Mine Workers District 30 (Tch Coal)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

MINEWORKERS DISTRICT 30 cI' -H COAL) , 309
District 30, United Mine Workers of America and
Local 1834, United Mine Workers of America
and TCH Coal Company and Joboner Coal
Company and Samoyed Energy Company, Inc.
Cases- 9-CC-1200-1, 9-CC-1200-2, 9-CC-
1201-1, 9-CC-1201-2, 9-CB-5676-1, and 9-
CB-5676-2
31 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 11 January 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Donald R. Holley issued the attached decision. The
Respondents, District 30,, United Mine Workers of
America (District 30) and Local 1834, United Mine
Workers of America (Local 1834), filed exceptions
and supporting briefs. The Charging Party, Samo-
yed Energy Company, Inc. (Samoyed) filed an an-
swering 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 briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions as modified, but not to adopt the rec-
ommended Order.
- The judge found, inter alia, that District 30 and
Local 1834 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) through the
conduct and actions of the protesting former
Greasy Creek employees, who are also members of
Local 1834, by coercing and restraining Samoyed's
employees on 19 July 1983 and other dates by
blocking ingress to and egress from, the Samoyed
mine, and by threatening to bust the heads of
Samoyed's employees if Samoyed, failed to hire
former Greasy Creek .employees.) The judge fur-
ther found that the Respondents violated Section
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by inducing and en-
couraging the employees of secondary employers
TCH and Joboner to strike. or to refuse to perform
any services for their employers and by threatening
to picket and by picketing TCH and Joboner, all
with the object of fbrcing TCH and Joboner to_
cease doing business with each other and with
Samoyed in order to cause Samoyed to sign the
UMWA contract and hire the former employees of
the Greasy ,Creek Coal, Company. The Respond-
i The Respondents have not excepted to the judge's findings that Dis-
trict 30 violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by executing a collective-bar-
gaining agreement when it did not represent a majority of Samoyed's em-
ployees, and violated Sec 8(b)(2) of the Act by executing a contract with
a union-secunty clause when it did not represent a majority of Samoyed's
employees.
278 NLRB No. 45
ents have, excepted to the judge's findings in this
regard.
1., We find merit to the Respondents' exceptions
to the judge's-finding that the Respondents were
liable for former Greasy Creek employee Chester
Burke's statements on 16 July 1983 threatening to
bust the heads of Samoyed's employees. During the
hearing the General Counsel and the Charging Par-
ties argued that the Respondents should be held
liable for Burke's conduct because he was a mine
committeeman when Greasy Creek Coal Company
abandoned the mine in April 1983. Further, Burke
represented himself to be a mine committeeman
when he spoke with Samoyed Mine Superintendent
Hunter and Samoyed employee Akers and when he
signed the 18 July 1983 grievance. The Respond-
ents argued that Burke was not their agent and that
they are not liable for his conduct because the
UMWA contract precludes an employee who is on
layoff status from serving as a mine committeeman.
The judge concluded that it was unnecessary to re-
solve the dispute concerning 'Burke's agency status
based on his finding that the Respondents were
liable for the picketing and the conduct of the pick-
eters on other grounds. However, absent a finding
that Burke was the Respondents' agent and, absent
any exception to the judge's failure to find Burke
to be an agent, on this record we are unable to
hold the Respondents liable for Burke's threats be-
cause Burke's threats were not made at a time
when the former Greasy Creek employees were
picketing.2 Accordingly, we reverse the judge's
finding and dismiss the allegations that the Re-
spondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by threaten-
ing to bust heads if Samoyed failed and refused to
employ the former Greasy Creek Coal Company
employees.
2. We adopt the judge's remaining- unfair labor
practice . findings. We agree, for the reasons set
forth in the judge's decision, that Respondent Dis-
trict 30 engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and
(ii)(B) of the Act. In agreeing with the judge's con-
clusion that Local 1834 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act, we
rely on the record evidence that Local 1834 Presi-
dent Harris and other Local 1834 officers failed
themselves to cross the picket lines to report to
work at their respective places of employment,
thereby signaling the membership that they were to
ignore the "back to work" instructions uttered at
the union meetings . Thus, we are not affirming the
2 For the reasons stated in the judge 's decision , Chairman Dotson
would affirm the judge's finding that the Respondents were liable for
Burke's threats and thereby violated Sec 8(b)(1)(A)
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local's liability on the theory that any particular,
more effective tactic to cause its protesting mem-
bers to return to work was left untried, but rather
on the basis that any force the "back to work" di-
rectives did carry was belied by the Local officials'
failure to return to work themselves after issuing
them.3 We further hold Local 1834 liable by
reason of its officers' refusal to cross the picket
lines on the ground that a union, like an employer,
acts through its agents.4 The Local 1834 officers
are admitted agents of the Union and their con-
duct, therefore, evidenced the Local's endorsement
of the protest activities, thereby rendering the
Local liable for the protest activities in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4) of the Act.
ORDER
The, National Labor Relations Board orders that
A. Respondent District 30, United Mine Workers
of America, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Giving effect to or seeking to enforce the
contract entered with Samoyed Energy Company,
Inc. on 12 July 1983, which was executed at a time
when it did not represent a majority of Samoyed's
employees.
(b) Seeking to cause Samoyed to discriminate
against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, by giving effect to or seeking to en-
force the union-security clause in the above-de-
scribed 12 July 1983 agreement, which requires
that Samoyed employees join and remain members
of the Union as a condition of employment.
(c) Coercing and restraining Samoyed's employ-
ees by blocking ingress to and egress from the
Samoyed mine site.
(d) Inducing and encouraging individuals em-
ployed by TCH Coal Company, Joboner Coal
Company, or any other person engaged in com-
merce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to
engage in a strike or refusal to perform any serv-
ices, and coercing and restraining TCH Coal Com-
pany, Joborler Coal Company, or any other person
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting com-
merce, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire TCH and,Joboner to cease, doing business
with each other and with Samoyed Energy Com-
pany, Inc. to cause Samoyed to sign the UMWA
contract and to hire the former employees of
Greasy Creek Coal Co. ,
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
See U.S Steel Corp. v Mine Workers, 598 F 2d 363 (5th Cir 1979).
See Indiana & Michigan Electric Go, 273 NLRB 1540 (1985)
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix A."5 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 9, after being signed by Re-
spondent District 30's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Dis-
trict 30 to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director signed
copies of the notice sufficient in number for posting
by TCH Coal Company, and Jobonet Coal Compa-
ny, those companies being willing, at all locations
where notices to their employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent District 30 has taken to comply.
B. Respondent Local 1834, United Mine Work-
ers of America, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercing and restraining Samoyed's employ-
ees by blocking ingress to and egress from the
Samoyed mine site.
(b) Inducing and encouraging individuals em-
ployed by TCH Coal Company, Joboner Coal
Company, or any other person engaged in com-
merce, or in an industry affecting commerce, to
engage in a strike or refusal to perform, any serv-
ices, and coercing and restraining TCH Coal Com-
pany, Joboner Coal Company, or 'any other person
engaged in commerce or an industry affecting com-
merce, where an object thereof is to force or re-
quire TCH and Joboner to cease doing business
with each other and with Samoyed Energy Com-
pany, Inc., to cause Samoyed to sign the UMWA
contract and to hire the former employees of
Greasy Creek Coal Co.
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix B."6 Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 9, after being signed by Re-
spondent Local 1834's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent Local 1834 immedi-
5 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 Nation-
al 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."
6 See fn. 5, supra
MINEWORKERS DISTRICT 30 (TCH COAL)
ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
Local 1834 to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director signed
copies of the notice sufficient in number for posting
by TCH Coal Company, and Joboner Coal Compa-
ny, those companies being willing, at all locations
where notices to their employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent Local 1834 has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT give effect to or seek to enforce
the contract entered into with Samoyed Energy
Company, Inc. on 12 July 1983 which was execut-
ed at a time when we did not represent a majority
of Samoyed's employees.
WE WILL NOT seek to cause Samoyed to dis-
criminate against its employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act, by giving effect to or seek-
ing to enforce the union-security clause in the
above-described 12 July 1983 agreement, which re-
quires that Samoyed's employees join and remain
members of the Union as a condition of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT coerce and restrain Samoyed's
employees by blocking ingress to and egress from
the Samoyed mine site.
WE WILL NOT induce and encourage individuals
employed by TCH Coal Company, Joboner Coal
Company, or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to
engage in a strike or refusal to perform any serv-
ices, and WE WILL NOT coerce and restrain TCH
Coal Company, Joboner Coal Company, or any
other person engaged in commerce or an industry
affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require TCH and Joboner to cease doing
business with each other and with Samoyed
Energy Company, Inc. to cause Samoyed to sign
the United Mine Workers of America contract and
311
to; hire the former employees of Greasy Creek Coal
Co.
DISTRICT 30, UNITED MINE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United,States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT coerce and restrain Samoyed's
employees by blocking ingress to and egress from
the Samoyed mine site.
WE WILL NOT induce and encourage individuals
employed by TCH Coal Company, Joboner Coal
Company, or any other person engaged in com-
merce or in an industry affecting commerce, to
engage in a strike or refusal to perform any serv-
ices, and WE WILL NOT coerce and restrain TCH
Coal Company, Joboner Coal Company, or any
other person engaged in commerce or an industry
affecting commerce, where an object thereof is to
force or require TCH and Joboner to cease doing
business with each other and with Samoyed
Energy Company, Inc. to cause Samoyed to sign
the United Mine Workers of America contract and
to hire the former employees of Greasy Creek Coal
Co.
LOCAL 1834, UNITED MINE WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA
James E. Horner, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James R. Hampton, Esq. (Hampton and Sholar), of
Hazard, Kentucky, for Respondent United Mine
Workers of America, District 30.
Bernard Pafunda, Esq. (Deskins and Pafunda), of Pike-
ville, Kentucky, for Respondent United Mine Workers
of America, Local 1834.
Forrest H. Roles, Esq., and Barbara L. Krause, Esq.
(Smith, Heenan, Althen and Zanolli), of Charleston,
West Virginia, for Charging Parties TCH Coal Com-
pany and Joboner Coal Company.
George J. Oliver, Esq. (Thompson, Mann, and Hutson),
and James Pruitt, Esq. (Pruitt and DeBurbon), of Wash-
ington, D.C., for Charging Party Samoyed Energy
Company, Inc.
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge. The
original charges in Cases 9-CC-1200-1 and 9-CC-1200-
2 were filed by TCH Coal Company (TCH) on July 20,
1983,1 against District 30, United Mine Workers of
America (District 30) and Local 1834, United Mine
Workers of America (Local 1834), respectively. Thereaf-
ter, on July 25, Joboner Coal Company (Joboner) filed
the original charges in Cases 9-CC-1201-1 and 9-CC-
1201-2 against District 30 and Local 1834, respectively.
Subsequently, on August 31, Samoyed Energy Company,
Inc. (Samoyed) filed the original charges in Cases 9-CB-
5676-1 and 9-CB-5676-2 against District 30 and Local
1834, respectively. On January 31, 1984, the Regional
Director for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations
Board issued an order consolidating cases and consolidat-
ed complaint and notice of hearing which alleged, inter
alia, that District 30 and Local 1834 had engaged in con-
duct which violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Respondents filed answers denying that they had en-
gaged in the unfair labor practices described in the con-
solidated complaint. On March 13, 1984, the Regional
Director issued an amended complaint to correct minor
errors in the original complaint. District 30 and Local
1834 have denied they engaged in the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the amended consolidated complaint.
The case was heard in Pikeville, Kentucky, on April
10, 11, and 12, 1984. All parties appeared and were af-
forded full opportunity to participate in the proceeding.
Each of the parties filed posthearing briefs which have
been carefully considered. On the entire record, and
from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses
who appeared to testify, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
TCH, a Kentucky corporation, owns and/or controls
certain coal rights in Pike County, Kentucky, and oper-
ates a coal preparation plant in Millard, Kentucky.
During the 12-month period preceding issuance of the
original complaint, it sold and shipped from its Millard,
Kentucky facility products valued in excess of $50,000 to
customers located outside the State of Kentucky.
Joboner, a Kentucky corporation, is engaged in the
mining and selling of coal, and operates, pursuant to an
agreement with TCH, a coal mine on Greasy Creek,
Pike County, Kentucky. During the 12-month period
preceding issuance of the original complaint, Joboner
sold and delivered to TCH, at its preparation plant, coal
valued at an amount exceeding $50,000.
Samoyed, a Kentucky corporation, is engaged in the
mining and selling of coal, and operates, pursuant to an
agreement with TCH, a coal mine on Greasy Creek,
Pike County, Kentucky. During the period extending
from June 14, 1983, to April 10, 1984, Samoyed sold and
1 All dates are 1983 unless otherwise indicated
delivered to TCH, at its preparation plant, coal valued at
an amount exceeding $50,000.
On the uncontested facts set forth above, I find that
TCH, Joboner, and Samoyed are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
It is admitted, and I find, that District 30 and Local
1834 are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
TCH, which operates a coal cleaning and preparation
plant at Millard, Kentucky, holds leases to certain coal
rights in Pike County, Kentucky. Through contractual
agreements with a number of contract miners, it causes
certain independent contractors, such as Joboner, to
remove coal from the face and deliver it to its Millard
preparation plant for X amount per ton.
At the beginning of 1983, Greasy Creek Coal Compa-
ny owned by Kaminski Kaiser operated a coal mine on
the Gardiner Fork of Greasy Creek in Pike County,
Kentucky, pursuant to an agreement with TCH, which
held the lease to the coal. The contract arrangement be-
tween Greasy Creek Coal and TCH was one wherein
the latter paid the former a given amount per ton to
remove coal from the seam and deliver it to TCH at its
Millard, Kentucky preparation plant. Greasy Creek Coal
operated the mine under union conditions and was signa-
tory to a collective-bargaining contract with the United
Mine Workers of America. In April, Greasy Creek Coal
abandoned the mine when it became insolvent. Kaiser,
the owner, left Pike County, Kentucky, for points un-
known. At the time operations ceased, Greasy Creek
Coal had about 14 employees. All were members of
Local 1834. Chester Burke, one of the employees, was
the elected union representative of the employees. His
title was that of mine committeeman.
When Kaiser abandoned the Greasy Creek mine site
some of the machinery and equipment formerly used by
Greasy Creek Coal to operate the mine remained. The
record reveals that the title to such machinery and
equipment, excluding the conveyor belt utilized to
remove coal from the face, reverted to a Pikeville, Ken-
tucky bank.
In late May or early June, TCH and Samoyed Energy
Company, Inc. orally agreed that Samoyed would reacti-
vate the Greasy Creek mine under a contract arrange-
ment substantially like the arrangement TCH previously
had with Greasy Creek Coal Company. The principals of
Samoyed are William Higginbotham and Clifford Mar-
enko. Immediately after the agreement was reached,
Samoyed commenced cleanup operations which were
necessary to permit reopening of the mine. To accom-
plish the necessary preparatory work, Samoyed hired
about five employees who reported to the site and com-
menced work. None of the employees hired by Samoyed
were members of a union. Samoyed did not hire any of
MINE WORKERS DISTRICT 30 (TCH-COAL) 313
the 14 individuals who had previously been employed by
Greasy Creek Coal Company.
During the first week of June, Eddie Ratliff appeared
at the- Greasy Creek mine site , identified himself as a
field representative of District 30, and asked Higgin-
botham and Marenko whether they were going to sign
the United Mine Workers contract . The Samoyed princi-
pals observed they were just cleaning up the , site at-that
time and refrained from giving Ratliff an answer to his
inquiry. Approximately 10 days later , Ratliff returned-to
the site and asked Samoyed 's superintendent, John
Hunter, if the Company intended to sign the United
Mine Workers contract. Hunter informed Ratliff he
would have to talk to Higginbotham or Marenko.
At some point during the month of June, Chester
Burke, the Greasy Creek Coal Company mine commit-
teeman, appeared at the mine site to seek work. Woody
Akers, Samoyed's- outside man, told Burke he did not
know when Samoyed would be hiring.
On, June 14 TCH and Samoyed entered a written
agreement which defined their relationship with respect
to the Greasy Creek mine . Insofar -as is relevant, the
agreement provided that Samoyed would , as an inde-
pendent contractor , remove coal from the seam and de-
liver it to TCH's Millard- preparation plant for a stated
amount per ton. The agreement further provided that
Samoyed would hire its own employees and that its prin-
cipals would control its labor relations.2 -
In late June or early July, Eddie Ratliff contacted
Scott Kiscaden, the president of TCH , and asked wheth-
er Kiscaden was going to require Samoyed to sign the
UMW contract. Kiscaden informed Ratliff that decision
was one which the principals of Samoyed would have to
make.
On Saturday, July 9, mine committeeman Chester
Burke, accompanied by Jerry Jones,3 appeared at the
mine site during the morning hours and conversed with
Hunter, the superintendent, and Akers, the outside man.
After telling Hunter that Ratliff had told him. Samoyed
had refused to sign, the UMW contract, Burke informed
Hunter that there would be some heads busted if Samo-
yed did not put the panel (the former Greasy Creek Coal
Company employees) back to work there. Burke went
on to say that there was going to be a lot . of trouble
there on Monday-that 5`there's going to be a picket line
up here and everything in this hollow will be stopped
from work.', Burke then informed Hunter that the con-
templated action could be stopped if Hunter would con-
tact Higginbotham and Marenko and they got back to
him by 2 p.m.4
Apparently, the principals of Samoyed did not contact
Burke subsequent to his Saturday visit to the mine site.
Consequently, on Monday morning, July 11, approxi-
mately 20 protesters appeared at the site , blocked the
2-See R District Exh 1. The record reveals that Samoyed moved its
own machinery and equipment to the Greasy Creek mine site to permit
performance of the contract It did not obtain any of the machinery or
equipment previously owned by Greasy Creek Coal Company
8 Jones, a former employee of Greasy Creek Coal Company, was a
safety committeeman when the mine was abandoned in April
4 Burke denied that he uttered any threats at any time . I credit the tes-
timony of Akers and Hunter which reveals Burke uttered numerous
threats
:t`ad Teiig to =the- mine with crib blocks ,5 and de-
meaned Samoyed employees by calling them "scabs."
Higginbotham testified that when he arrived at the site
that morning he noted that the telephone line to the mine
had been cut. Chester Burke was one of the protesters
who appeared at the site that morning.
'Higginbotham credibly testified, on observing what
was occurring at the mine site on the morning of July
11, he and Marenko went to the offices of District 30,
which were located across the street from Samoyed's
office, to consult with District 30 officials in an attempt
to remedy the situation . According to Higginbotham,
Ernie Justice, the District president, Cornelious Owens,
the District vice president, and Eddie Ratliff were
present when he and Marenko arrived.6 Higginbotham
testified that after introducing Marenko and himself to
the union officials, he informed them they were there to
talk about the problem up on Greasy Creek; that they
had a mine there and had pickets . He claimed he then
-stated their men were cleaning up on the outside and
they had not mined any coal and were seeking help from
Justice. According to Higginbotham , Justice then in-
formed them they were running a scab operation and the
work should be done with union employees ; that they
-would continue to have- problems until they signed the
United Mine Workers contract ; that when they signed
the contract , their problem would go away; that they
would have to take back the employees of Greasy Creek
or they would not run any coal ; and that if they did not
sign the contract , -they definitely would not run any coal,
and they would always have a problem . After hearing
Justice's remarks, Higginbotham and Marenko left Dis-
trict 30's offices.
The record reveals that Chester Burke and the former
Greasy Creek Coal Company employees expanded their
protest activities on the morning of July 12 by placing
protesters at locations which would assure that the em-
ployees ° of other employers were enmeshed in their dis-
pute with Samoyed . Thus the record reveals that in addi-
tion to protesting once again at the Samoyed mine site,
protesters were placed at the so-called low water bridge
which had to be crossed by truckdrivers delivering coal
to the TCH preparation plant, by the employees of
TCH, and. by the employees of Hopkins Creek Coal -
Company. Additional protesters were placed at the point
where Greasy Creek and Brown Fork intersect on the
road leading to Joboner Coal Company. 7 It is undisputed
that the hourly employees employed by Hopkins Creek,
Joboner, and TCH are all members of Local 1834 and
that they all honored the above-described protest lines
and refused to report for work at their respective places
of employment on July 12.
s Crib blocks are pieces of wood approximately 6-by-6 inches and 36
inches long
6 Owens claims that Justice was not in the office on July 11 and that
he talked to Higginbotham and Marenko that day Justice testified in a
10(k) proceeding he first met the Samoyed principals on July 11 , but sup-
ported Owen 's testimony in the instant proceeding Owens and Justice
were not impressive witnesses I credit Higginbotham 's version of the
July 11 meeting
r See G C Exh 3 which accurately reveals the protest locations
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Curt Harris, the president of Local 1834, who is em-
ployed by Hopkins Creek Coal Company, reported for
work on July 12 before the protesters appeared at the
low water bridge. Harris indicated during his testimony
that when he left the Hopkins mine on the morning of
July 12 to pick up supplies he encountered protesters at
the low water bridge and ascertained that they were pro-
testing because Samoyed would not hire them. Jess Jus-
tice, the superintendent for Hopkins Coal, credibly testi-
fied, when Harris returned from a supply run on July 12,
the employee told him that there were some people from
the old Greasy Creek mine at the mouth of the creek
and they were stopping TCH people from going to
work. Justice claims after appraising him of the situation,
Harris requested and was granted permission to go to the
District to see if he could settle things." Superintendent
Justice testified, at 1:30 p.m. on July 12, Harris called
him to say the problem had been solved as Samoyed had
signed the contract and there would be a union meeting
at 5 p.m. Justice added that Harris told him the second
shift could go ahead to work because there would be no
picket line stopping them.
Higginbotham credibly testified that on the morning of
July 12, he and Marenko once again went to District 30's
office to protest the presence of pickets at the Samoyed
mine site. Higginbotham testified that Justice, in the pres-
ence of Owens and Ratliff, told them just about the same
thing he had told them the day before. Namely, that they
were doing scab operations; that if they did not put the
Greasy Creek employees in the jobs they were doing
with Samoyed employees, they would not be mining any
coal; that their problem was not going to go away; and
that if they wanted their problem to go away, they could
sign the contract.9 On being advised of their options,
Higginbotham and Marenko left District 30's offices
without signing the contract.
The record reveals that after the Samoyed principals
left District 30's offices during the late morning hours on
July 12, TCH's president, Kiscaden, telephoned Justice
to complain because the protesters had idled the TCH
preparation plant. Kiscaden credibly testified, after tell-
ing Justice that he understood his independent contractor
(Samoyed) was coming to the District 30 office to talk to
Justice, Justice told him he would be glad to talk to
them and, if they signed a contract, everything would be
fine.
During the early afternoon hours on July 12, Marenko
returned to District 30's offices and signed the UMW
contract. It is undisputed that neither of the Respondents
had been authorized by Samoyed's five employees to
8 Harris claimed he went straight home after being excused from work
on July 12 He was a most reluctant witness and refused to give the
names of the protesters he saw at the low water bridge who were admit-
tedly members of Local 1834 I do not credit his claim that he went
home instead of going to District 30's offices on July 12
9 While Justice admitted he conversed with the Samoyed principals on
July 12, he denied he sought to cause them to sign the contract by threat-
ening them I credit Higgenbotham's testimony where it conflicts with
that given by Justice I find that Justice credibly indicated that Marenko
voiced objection to hiring the Greasy panel because those employees
were not trained in the use of a continuous miner, and Justice sought to
overcome the objection by indicating that recognition of the Greasy
panel would not obligate Samoyed to hire unqualified employees
represent them in collective bargaining at the time the
contract was executed. District 30 President Justice, who
was admittedly unaware of any business relationship be-
tween Greasy Coal Company and Samoyed, sought to
justify the District's execution of the contract by claim-
ing he considered' Samoyed to be a successor employer.
As noted supra , Curt Harris, Local 1834's president,
notified Jess Justice, the Hopkins Creek superintendent,
at approximately 1:30 p.m. on July 12, that Samoyed
Energy had signed the UMW contract. Apparently, the
protesters also learned that Samoyed had signed the con-
tract, because the record reveals they ceased to protest
during the afternoon of July 12.
At 5 p.m. on July 12, Local 1834 held a special call
meeting at its normal meeting place, the TCH bathhouse.
Harris testified that members employed by TCH, Jo-
boner, Hopkins Creek, and the former employees of
Greasy Creek Coal attended the meeting. Harris indicat-
ed he informed the members during the meeting that
Samoyed had signed the UMW contract and he ordered
the members to go back to work. According to Harris,
some of the members present told him "to go get f-ed."
During the period extending from the early afternoon
of July 12, Tuesday, through July 17, there was no pro-
testing, and Local 1834s members, excluding the former
Greasy Creek employees, worked.
On Saturday, July 16, Chester Burke and James Bul-
lard, Kaiser's son-in-law, who was formerly employed by
Greasy Creek Coal, went to the Samoyed mine site to
deliver union-checkoff forms and contract booklets.
While there, Burke admittedly asked Akers and Hunter
whether Samoyed was going to 'hire the former Greasy
Creek Coal employees. When Hunter indicated they
were thinking about it, Burke stated "if they didn't hire
the panel back, there would be some heads busted."10
Jess Justice, Hopkins Creek's superintendent, testified
that on July 16 , Keetis (Pete) Prater, Local 1834's finan-
cial secretary, informed him that there was still trouble
over the Samoyed situation and he should contact Randy
May, TCH's general manager , or Scott Kiscaden, and
tell them of the situation so something could be done by
Monday, July 18. The record ,reveals that Justice relayed
the information to Kiscaden, and Kiscaden thereafter
spoke with Local 1834 President Curt Harris and ar-
ranged a meeting at the Samoyed mine site between Dis-
trict 30, the former Greasy Creek Coal employees, the
Samoyed principals, and himself for Monday morning,
July 18, at 7 a.m.
On the morning of July 18, a large number of individ-
uals, estimated by witness Akers to be 70 or 80 in
number, appeared at the Samoyed mine site. When Akers
sought to report for work, Chester Burke informed him
there were a bunch of hotheads in the group and if he
attempted to drive through he might get his windshield
broken. i t Akers did not attempt to pass the protesters to
go to ' work. At approximately 7 a.m., Kiscaden joined
Marenko and Higginbotham, at the site. The three indi-
viduals approached Burke and District 30 representative
10 Burke denied he uttered the threat. I credit Hunter and Akers who
were, by far, more impressive witnesses
I' Burke denied making the comments I credit Akers
MINE WORKERS DISTRICT 30 (TCH COAL) 315
Ratliff to discuss the situation. Burke was attired iii his
work clothes and had his dinner bucket with him. Burke
stated that he wanted to go to work and wanted his
backpay. Apparently, Higginbotham' or Marenko indicat-
ed the former Greasy Creek Coal Company employees
were not capable of working with continuous miners and
Ratliff produced a contract book and, utilizing it, argued
that members of the Greasy Creek panel had, a right to
update their skills and'should be employed. Kiscaden re-
called that Ratliff stated the men would be put back to
work or there would continue-to be problems; that he
was there to represent the folks and until they were put
back to work there would be problems.12 Kiscaden in-
terceded and suggested the contract contained a griev-
ance procedure and the problem should be handled in
that manner. Ratliff and the Samoyed Energy officials
agreed and Ratliff left to go the District 30 office to
obtain a grievance form. He thereafter obtained a griev-
ance form and, when the grievance was prepared, Ches-
ter Burke signed the form in his capacity of mine com-
mitteeman.13 The Samoyed Energy principals and Ratliff
agreed the grievance should be submitted for arbitration
immediately. 14
After the grievance had been filed, Burke and Bullard
concluded it was not going to help them, and they decid-
ed to reinstitute their protest. As a consequence, protest-
ers appeared once again on the morning of July 19 at the
low water bridge, at the entrance to Joboner, and at the
Samoyed mine site.
Higginbotham testified July 19 was probably the worst
and most vicious day they had. He indicated that while
he was at the mine site for approximately A45 minutes that
morning, he observed that crib blocks had been placed in
the road again, and he observed protesters with rocks,
sticks, and clubs in their hands. Frank Price, a-Samoyed
employee, testified the pickets began throwing rocks at
Samoyed employees about noon. Another Samoyed em-
ployee, Darrell McMillion, testified one of the rocks that
was thrown by protesters damaged a car belonging to
Jeff Harris, and employee Kenny Vaughn was almost hit
by another rock. McMillion further testified that uniden-
tified protesters demanded that the Samoyed employees
shut down a generator which was in operation at the
site. Uncontroverted evidence reveals the, Kentucky
State police were summoned to enable Samoyed's em-
ployees to leave the mine site on the evening of July 19.
The record reveals that mine committeeman Chester
Burke engaged in protesting at the low water bridge
from July 19 through the end of that week.-Randy May,
TCH's general manager , testified he conversed with
Burke on July 20 and Burke told him he felt the former
12 Ratliff was not called as a witness to refute Kiscaden's version of
the incident.
1s G C. Exh 4. The body of the grievance states-
We the panel members at the mine are grieved because the co has
refused to honor the panel after agreeing to do so. The co has re-
fused to allow us to update our panel form. We ask that co pay us
for all work performed by new hire and foremen and' that we be al-
lowed to update our panel forms and, that we be recalled to work.
14 Samoyed Energy indicated on the grievance form that it had not
violated the UMW contract and Hunter signed it The grievance was
never submitted to arbitration, allegedly because Samoyed refused to sign
the back page of the grievance form
reiiipliiees didinot have a chance with,the griev-
ance and he was going to stay there until he got a job.
May testified ' without contradiction that Burke told
truckdrivers `attempting to deliver coal to the TCH prep-
aration plant that they were not to come back until the
issue was settled, and Burke told him that, if necessary,
he would shut down other operations in Pike County. It
is 'undisputed that protesting at the Samoyed mine site
and at the low water bridge continued through July 26,
and that the employees of TCH and Joboner, including
the officers of Local 1834, refused to work for their em-
ployers during the entire period. t s
Higgenbotham testified he and Mare'nko went to Dis-
tract 30's office to seek assistance on July 19 when the
protest was reinstituted. Owens testified that he, Ratliff,
and Local 1834 President Harris went to, the Samoyed
mine `site that day where they allegedly told the protest-
ers the dispute should be handled through the contrac-
tual grievance procedure rather than by picketing. As in-
dicated, supra,'the protesting continued.
.The record reveals that Local 1834 held a second spe-
cial, call meeting on July 20. District 30 President Justice
testified that he informed the members who attended that
a grievance had' been filed, and the members should
return to work. It is undisputed that protesting continued
unabated.
At some point prior to July 30, a state court issued a
temporary, restraining order with respect to the protest-
ing and a section 303 damage action was instituted by
one of the employers. Thereafter, on July 30, Local 1834
held a special call meeting. Justice indicated that when
he informed those attending of the legal actions, and one
of the former. Greasy Creek employees indicated he felt
the protesting should stop, protesting ceased.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) violations
The General Counsel contends that District 30 and
Local 1834 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by: (1) Becoming
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement with Samo-
yed at a time when they did not represent any of Samo-
yed's employees; and (2) coercing and restraining Samo-
yed's employees during the period extending from July
11, 1983, until July 29, 1983, by blocking ingress and
egress to the Samoyed mine, threatening employees with
physical harm, throwing rocks at employees, cutting tele-
phone lines to the Samoyed mine, and damaging the ve-
hicles owned by Samoyed employees. He contends the
Respondents violated Section 8(b)(2) by becoming par-
ties to a collective-bargaining agreement containing a
union-security clause at a time when they did not repre-
sent a majority of Samoyed's employees.,
Throughout the dispute and the hearing, the Respond-
ents have taken,the position that the mine located on the
Gardiner Fork of Greasy Creek is a "union" mine. While
admitting that they were unaware of a business relation-
ship between the Greasy Creek Coal Company and Sam-
15 At some point, the wives of the former Greasy Greek employees
conducted the picketing and/or protesting. I ' '
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
oyed, the Respondents claim Samoyed was obligated,
before and after signing the UMW contract on July 12,
1983, to recognize the Greasy Creek panel and to oper-
ate the mine under discussion under union conditions be-
cause they are a successor employer within the meaning
of the UMW contract. They contend they did not vio-
late Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by executing the July 12,
1983 agreement with Samoyed because they represented
the 14 former Greasy Creek employees at that time, and
those employees had employment rights at the mine. The
Respondents contend they cannot be held to be liable for
the actions of the protesters because the General Counsel
has failed to show that the protesters were agents of Dis-
trict 30 or Local 1834.
a. Contract issues
The Respondents do not dispute the General Counsel's
claim that Garment Workers (Bernhard-Altmann Corp.) V.
NLRB, 366 U.S. 731 (1961), indicates that a union vio-
lates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act if it executes a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with an employer at a time
when it does not represent a majority of the employer's
employees, and it does not contest the General Counsel's
claim that the Board's decision in McKesson Drug Co.,
257 NLRB 468 (1981), indicates that a union violates
Section 8(b)(2) of the Act when it executes a contract
with an employer, which contains a union-security clause
requiring membership in a union as a condition of em-
ployment, at a time when it does not enjoy majority
status among the employer's employees. Instead , it claims
the above-described cases are inapplicable here because
Samoyed is the successor of Greasy Creek Coal Compa-
ny.
The Board has held that in determining successorship
the keystone is whether there is substantial continuity of
the employing industry. Saks Fifth Avenue, 247 NLRB
1047, 1050 (1980). As noted by counsel in their briefs,
the Board looks to several factors in determining wheth-
er there is sufficient continuity of the employing industry
to warrant a finding of successorship. These factors in-
clude whether there is substantial continuity in oper-
ations, location, work force, working conditions, supervi-
sion, machinery, equipment, methods of production,
product, and services. Miami Industrial Trucks, 221
NLRB 1223, 1224 (1975 ). Georgetown Stainless Mfg.
Corp., 198 NLRB 234 (1972).
The record in the instant case reveals that although
Samoyed reactivated a coal mine previously operated by
Greasy Creek Coal Company in late June 1983, it had no
financial dealings with the predecessor company, hired
none of its employees, utilized a different process em-
ploying its own machinery and equipment to extract
coal, and utilized entirely different supervision to operate
the mine. It is clear, and I find, that Samoyed is not the
successor of Greasy Creek Coal Company.
In sum, the record reveals that District 30 entered a
contractual relationship with Samoyed at a time when it
represented none of Samoyed's employees. By engaging
in such conduct, I find that District 30 violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as alleged. Because the contract
contains a union-security clause requiring that Samoyed's
employees join and remain members of the Union as a
condition of employment, it is clear, and I find, that by
executing the contract District 30 also violated Section
8(b)(2) of the Act as alleged . Noting that Local 1834 is
not a party to the contract executed on July 12, 1983, I
find that the General Counsel has failed to prove that
Local 1834 violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act
by becoming signatory to a contract with Samoyed.
b. Restraint and coercion of Samoyed's employees
Paragraph 9 of the amended complaint alleges that the
Respondent, through the acts and conduct of Burke and
others, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by: (1) Threatening
on July 16, 1983, to inflict damage on Samoyed's proper-
ty and employees; and (2) blocking the ingress to and
egress from Samoyed's premises on July 19, 1983.
I have found, supra, that Burke informed Samoyed
employee Akers and its superintendent Hunter on July
16 that if Samoyed failed to hire the former Greasy
Creek employees there would be some heads busted. I
have also found, supra, that on July 19 and on other
dates the protesters positioned on the road leading to the
Samoyed mine site placed crib blocks in the road thereby
blocking it. The General Counsel contends the Respond-
ents should be held responsible for the described conduct
of Burke and the former Greasy Creek employees.
The Board has long held that the test for establishing
responsibility for acts on the picket line is that of
common law agency. Thus, in Sunset Line & Twine Co.,
79 NLRB 1487, 1509 (1948), the Board stated:
A principal may be responsible for the act of his
agent within the scope of the agent's general au-
thority, or the "scope of his employment" if the
agent is a servant, even though the principal has not
specifically authorized or indeed may have specifi-
cally forbidden the act in question. It is enough if
the principal actually empowered the agent to rep-
resent him in the general area within which the
agent acted.
In the instant case, the General Counsel was unable to
offer direct evidence to establish that the Respondents
called the strike which commenced on July 11. His fail-
ure to offer such evidence is not determinative of the
question of their responsibility, however. As stated by
the Board in Mine Workers, 83 NLRB 1916, 1918 (1949):
A strike call may be given in forthright fashion,
or informally in a manner which is understood by
the initiated. A strike may be as effectively signalled
by a simple statement that a employer has refused
to sign a collective bargaining contract when the
union policy is "No contract-no work," as by a
direct strike call from the union leadership to the
union members on the failure to reach agreement on
a new contract.
Moreover, as observed by the General Counsel and the
Charging Parties in their briefs, unions can ratify or con-
done the actions of picketing members and thereby
become responsible for their acts and conduct by failing
to take appropriate steps to curb the unlawful acts of
MINE WORKERS DISTR1t T 30 (TCH COAL) 317
their members or by participating, as an entity, in the
protest. See U.S. Steel Corp. Y. Mine Workers, 598 F.2d
363 (5th Cir. 1979).
Realistic consideration of the facts in the case sub
judice causes me to suspect that District 30 instigated the
protest action which commenced on July 11, 1983. As
revealed, supra, Ratliff, the District - 30 representative
who serviced the Greasy Creek mine when it was oper-
ated by Kaminiski, visited the mine on several occasions
during the month of June in an attempt to cause the prin-
cipals of Samoyed to sign the UMW contract. When the
Samoyed principals remained noncommittal, Ratliff con-
tacted their lessor, Kiscaden of TCH, and inquired
whether TCH was going to require Samoyed to sign the
contract, and Kiscaden indicated the decision was one
the Samoyed principals would have to make. During the
same general period, Burke and former Greasy Creek
employees were visiting the mine to seek employment.
Burke indicated during his testimony that he and the
other former Greasy Creek employees decided to protest
to obtain jobs and their union benefits when Ratliff told
him that Samoyed was not going to sign a- contract.
Noting that the record reveals that District 30 has stead-
fastly maintained that Samoyed was obligated to recog-
nize the Greasy Creek panel and operate the mine under
union conditions, I infer that Ratliff was fully aware,
when he informed Burke that Samoyed was not going to
sign the contract, that his action would cause Burke and
the former Greasy Creek employees to picket to obtain
their objective.
Although the facts summarized above might well justi-
fy a finding that District 30 instigated the protest which
began on July 11, the record evidence which I credit
clearly reveals that District 30 President Justice ratified
and condoned -the protest actions of the former Greasy
Creek employees on July 11. By telling Higginbotham
and Marenko on that date that they would have to take
back the former Greasy Creek employees and sign the
UMW contract or their problems would not go away,
Justice clearly placed District 30 in a position which ren-
dered it liable for the protest actions of the former
Greasy Creek employees.
Although the record fails to reveal that Local 1834 ex
pressly ratified and condoned the protest actions of the
former Greasy Creek employees, the facts elicited during
the hearing compel a conclusion that Local 1834 must
also be found to be liable for the actions of the protest-
ers. Thus, as indicated, supra, the record reveals that: On
July 12, and during the 9-day period extending from July
19 through July 27, the hourly employees of TCH, Jo-
boner, and Hopkins Creek, all members of Local 1834,
honored the picket lines of the protesters despite the fact
that their employers were not involved in the dispute;
that the only action taken by Local 1834 was the con-
duct of two special-call meetings during which Local
1834; president Harris and District president Justice, on
July 20, instructed the members to return to work; and
the admitted fact that Harris and other officers of Local
1834 failed themselves to cross the picket line to report
for work at their respective places of employment there-
by signaling the membership that they were to ignore the
"back to work" instructions uttered at the meetings. In
the circumstances of the instant case, I find that the ac-
tions taken by Local 1834 were predictably inadequate to
cause' its striking members to return to -work" while pro-
testing continued. This, coupled with the fact that the
Local participated in the strike as an entity, causes me to
find that Local 1834, as=well as District 30, is liable for
the actions of the protesting former Greasy Creek em-
ployees, who are also members of Local 1834. See Mine
Workers, supra; U.S. Steel Corp v. Mine Workers, supra,
and Turnkey Constructors v. Cement Masons Local 685,
580 F.2d.798 (5th Cir. 1978).16 ,
For the reasons stated, I find that the Respondents vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) on July,16, 1983, by threatening
to bust some heads if the former Greasy Creek employ-
ees were not hired by Samoyed, and by blocking ingress
and egress to the Samoyed premises on July 19, 1983.
2. The secondary picketing
Paragraph 10 of the amended complaint alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the
Act by: (1) Picketing the facilities of TCH and Joboner
since July 12, 1983; and (2) threatening about July 18,
1983, to picket TCH, Joboner, and unnamed employers
in Pike County, Kentucky.
Uncontroverted evidence in the record reveals that the
former Greasy Creek panel members protested at the
low water bridge leading to the TCH preparation facility
and on the road leading to Joboner on July 12 and from
July 18 through July 26 or 27, 1983. It is undisputed that
the protesters originally encouraged the employees of
TCH and Joboner to honor their picket lines by indicat-
ing they were protesting to cause Samoyed to sign the
UMW contract and hire the former Greasy Creek em-
ployees, and, after the contract was signed on July 12,
they requested that their fellow union members honor
their picket lines because Samoyed had not hired them.
The record further reveals that Burke informed TCH
general manager May on May 19 that the former Greasy
Creek employees intended to picket at the low, water
bridge until Samoyed agreed to hire them, and he told
May, if necessary, they would shut down other named
employers in Pike County.
Section 8(b)(4) of the Act makes it an unfair labor
practice for a union
(i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any
individual ... to engage in, a strike or a refusal in
the course of his employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on
16 With respect to Chester Burke, the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Parties claim the Respondents should be held to be liable for Bucke's
conduct because he was a none committeeman when Greasy Creek Coal
Company abandoned the mine in April 1983, and he represented himself
to be a mine committeeman when he spoke with Akers and Hunter and
when he, at Ratliff 's request, signed the grievance filed on July 18, 1983.
The Respondents argue that while actively employed mine committee-
men are agents of the Union, art. XXIII, sec. (a) of the UMW contract
specifically provides that mine committeemen "should be eligible to serve
as a committee member only so long as he continues to be an Employee
of said mine who is not in layoff," and as Burke was in layoff status from
April 1993 forward, I cannot find the Respondents are liable for his con-
duct. Having found the Respondents are liable for the picketing and con-
duct of the pickets on other grounds, I see no need to resolve the issue
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services; or (ii) to threaten, coerce, or
restrain any person . . . where in either case an
object thereof is:
during the period described above, the Respondents vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) of the Act as alleged. Iron
Workers Local 1 (Colt Construction), 245 NLRB 132
(1979), and cases cited therein.
(B) forcing or requiring any person to cease
using, selling, handling, transporting, or other-
wise dealing in the product of any other produc-
er, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing
business with any other person ... Provided,
That nothing contained in this clause (B) shall be
construed to make unlawful, where not otherwise
unlawful, any . . . primary picketing.
In Teamsters Local 126 (Ready Mixed Concrete), 200
NLRB 253, 254 fn. 6 (1972), the Board discussed the
meaning of the terms "inducement or encouragement of
individuals" and "coercion or restraint of persons" stat-
ing:
Picketing constitutes "inducement or encourage-
ment" of individuals within the meaning of Section
8(b)(4)(i)(B) and "coercion or restraint" of persons
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B),
N.L.R.B. v. International Hod Carriers, Local 1140
[Economy Farms], 285 F.2d 397 (C.A. 8), cert.
denied 366 U.S. 903; N.L.R.B. v. Plumbers Union of
Nassau County, Local 457 [Bomat Plumbing & Heat-
ing], 299 F.2d 497 (C.A. 2). It is likewise well settled
that a threat of picketing or a work stoppage violates
Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). N.L.R.B. v. Highway Truck
Drivers and Helpers, Local No. 107 [Riss & Co.], 300
F.2d 317 (C.A. 3); Local 810, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters (Fein Can Corp.), 131 NLRB 59,
enfd. 229 F.2d_ 636 (C.A. 2). The Board and the
courts have also uniformly held that successful in-
ducement or encouragement of workmen to cease
performing services necessarily restrains or coerces
their employer. NLRB, v. Local 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers [New York Tele-
phone Ca], 325 F.2d 561 (C.A. 2).
Having found that both the Respondents are responsi-
ble for the acts and conduct of the protesting former
Greasy Creek employees, it is clear, and I find, that by
inducing and encouraging employees of secondary em-
ployers TCH and Joboner to engage in a strike or a re-
fusal to perform work for their employers, and by threat-
ening to picket and by picketing TCH and Joboner
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. TCH, Joboner, and Samoyed are employers en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
- 2. The Respondents are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act.
3. By executing a collective-bargaining contract with
Samoyed at a time when it did not represent an un-
coerced majority of Samoyed's employees, District 30
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
4. By blocking ingress to and egress from the Samoyed
mine on July 19,1983, and on other dates, and by threat-
ening to bust the heads of Samoyed employees if Samo=
yed failed to hire former Greasy Creek employees the
Respondents violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
5. By becoming signatory to a contract with Samoyed
which contained a union-security clause requiring em-
ployees to join and remain members of the Union at a
time when it did not enjoy majority status among Samo-
yed's employees, District 30 violated Section 8(b)(2) of
the-Act.
6. By inducing and encouraging the employees of sec-
ondary employers TCH and Joboner to strike or to
refuse to perform any services for their employers and
by threatening to picket and by picketing TCH and Jo-
boner, all with the object of forcing TCH and Joboner
to cease doing business with each other and with Samo-
yed to cause Samoyed to sign the UMW contract and
hire the former employees of Greasy Creek Coal Co.,
the Respondents violated Section 8(b)(i)(ii)(B) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent District 30 has engaged
in and is' engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B) and that
Respondent Local' 1834 has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(B), I find it necessary to order that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
{Recommended Order omitted from publication.]