Local 30, Roofers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 652 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 30, United Slate , Tile and Composition Roofers,
Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-
CIO (Kitson Bros., Inc.) and Edward R . Kitson and
Martin J. Sobol. Cases 4-CB-2731 and 4-CB-
2754
March 14, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On September 1, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas A. Ricci issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support
of the cross-exceptions and in answer to the
Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Natio . it Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs 1 and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,3 as
modified herein.
The Administrative Law Judge's Decision omits
the finding that St. Joe Paper Company has its
principal office and place of business in Wilmington,
Delaware, and is engaged in the manufacture of
shipping containers. During the past year this
Company sold goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly outside the State of Delaware. The Board
finds that this Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
The Administrative Law Judge correctly found
that Local 30 was responsible for the violations of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act at the St. Joe Paper
Company plant as described in his Decision. How-
ever, the Decision is unclear in detailing the specific
times union agents were identified as being at the
worksite, and in detailing other indications of Local
30's involvement in the misconduct. On April 8,
1976, the Hurlock Company, a nonunion roofer,
Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
2 The Administrative Law Judge made several minor factual misstate-
ments in the body of his Decision which do not affect the validity of his
conclusions . Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge 's Decision, the
record reveals that the Philadelphia Aquatic Club job was performed in
September 1975, not April 1976; the St . Joe Paper Company job was
performed in April 1976, not May ; and the St. Joe Paper Company site was
located in New Castle , Delaware , not Pennsylvania . Regarding the
Philadelphia Aquatic Club job, it should be noted that, according to the
record , the Employer arrived on the afternoon , not the morning, of
September 9, 1975, that the events that were ascribed to September 10
228 NLRB No. 88
started work at the St. Joe Paper Company plant.
During that morning, the general manager and the
superintendent of St. Joe saw between 12 and 25
pickets at the plant gates, stopping cars carrying St.
Joe employees as they tried to enter the plant. The
only evidence of Local 30's involvement on this day
was from the testimony of these two witnesses who
indicated that they saw three or four Local 30 picket
signs . On the next morning, April 9, up to 150 pickets
were involved in blocking the plant gates, throwing
rocks, breaking car windows, injuring a Hurlock
employee, blocking an ambulance, and blocking
access to the plant. No picket signs were identified
that morning. The plant security guard testified that
one picket had a Local 30 patch on his hat and he
believed a few other pickets had similar patches on
their jackets. During the incidents that morning, no
Local 30 agents were identified but, around 4 o'clock
that afternoon, Karl Henry, a Local 30 business
agent, appeared at the plantsite and asked Hurlock if
he wanted him (Henry) to send new men to the job.
The next workday, April 12, according to the
testimony of the security guard, between 30 and 50
pickets were present at the plant gates. At 10:10 that
morning, Karl Henry accepted service of a state
court temporary restraining order limiting the num-
ber of pickets at the plant gates. Local 30, its officers,
and members were the named defendants in that
action. Picketing and the temporary blocking of cars
at the plant gates continued throughout the week of
April 12-16. The security guard testified that some of
the pickets were wearing Local 30 patches during the
week but that no picket signs appeared until April 14.
Finally, the security guard also testified that on April
14 Karl Henry spoke to him, asked to see Hurlock,
and said "maybe we can get this thing straightened
out ...." No further incidents occurred after April
16.
While this evidence does not directly show that
Local 30 agents knew of, authorized, or directed the
events that preceded Karl Henry's appearance on the
afternoon of April 9, the record is clear that the
pickets used Local 30 picket signs on April 8, that
throughout the picketing several of the pickets wore
Local 30 emblems, and that Karl Henry, a Local 30
business agent, was repeatedly observed in the
vicinity of the St. Joe Paper Company plant. In.
occurred on September 11; that the person who threatened Kitson with his
fist on September 11 was unidentified in the record and was not Mike Daly;
and that John McCullough, an officer of Local 30, was not identified as
being present at the worksite . Finally, the Department of Labor documents
referred to in the Decision were not from 1965, but covered the years 1972-
75.
3 The General Counsel excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's
failure to expressly prohibit employee assaults and threats of assaults and
other acts against supervisors and employers . We find meet in the General
Counsel's exception and we shall modify the recommended Order and
notice accordingly.
LOCAL 30, ROOFERS 653
Teamsters Local 536, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (The Connecticut Foundry Company), 165
NLRB 916, 920-921(1967), it was stated, "there is no
direct evidence that any of the persons involved were
agents of Respondent. However, such inferences as
are reasonable may be drawn and may sustain the
General Counsel's burden of proof where as here
there is no evidence to rebut them." In this case a
Local 30 agent was identified as being present shortly
after some of the disturbances. In view of the fact
that Respondent presented no witnesses of its own to
refute the agent's involvement, it may reasonably be
inferred that Respondent knew of and acquiesced in
the misconduct that occurred at the St. Joe Paper
Company plant. Cf. International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Gener-
al Electric Company), 183 NLRB 1225 (1970).
It has long been settled that, when misconduct
occurs on a picket line, if the union agents responsi-
ble for the picketing do not take affirmative steps to
disavow the conduct and restrain, reprimand, or
discipline the offenders, the union will be deemed to
have acquiesced in and ratified the misconduct .4 The
record is bare of any evidence that Karl Henry or
any other union agent acted so as to disavow
responsibility for misconduct on the picket line.5
The broad remedial order issued by the Adminis-
trative Law Judge is justified in view of the conduct
involved in the instant proceeding and the Decision
reached by the Board regarding other 8(b)(1)(A)
violations committed by Local 30 in Associated
Builders and Contractors, Inc., supra.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition
Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a):
' Laborers ' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Associated
Builders and Contractors , Inc.), 219 NLRB 142 ( 1975); International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (General
Electric Company Circuit Protective Devices Department), 189 NLRB 50
(1971)
8 The Board has recently found this same Union, Local 30, responsible
for other 8(bx1)(A) violations , based on facts similar to those underlying the
incident at the St . Joe Paper Company plant herein . Local 30, United Slate,
Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association,
AFL-CIO (Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.), 227 NLRB No 229
"(a) Restraining or coercing Kitson Bros ., Inc.,
Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a Warren W. Williams, St.
Joe Paper Company, or any other employer or their
employees or supervisors within the area in which
Respondent Local purports to represent employees,
by threatening them with physical injury, threatening
to inflict bodily harm upon their relatives, throwing
stones at them, physically blocking workway en-
trances to prevent them from working, inflicting
bodily harm upon them, mass picketing employee
entrances, or destroying personal property for the
purpose of coercing and restraining employees in the
exercise of their statutory rights."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
CHAIRMAN MURPHY, concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part:
I agree with my colleagues that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the
misconduct on the picket line at the Kitson job in
September 1975. However, I cannot agree that the
evidence establishes that the Respondent was respon-
sible for the violence which occurred at the Hurlock
job in April 1976.
The only evidence is that on April 8 some strikers
were carrying Local 30 picket signs and on April 9
some of them were wearing Local 30 emblems during
the time when violence occurred. The afternoon of
A pril 9, after the violence was ended, Karl Henry, an
agent of the Respondent, appeared at the jobsite and
asked Hurlock if he wanted new men sent to the job.
Henry was present at various times during the rest of
the picketing-from April 12 through 16-and while
temporary blocking of cars at the plant gates
continued through that week there were no further
violent acts.
My colleagues concede that the evidence does not
show directly that Local 30 agents knew of, autho-
rized, or directed the events prior to Henry's
appearance on the afternoon of April 9. Nor is there
any evidence that the Respondent became aware of
and ratified or adopted it thereafter. Yet because the
pickets used Local 30 signs, several pickets wore
Local 30 emblems, Karl Henry was repeatedly
observed in the vicinity (after the violence ceased),
and there is no denial of its agents' involvement, my
colleagues infer that Respondent knew of and
(1977). In that case, in the 1974 incident, unidentified persons threatened
employees at nonunion jobsites and damaged property of employers in the
presence of employees . The Board held that, based on the presence of Local
30 picket signs and the fact that a Local 30 organizer was later seen briefly
conferring with three or four pickets, Local 30 was responsible for conduct
constituting 8(bXl)(A) violations which occurred even prior to the presence
of the organizer . There was no evidence that any violence occurred during
the brief time the organizer was present . In that case as well as in the instant
case, we rely to a large extent on the failure of the union agent to
affirmatively disavow the misconduct of the pickets.
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
acquiesced in the misconduct. But this rationale is, in
effect, based on a presumption of union responsibili-
ty and knowledge of misconduct on a picket line
which must be rebutted by evidence that the agent
was not involved. This is not and never has been the
law, and the case cited in the majority opinion
(Teamsters Local 536 (The Connecticut Foundry
Company)) does not support such an approach.
Rather, that decision stands for the proposition that
where the facts themselves reasonably support an
inference of a union agent's involvement in miscon-
duct such inference stands in the absence of evidence
to rebut it. There the record was replete with
evidence from which the inference was drawn. Thus,
the facts themselves must be the basis for the
inference-the absence of rebuttal evidence is not a
factor to be considered until after the inference of
union responsibility has been drawn.
Here, the only evidence is that which I have
summarized above; 6 the critical facts which appear
therefrom are that violence occurred on a picket line,
and a union business agent appeared and was
present after it was terminated. This alone is
insufficient to create the presumption that the agent
was involved. The only other possible consideration
might be that the Respondent's agents were involved
in similar activities in September 1975, some 6 or 7
months earlier. But that was too far removed to
warrant a finding that there was a pattern of conduct
from which the Respondent may reasonably be
found to have approved and been responsible for the
April violence.
Accordingly, the General Counsel did not make
out a prima facie case and there was no burden
placed upon the Respondent to go forward with
rebuttal evidence.
I would therefore dismiss this allegation of the
complaint.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Kitson Bros.,
Inc., Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a Warren W.
Williams, St. Joe Paper Company, or any employ-
er, or their employees or supervisors, by threaten-
ing them with physical injury.
WE WILL NOT threaten or inflict bodily harm
upon relatives of such employees or employers to
restrain them or coerce them.
WE WILL NOT throw stones at employees or
employers for such purposes.
WE WILL NOT physically block workway en-
trances to prevent employees or employers from
working in order to restrain or coerce them.
WE WILL NOT actually inflict bodily injury
upon employees or employers.
WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing or
otherwise block entry to worksites in order to
restrain or coerce employees or employers.
WE WILL NOT damage or destroy personal
property for such purposes.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
LOCAL 30, UNITED
SLATE, TILE AND
COMPOSITION ROOFERS,
DAMP AND WATERPROOF
WORKERS ASSOCIATION,
AFL-CIO
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
6 Contrary to the summary in fn. 5 of the majority opinion herein, the
facts in Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and
Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO (Associated Builders and Con-
tractors, Inc), 227 NLRB No. 229 (1977), are not identical to those here The
facts found by the Administrative Law Judge there showed that, dunng at
least part of the 1973 incident, named union representatives were present at
the time of the misconduct and/or participated therein (i e., Local Business
Agents Carlton Brown and Joseph Enwright) and that dunng the 1975
incident an officer of the local (i e, Conn) was present and participated in
the violence While in 1974 the union agent appeared on the picket line at a
time when no violence was occurring, the misconduct both preceded and
followed his discussion with the pickets ; further, this was the same Carlton
Brown who had been present at and joined in the 1973 violence , and the
inference was warranted that he knew of but did not caution against the
violence In contrast , here the union agent appeared after the misconduct
had ceased and no further violence or threats occurred during or after the
said agent's presence there, and therefore it cannot be inferred that the
union agent did not attempt to control the picket line activity. Hence, I
would find no violation here
THOMAS A. Ricci, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
in this proceeding was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on June 28 and 29, 1976, on separate complaints by the
General Counsel against Local 30, United Slate , Tile and
Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers
Association, AFL-CIO, here called the Respondent or the
Union. The complaint in Case 4-CB-2731 issued on April
13, 1976, on a charge filed on March 10, 1976, by Edward
R. Kitson, an individual. The complaint in Case 4-CB-
2754 issued on May 19, 1976, on a charge filed on April 12,
1976, by Martin J. Sobol, an individual. The two cases were
consolidated for a single hearing. The issue presented is
whether the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in its picketing
activities against two nonunion employers-Kitson, Bros.,
Inc., here called Kitson, and Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a
F
LOCAL 30, ROOFERS 655
Warren W. Williams, here called Hurlock. Briefs were filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Kitson, a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania corporation,
has its principal office and place of business in Hatfield,
Pennsylvania, and is engaged in the roofing repair and
construction business. During the past year, this Company
purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
sources outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Hurlock, a State of Delware corporation, has its principal
office and place of business in Wilmington, Delware, and is
also engaged in the roofing, siding repair, and construction
business . During the past year, Hurlock purchased goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from out-of-state
sources. I find that both of these Companies are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find that Local 30, United Slate, Tile and Composition
Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Picture of the Case
Both Kitson and Hurlock operate as nonunion contrac-
tors. For some time Local 30 has been carrying on a
campaign in the general area of Philadelphia to put a stop
to roofing work performed by employers whose employees
are not represented by the Respondent. In April 1976
Kitson was doing a job for the Philadelphia Aquatic Club,
repairing the roof. In May the Hurlock Company was
engaged in another roofing repair contract for the St. Joe
Paper Company, on its building in New Castle, Pennsylva-
nia. Local 30 picketed both projects. The pickets carried
signs , designating themselves as "Local 30," identifying
their pinpointed offending employer as Kitson and Hur-
lock, as the case may be, and informing the public, or
whatever employees might work at the two locations, that
those employers - Kitson and Hurlock - were not paying
union wages , or were paying substandard wages. The
precise language on the picket signs is not exactly spelled
out in the oral testimony - there were no precise replicas
of the picket signs placed in evidence - but this was,
concededly, the message announced.
There is no allegation of wrongdoing in the fact of such
picketing per se. One of the premises picketed, that of St.
Joe Paper Company, had two gates, one for the plant
employees and another for any contractors' employees,
such as those of the Hurlock Company . But again , there is
no allegation that the Union picketed the wrong gate, that
it engaged in secondary as distinguished from primary
picketing. All that is involved in either of the two
complaints is the charge that the Union violated the statute
by the manner in which it carried on the ostensible
picketing activities - that it engaged in violence, mass
picketing, obstruction of the various entrances to the work
areas, damage to persons and property, and threats of
personal and property injury to the employees coming to
work. A number of witnesses testified in support of the
complaint. In order to make it unnecessary to call
additional witnesses to the same events, counsel for the
Respondent stipulated with the General Counsel that were
certain named further witnesses called, their testimony
would be consistent with and supportive of that of certain
other witnesses who had already in fact given oral
testimony. The Respondent called no witnesses in defense.
From this it follows there is no need to detail in this
Decision what testimony was given by the various
individual witnesses. The testimony of each of them stands
uncontradicted, is perfectly plausible and credible on the
face of the record, and therefore must be taken as fact. It
will all be so stated here.
The Respondent's defense, as articulated by its counsel
at the hearing, is a contention that the testimony falls short
of proving that anything that happened on picket lines, or
otherwise at the two locations in question, was authorized
or approved by agents of the Union, and that, therefore,
whatever may have occurred was no more than misconduct
by individual members of the Union, not chargeable to the
labor organization as such. None of the union officers or
agents appeared at the hearing. Exhibit documents re-
ceived into evidence prove that the Union refused to accept
four envelopes of registered mail from the Board's
Regional Office, these containing the two charges filed and
the two complaints issued. Somehow, I suppose, the Union
did get its hands on the complaints, for it filed answers to
both. The exhibits also show that agents of the Union -
Michael Daly, Karl Henry, and Steven Traitz - refused to
accept registered mail at the Union's office, each envelope
containing a subpena for them to appear at the hearing.
One example will suffice to illuminate the nature of this
theory of defense. From 1972 through 1975 there was a
business agent of the Respondent named Karl Henry.
When a local authority deputy sheriff appeared at the St.
Joe Paper premises on April 12, 1976, to serve upon a
representative of Local 30 a copy of the temporary
restraining order issued 3 days earlier by a state court
judge, one of the pickets stepped up, said he was Karl
Henry, and accepted service of the injunction. To theorize,
as does the Respondent, that this proves no more than the
fact some unidentified person presumed to arrogate
another's name to himself, suggests scholastic, or talmudic,
argumentation, rather than Aristotelian reasoning.
The Kitson Job
The Kitson Company started this job on September 9.
When Edward Kitson, the employer, arrived the next
morning with some of his men he found three or four
pickets, with Steven Traitz among them. Traitz is the
business representative of Local 30. Kitson had met him in
August 1975, in a meeting when Traitz had tried to
convince Kitson to have his employees join the Union.
Traitz gave his visiting card to Kitson that day; it is a
regular professional card, with the full name of the
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent and Traitz identified as its business represen-
tative. The roof on which the Kitson men worked is only 12
feet off the ground and the fence - of wire mesh - at the
edge of the property no more than 5 or 6 feet away. When
Kitson and his men had started working, Traitz, from
outside the fence, called out, "You are making a lot of
enemies," and "You should get off the job" The pickets
were inside the parking lot, and Kitson called the police to
get them off. By now there were 10 pickets; they did step
out, and kept calling the nonunion men "scabs" and dirty
names . When Kitson 's men were finished and leaving,
Traitz called out they "had better not come back the
following day."
The next day, September 10, Kitson arrived with 10 or 12
of his employees in 4 cars. They found the driveway into
the parking lot blocked by an automobile and a small
truck . At the second entrance to the same premises some
pickets stood in the driveway, at least 12 of them. Again
Traitz was among the pickets. When the men started to
work, the pickets kept yelling "with constant profanity .. .
Kitson , we are going to blow your head off." Soon there
were 20 to 25 pickets, and they stayed all day. Again, from
5 feet away from the roof on which the men worked, the
yelling continued "You . . . we're going to blow your head
off, we're going to get your . . . where's your wife? When
you get home tonight you better make sure your children
are there, where exactly is your wife right now?" Then the
pickets began to throw stones at the workmen ; Kitson
asked for help from the police, who were standing by, and
the rock throwing slowed, but still continued.
About 2 p.m. the work for the day was finished, but the
entrances to both parking areas were blocked by a car and
by a truck as the pickets milled about. The police ignored
Kitson 's plea for a police escort out of town, and the men
sat inside and waited . One half hour later the police yielded
and, with a police car in front, Kitson's workers all drove
away from the premises.
Mike Daly, a business representative of Local 30, was
among the pickets that day. At one point he entered the
building and threatened Kitson personally with his
clenched fist. It took a policeman to "break it up."
On September 15, Monday, Kitson's people were back at
work. Again there were 20 to 30 pickets, wearing Local 30
badges and carrying the same signs . They again threw
stones at the employees on the roof, yelled threats of
physical violence, and spit at them continuously from 5 feet
away at the fence. Now the Kitson Company had a
professional photographer take pictures of the activities.
Again Traitz and Daly were among the pickets. John
McCullough , treasurer of the Respondent , also appeared;
one witness at the hearing said he knew the man to be
president of Local 30. A document filed by the Respondent
with the U.S. Department of Labor for the year 1965 calls
him the treasurer . Clearly he was an agent.
Carlton Brown, a full-time organizer on the payroll of the
Respondent , was also among the pickets . The presence of
all these union agents - Traitz, Daly, Brown, and
McCullough - is proved, over and above the identifica-
tions made by the witnesses who testified, by the photo-
graphs taken during the picketing described above. In 1972
there had been a Board election among Kitson's employ-
ees; the employees had rejected Local 30. In a preelection
meeting, when Local 30 was attempting to persuade the
employees to vote for the Union, George Huttenlock, a
Kitson employee, heard both Traitz and Brown speak on
behalf of Local 30. And the names of all four of these
agents appear on the report which the Respondent filed in
1975 with the Federal Government.
With so many agents of Local 30 present, and therefore
of necessity giving their approval to what the pickets were
doing, and with some of them, at least, shown to have
participated in the improper conduct, I find that the
following acts are chargeable to the Respondent and
constitute deliberate violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, as alleged in the complaint ; threatening employees
with physical injury, threatening to inflict bodily harm
upon relatives of employees , throwing stones at employees,
physically blocking workway entrances to prevent employ-
ees from working , and mass picketing employees entranc-
es.'
The Hurlock Job
The Hurlock Company started work with its employees
at the St. Joe Paper plant on April 8, and continued for
several weeks. On that morning, when the St. Joe general
manager arrived at 8:15 he found about 25 pickets in front
of the building. The property has two entrances, one then
marked for St. Joe employees and the other for subcontrac-
tors. At the company gate, two men stood in front of the
manager's car while another approached to speak to him
on the side. Asked who the roofing contractor was, he said
Hurlock, and the picket then called these people scabs and
asked "why I had given the contract job to a nonunion
contractor?" The manager came in. The pickets were
wearing signs saying "Local 30 . . . Hurlock pays below
minimum wages."
The St. Joe plant superintendent also arrived early that
morning. He found 12 or 15 men standing in front of the
company gate . They told him they were from Local 30, and
were waiting for the business agent. Soon St . Joe employees
started to arrive. One of them, Charles Spratly, stopped at
the gate in his car because the pickets were blocking him,
standing in front of his vehicle. One of them asked did he
not know there was a strike going on, and told him to go
home. Spratly backed away and went home. He did not
return that day. The pickets stood in front of another
employee's car, that of Stephen Forrester, but he stepped
on the gas and drove right through; at this the pickets
jumped away . In a few minutes the pickets stood in front of
another man's car, but he too continued right on and the
pickets scattered in a hurry. Later, during the afternoon,
several second shift employees began to arrive ; again the
pickets refused to let their cars pass. As the superintendent
testified : "I saw the cars being stopped and I saw them
backing - the picketers backing the cars out - flagging
them back. I did see that, yes."
N L.R.B v Drivers, Chauffeurs, Helpers, Local Union No. 639,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers ofAmerica, 362 U S 274 ( 1960).
LOCAL 30, ROOFERS 657
When the general manager arrived the next morning, he
found over 100 pickets posted at the company gate. The
employees could not get in and he did not open the gate for
the cars to try to come through because his supervisor
advised him not to try it. When the manager arrived in his
car there were two other supervisors also arriving in their
cars - Ewald and another . Five masked pickets ap-
proached Ewald's car - four stood in front of the car and
the fifth talked to the driver , and said : "Don't come in."
The manager, who was behind, started to get out of his car,
but four pickets approached him from the side . With this
he decided to yield, called to Ewald to "back up," and all
three of the supervisors drove to the adjacent parking lot
on the property of General Electric Company, which is
next door to St. Joe.
Now the Hurlock workmen arrived , in a string of six
trucks . The pickets - now numbering close to 150 -
started throwing rocks at them from both sides of the road
in front of the St . Joe plant . The pickets waved ax handles.
One Hurlock man was struck by a rock hurled by a picket
as he entered the reserved contractor employee gate.
Another stone , thrown across the property fence, smashed
a window in a St. Joe Company truck. Still another one
went through the window of an automobile belonging to
the security guard St . Joe had hired . By this time St. Joe's
employees - well over 35 of them - were all standing in
the General Electric lot next door just awaiting the
outcome . Their supervisors told everybody to go home.
This was the day a restraining order was issued in the state.
court. I think the superintendent correctly summed up the
situation when he said at the hearing : "And acting in the
position that I have , I, in turn , told all of my supervisors,
and I 'did, myself, instruct all people to leave the premises
at once - anyone in the area - we were afraid they were
going to be harmed."
An ambulance was called for the man who had been hit
in the head ; 20-25 pickets surrounded it, yelling "that the
man was dead . . . forget it." The ambulance turned away
and left . Then 15 minutes later a police car came and took
the man away . This was when the St . Joe management
decided to send all its people home.
There is also uncontradicted testimony that some
employees came in and some turned away. In consequence,
on each of several days the St. Joe employees gathered on
the adjacent General Electric Company lot, and they
entered the property to work only when a police escort car
came and led them all in . This was also the time when Karl
Henry, on behalf of Local 30, accepted service of the local
court restraining order . On one occasion Henry told a
security guard to go inside and call Mr . Hurlock out, with
the phrase : "Ask Buddy Hurlock to come and talk to me;
maybe we can get this thing straightened out. . . . Just tell
him that Karl Henry wants to talk to him."
With the pickets wearing Local 30 badges, with the
picket signs reading "Local 30," and with Henry, the
business agent , so active in the midst of the activities, I find
the record evidence supports a finding , which I make, that
the misconduct thus proved was authorized and approved
by the Respondent labor organization . Accordingly I find
that , by physically preventing employees from entering
their work areas, by blocking automobiles from entering
the work premises , by throwing stones at employees to
prevent them from crossing picket lines , by inflicting
bodily injury upon employees , and by destroying property,
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Respondent Local 's violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, occurring in connection with its operations and with
the operations of the employers against whom such acts
were directed, have a close, intimate , ands 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.
THE REMEDY
There remains the question whether the appropriate
cease-and-desist order in this case should be a broad one,
extending to the entire area of the Respondent's jurisdic-
tional operations , or limited only to its activities vis-a-vis
the Kitson Company and the Hurlock Company . On this
question, I deem it correct to consider also findings made
in the prior proceeding Local 30, United Slate, Tile and
Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO (Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.),
227 NLRB No. 229 ( 1976), in which another Administra-
tive Law Judge found similar violations of Section
8(b)(1)(A) to have been committed by the Respondent. As
here, the affirmative testimony in that earlier proceeding
was not contradicted by any agents of the Local. While it is
true that, under the scheme of the statute an Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision is subject to review by the Board
itself, it is safe to assume that findings based upon
uncontradicted testimony will stand undisturbed . Accord-
ingly, I will issue the usual broad order against the
Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By threatening employees with physical injury, by
threatening to inflict bodily harm upon relatives of
employees, by throwing stones at employees , by physically
blocking workway entrances to prevent employees from
working, by inflicting bodily injury upon employees, by
mass picketing employee entrances , and by destroying
property, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I make the following recommended:
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER2
The Respondent, Local 30, United Slate, Tile and
Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers
Association, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees of Kitson Bros.,
Inc., Hurlock Roofing Co., t/a Warren W. Williams, St.
Joe Paper Company , or any other employer within the area
in which Respondent Local purports to represent employ-
ees, by threatening employees with physical injury , threat-
ening to inflict bodily harm upon relatives of employees,
throwing stones at employees , physically blocking work-
way entrances to prevent employees from working, inflict-
ing bodily harm upon employees , mass picketing employee
entrances , or destroying personal property for the purpose
of coercing and restraining employees in the exercise of
their statutory rights.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its office and place of business copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof
and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted . Reason-
able steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Publish, in at least two newspapers of general
distribution within the jurisdiction of Respondent Local
30, copies of said notice, which publications shall run on at
least four occasions in at least 2 consecutive weeks.
(c) Sign and return to the Regional Director for Region
4, sufficient copies of said notices to be distributed by said
Regional Director to Kitson Bros ., Inc., Hurlock Roofing
Co., and St. Joe Paper Company.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.