Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 831 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

PENINSULA SHIPBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association (Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company) and United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC and
Harwood Davis and Lenwood E. Archer. Cases 5
CB 2390. 5 CB 2420, and 5-CB 2466
December 14, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JFNKINS. PINE.IO, ,N\D Mt RPHY
On August 2, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Henry L. Jalette issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and the Re-
spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act. as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Peninsula Shipbuilders'
Association, Newport News, Virginia, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, except that the
attached notice is substituted for that of the Admin-
istrative Law Judge.
The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made bs the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy nolt to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dre 14Wall Product Inc,. 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfd 188 F. 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We hase carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his finding,
APPENDIX
NOTI(E To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBE!RS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THil
NATIONAL LABOR RFI ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity
to give evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act and ordered us to post this notice.
Wi: , i NoI restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section
7 of the Act:
BN following employees and threatening them
with bodily harm for supporting and assisting
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-
C(LC. in its campaign to supplant our organi-
zation as the exclusive representative of the
employees of Newport News Shipbuilding
and Dry Dock Company in an appropriate
bargaining unit.
By assaulting employees because of their ac-
tivities in support of United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC.
By telling bargaining unit employees that we
would not give them representation with re-
gard to grievances concerning terms and con-
ditions of employment because they are not
members of our organization or because they
have assisted United Steelworkers of America,
AFL -CIO-CLC.
By engaging in surveillance of the meetings of
the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO- LC.
WlI WILL Nor in any other manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
PLNINSt I A SHIPBU;IIDERS' ASS(X'IATION
DECISION
STAIEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY L JALETrE. Administrative Law Judge: This con-
solidated proceeding is based on charges filed against the
Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association (herein called the Re-
spondent) by the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO-CLC therein called the Union), in Case 5 CB-2390
on September 7, 1977,' by Haywood Davis in Case 5-CB-
2420 on October 6, and by Lenwood E. Archer in Case 5-
CB-2466 on November 9. Pursuant to such charges, com-
plaint issued in Case 5-CB-2390 on November 29, in Case
5 CB-2420 on December I (an amendment to this com-
plaint issued on December 13), and in Case 5-CB-2466 on
December 12. The complaints were consolidated for hear-
ing by orders issued on December 2 and 13. The comp-
laints allege that the Respondent engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
i tlnless otherwise indicated. all dates hereinafter are In 1977
831
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs filed by the
parties, I hereby make the following:
FINDIN(iS OF FA(TI
I liHE FAI'(1AL SETTING
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company
(herein called the Company) is a Virginia corporation en-
gaged in the construction and repair of oceangoing vessels
at its Newport News, Virginia, location. The complaints
allege, the Respondent admits, and I find that the Compa-
ny meets the Board's $50,000 direct inflow standard for the
assertion of jurisdiction.
The Company employs about 25.300 employees, and at
all times material herein it has recognized the Respondent,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees in a unit consisting of about 19.200
employees.
Pursuant to a Board election in Case 5-RC-9911, on
January 25, the Union had been certified as collective-bar-
gaining representative of certain of the Company's employ-
ees who were unrepresented, including senior designers. On
April I, the Union went on strike for reasons not described
herein, nor relevant to this proceeding.
In 1977, the Union was also engaged in a campaign to
obtain the right to represent the employees of the Compa-
ny represented by the Respondent. The complaints allege
that in the course of such campaign, the Respondent en-
gaged in certain acts of restraint and coercion in violation
of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED RESTRAINT AND COERCION
A. The Facts
Sometime in April, Haywood Davis, Lorenz Shelton,
and Raymond Williams were discharged by the Company
assertedly for smoking in a nonsmoking area. According to
Davis, 3 or 4 weeks later, in May, he, Shelton. and Wil-
liams went to the Respondent's office, where they asked to
speak to Tobias, an assistant manager of the Respondent.
Davis testified that Tobias asked him if he was a member
of Respondent. Davis said no and Tobias said that he
could not talk to him then. Shelton was a member of the
Respondent and Tobias took him into his office. Sometime
thereafter, Davis learned that Shelton had been reinstated
and he called Tobias to ask why he had not been rein-
stated. Tobias told him that he had not been reinstated
because he was not a member of the Respondent, had not
filed a grievance, and mentioned something about a statute
of limitations.
Lenwood Archer, an employee of the Company, a mem-
ber of the Respondent until February 1978, and a volun-
teer organizer for the Union, testified that on September 12
he learned from delegate Graham that a grievance he had
filed had been denied. Graham suggested that Archer call
Tobias and Archer did so the following day. He asked To-
bias why his grievance had been denied and Tobias replied
that they knew about him and to let the Union get it for
him. Archer reminded Tobias that he was a member of the
Respondent and Tobias repeated that he could let the
Union get it for him and hung up.
Edward Coppedge, a volunteer organizer for the Union,
testified that, on May 22, a committee meeting was sched-
uled for 4 at the Plumbers and Steamfitters Hall on War-
wick Boulevard in Newport News. He arrived at the meet-
ing early and observed Pat Stepp, an assistant manager of
the Respondent, in his car parked in the parking lot across
Warwick Boulevard at the Fox)y Cat Restaurant. Counting
the time before the meeting and after the meeting started,
Coppedge estimated that Stepp was parked in his car at
that location over 1-1/2 hours. Volunteer organizers Oscar
Petlow and R. C. Howard also testified to observing Stepp
on this occasion.
Howard also testified to attending a meeting at a Holi-
day Inn on July 14, and that after he had arrived it was
pointed out to him that there were two individuals sitting
in a Chevrolet Vega, in the parking area of the Sheraton
Inn which adjoins the Holiday Inn, who were observing
who was coming in at the Holiday Inn through field glass-
es. Howard accompanied union supporter William Turner
in his truck to the location of the Vega and, from a dis-
tance of about 10 feet, he observed John Tobias and An-
drew Harris in the car. Harris, who is executive assistant
business manager, had field glasses in his hand.
Coppedge and Petlow testified that at this same meeting
they saw George Carolina, a staff representative of the Re-
spondent, in the parking lot at the rear of the Holiday Inn.
On the afternoon of August 21, the Union was holding
another meeting at the Plumbers and Steamfitters Hall.
Earnest Surles, a designer who was on strike, testified that
he observed a white Chevrolet about 100 to 150 feet away
from the parking area of the meeting place, on the parking
lot of the Foxy Cat Restaurant. He thought he recognized
the car as belonging to the Respondent's assistant manag-
er, W. D. London. He approached the car and noticed that
the driver was London and standing outside the car was
the Respondent's secretary, B. R. Pike. Two other people
were sitting in the car. Surles then had a conversation with
London, which he described as mostly light and joking,
about the fact that they were sitting in the car. He testified
that he thought, at one point, he invited London to come to
the meeting as his guest. After several minutes, Surles left
and returned to the meeting hall. He then moved to anoth-
er location where he noticed another automobile in a pub-
lic parking lot across Warwick Boulevard which he recog-
nized as belonging to R. L. Daniels, assistant business
manager of the Respondent. A few minutes later, Surles
observed Pike joining Daniels. Surles was keeping both
London's car and Daniels' car under observation, and
about 20 to 30 minutes after the meeting started London
left in his car. Daniels' car remained in the parking lot
during two-thirds to three-fourths of the meeting. During
most of that time, Daniels was sitting in the car with Pike.
Surles estimated that Daniels spent well over an hour at
that location. There were 400 to 500 employees in atten-
dance at the meeting. People who attended the meeting
were using the same parking lot in which Daniels had
parked his automobile as well as the parking lot where
London had parked his automobile.
832
PENINSULA SHIPBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
Michael Jurnigan, an employee of the Company and a
volunteer organizer for the Union, testified that on August
31, during the lunch period, he was soliciting employees to
sign cards on behalf of the Union at the 50th Street gate.
He testified that there were about 40 delegates of the Re-
spondent at various locations near the gate, as well as To-
bias, and a large crowd of employees. Jurnigan was ad-
dressing remarks to an individual approaching the gate,
when Tobias approached him and told him not to block
the gate. Jurnigan continued to solicit employees and Tobi-
as pushed him first from one employee, then from another
employee, pushing him with his hands against Jurnigan's
chest. Jurnigan fell back when pushed and one of the times
he raised his hand to show onlookers that he was not strik-
ing at Tobias and at the same time yelling out the query
whether this was the kind of representation the employees
wanted.
On September 1, Elliot Parkman, a senior designer on
strike, was picketing at the 68th Street gate to the Com-
pany's property. He testified that about 10 a.m. a car drove
up to the picket line and four men jumped out and came
up to him, boxed him in, and one of them, who he later
learned was John Tobias, ripped the picket sign off his
chest and threw it down a nearby cliff. Tobias then waved
his finger at Parkman and said if he ever saw him there
again he would go over the cliff like the sign did. Tobias
and his companions then fled.
On September 16, Carlton Hall, and employee of the
Company and a volunteer organizer for the Union, was
approaching the 35th Street gate enroute to work when he
was engaged in a conversation by Otis Duffy, a friend of
his and a supporter of the Respondent. Duffy had asked
Hall to give him a union card, and Hall testified that as he
was reaching into his pocket for one, Harvey Pike, a dele-
gate of the Respondent, who was standing with Duffy,
without uttering a word, struck him in the face twice then
fled.
Sherman Holland, a volunteer organizer for the Union,
testified that on September 22, during the lunch period, he
and two other volunteer organizers, Vines and Knowling,
solicited employees to sign up with the Union at the 46th
and 42d Street gates. About 12:45 p.m., they started back
to work walking towards the 37th Street gate. Holland tes-
tified that they were followed by Bob Daniels, an assistant
business manager of the Respondent, B. R. Pike, secretary
of the Respondent, and an unknown delegate; and that
after they had entered the 37th Street gate, and as they
were walking between some buildings, still being followed
closely (about 5 feet), Daniels started driving his fist into
his hand, mouthing obscenities, and inviting any of them to
say something, pounding his fist as he was walking and
talking. Holland testified they were followed all the way to
the end of the pier.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
Except for the Jurnigan incident at the 50th Street gate,
the Respondent offered no evidence to contradict the testi-
mony of General Counsel's witnesses. Its defenses are that:
(I) its conduct must be evaluated in the context of the
conduct of the Union in its organizing activities; (2) it is
not responsible for certain of the conduct described be-
cause the individuals involved acted outside the scope of
their authority; (3) the Jurnigan incident is de minimis and
Jurnigan was as responsible for what occurred as Tobias;
(4) the surveillance was not violative of the Act; and (5) the
evidence does not support the allegation that the Respon-
dent threatened to deny representation either to Davis or
to Archer.
I find the first defense lacking in merit for the reason
that, assuming, arguendo, that the Union engaged in mis-
conduct that would not justify the Respondent engaging in
misconduct.
I find the second defense lacking in merit. Section 2(13)
of the Act provides that:
In determining whether any person is acting as an
"agent" of another person so as to make such other
person respons ble for his acts, the question of wheth-
er the specific acts performed were actually authorized
or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.
And, as the Board indicated in International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union, C.I.O., Local 6, el al.
(Sunset Line and Twine Company):
A principal may be responsible for the act of his agent
within the scope of the agent's general authority, or
the "scope of his employment" if the agent is a ser-
vant, even though the principal has not specifically
authorized or indeed may have specifically forbidden
the act in question. It is enough if the principal actual-
ly empowered the agent to represent him in the gener-
al area within which the agent acted.2
The record indicates that all the individuals to whom mis-
conduct was attributed by General Counsel's witnesses
were agents of the Respondent. Thus, at the time of his
alleged surveillance, Stepp was an assistant manager of the
Respondent and a full-time salaried employee of the Re-
spondent on leave from his job with the Company. Caro-
lina is a staff representative. London, Daniels, and Tobias
are assistant managers of the Respondent. All are on leave
from their jobs with the Company. and use an office on
company property to conduct business on behalf of the
Respondent. Harris is executive assistant business manag-
er, responsible for all administrative functions of the Re-
spondent. B. R. Pike is secretary and an officer of the Re-
spondent. Harveyv Pike is a delegate, an elected position.
All the foregoing individuals participate in various stages
of the grievance procedure and have been held out to the
Company as agents of the Respondent. It is clear from the
record, therefore, that the individuals herein charged with
misconduct were agents of the Respondent. As the conduct
was in furtherance of the interests of the Respondent and
undertaken within their capacity as agents, I conclude that
the Respondent was responsible for it.
In light of the conclusion above, and based on the un-
contradicted testimony of Parkman, Hall, and Holland,
which I credit, I find that the Respondent violated Section
8(bX l)(A) of the Act by the conduct of Tobias on Septem-
ber 1, in ripping the sign off Parkman and threatening him
with bodily harm, by the conduct of Harvey Pike on Sep-
279 NLRB 1487. 1509 (1948).
833
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tember 16, in his assault and battery on Hall, and by the
conduct of Daniels on September 22, in following Holland,
Vines, and Knowling and threatening them with bodily
harm.3
As to the third defense, namely, that the Jurnigan inci-
dent was de minimis and that Jurnigan was as responsible
as Tobias, I find it lacking in merit for two reasons. First,
there is no evidence that Jurnigan did anything to provoke
Tobias beyond soliciting employees to sign union cards.
He did not touch Tobias, menace him, or use abusive lan-
guage. Unquestionably, Jumigan's solicitation of employ-
ees provoked Tobias, but Jurnigan had the right to engage
in such solicitation. Assuming, arguendo, that in doing so
Jurnigan blocked the passage of an employee, that gave no
license to Tobias to push him aside or otherwise intervene.
It was not Tobias' responsibility to assure that ingress to
the shipyard was not blocked. If, as the respresentative of
an incumbent union, he felt he had a duty to the employees
in the unit, his recourse was to the Company or the local
police and not to self-help.
The danger of self-help is, of course, that it may lead to
a serious disturbance. For that reason, whether Tobias
pushed Jurnigan once or twice with both hands, as Jurni-
gan testified, or merely pushed him aside with one arm, as
the Respondent's witnesses testified, is not important. In
either case, Tobias' conduct was a restraint of Jurnigan
and created the potential for more serious conduct. For
that reason, plus the fact that the incident occurred in the
presence of many employees and supporters of the Union,
as well as a number of delegates of the Respondent. the
incident can not be dismissed as de minimis. Accordingly,
based on the testimony of the Respondent's own witnesses,
Carlton Britt and Gene Clayton, that Tobias pushed Jurni-
gan aside and prevented him from soliciting an employee, I
find that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the
Act.
The fourth defense, that the surveillance herein de-
scribed is not violative of the Act, is predicated on the
theory that surveillance by a labor organization, unlike sur-
veillance by an employer, does not tend to restrain and
coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. In
support of this position, the Respondent adverts to the tes-
timony of Surles that he invited London to the meeting on
the occasion when London was in the parking lot on Au-
gust 21. I find the defense lacking in merit.
The fact that Surles invited London to the meeting when
he discovered London in the parking lot proves nothing.
London did not accept the invitation: rather, he, along
with other agents of the Respondent, remained in the park-
ing lot where they could observe the arrival of unit employ-
ees to the meeting. Their presence, I find, would have an
inhibitory effect on employees attending the meeting. This
finding is applicable to all the meetings where the agents of
the Respondent were observed by unit employees, albeit
volunteer organizers. The inhibitory effect can reasonably
be inferred from the fact that the Respondent was the in-
cumbent union from whom the unit employees were re-
quired to obtain representation in matters affecting their
The complaint in Case 5 -CB -2390 also alleges that the conduci of Dan-
iels constituted surveillance I fail to see an) surveillance in the incident.
terms and conditions of employment. As the testimony of
Archer and the finding of the Board in Newport News Ship-
building and Dry Dock Company, el al., 233 NLRB 1443,
(1977), show, 4 the employees could well fear that knowl-
edge of their presence at union meetings would result in
their being deprived of rights of fair representation by the
Respondent.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the uncontradicted
testimony of General Counsel's witnesses, I find that the
agents of the Respondent who were observed at the union
meetings on May 22, July 14, and August 21 were engaged
in surveillance of employees and that the Respondent
thereby restrained and coerced employees in violation of
Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
The fifth defense, namely, that the evidence fails to sup-
port the allegation that Tobias threatened to deny repre-
sentation to Davis and to Archer, is essentially an argu-
ment against the credibility of Davis and Archer. Archer, it
is argued, cannot be credited because of a demonstrated
hearing difficulty, and Davis because of highly improbable
testimony.5 Moreover, statements such as those attributed
to Tobias were assertedly contrary to the Respondent's
clearly set forth policy. The Respondent's arguments might
have carried the day had the testimony of Archer and Da-
vis been contradicted. Absent that, I am not persuaded
that the matters referred to above warrant a finding that
Archer and Davis were not credible witnesses. In this con-
nection, I would note that Tobias' conduct relative to Park-
man and Jurnigan described above, and his surveillance of
a union meeting, demonstrated his disregard for the rights
of employees under Section 7 of the Act. In addition, while
the Respondent's policy may be to accord fair representa-
tion to all employees, members and nonmembers alike, the
statement to Archer was based not on a lack of member-
ship (in fact, Archer was a member of the Respondent) but
on Archer's activity on behalf of the Union.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Respondent
restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by telling Davis and
Archer that they could not be represented because, in Da-
vis' case, he was not a member of the Respondent; and in
Archer's case, because he was a supporter of the Union.
iI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section I1,
above, occurring in connection with the Company's opera-
tions described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
IV THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in, and
I take official nonce of the Board's decision.
For example, [)arls, discharged for smmkLng In a nonsmoking area. testi-
fied that he did not smoke at the time of the discharge and only took up
smoking a few weeks before the hearing.
834
PENINSULA SHIPBUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
is engaging in, certain unfair labor practices, I will recom-
mend that it be required to refrain therefrom and to take
certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the pur-
poses and policies of the Act. The affirmative action nor-
mally required to remedy unfair labor practices of the type
herein found is the posting of notices. In his brief, General
Counsel asks for variations on that remedy. Thus, he re-
quests a special heading on the notice to be posted: name-
ly, a heading of notice to employees and members. He also
requests posting on bulletin boards utilized by the Respon-
dent in the shipyard and publication in the monthly news-
paper which the Respondent publishes. Finally, General
Counsel requests that the Respondent be required to send
a copy' of the notice to all employees of the shipyard. both
design unit and production unit, at its own expense for
reproduction and postage.
The predicate for General Counsel's requests is that the
Respondent has repeatedly shown its disregard for the
rights of employees under Section 7 of the Act as shown by
the Board's Order dated January 27. 1976, in Peninvsula
Shipbuilders' Association, JD-735 75. and the Board's De-
cisions and Orders in Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry
Dock Companyr and Peninsula Shipbuilders' Assoc,aution, su-
pra, 236 NLRB 1470 (1978), and 236 NLRB 1499 (1978),
all of which I take official notice. Granted that is the case
to a degree, I am not persuaded that all the special addi-
tions to posting requested by General Counsel are neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As to the request that the notice be headed notice to
employees and members, the predicate for it is that the
objects of the Respondent's unfair labor practices have
been shown generally to be nonmembers and a notice to
members would lack the necessary reassurance to non-
members that they can exercise their Section 7 rights with-
out fear of restraint and coercion. The argument has clear
merit and the notice will be prepared accordingly.
As to posting in the shipyard, the same consideration
applies. Nonmembers would not likely see the notice if it
were posted only at the Respondent's office away from the
shipyard and, while the Company will be asked to post, the
fact that the Respondent also posts in the shipyard will
give added reassurance to employees.
As to publication in the Respondent's newspaper, the
Respondent's demonstrated disregard for the rights of em-
ployees under Section 7 of the Act warrants requiring it to
use this additional method of notifying employees of their
rights. However, with the posting requirements herein rec-
ommended and publication in the newspaper. the policies
of the Act can be effectuated without imposing on the Re-
spondent the onerous requirement of mailing notices to in
excess of 20,000 employees. Cf. Local Union No. 3, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. AFL-CIO (East-
ern States Electrical Contractors, Inc.), 205 NLRB 270
(1973).
Finally, in light of the Respondent's demonstrated disre-
gard for the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
danger that it may commit other unfair labor practices in
the future may reasonably be anticipated and justifies or-
dering the Respondent from in any manner infringing
upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLI SIONS OF LAW
I. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent, Peninsula Shipbuilders' Associa-
tion, and United Steelworkers of America, AFL CIO-
CLC. are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct of the Respondent's agents in follow-
ing employees, threatening employees with bodily harm,
assaulting employees, engaging in surveillance of the union
activities of employees, and telling employees that they
would not give them representation with regard to griev-
ances because they were not members of the Respondent
or because they had assisted United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica. AFL-CIO-CLC, the Respondent has engaged in. and
is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sections 8(h)(l)(A) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER 6
The Respondent. Peninsula Shipbuilders' Association,
Newport News. Virginia, its officers, agents. and represen-
tatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by following
employees, threatening employees with bodily harm, as-
saulting employees, engaging in surveillance of the activi-
ties of the employees on behalf of United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC. and telling employees that it
will not represent them with regard to the processing of
grievances because of their lack of membership or because
of their support of the United Steelworkers of America,
AFLO-CIOLC.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their nghts guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, including its
offices on the premises of the Company, and on the bulle-
tin boards on the Company's premises on which the Re-
spondent customarily posts notices, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, af-
ter being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided bh Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the Natinal iLabor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec
102.48 of Ihe Rules and Regulations. hbe adopted h) the Board and become
its findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waled for all purposes
In the event that this Order is enforced b) audgment of a United States
Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted hbs Order of the
Natlonal t.abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant tio a Judg-
ment of the Ilnited States Court of Appeals E[nforcing an Order of the
National l.abhr Relations Board."
8i5
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 5,
signed copies of the notice for posting by Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, the Company will-
ing, at its Newport News. Virginia. shipyard, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(c) Publish a complete text of the attached notice
marked "Appendix" in a conspicuous place in its monthly
publication. The Shipbuilder, and distribute a copy of said
publication in the same manner in which the publications
are customarily distributed.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
836