According to Patrick after the
collision both of their vehicles came to a stop whereupon
he backed his truck up and then proceeded to follow
Russell's truck. Under cross-examination Patrick, who
placed Kalis' truck as being at least half to the right side
of the lane behind Russell's truck, acknowledged it was
possible that when he pulled alongside of Kalis' truck
that part of his own truck was in the southbound lane.
Patrick estimated the damage to his own truck was
S1200.
Patrick denied his purpose was to pass Kalis or to
squeeze him out or to try to prevent Kalis from follow-
ing Russell. He stated his reasons for following were be-
1' There are also parking lnes on each side of the street.
cause they were too close to Russell's truck and earlier
that day Russell had reported to him that three pickets
had followed Russell to McDonald's restaurant and
threatened his life and when he saw Kalis and Gray
follow Russell on that occasion he was afraid something
was going to happen. Patrick acknowledged however
that pickets had followed the Respondent's truck since
June I when the strike started.
Russell admitted he did not see the collision which oc-
curred behind the truck he was driving. He stated he
only heard one collision which he said occurred after
Patrick had pulled up alongside of and a little in front of
Kalis' vehicle which he described as being half in the
regular lane and half in the parking lane. Patrick's truck
which was in the northbound lane moved slightly to-
wards the parking lane after the collision.
According to Russell early that day upon going to
McDonald's restaurant for lunch he was followed there
by Egon Lewkut in his automobile accompanied by John
Gray and Dan Keelan. Upon leaving the restaurant,
Lewkut, Gray, and Keelan, who were in the automobile
parked next to where he had parked, said if there wasn't
a Detroit policeman there they would beat the . . ."
out of him. John Gray credibly denied making such
threat to Russell or that he had ever been to that
McDonald's restaurant.
Russell also testified that following that incident at
McDonald's restaurant while delivering some materials
to the Hubbell warehouse Kalis and Gray in Kalis' vehi-
cle followed him part of the way. Gray acknowledged
having followed Russell earlier that day to the Hubbell
warehouse but stated it was in his own automobile.
Russell, contrary to Patrick's testimony, stated he had
arranged for Patrick to follow him on that occasion.
I credit the testimony of union steward Kalis and
Gray and find that on June 7 David Patrick struck Kalis'
truck with his own truck to discourage Kalis and John
Gray from following the Respondent's truck for pur-
poses of picketing it if it made deliveries. David Patrick
and Russell are discredited for reasons previously given
as well as the contradictions between their testimony
concerning the reasons Patrick followed Russell on this
occasion.
On June 14, John Gray, Egon Lewkut, Edward Kalis,
Daniel Gray, and George Zarzychi were engaged in
picketing at the Schaefer facility. They were located,
while not walking back and forth on the sidewalk which
runs in front of the property, about 5 to 15 feet to the
left of the driveway which is the north entrance to the
property from Schaefer Highway. The south entrance to
the Schaefer facility from Schaefer Highway is located
about 50 feet from the north entrance. There were also a
couple of lawn chairs used by John Gray and Kalis on
the sidewalk where the pickets were situated.
Kalis testified that morning while he and John Gray
were sitting in the lawn chairs he saw David Patrick
driving his pickup truck southbound on Schaefer High-
way. When Patrick reached the north entrance he turned
his truck into that driveway; however, instead of pro-
1 1 The omitted word is a four-letter curse word.
-
301
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceeding on the driveway into the property the truck
swerved to the left and came on the sidewalk to where
they were. According to Kalis, both he and Gray had to
jump out of the lawn chairs they were sitting in which
Patrick's truck then ran over. The truck missed both
Kalis and Gray but came within about a foot from where
they had been seated. Patrick did not stop the truck but
continued driving down the sidewalk and then entered
the property near the south entrance. Kalis stated that
after Patrick parked and got out his truck he yelled to
him, "You guys want a fight? I'll give you a fight." Ac-
cording to Kalis the pickets made no response but went
to the police station and filled out a report.
John Gray, except for stating that he and Kalis were
standing up picketing rather than sitting down when the
incident occurred and that Patrick used the words "play
rough" rather that the word "fight," corroborated Kalis'
testimony.
David Patrick acknowledged that such incident with
the truck occurred and that the pickets, who were stand-
ing 10 to 15 feet to the left of the driveway, "got the
heck out of the way" and the truck ran over one empty
lawn chair. However, he denied he intentionally drove
the truck at the pickets to strike them or to interfere
with their picketing activities. His explanation was as he
turned into the north driveway from Schaefer Highway
the truck hit a hole12 causing the steering wheel to be
jerked out of his hand and after hitting the lawn chair
with the truck he regained control of the truck and with-
out stopping drove it into the property at the south end
of the building.
Patrick, who normally used the south entrance when
entering the property, stated he planned to use the north
entrance on this occasion because roofing nails had pre-
viously been thrown on the south entrance driveway
which had gotten into his vehicle's tires.
Based on the testimony of Kalis and Gray which I
credit rather than Patrick for reasons previously given, I
find that on June 14 David Patrick attempted to run
down striking employees on the picket line with his
truck. Patrick's claim that he lost control of his truck on
that occasion is not only inconsistent with the descrip-
tion of what happened but also with his statements to the
pickets immediately thereafter about if they wanted a
fight he would give them a fight.
On June 17 Edward Kalis and John Gray along with
several other employees were engaged in picketing at the
Schaefer facility.
Kalis, whose testimony was corroborated by John
Gray, testified that when David Patrick left the premises
driving a tractor with a semitrailer, he and John Gray
got into Gray's automobile with Gray driving and began
following the truck for purposes of picketing the truck if
it made a delivery. They followed the truck southbound
on Schaefer Highway and then went westbound on West
Chicago Road. While on West Chicago Road, Kalis
noted Jeffrey Russell, who was driving David Patrick's
pickup truck, and Edgar Patrick, who was driving his
own automobile, following behind them. Upon reaching
13 John Gray acknowledged there were ruts in the driveway and Kalis
did not dispute it had ruts or holes in it.
Hubbell, Patrick's truck turned left on Hubbell and then
stopped. Gray's automobile proceeded past Hubbell and
then turned into an abandoned gasoline station at the
intersection of Hubbell and West Chicago Road because
of the two automobiles following them. This station is
located about three blocks from the Hubbell Warehouse.
Both Russell and Edgar Patrick then parked their vehi-
cles next to David Patrick's truck which was parked on
Hubbell parallel to that entrance to the abandoned sta-
tion. David Patrick, Russell, and Edgar Patrick all got
out of their vehicles. Edgar Patrick had a baseball bat
and David Patrick and Russell each had a club.13 David
Patrick then approached Gray's automobile as they were
preparing to leave, hollering at them to come out and
fight and threatened to fight them and then swung his
club at Gray's automobile hitting it twice causing
damage to the roof by putting a crease in it. After Gray
backed his automobile into West Chicago Road and then
started forward to leave, Edgar Patrick took a swing at
the automobile with his baseball bat but missed and
David Patrick threw his club at their automobile which
struck the passenger side door damaging it by putting a
crease in it. As they left, David Patrick hollered at them
to come back and fight and cursed them.
During this time neither Gary nor Kalis got out of
Gray's automobile or said anything to them. Russell also
did not do anything or come near their automobile.
David Patrick gave a different version of the incident.
According to him, his father Edgar Patrick was follow-
ing immediately behind his truck in his automobile which
was followed by Gray's automobile and then by Russell
driving David Patrick's pickup truck. While proceeding
on West Chicago Road he saw Gray's automobile pass
his father's automobile,4 cut back across in front of it,
and get behind Patrick's truck whereupon his father had
to slam on his brakes and swerve to avoid hitting Gray's
automobile. While turning on to Hubbell, Patrick noticed
Gray's automobile continue past Hubbell and turn into
the abandoned station. According to Patrick, he did not
know what was going on so he pulled his truck over to
the side of Hubbell and parked it after which his father
parked his automobile behind the truck and Russell
parked his truck in front of it. He and his father then ap-
proached Gray's automobile while Russell remained by
his father's automobile and there was a heated exchange
of words between Kalis, Gray, Edgar Patrick, and him-
self. Although Patrick denied being able to recall exactly
what was said he recalled Kalis and Gray asking him
what the hell was going on.
Patrick denied having a club or any kind of weapon in
his hand or striking Gray's automobile with a club or
throwing anything at their automobile. He acknowledged
his father had a baseball bat in his hand which he said his
father threw but missed Gray's automobile as it started
to leave and swerved a little bit towards them.
Under cross-examination Patrick indicated he went to
talk to Kalis and Gray because he was upset over their
nearly causing his father to have an accident, and said as
'" Kalis described the clubs as being objects about 3 feet in length and
shaped like baseball bats.
14 Both Kalis and Gray denied passing Edgar Patrick's automobile.
302
LIVERNOIS MOVING & STORAGE
he approached the automobile he told them if they
needed to pick on someone why pick on an old man
when he was available. Patrick admitted he might have
invited Gray or Kalis who remained in their automobile
to get out of the automobile to fight him. Both Edgar
Patrick and Russell corroborated David Patrick's testi-
mony concerning the incident. Edgar Patrick, who is 78
years old, said he heaved the baseball bat at Gray's auto-
mobile as it was leaving after it swerved towards David
Patrick. Under cross-examintion Russell said he followed
Gray and Kalis on this occasion because he saw them
following David Patrick and Edgar Patrick.
Based on the testimony of Kalis and Gray, which I
credit, I find that on June 17 David Patrick assaulted the
automobile of striker John Gray with a club because
Gray and Kalis were following the Respondent's truck
for purposes of picketing it if it made deliveries. Howev-
er, I find the evidence is insufficient to establish that
Edgar Patrick also assaulted Gray's automobile as al-
leged. My reasons for discrediting David Patrick and
Russell are as previously stated, and I do not find plausi-
ble the testimony of Edgar Patrick regarding this inci-
dent, particularly since he acknowledged approaching
Kalis and Gray with a baseball bat in his hand.
Daniel Gray testified that about the end of June while
picketing at the Schaefer facility he was on the sidewalk
at the southwest corner of the office building when he
was shot by a pellet gun. After being shot he turned and
observed David Patrick, who was about 40 feet away,
pulling away from the doorway of the building with a
pellet gun. However, he acknowledged he did not actu-
ally see Patrick aim the gun or shoot him. Under cross-
examination, Gray said when this occurred he was facing
away from Patrick.
David Patrick, who acknowledged a pellet gun was
kept at the Schaefer facility, denied ever shooting it at
David Gray. The only time he shot it during the strike
was in July when they were having trouble with pigeons
and he shot it in the warehouse.
Since Gray neither saw Patrick aim the pellet gun at
him or shoot it, I credit Patrick's denial that he shot the
gun at Gray or shot the gun during that period. Further,
I find Gray's own testimony was insufficient to establish
he was actually shot by a pellet gun on that occasion
absent as here any evidence of a sound of the pellet gun
being discharged or a description of the alleged wound
for purposes of ascertaining whether it could have been
caused by a pellet gun.
Accordingly, I find the evidence was insufficient to es-
tablish that David Patrick shot striker Daniel Gray on
the picket line with a pellet gun as alleged.
On June 7, Daniel Gray and other employees includ-
ing Egon Lewkut, John Gray, Edward Kalis, and Ernest
Shaw were picketing at the Schaefer facility.
Daniel Gray testified that morning he had a conversa-
tion with David Patrick during which he referred to the
proposal Patrick had sent to the Union concerning a new
contract and asked Patrick what kind of a proposal it
was and whether he wanted them to take a $4 or S5 cut
in pay to start back to work. Patrick's response was as
far as he was concerned if he signed the contract at that
time he would have to bring all of the employees back
which he was not going to do. During the conversation
Patrick also said the Company was going out of business
and mentioned Gray's brother John Gray, who worked
for the Respondent, had grieved them out of a job which
Patrick explained to mean that he was not going to call
him back because of all the grievances and the Union
behind them.
David Patrick, who said he might have had a conver-
sation with Gray that day but did not recall having one,
denied having made such statements.
I credit Gray rather than David Patrick, whom I pre-
viously discredited, and find that on June 7 David Pat-
rick informed striking employee Daniel Gray he was not
going to sign a contract because he would have to bring
all the striking employees back to work which he was
not going to do; and informed Daniel Gray the Compa-
ny was going out of business and the striking employees
would no longer have jobs and would not be recalled be-
cause of grievances having been filed.
On the evening of August 6 Edward Kalis, who had
picketed early that day at the Respondent's premises,
was at his home along with employee Ernest Shaw per-
forming some work on Shaw's automobile. Kalis' wife
was also present. The automobile was parked in the con-
crete driveway which runs beside the house and was
behind the gate which is located across the driveway and
even with the front of the house. This gate is about 25
feet from the street.
Kalis testified that while he was in his driveway
behind the gate but near it and walking back to his truck
to get some tools he heard nails hitting the driveway and
when he looked he saw Edgar Patrick in his automobile
directly in the middle in front of his driveway which
was about 30 feet away. Patrick, who was alone, was in
the driver's seat and the window on the passenger's side
door of the automobile, which was the side of the auto-
mobile closest to Kalis' house, was rolled down. Accord-
ing to Kalis he immediately ran towards the street at
which time Patrick's automobile sped off and by the time
Kalis reached the end of the driveway Patrick's automo-
bile had already gone around the corner. Kalis denied
seeing any other vehicles along the street. He said his
two sons and the neighbor's children were playing on
the front lawn. Kalis described the front part of his
driveway was covered with about a pound of roofing
nails which he denied were there when Shaw had ar-
rived.
Under cross-examination Kalis acknowledged he did
not see Patrick put the nails in his driveway. Kalis in an
affidavit1s given to a Board agent relates he saw Patrick
drive by and he also heard the nails hit at the time Pat-
rick drove by.1' While Kalis claims he also told the
Board agent taking the affidavit that Patrick's automobile
was stopped in front of the driveway he acknowledged
this does not appear in his affidavit.
Ernest Shaw, who had been working underneath his
automobile, stated about 5 minutes after getting out from
1' Portions of Kalis' affidavit were offered by the Respondent for pur-
poses of impeaching Kalis' testimony.
i' The affdavit further reflects that Kalis stated since then he has had
nails in his driveway frequently but has not seen anyone put them there.
303
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
underneath it he saw Edgar Patrick driving past Kalis'
home. Kalis then mentioned to him about their going out
the driveway whereupon he and Kalis walked down the
driveway and picked up some roofing nails on the front
part of the driveway which were not there when he had
arrived. Shaw estimated he saw a couple of dozen nails.
Under cross-examination Shaw denied seeing Patrick
throwing the nails or hearing the nails thrown in the
driveway. Although he stated Patrick slowed his auto-
mobile down he denied Patrick stopped in front of Kalis'
house and said he could not tell whether the window
was rolled up or down. Shaw also stated when he first
noticed Patrick, Kalis was standing right next to him and
that they were both facing the street.
Edgar Patrick denied throwing nails in Kalis' drive-
way. While under cross-examination he acknowledged
that in August he drove his automobile by Kalis' house
and slowed down in front of Kalis' house, he denied he
stopped and explained his reason for doing so was be-
cause he had originally planned to try to talk to Kalis
since he was the union steward to see if they could find
some solution or way to settle the trouble and to get the
employees back to work. However, on looking towards
the house and seeing both Shaw and Kalis there he said
he was afraid to stop, claiming he had previously been
threatened by both of them. Patrick denied having any
roofing nails with him on that occasion or knowing
whether the automobile window was rolled down.
Neither Kalis nor Shaw claimed they actually saw Pat-
rick throw the nails in the driveway. Although Kalis
contends Patrick stopped in front of the driveway this is
disputed by Shaw who denied he stopped and Kalis' ver-
sion of the incident contained in his affidavit reflects
only that he saw Patrick driving by his house. For these
reasons which are also consistent with Patrick's testimo-
ny concerning the incident, I credit Patrick's denial that
he threw the nails into Kalis' yard as alleged. Further,
Kalis' sons and the neighbor's children1 7 were playing
on Kalis' front lawn at the time and no evidence was
proffered to rule out their being responsible for the nails
being put there.
On August 12 employees including Egon Lewkut,
Daniel Gray, and John Gray picketed at the Hubbell
warehouse.
Daniel Gray testified that, while he was alone and sit-
ting in the driver's side of his automobile which was
parked across the street from the driveway to the Hub-
bell warehouse, pieces of a broken bottle entered into his
automobile through the open window on the driver's
side. This bottle had broken when it landed outside of
but near the side of his automobile. Gray acknowledged
he did not see anyone throw the bottle. Gray stated he
then saw David Patrick, who was standing on the side-
walk on the side of the warehouse building in plain view,
throw a rock at his automobile which struck the driver's
side door about 6 inches below the window. The rock
which he described about being 8 inches in diameter
made a large dent in the door. Patrick then threw an-
other rock, which Gray described as being twice the size
of the first rock, at his automobile. This rock landed
" Their ages were not established.
about 4 feet from his automobile and then rolled under-
neath it striking the muffler.
Gray filed a police report concerning the incident.
Both John Gray and Egon Lewkut, who were on the
sidewalk in front of the Hubbell warehouse at the time,
corroborated Gray's testimony concerning the incident.
Although both of them also saw the bottle they did not
see who threw it.
David Patrick denied ever throwing rocks, bottles, or
other objects at Daniel Gray's automobile.
I credit the testimony of Daniel Gray, John Gray, and
Egon Lewkut rather than Patrick for reasons previously
given and find that on August 12 David Patrick caused
damage to the automobile of striking employee Daniel
Gray by throwing rocks at it which hit it.
Egon Lewkut testified a few minutes after this rock
throwing incident he and John Gray, Daniel Gray, and
Warren Keys went over to the gate at the Hubbell ware-
house to where David Patrick was. Patrick then cursed
them and said he was going to burn their houses down.
When Patrick also took their picket sign off the pole and
attempted to take it back into the building with him,
John Gray tried to grab the picket sign from Patrick
claiming it was their sign. Daniel Gray, who corroborat-
ed Lewkut's testimony, stated Patrick made the state-
ment about burning their houses down after telling them
that if they wanted to play rough he would play rough.
According to Daniel Gray, Patrick also mentioned to
Kalis who was also present that he should stay away
from Jeffrey Russell's house and if Kalis did not there
would be some retaliation.
David Patrick denied informing any of the picketing
employees that he was going to burn their house down.
Based on the credible testimony of Egon Lewkut and
Daniel Gray I find that, on August 12, David Patrick
threatened striking employees Daniel Gray, John Gray,
Warren Keys, and Edward Kalis with burning down
their houses.
On December 16 Egon Lewkut and Daniel Gray pick-
eted at the Hubbell warehouse. While they were sitting
in Gray's automobile which was parked on Hubbell
Street in front of the warehouse drinking coffee and
reading the paper, David Patrick drove a tractor with a
semitrailer out of the premises and stopped it right beside
of and within a few feet of Gray's automobile and Lew-
kut's automobile which was parked directly behind
Gray's automobile. Jeffrey Russell also drove a pickup
truck out of the premises and parked it facing them
about 2 or 3 feet in front of Gray's automobile.
Lewkut testified that Patrick, Russell, and employee
Kevin Stead,'8 who was in the truck with Russell, all
got out of their trucks. When Patrick started coming to-
wards Lewkut he got out of the passenger side door of
Gray's automobile 9s and started running south on Hub-
bell with Patrick, Russell, and Stead all chasing him. Pat-
rick had a crowbar and Russell had a piece of chain simi-
lar to a tow chain which was about 5 or 6 feet long.
Lewkut also saw three or four other employees, who
" Stead began work for the Respondent after the strike started.
" Oray wua seated on the driver's side and was unable to get out that
door because of Patrick's truck.
304
LIVERNOIS MOVING & STORAGE
were hired after the strike began, come out of the gate to
the driveway on the side of the warehouse and they also
started chasing him. Patrick using profanity hollered for
them to get Lewkut. After chasing Lewkut without
being able to catch him those persons chasing him
stopped and Lewkut went into a nearby business estab-
lishment and called the police. When Lewkut came out
he saw Patrick and Russell in front of the warehouse and
the other employees go into the gate towards the ware-
house. While walking back to where their automobiles
were parked he saw Patrick get a can of gasoline out of
the pickup truck and pour gasoline on both his and
Gray's automobile. Patrick also attempted to splash gaso-
line on Gray. Patrick and Russell then returned their
trucks to the warehouse. When Lewkut went to where
Gray was, Patrick came towards him swinging a crow-
bar in the air whereupon Lewkut began backing up and
questioning Patrick about why he was coming after him.
When Patrick mentioned something going wrong with
his trucks, Lewkut's response was he did not have guts
to even go back there or to be there then. Patrick using
profanity called Lewkut a liar. When Lewkut refused to
back up any further, Patrick returned to the warehouse.
Lewkut then helped Gray look for his automobile keys
which Russell had taken out of Gray's automobile and
thrown across the street and he also went to a nearby
building and called the police again. Patrick then drove
another tractor out of the warehouse premises and
parked it close in front of Gray's automobile where he
remruned a little while, while they were looking for the
keys, and then returned the tractor to the warehouse.
Daniel Gray, who corroborated Lewkut's version of
the incident except for denying he saw Russell with a
weapon, further stated that when Patrick stopped chas-
ing Lewkut, Patrick then came towards him whereupon
he grabbed a board off the ground to protect himself at
which time Patrick saw the board, put his crowbar
down, got the gasoline can out of the pickup truck, from
which he also tried to throw gasoline on him getting a
small amount of gasoline on his shirt, and then poured
gasoline on the hoods and tops of both his and Lewkut's
automobiles. When Patrick came over to his automobile
with the gasoline, Gray had the board in one hand and
the hammer 20 in his other hand and was standing about
15 feet from his automobile. Patrick then put the gasoline
can down, approached Gray and solicited him to put the
board down and to fight. Russell then picked up the gas-
oline can, poured gasoline inside of Gray's automobile,
reached inside and took Gray's ignition keys from his
automobile and threw them across the street.
David Patrick acknowledged parking his truck in the
road close beside the automobiles of Gray and Lewkut
and that Russell parked his truck in front of and facing
them. According to Patrick, he stopped his truck after
Gray, who was sitting in his automobile with Lewkut,
hollered some obscenities2t at him. Patrick said at the
'0 According to Gray he picked up the hammer which he kept in his
automobile to protect himself when he got out of his automobile.
" Patrick denied knowing what obscene words were used.
time he heard these obscenities he was mad and upset be-
cause the previous Monday, which would have been De-
cember 13,22 he found that several of the Respondent's
trucks had had their tires slashed and windshields busted
resulting in $18,000 to $20,000 worth of damages.2 3
While Patrick first stated he did not know what his in-
tentions were in going over to where Gray and Lewkut
were and denied it was to stop them from hollering, he
subsequently gave as his reasons for stopping were be-
cause he was being sworn at and the trucks had been
damaged the previous Monday.
Patrick's version of the incident was as he got of his
truck Lewkut jumped out of the passenger side of Gray's
automobile and ran over to where Russell was getting
out of his truck and threw a cup of coffee in Russell's
face.2' Russell then made a grab for Lewkut who ran
down the street and Russell ran into the warehouse and
got an ax handle and came back and stood there with it.
Patrick denied he or any other person ran after Lewkut.
Patrick acknowledged getting a can of gasoline out of
the pickup truck and splashing a little bit of gasoline on
the automobiles of both Gray and Lewkut.
Patrick, who denied at any time having a crowbar or
any kind of weapon in his hand, stated when Gray
jumped out of his automobile Gray had a hammer in one
hand and a piece of 2-by-4 wood about 2 feet long in his
other hand and swung the hammer at him whereupon he
and Gray screamed at each other. Patrick said he and
Russell returned their trucks to the warehouse where he
got another tractor which had a broken windshield and
side window and placed it at the end of the driveway
and he and Russell sat in it. According to Patrick he
heard Lewkut say to Gray in a loud voice using profani-
ty that if they kept this up they would have to strike the
trucks again.
Patrick denied chasing Lewkut or swinging a crowbar
at Lewkut or Gray.
Both Russell and Stead corroborated Patrick's testimo-
ny except they both acknowledged they attempted to
chase Patrick while he was running down the street but
stopped when they saw they could not catch him. Rus-
sell estimated he only took a couple of steps while Stead
estimated he chased Lewkut about 15 feet. Russell
denied having any tow chains in the truck or that he
poured gasoline into Gray's automobile.
Based on the testimony of Lewkut and Daniel Gray
which I credit and David Patrick's admission he poured
gasoline on their automobiles I find that on December 16
David Patrick and Jeffrey Russell, acting as the Re-
spondent's agent2 a assaulted striking employees Egon
" December 16 was on a Thursday.
" Patrick first stated that 55000 to $10,000 worth of daunages had been
done to the building and equipment.
a4 Lewkut denied throwing coffee in Russell's face. However, he said
that when Russell tried to grab him s he was running past Russell he
flung the coffee in Russell's direction.
s" Under Sec. 2(13) of the Act in determining whether a person is
acting u an "agent" of another person so as to make that person respon-
sible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed
were actually authorized or subsequently ratified is not controlling.
305
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lewkut and Daniel Gray by chasing or advancing to-
wards them with a chain or crowbar or swinging a
crowbar at them in a threatening manner and also dam-
aged their automobiles by pouring gasoline on them.2a
C. The Informal Settlement Agreement
On July 22 the Regional Director for Region 7 ap-
proved an informal settlement agreement in Case 7-CA-
20708(1) which had been agreed to and executed by the
Respondent and the Union. Under the terms of this
agreement, the Respondent agreed not to interfere with
its employees' rights under the Act; not to threaten em-
ployees with bodily harm or discharge for engaging in
union activities; not to damage vehicles owned and oper-
ated by its employees because they engaged in strike ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union; not to attempt to injure
its employees because they engaged in strike activities on
behalf of the Union; and not to discharge firearms at its
employees because they engaged in strike activities on
behalf of the Union.
The Regional Director in issuing the consolidated
complaint on September 29 alleged the Respondent had
refused to comply with the agreement by engaging in
similar acts of violence and ordered the withdrawal of
his approval of this agreement and vacated the agree-
ment.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends contrary to the Re-
spondent's denials that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in unlawful statements,
threats, assaulted strikers, assaulted and damaged strikers'
vehicles, shot a striker with a pellet gun, and threw nails
in a striking employee's driveway; and that the informal
settlement agreement in Case 7-CA-20708(1) was prop-
erly vacated and set aside by the Regional Director.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
The test applied in determining whether a violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act has occurred is "whether the
employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably
be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of em-
ployee rights under the Act." I-T-E Imperial Corp., 216
NLRB 1076 (1975). The right of employees to picket at
their employer's premises and to follow their employer's
truck for purposes of picketing them when they made
deliveries is a right protected under the Act. To interfere
with such rights by an employer violates the Act. The
right of employees to file grievances to enforce provi-
sions of collective-bargaining agreements is also protect-
ed under the Act. See Interboro Contractors, 157 NLRB
1295, 1298 (1966), enfd. 388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967). Fur-
ther, an employee's right to engage in activities as union
steward is protected under the Act. Star Expansion In-
'6 The finding that Russell was acting as the Respondent's agent is
based on the fact that Russell not only participated directly with Patrick
in committing these acts but as the evidence disclosed was directed along
with other employees by Patrick to get Lewkut on that occasion.
dustries, 164 NLRB 563 (1967), enfd. 409 F.2d 150 (D.C.
Cir. 1969).
The findings supra established that about April 28
David Patrick threatened to break union steward Kalis'
legs and threatened to discharge employees because
Kalis had filed a grievance; on June 7 David Patrick
struck Kalis' truck with his own truck to discourage
Kalis and John Gray from following the Respondent's
truck for purposes of picketing it if it made deliveries; on
June 14 David Patrick attempted to run down striking
employees on the picket line with his truck; on June 17
David Patrick assaulted the automobile of striker John
Gray with a club because Gray and Kalis were follow-
ing the Respondent's truck for purposes of picketing it if
it made deliveries; on June 7 David Patrick informed
striking employee Daniel Gray he was not going to sign
a contract because he would have to bring all the strik-
ing employees back to work which he was not going to
do, and informed Daniel Gray the Company was going
out of business and the striking employees would no
longer have jobs and they would not be recalled because
of grievances having been filed; on August 12, David
Patrick caused damage to the automobile of striker
Daniel Gray by throwing rocks at it which hit it; on
August 12 David Patrick threatened striking employees
Daniel Gray, John Gray, Warren Keys, and Edward
Kalis with burning down their houses; and on December
16 David Patrick and Jeffrey Russell, acting as the Re-
spondent's agent, assaulted striking employees Egon
Lewkut and Daniel Gray by chasing or advancing to-
wards them with a chain or crowbar or swinging a
crowbar at them in a threatening manner and also dam-
aged their automobiles by pouring gasoline on them.
Applying the above test, I find the Respondent by en-
gaging in each of these acts and conduct just enumer-
ated, which were directed against the employees because
of their union picketing and strike activities or because of
grievances having been filed, has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The remaining issue is whether the informal settlement
agreement was properly vacated and set aside.
The findings as set forth supra establish that subse-
quent to the approval of the informal settlement agree-
ment on July 22 the Respondent through David Patrick
on August 12 caused damage to the automobile of strik-
ing employee Daniel Gray by throwing rocks at it which
hit it and threatened striking employees Daniel Gray,
John Gray, Warren Keys, and Edward Kalis with burn-
ing down their houses; and on December 16 through
David Patrick and Jeffrey Russell assaulted striking em-
ployees Egon Lewkut and Daniel Gray by chasing or
advancing towards them with a chain or crowbar or
swinging a crowbar at them in a threatening manner and
also damaged their automobiles by pouring gasoline on
them. Since this conduct clearly violates the terms of the
informal settlement agreement which prohibited such
conduct, I find that the action of the Regional Director
for Region 7 in vacating and setting aside the informal
settlement agreement was proper and does not constitute
306
LIVERNOIS MOVING & STORAGE
a defense to proceeding as the amended consolidated
complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III above, found to constitute unfair labor practices oc-
curring in connection with the operations of the Re-
spondent described in section I above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship 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.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Livernois Moving and Storage Co. is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 243, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By threatening to break the union steward's legs and
to discharge the employees because the union steward
had filed a grievance; striking an employee's truck with
another truck to discourage striking employees from fol-
lowing the Respondent's truck for purposes of picketing
if it made deliveries; attempting to run down striking em-
ployees on the picket line with a truck; assaulting the
automobile of a striking employee with a club because
striking employees were following the Respondent's
truck for purposes of picketing it if it made deliveries; in-
forming a striking employee it was not going to sign a
contract because it would have to bring all the striking
employees back to work which it was not going to do;
informing a striking employee the Company was going
out of business and the striking employees would no
longer have jobs and they would not be recalled because
of grievances having been filed; causing damage to the
automobile of a striking employee by throwing rocks at
it which hit it; threatening striking employees with burn-
ing down their houses; and assaulting striking employees
by chasing or advancing towards them with a chain or
crowbar or swinging a crowbar at them in a threatening
manner and also damaging their automobiles by pouring
gasoline on them Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The informal settlement agreement in Case 7-CA-
20708(1) was properly vacated and set aside after the Re-
spondent violated its terms.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of facts and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed27
ORDER
The Respondent, Livernois Moving and Storage Co.,
Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening union stewards with bodily harm for
filing grievances.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees for filing
grievances.
(c) Damaging striking employees' vehicles to discour-
age them from following the Respondent's trucks for
purposes of picketing them if they make deliveries.
(d) Attempting with vehicles to run down striking em-
ployees on the picket line.
(e) Assaulting striking employees' vehicles with clubs
or other objects for following the Respondent's trucks
for purposes of picketing them if they make deliveries.
(f) Informing employees the Respondent will not sign
a contract because it would have to bring all the striking
employees back to work which it will not do.
(g) Informing the employees the Respondent is going
out of business and the striking employees will no longer
have jobs and will not be recalled because of grievances
being filed.
(h) Causing damage to striking employees' vehicles by
throwing rocks or other objects at them.
(i) Threatening striking employees with burning down
their houses.
(j) Assaulting striking employees with weapons.
(k) Damaging striking employees' vehicles by pouring
gasoline on them.
(1) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its Detroit, Michigan facilities copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 8 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
s8 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
307
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amended consolidat-
ed complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it
alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found
herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten union stewards with bodily
harm for filing grievances.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employees for
filing grievances.
WE WILL NOT damage our striking employees' vehicle
to discourage them from following the Respondent's
trucks for purposes of picketing them if they make deliv-
eries.
WE WILL NOT attempt with vehicles to run down
striking employees on the picket line.
WE WILL NOT assault our striking employees' vehicles
with clubs or other objects for following the Respond-
ent's trucks for purposes of picketing them if they make
deliveries.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that the Compa-
ny will not sign a contract because we would have to
bring all the striking employees back to work which we
will not do.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees the Company is
going out of business and the striking employees will no
longer have jobs and will not be recalled because of
grievances being filed.
WE WILL NOT cause damage to our striking employ-
ees' vehicles by throwing rocks or other objects at them.
WE WILL NOT assault our striking employees with
weapons.
WE WILL NOT damage striking employees' vehicles by
pouring gasoline on them.
WE WILL NOT in like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
LIVERNOIS MOVING AND STORAGE CO.
308