Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local Union 327

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 84 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Helpers & Taxicab Drivers
Local Union 327, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Coca-
Cola Bottling Works of Nashville. Case
26-CB-500 -
June 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On February 17, 1970, Trial Examiner George J.
Bott issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief . The Charg-
ing Party also filed cross -exceptions.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs , and the entire record in the case , and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER*
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers
Local Union 327, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Nashville,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order as so modified:
1. Substitute the following language for para-
graph 1:
"Cease and desist from restraining or coercing
employees of Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nash-
ville, or any other employer within Respondent's
territorial jurisdiction as defined hereafter, in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act, by threatening to cause harm to em-
ployees or the families of employees of said compa-
nies; by assaulting the employees of said compa-
nies ; by blocking ingress to the plant to the em-
ployees of said companies, or striking or rocking
the cars of employees of said companies; by cutting
tires of employees of said companies; by causing or
threatening to cause damage to the property of said
companies; or in any other manner restraining or
coercing said employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights. Respondent's territorial jurisdic-
tion, according to its constitution and bylaws, is
halfway between Local 327, located at Nashville,
Tennessee, and its sister locals which include, inter
alia, locals in Louisville and Paducah, Kentucky,
and Knoxville and Memphis, Tennessee, and in-
cludes that territory encompassed and bounded by:
the Alabama state line on the south; the Tennessee
River on the west; the Kentucky state line on the
north; and the foot of the Cumberland Mountains
(west of Crossville) on the east."
2.- Modify the first and second indented para-
graph of the notice to conform to the language of
the modified Order set out above.
* This Order modified by Ruling on Motion and Supplemental Order of
August 26, 1971
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE J. BOTT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
of unfair labor practices filed on October 3, 1969,
by Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, herein
called Employer or Charging Party, against Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Helpers & Taxicab Drivers Local
Union 327, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
helpers of America, herein called Union or Respon-
dent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint and notice of
hearing dated October 17, 1969, which he
amended on November 12, 1969. The complaint,
as amended, alleged that Respondent Union had
engaged in numerous violations of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, herein called the Act. Respondent filed
an answer, and a hearing was held before me in
Nashville, Tennessee, on November 19 and 20,
1969, at which all parties were represented. Sub-
sequent to the hearing, all parties filed briefs which
have been considered.
184 NLRB No. 10
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 85
Upon the entire record' in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
The Employer's principal place of business is in
Nashville, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of soft drinks.
During the 12-month period prior to the issuance of
the complaint, the Employer received at its Nash-
ville operation items valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Tennessee.
I find that the Employer is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning *of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Setting and the Issues
During the Union's attempt to organize the Em-
ployer's plant in Nashville, the Union authorized a
strike and picketing, in which a substantial number
of employees accompanied by some of the Union's
business representatives participated. The strike
began early in the morning of September 29, 1969,
and was still current at the time of the hearing in
this case. In addition to picketing in front of the
Employer's premises, the Union admittedly fol-
lowed the Employer's trucks to the premises of
other employers and picketed there. The complaint
alleges that during the course of these activities the
Union, by its business representatives and by em-
ployee agents, named as such in the complaint,
made threats and engaged in other acts of intimida-
tion in violation of the Act. In addition, Respondent
is alleged to have threatened and intimidated em-
ployees of the Employer by the actions of certain
striking employees which occurred away from the
plant and not during the course of ambulatory
picketing. The Union, although conceding that cer-
tain incidents described in the complaint did occur,
contends that there is insufficient proof of identifi-
cation to sustain a finding that the persons named
in the complaint committed the acts and that, in
any case, there is no showing of agency relationship
between the Union and the individuals identified as
having committed the acts.
The case involves serious credibility problems
arising out of a series of similar and dissimilar acts
which began on September 29 and continued to
November 3, 1969. With the exception of the in-
cidents which occurred while trucks were being fol-
lowed and picketed, which seem to lend themselves
to separate treatment, for the Union concedes that
it authorized and participated in such picketing, the
other events cannot be logically grouped, and so a
chronological treatment is as good as any other.
B. Incidents Occurring in Connection with Picketing
at the Premises of Other Employers
1. Destruction of property at Giant Foods Store
On September 29, 1969, the first day of the
strike, Gilliam a route salesman, and his supervisor,
Weiss, arrived at the Giant Foods Store in the 100
Oaks Shopping Center and began to unload cases
of Coca-Cola for delivery. I credit their testimony
that a Plymouth Road Runner carrying six strikers
appeared. Included in the group were Bobby Read,
D. Cox, B. Cox, Hanford, Gooch, and Alvie Wil-
liams. Someone in the group stated that Gilliam and
Weiss should not be delivering, but should join the
strikers. Bobby Read told Weiss that he had been
discharged and intended to get back to work "one
way or the other." Both Weiss and Gilliam in-
dicated that they intended to go on working, and
the strikers then began picketing in the vicinity of
the truck as Weiss and Gilliam entered the store.
While Weiss and Gilliam were in the store they
were warned by a driver for another company that
something was happening outside. They left the
store and found that the pickets had all left, but
that a substantial number of cases of Coca-Colas
had been removed from the truck and the bottles
broken. According to them, they had been away
from the truck for between 2 and 10 minutes.
Bobby Read admitted that he was at the Giant
Food Store when Gillaim and Weiss were there. He
said he asked the store manager not to buy Coca-
Cola and when the request was refused, he and
others began picketing, but left the area as soon as
Gilliam and Weiss entered the store. Although
there were a number of other strikers with him, he
could not remember the names of any of them. He
denied that he had broken any bottles and said he
saw no one else involved in any such activity.
Although one cannot be certain that Read per-
sonally removed any merchandise from the truck
while Gilliam and Weiss were away for a short
period, I am convinced that one or more of the six
pickets did and that Read knew it. His failure to re-
member' the name of even one of his companions
was particularly unimpressive. I find that the Coca-
Colas were removed and smashed by the pickets
during Gilliam's and Weiss' brief absence and that
all pickets present, engaged in a common cause,
were responsible.
I General Counsel 's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is hereby
granted
427-835 0 - 74 - 7
86
2. Incidents at Vanderbilt University Hospital
occurring in connection with the following of
trucks and ambulatory picketing
John Fann and Curtis Durham testified credibly
that when they left the plant in one of the trucks on
September 30, in the morning, headed for Van-
derbilt University Hospital, three cars fell in behind
them. One car, a black and white Pontiac, was
driven by Gerald Vestal, one of Respondent's busi-
ness representatives, and the other two contained
striking employees. When the Coca-Cola truck
stopped for a red light, Vestal drove his car in front
of it and blocked it from making a right turn. Fann
and Durham returned to the plant and when they
left again that morning they were led by a police
car and trailed by Thomas Colbert, Respondent's
sales manager , in his car.
When Fann and Curtis arrived at Vanderbilt
Hospital and parked their truck at the dock in
order to unload, they observed the white Pontiac
and another car in the parking lot. Soon they were
approached by strikers Piper, Trauernicht, Charles
Reed, and Duke, and a conversation about the
strike began. Charles Reed did not testify, but Fann
testified credibly that, while the group was talking,
Reed went to the other side of the parked truck.
Two cases of drinks were pulled from the truck.
Fann did not see Reed touch the truck, but he saw
him run out the entrance to the hospital . Durham
testified credibly that he actually saw Reed remove
the cases and run back to the Pontiac, which had
now pulled into the parking lot.
Fann and Durham remained at the hospital after
this incident attempting to service the customer,
but within a short time the white Pontiac appeared
again and five men got out and, after telling the
drivers that they should not be delivering, pulled 50
or more cases of beverages from the trucks to the
ground breaking most of the containers . Durham
testified that he recognized the men as strikers
Chamberlain, Robinson, R. Duke, Charles Reed,
and Samuel Smith . Fann agreed that Reed, Duke,
and Chamberlain were present, and he said that he
learned later that the other two were Samuel Smith
and Robinson.
Colbert, the Employer's sales manager , who had
followed Fann and Durham to Vanderbilt, observed
Vestal's Pontiac in the parking lot. The driver of
the Pontiac parked within 3 feet of Colbert's car
and two men got out, but Vestal and Piper, a
striker, remained in the car. One of the men, who
Colbert later learned was a striker, hit one of his
car windows with his hand and then attempted to
open the back door. Both men then proceeded to
rock Colbert's car for a brief period before they
returned to Vestal's car and left the area. Colbert
remained awhile and he saw Vestal return and
place Charles Reed and striker Payne on picket
duty before construction work that was being done
near the hospital entrance.
Morris Davis, a security guard at Vanderbilt,
testified that he saw a white Pontiac on the hospital
premises shortly after the first incident involving
Fann and Durham's truck. Later the Pontiac
returned and was parked near the entrance to the
hospital. Five men got out and, after telling the
Respondent's drivers that they should not be work-
ing, dragged cases of Coca-Cola from the truck and
threw them to the ground. Davis got the license
number of the Pontiac and walked back toward the
men. As he did, they ran past him, got in the Pon-
tiac, and left.
Daniel Piper , a salesman , joined the strike on the
first day, but said he abandoned it under the follow-
ing circumstances on the second. He testified that
on the first day of the strike James Craighead, one
of Respondent's business representatives in charge
of the strike, at the suggestion of an unidentified
striker, turned off a valve which controls the flow
of carbon dioxide into the plant and stated that "if
everything was going like it was that morning ...
they would blow the tank up that night." The group
to which Craighead was addressing these remarks
then walked to Vestal's car where, Piper said,
Vestal tried to get a striker to volunteer to blow up
the tank that night, but no one in the group of 25 or
30 would do so.
Craighead and Vestal denied Piper's account
about the tank and the dynamite. Craighead said he
did not know what or where the valve was, and
Vestal said he had never seen a stick of dynamite in
his life. Although I discredit Vestal in other
respects, and although I feel that Craighead con-
cealed the extent of his knowledge about what was
happening while trucks were being followed and
picketed during the strike, I was impressed by their
denials of Piper 's testimony in this area . Both men
struck me as intelligent . Although, unfortunately,
dynamiting has occurred during strikes , it would
seem extraordinarily stupid or insane for two busi-
ness representatives to announce their plans and
solicit volunteers for the task from a group of 30 or
40 men in front of the plant. I find that Piper's
testimony in this respect is incredible.
Piper, however, went to Vanderbilt University
Hospital with Vestal to picket Fann and Durham's
truck on September 30, and I credit his testimony,
because it is amply corroborated by others and fits
with other facts, that when they got to the hospital
parking lot two men rocked Colbert's car while
Vestal sat in his car and laughingly observed their
actions; Vestal parked behind Trauernicht's car,
another striker , and placed pickets outside the con-
struction site in front of the hospital ; Piper spoke
with Fann and Durham and while he did, Charles
Reed went to the other side of the truck with other
strikers; all but Reed returned ; and Piper heard
glass breaking and saw Reed run.
I do not credit Piper's testimony that, after they
reached the hospital entrance and parked, Vestal
told him and others to take cases from the truck
and smash the bottles, or that Vestal reprimanded
him "for not doing his part ," meaning not breaking
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 87
any bottles, when he teturned to. Vestal's car.
Neither do I credit his testimony that, when the
strikers returned to the plant where they regularly
picketed, Vestal gathered 8 or 10 of them together
and lectured them that they all were "going to start
taking your part in all this stuff" and begin "Picket-
ing trucks, picketing the plant, cutting tires and
putting trucks out of commission." And, moreover,
they "might have to start beating up on peoples'
heads, shooting people and shooting peoples'
houses." Nor do I credit his testimony that Vestal
referred to another strike in which persons were
shot at and trucks overturned as an example for the
employees in the Coca-Cola strike to follow, and
then assurred the group that it need not worry
about getting caught because the Union would bail
them out. Vestal denied that he instructed em-
ployees to destroy the Employer's property and de-
nied that he had given the advice to a group of em-
ployees in front of the plant which Piper said he
did. Although Piper said that a substantial number
of employees were present, he is uncorroborated.
Again, I do not believe that Vestal would make a
public announcement and confession of such a
heinous program unless he was out of his mind, or
trying to lose the strike, or hoping to get the Union
enjoined. Vestal's denial seemed credible, and
Piper seemed to be a little too enthusiastic, even in
delivery. It was Craighead's and Vestal's revelations
that gave Piper second thoughts about his involve-
ment in the strike, and he said he went back home,
and in a few days returned to work. Although no
one can be certain what motivated Piper, I feel that
some rationalization on his part has gone on, and
this is a further reason why I do not accept his
testimony except where other safeguards are
present.
Charles Reed, who was seen running from the
truck parked at Vanderbilt after the first incident,
did not testify. Robinson, who according to Fann
and Durham participated in the second incident,
testified that he went to Vanderbilt University on
one occasion in his own car following a Coca-Cola
truck, but when he arrived he drove on by and
returned to the plant. He said he was not at the
scene with Vestal and knew nothing about drinks
being destroyed. Samuel Smith, a striker, testified
that he was not at Vanderbilt Hospital during the
strike. Ray Duke testified that he and Charles Reed
went to Vanderbilt in Reed 's car and that only the
two of them rode together. He found the Coca-Cola
truck at the loading dock and picketed in its vicini-
ty with other employees, whose names he said he
did not know, for 30 to 45 minutes . When he left,
the truck was still there, he said, but he saw no bot-
tles broken while he was there. Duke said he did
not see Vestal in the area.
Gerald Vestal, one of the Union's business
representatives active in running the strike, con-
ceded that he was at Vanderbilt on September 30
after following one of the Employer's trucks. His
purpose was to picket, he said. Piper was with him,
and he thought Duke was too, but he was not sure.
He said that as he arrived at the location two other
carloads of strikers joined them, and they then
picketed the entrance to the hospital for about 2
hours while a Coca-Cola truck was present. Since
the picketing was ineffective, according to Vestal,
he told all the pickets to leave. He knew of no
breakage of Coca-Colas, and maintained that he
first learned about it when it was published in the
local newspapers.
I find that a substantial amount of property
damage was done by strikers who were assigned to
picket at Vanderbilt Hospital by Vestal and other
union officials, and that some of them were trans-
ported there by Vestal. I also find that some of the
strikers engaged Fann and Durham in conversation
and attempted to persuade them not to deliver.
When the drivers refused the request, I find that
some of the strikers, who had gone to the hospital
to picket, destroyed cases of Coca-Colas in an ef-
fort to intimidate employees of the Employer and
to put pressure on the Employer and those who
traded with him. Some of the strikers named by
Durham and Fann as having been present did not
testify, and I find, in any case, that Robinson was
present despite his denial and that he and Ray
Duke, who admittedly was engaged in picketing for
almost an hour, were aware that cases of drinks had
been dragged from the truck and smashed. I also
find on the basis of the credible testimony of Fann
and Durham that Charles Reed, in the presence of
other strikers, removed some cases of drinks from
the truck during the first incident and then ran to
Vestal's car, and that he also participated with
other strikers, including Chamberlain, Robinson,
and Duke, during the second incident in removing
more cases of drinks from the truck and destroying
them.2
Although I have not found that Vestal directed
Piper and others to destroy bottles, I find that he
could not have avoided knowing that property had
been destroyed when he summoned the pickets (his
testimony), or when they fled to his car after the
damage ( Fann 's and Davis ' testimony), and
returned to the plant to continue picketing at the
principal situs of the dispute. I also find, on the
basis of Colbert's testimony corroborated by Piper,
that two persons, one a striker, who had been trans-
ported by Vestal to the hospital area, harassed Col-
bert in Piper's presence by striking Colbert's car,
rocking it, and otherwise tampering with it, while
Vestal sat in his car and watched.
' The complaint names Gary Smith as an agent of the Union in this affair,
but there is no evidence that he was present Samuel Smith denied that he
was there , and I have sufficient doubt that he was to make a finding on it
Bobby Reed denied that he was present and , although he is named in the
complaint , there is no evidence that he was Without casting any shadows
on Fann 's and Durham 's identifications, it is quite possible that, in the
excitement , they may have placed a striking employee at the scene when in
fact it may have been someplace else
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Destruction of r property at the H. G. Hill store
On October 1, Fann and Durham arrived at the
H. G. Hill store at Thompson Lane and Mur-
freesboro Road and found Hames Moore, a striker,
talking to the manager, asking him not to buy
Coca-Cola. The manager refused Moore's request,
and Fann and Durham went to the truck to begin
unloading. Durham testified credibly that, when he
reached the dock, strikers Moore, Phillips, Shelton,
and two other persons were parked close to the
truck. As Durham and Fann began to wheel cases
into the store they heard cases falling off the truck
and glass breaking. Both said, and I credit their
testimony, that they turned and saw Moore bent in
front of the truck with a knife in his hand. Durham
saw Moore move to one side of the truck and heard
air escaping. Moore then proceeded to pull wires
from under the dash board. Fann and Durham
described the damage as a severed brake fluid line
and radiator hose, and the pulled wires. In addition,
five cases of drinks had been removed from the
truck and their contents destroyed. After the
damage had been done the strikers entered the car
that had been parked next to the truck and left, but
in a very short time the car reappeared, and one of
the occupants shot an object with a slingshot hitting
the truck.
Moore was the only striker named by Fann and
Durham as having-been at the H. G. Hill store who
testified. Moore conceded that he went there with a
group of other persons, whose identities he could
not recall, to ask the manager of the store not to
buy Coca-Colas. He said he spent 30 minutes or
more in the store while the manager checked with
other persons on Moore's request and the other
employees picketed the store. Moore said he saw
no cases removed from the truck, and he denied
that he had damaged any equipment as Fann and
Durham had testified. I have already indicated that
Fann and Durham were credible witnesses. On the
other hand, Moore seemed to be evasive in any
area where striker and union responsibility for
misconduct might be involved. Examples of this
were his failure to recall the name of even one of
the other pickets present at the store, ignorance
about where the men got the picket signs, where
and from whom they received instructions about
following trucks and picketing, and his lack of re-
call of when, where, and how many times he had
been in Bobby Read's car, as will be noted again
below in regard to an alleged assault committed by
Read. I find, therefore, that the truck was damaged
and tampered with during the picketing while
Moore and other strikers were present; Moore was
seen near the truck with a knife in his hand and was
responsible, at least in part, for whatever damage
was done; the drinks were removed from the truck
and broken by pickets and Moore knew about it;
and an object was propelled at the truck by one of
the pickets.
4. Incident at the H. G. Hill store at Due West
Avenue and Gallatin Road
Albert Walls, a route salesman , was servicing the
H. G. Hill store on September 30 around 10:30
a.m. with two other salesmen when he heard ob-
jects hitting the building and glass breaking on top
of the truck. He said he observed two figures on an
overpass, one of whom he recognized as Paul Hi-
land, a striker. Walls urged Hiland to come down if
he had anything to say, but Hiland drew back on a
slingshot and fired a glass ball at the truck. Walls
said that there were many of these objects around
the vehicle. Ervin, one of the other salesmen
present, testified that he heard glass breaking as he
was returning to the truck making a delivery and
heard Walls shout at two men whom he could not
recognize.
Hiland testified that he was not at that particular
store at 10:30 a.m., September 30, but was miles
away talking with a WSM photographer after hav-
ing picketed another store of a different company
in a different area . He said , that as far as he could
recall, he had never been at the H. G. Hill store in
question in connection with the strike and certainly
not when Walls was there. He denied shooting at
anyone at any time with anything. Aside from hav-
ing been arrested on a warrant sworn out by Walls,
he has never been arrested for anything before.
Hiland gave an affidavit to the Board during the
investigation of this case about his alleged par-
ticipation in this incident, but it contains nothing
about him being elsewhere when someone shot a
glass ball at the truck. Hiland first stated that he did
not think that he mentioned his alibi to the Board
agent, but he also said that he told him that he was
elsewhere, but not where he actually was. Accord-
ing to him, although he told the investigator that he
was elsewhere and knew where it was, the agent
neglected to put it in the statement. I do not credit
this version, and I find that Hiland was where Walls
said he was, participating in shooting glass balls at
one of the Employer's trucks at the H. G. Hill store.
5. Damage to property in connection with a
delivery at Dixie Bi-Rite
Route Manager Burger and Route Salesman
Breshears were followed to the Dixie Bi-Rite store
on September 30 by two carloads of strikers. As
they stopped for a stop sign just before entering the
store's lot, some one pulled cases off the truck and
both men heard them hit the ground. Breshears
testified that he looked back and saw David Collins,
a striker, run back and get in one of the cars that
was following them.
After the truck was driven onto the store lot and
parked, both cars entered and unloaded 10 or 12
men, including strikers Mitchell, Warner, and
Moore. According to Burger, Mitchell entered the
store and Warner and Moore proceeded to open
the side doors of the truck and remove and smash a
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 89
number of cases of drinks . Breshears added that
Collins was in the vicinity of the smashed bottles,
and that Warner had asked him if he had sold many
cokes before he went to the other side of the truck.
After he did, Breshears heard a crash and, when he
investigated , found five cases on the ground and
Collins, Moore , and Warner standing around. The
mirror of the truck had also been bent and a side
vent broken , but Breshears did not see it done.
Burger said he saw Warner break the vent with
some object.
Martin Wallace , manager of the Bi -Rite store,
testified that he saw the above incident and that,
after the bottles were smashed and the window
broken by the men who got out of the cars, a per-
son who identified himself as a representative of
Local 327 entered the store and asked him not to
buy Coca-Cola. This person had alighted from one
of the cars and returned to it after talking with Wal-
lace. A short time later while Wallace was cleaning
up the debris, one of the cars involved in the first
incident drove by and a piece of pipe was thrown at
the truck narrowly missing Wallace.
Warner admitted that he was driven to Bi-Rite on
September 30 with an employee named Climer, and
that Mitchell , Moore , and others , whose names he
could not remember , were also present. He said
Mitchell asked the manager not to buy Coca-Colas
and when Mitchell advised the strikers that the
manager had agreed not to , they all left the scene,
having picketed for only 10 minutes . Warner saw
no bottles broken or any property damage, he said.
James Moore testified that he "may have been"
at the Bi-Rite store on September 30 and seen
Burger and a route supervisor there . His only pur-
pose in going there was to request the manager not
to patronize Coca-Cola and to picket the store if he
refused . No Coca-Cola cases were removed from
the truck while he was there , Moore said.
There can be no question that cases of Coca-
Colas were smashed while the pickets were present,
for Wallace , Burger, and Breshears were there
when it happened . The presence of the pickets and
the brief period of time during which the damage
was done would be enough to sustain the logical in-
ference that only the pickets could have been
responsible , and I so find . In addition, I rely on the
credited and composite testimony of Breshears,
Burger , and Wallace that Warner , Collins, and
Moore actively participated in the removal of
beverage cases, that Warner broke a window vent,
and that one of the pickets threw a heavy object at
the truck as they were leaving the area.
C. Other Alleged Incidents Constituting Restraint
and Coercion in Violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act
1. September 29, 1969
Sam Burnett was the first driver to leave the
plant to make deliveries on September 29. 1 find in
accord with his credible testimony that a dozen or
so strikers gathered near his vehicle when he
stopped for traffic and a number of cases of Coca-
Cola were removed from his truck . Although Bur-
nett recognized a number of strikers he was only
able to identify Bobby Read as a participant in the
vandalism . Read admitted taking one case from the
truck . I find that the incident occurred as Burnett
described it, and that Read participated in the
destruction of beverages in the presence of a sub-
stantial number of other strikers.
The Garrett brothers arrived at the plant between
8:30 and 9 a .m. in two trucks to pick up trash as
they did every morning . Enoch Garrett was in the
lead truck , and strikers stopped him to talk with
him. One of the strikers told him they were on
strike and one of them said they were "playing for
keeps." Another told him to come back another
day if he wanted broken glass , for there would be a
lot of it on the street after bottles were thrown from
the trucks. Sometime during this exchange , Enoch's
brother Donald , in the second truck to the rear,
sounded the horn , and Enoch saw a man step away
from the rear of the truck he was driving.
Donald Garrett blew the horn to warn his brother
because he saw a person approach the rear of the
truck and saw on a tire with a knife for about 10
seconds . The effort seemed unsuccessful , and the
person then punched at the tire with the knife. Just
as Enoch heard the warning and got out of his truck
a policeman appeared and apprehended the man
with the knife.
Captain Raymond Marler of the Metro Police
Department saw a person with an open knife
cutting on the back tire of the Garrett truck and ar-
rested him. The person identified himself as "Jerry
Vestal."
Vestal admitted that he approached the truck
when the pickets stopped it to talk with the driver,
and that he had an open knife in his hand . His ex-
planation for the knife was that he had been whit-
tling previously and had neglected to close it. He
denied cutting or coming in contact with the tire.
The witnesses who testified that Vestal was
cutting at a tire told a simple , unadorned story, but
Vestal's account of his actions is unbelievable. I
find that Vestal sawed on the tire in an attempt to
prevent the Garretts from entering the plant and
that his conduct occurred in the presence of a sub-
stantial number of strikers . I do not find however
that he made the statement "playing for keeps" as
alleged in the complaint.
Raymond Sanders arrived at the plant on Sep-
tember 29 around noon to get his paycheck. He
testified that Craighead , a union business represen-
tative, approached him and , after asking him where
he was going and being given the reason, told him
that he "could sign this card and then ( he)could go
in." Sanders said he signed a union card for
Craighead , but did not read it . He also said he did
not know who Craighead was at the time and did
not know that it was a union card when he signed
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it. It appears from his testimony that he learned
who Craighead was from someone else, and that his
supervisor explained to him that he had signed a
union card when he told him what happened after
he entered the plant.
Craighead could not remember Raymond San-
ders, but he said he asked many employees to sign
union cards that morning, and he denied that he
had told any of them that they could not enter the
plant until they signed a union card.
My recollection of and reading of Sanders' ver-
sion of this incident leads me to conclude that he
was not particularly sure about what Craighead ac-
tually said to him. Under cross-examination, for ex-
ample, he added that Craighead explained why he
should sign a union card, stating that if he did not
he would not have a job when the Union obtained
recognition. I find that Craighead did not tell the
employee that he could not enter the plant unless
he signed a union card.3
Sanders left the plant at noon and went to a near-
by restaurant for lunch where he met Wilson,
another employee. While the two were eating, Gary
Smith, a striking employee, joined them. According
to Sanders and Wilson, Smith asked them if they
had signed union cards. Wilson told Smith that he
had not, and explained why. He said Smith told him
that he was crazy because the Union was one of the
best things that could happen, and that sooner or
later it would be recognized and Wilson would be
out of a job. Sanders said that Smith stated during
the conversation that Wilson ought to sign up,
because if he did not he could be beaten up "or
anything could happen" to him. Wilson told Smith
that he was not concerned, but he said Smith added
that a "bunch of high ranking men from Chicago"
would come down and they were "going to take
care of everything."
Gary Smith did not testify, and I find that his
conversation with the employees was essentially as
they described it.
2. September 30, 1969
On the second day of the strike as Sales Manager
Colbert was leaving the plant in his car, Warner,
one of the pickets, threw coffee or cocoa at the
window on the driver's side. He also said that
something "or someone" hit the other side of the
car and that Business Representative Vestal was in
the group of the strikers. Daniel Piper, who was on
strike for 2 days, testified that he saw Warner throw
the coffee at the window and heard the noise of
someone kicking the car. He said Vestal was on the
side opposite him.
Vestal testified, and although he did not refer to
the testimony about his kicking a car, both he and
Warner denied that any coffee or liquid was thrown
at Colbert's vehicle. I credit Colbert's testimony,
'The complaint alleges the violation as telling employees that "they
must sign a union authorization card before they may enter the premises "
and find that he saw Warner empty a cup of liquid
on his car. I do this without relying on Piper's
testimony, for I thought Warner was less persuasive
than Colbert. I do not find that either Colbert or
Piper made a sufficient identification of Vestal as
the person who was responsible for "thumping" or
kicking the auto, although I do find that he was
present in the group.
3. October 1, 1969
Production Manager Craven testified that on the
morning of October 1 a McClendon Truck Line
driver delivered a load of bottles to the plant.
Craven went out to let the truck in and heard
Craighead ask the driver not to cross the picket
line. The driver indicated that he was going to
deliver, and Craven opened the plant door. At that
point, a group of strikers gathered in back of the
truck and prevented it from entering for about 10
minutes. As the front of the vehicle gradually ap-
proached the entrance, Craven overheard
Craighead tell the driver that "they'd get him later
on the road," and also advise the pickets that they
should not let the driver cross their picket line.
The McClendon driver was not called as a wit-
ness. Craighead conceded that he spoke to drivers
who were making deliveries and asked them not to
deliver, but he denied threatening anyone who was
delivering merchandise. He was unable to recall the
specific incident described by Craven.
In this instance I am satisfied that Craven's recol-
lection is better than Craighead's. I find that
Craighead, in the presence of strikers, threatened
the McClendon driver with something unpleasant if
he performed services for his employer and also in-
structed the strikers to attempt to prevent the
driver from entering the Employer's premises.
It appears that the Employer obtained a court in-
junction restricting some of the Union's activities
shortly after the strike began. Raymond Sanders
was at the plant on October 1 in the afternoon and
heard Craighead discussing the recently issued in-
junction with a group of strikers. According to San-
ders, Craighead said that the injunction "had a lot
of loopholes in it, and it didn't mean too much."
Craighead then advised the strikers not to "do
anything ... around the plant" but to "do it away
from the plant." Also, according to Sanders, in
reference to the injunction, Craighead mentioned
another strike in which the 'Union had been in-
volved where thousands of gallons of milk had been
spilled by strikers. Craighead noted that although
the Company in that case "took them to court," the
court found the Union not guilty. Sanders stated
that Craighead then gave other examples of how
union pressure had worn down other employers and
concluded that "This is what we are going to have
to do to the Coca-Cola Company. We are going to
It is even questionable that Sanders ' version "he told me I could sign this
card and then I could go in" contains a threat
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS
have to wear them down." Sanders also said that at
that point one of the female strikers stated that she
was going to "beat hell" out of a nonstriker, but
Craighead warned her not to do it around the Em-
ployer's premises, having prefaced his warning,
however, by stating that the employee could do
anything she wanted elsewhere. Sanders also re-
called Craighead saying something at this time
about strikers telephoning him if they "get caught"
and promising to "get (them) out."
Craighead testified that he spoke with the strikers
three or four times a day on the picket line during
the first few days of the strike "with reference to
their behavior." He admitted telling the group that
the Union would "wear" the Employer down, but
he said he amplified this to describe how it would
be done. In essence, he said he told strikers that the
Employer would be "worn down" by picketing and
boycotting the Employer's products. He denied
referring to a milk strike where milk was dumped
by the Union, and stated that the Union had not
been involved directly in such a strike.
The above evidence provided by Sanders was of-
fered not to prove a separate violation of the Act
but to show that the Union encouraged acts of
violence on the part of strikers. Again I find that
Sanders was not completely sure about exactly
what Craighead said, what he meant, or in what
frame of reference he uttered his remarks. On the
other hand, it seems clear to me that Craighead did
not recall everything he said, and later rationalized
to make everything he said in those undoubtedly
confusing days conform with accepted practice.
That Sanders was uncertain appears from his state-
ments that he did not know what Craighead and a
group of strikers were discussing when Craighead
told them to telephone him if they "got caught,"
that when Craighead was explaining about the
court injunction, he said that the strikers "could go
ahead and keep doing what we had been doing,"
but Sanders did not know what the strikers had
been doing and Craighead could have been talking
about anything. Moreover, Sanders, like Craighead,
stated that in regard to "wearing" the Employer
down, Craighead had been talking about "stopping
trucks, picketing the building with signs, and stuff
like this," but that he did not say "fighting or
anything ." On the other hand , Sanders continued to
credibly maintain that in the frame of reference
about milk being dumped, Craighead indicated that
such was the type of thing a union had to do to win,
and he appeared very certain that Craighead made
a distinction between violence on the picket line
and violence away from the plant.
I do not accept Sanders' version completely, but I
am convinced , and I find that there was a discus-
sion about violence near the plant , about violence
in another strike , about picketing and boycotting,
and about a bail. Although I do not find in these
statements an incitement to violence , I find that the
Union took a tolerant position about violence,
either on a union or individual level, during strikes,
& TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 91
and did little to discourage the employees from en-
gaging in improper incidents which often naturally
occur in heated strikes. This is more significant in
the light of the fact that admittedly it was during
these talks that Craighead and others were advising
strikers about how they should behave and outlin-
ing the Union's strategy designed to win the strike.
4. October 4, 1969
John Fann and William Breshears, route
salesmen, drove to work together in Fann's car on
October 4. Fann testified that as he entered the
plant entrance with his car windows rolled down,
Craighead, who was standing in the alley on the
driver's side, said, "If you get home tonight you'll
be lucky," or something to that effect. Fann said he
could not recall Craighead's exact words.
Breshears testified that he, too, could not re-
member the exact words, but Craighead said
"something ... like," "I hope you make it home,"
and may have used the word "tonight." Breshears
also said that Craighead's remarks had something
to do with "being alive tonight."
Craighead could not remember Fann or
Breshears by name, but said that although he asked
many drivers to join the strike, he could not recall
telling any driver that he hoped "they'd make it
home okay."
In my opinion, Breshears did not hear as much as
he said he did and also interpreted what he did hear
to add and include the "being alive tonight" re-
mark. I have previously found Fann to be accurate
and truthful, and I was impressed by his simple and
low-keyed version of what Craighead said without
any attempt to make it sound worse than it was. I
am inclined to credit him again over Craighead's
weak and indefinite explanation . I find that
Craighead made a remark to the drivers which in-
dicated, and was so designed, that there was a per-
sonal risk involved in crossing the picket line.
5. October 6, 1969
As Route Salesmen Sam Burnett and C. H. Wil-
liams were leaving the plant in a company truck on
October 6, 1969, they said Bobby Read, a striker,
made a remark to them. Burnett said Read said,
"Sam, we are going to have to go after the girls."
According to Williams, Read stated, "We are going
to get your women next." Nothing else was said,
and they drove off. Both men are married, and the
somewhat cryptic remark, which Read denied mak-
ing, is supposed to have been a threat to involve the
wives of the drivers in the strike in some unpleasant
way. Burnett and Williams struck me as sincere and
reliable, and I find that a remark was made by Read
to the effect that "girls" or "women" would be ap-
proached by the Union next in some way.
6. October 20, 1969
Raymond Sanders continued to work during the
strike, and as he was going home on October 20
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and passing a cafe approximately a block from the
plant, two men came out of the cafe and one yelled
something at Sanders, but he did not stop. The two
men ran after Sanders, and he stopped. The taller
of the two asked Sanders if he was working at the
Coca-Cola Company, and Sanders said he was.
After another remark or two, the shorter person hit
Sanders with his fist in the face. The assailants then
told Sanders not to come to work the next day or
something worse would happen to him. Sanders
promised that he would not.'
Sanders telephoned the plant and a car was sent
for him. When he got to the plant, Jones, plant su-
perintendent, had Sanders look out a plant window
at a group of strikers gathered outside. Sanders
pointed to two of the men as his attackers, and
Jones told him they were Samuel Smith and Bobby
Samuals. Plant Superintendent Jones confirmed
Sanders' testimony and added that he had known
both men as employees for several years.
Samuel Smith has been on strike since the
beginning and has picketed at the plant and fol-
lowed trucks. He knows Bobby Samuals, and he
agreed that he frequented the cafe near the plant,
but he said he did not know Sanders. Smith had no
recollection of being with Samuals at a time when
Samuals stopped any employee to talk to him, but
he denied that he had seen Samuals strike anyone.
Smith conceded that he had been picketing at the
plant on October 20.
Bobby Samuals testified that he was at the plant
picketing on October 20, and he denied striking or
seeing Smith strike any employee that day or any
other day. He said he did not know Sanders, but he
recalled that once during the strike he approached
a nonstriker in front of the cafe near the plant and,
after making sure he was a nonstriker, told him "he
should be on strike with us." On this occasion,
however, Smith was not with him, he said.
I have previously evaluated Sanders' testimony in
a different context and found that, inexperienced
and unversed as he is in strike and labor problems,
his account of exactly what Craighead said to him
and to a group of strikers could not be fully ac-
cepted, but there is no question at all in my mind
that he was attacked as he said he was and that he
was able to pick out Smith and Samuals as his assai-
lants shortly thereafter.' I find, on the basis of the
credited testimony of Sanders, Dickerson, and
Jones, that both Smith and Samuals interfered with
Sanders' attempt to leave the plant peaceably, that
both men threatened him with reprisals, and that
Samuals, the short man with the goatee, assaulted
him.
7. October 23, 1969
Donald Stephens, 17 years old, had been em-
ployed by the Company for a very brief period be-
fore the strike and continued to work during the
strike . He testified that on October 23 while walk-
ing near the plant on his way to connect with a ride
home, Bobby Read , James Moore, and two other
persons, whose faces he could not see , rode past
him in a gold colored Plymouth Road Runner, and
one of the persons shouted at him, asking him
where he got the coat he was wearing ( referring to
the Coca-Cola coat ). Stephens said he kept walking
and, as he was crossing a bridge about a mile or so
away, was struck by a bottle thrown from the same
car. He looked up and saw Read and Moore in the
car which had now passed him. Stephens said he
did not know the men by name but had seen them
in the plant. On the next day when he reported the
incident to the Company he was shown films of
strikers , and he picked out Moore and Read as par-
ticipants in the bottle -throwing incident . Plant Su-
perintendent Jones corroborated his testimony
about identifying Read and Moore from pictures
shown him in the plant.
Approximately one-half hour before Stephens
left the plant , and, if believed , was followed by
Moore and Read , Gary Lyons, Robert Wilson, and
three other nonstrikers left the plant and crossed
the street to reach the car of one of them parked
nearby . As they did, according to Lyons and Wil-
son, a Plymouth Road Runner appeared and one of
the occupants shouted at them through a bull horn.
After they reached their car and left the lot they
were followed by the people in the Plymouth.
Lyons testified that when they reached the business
district of Nashville and stopped for a traffic light,
he was struck in the face with an object . Lyons was
seated in the back seat with the windows down. He
said he turned and saw Bobby Read standing at the
back bumper of their car , with a bottle in his hand,
and James Moore standing outside the Plymouth
near the door.
Wilson corroborated Lyons in essentials. He
added that when they drove away from the parking
lot and were followed, he saw Billy Cox , Moore,
and Read in the Plymouth . He said he saw Moore
get out of the car at the traffic light and saw Read
hit Lyons on the face with a bottle. Nothing was
said to the strikers by the group in the car which
Wilson was driving , and the strikers left immediate-
ly.
Neither Wilson nor Lyons knew all persons in the
strikers' car. Wilson said he knew Billy Cox and
picked Moore and Read out of films shown him the
next day at the plant . Lyons also said he knew that
the driver was Cox, and that he identified the
others when he was shown films with Wilson. Su-
perintendent Jones , who was present at the film
showing , testified that Wilson and Lyons were able
to identify persons involved in the incident whom
he then named as Cox , Moore, and Read.
' The fact of the assault is really beyond question for it was witnessed by
S. M Dickerson , an employee of the board of education and a disinterested
witness
s His statement that he would not forget the face of the man who hit him
for a thousand dollars was particularly impressive
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 93
Read denied that he struck Lyons with a bottle,
and said he was not present at the location where
the incident took place . He also testified that he
was not at the scene where a bottle was thrown at
Stephens , and he said that he did not throw a bottle
at anyone or see one thrown . He admitted owner-
ship of the Plymouth Road Runner and conceded
that it was frequently driven by other strikers, in-
cluding Cox and Moore . Moore testified that he
had never ridden down Church Street in a car with
Cox and Read , which was where the assault on
Lyons allegedly took place , and he also denied that
he had followed a car from the plant accompanied
by Cox and Read.
Read and Moore were clearly evasive in their
testimony about the use of Read's Plymouth and
about who drove in it. They clearly were attempting
to cover up something . It may be that Moore was
covering for Read , or Read for Cox, who did not
testify . In any event , I have no reason to discredit
the testimony of Stephens, Lyons , and Wilson that
assaults took place , for I can see no possible reason
for them to have separately contrived their stories.
Despite a lingering uneasiness about the reliability
of identifications made in the presence of high su-
pervisors from pictures of strikers taken by the Em-
ployer, I have no doubt from their testimony that
Stephens , Lyons, and Wilson did select three
strikers from the films as persons involved in the in-
cidents, and I see no possible reason why Jones or
others would have taken the risk of telling the three
that the persons they had picked out were Cox,
Read , and Moore , if they were not. I find therefore
that, in the course of following nonstrikers from the
plant , Cox, Read, and Moore were involved in at-
tacks on the persons of nonstrikers.
8. November 3, 1969
Early in the morning of November 3 a McClen-
don Company truck arrived at the Coca-Cola plant
with a load of material . The driver went to sleep in
his cab , and Frank LaMay, a security guard sup-
plied to Coca-Cola by a private company, promised
to wake him around 6 a.m. LaMay testified that, at
approximately 5:45 a.m., a picket , whose name he
did not know at the time , slapped the door of the
truck and asked the driver if he did not know that
Coca-Cola was on strike. LaMay, who was about 15
feet away at the time, said he heard the driver reply
that his company was not on strike and the picket
responded to this by asking the driver if he had a
family in Alabama. According to LaMay, the driver
"apparently " said he had, and the picket then
stated that if the driver wanted to see his family
again he should not unload his truck . This caused
the driver to roll his window down and ask the
picket if he were threatening him and his family, to
which the picket replied, in effect, that he could
take it like that , and added , according to LaMay,
who noted that he could not remember the entire
conversation , the threat that "You or the truck
either one won't make it out of the State of Tennes-
see if you unload."
After his exchange with the driver , the picket
walked over to LaMay and called him a "scab
guard, " but LaMay made no reply. Shortly after
this, he said he learned that the picket was Miller,
when he identified himself as such to Jones, plant
superintendent. LaMay said that , around 6 : 15 a.m.,
the then unknown picket who threatened the Mc-
Clendon driver was speaking to a group of pickets
and advising them not to "speak to Coke em-
ployees " but also instructing them , if Coca-Cola
employees spoke to them , "to slap them , just walk
up and knock the employees ." Jones then asked the
speaker who he was and he replied that "his name
was Bill Miller , official representative of Local
327."
Bill Miller did not testify , but neither was the Mc-
Clendon truckdriver called , and although Jones
testified , there is nothing in his testimony about
Miller revealing his identity to him in LaMay's
presence. Miller may be an " agent" of Respondent,
but Craighead testified without contradiction that
he is not a business representative , but is hired to
"watch" the pickets and "see that nothing goes
wrong" on the picket line , particularly when regu-
lar business representatives are not present. In
Craighead's words , Miller is "more of a picket cap-
tain" who functions as such wherever the Union is
involved in a strike.
Despite the fact that LaMay 's testimony is unde-
nied, I am reluctant to credit it, not only because
the McClendon driver and Jones did not cor-
roborate it, even though they were key participants
in the morning 's events , but also because I felt at
the time , and still feel after reading the testimony,
that LaMay exaggerated what he heard , or said he
heard . For example , he was 15 feet away from the
driver-picket conversation , which makes it
questionable that he heard such fine details, and it
seems unlikely that Miller , with his experience,
would threaten a driver 's life in the presence of a
company guard , and then, to insure that the guard
would not forget him, walk over and call him a
scab, and later on in the morning , after telling the
pickets publicly to attack nonstrikers , proclaim
"himself as Bill Miller , official from Local 327." I
also think it of some significance that Miller's name
appears no where else in the testimony of some 25
witnesses called by the General Counsel. The
testimony will not be relied on.
D. Analysis , Additional Findings , and Conclusions
1. The Union's responsibility
I have found that practically all of the acts or
statements alleged in the complaint , as amended, as
violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act did
occur substantially as testified to by witnesses for
the General Counsel. Under that section of the Act
it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to refrain from engaging in a
strike or other concerted activities.6 The principal
question remaining, however, since the facts have
been found essentially as alleged, is the responsibili-
ty of the Union for the acts or statements of pickets
and strikers, who, unlike Craighead and Vestal,
union business representatives and admitted agents,
the Union contends have not been shown in the
record to have any agency relationship with
Respondent.
Under the law and the cases, a union's responsi-
bility for acts, such as those which have been
found, is judged in accordance with the "ordinary
law of agency," and it is liable for the acts of an
agent "within the scope of the agent's general
authority, or the `scope of his employment' .
even though the (union) has not specifically
authorized or indeed may have specifically forbid-
den the act in question."' It is enough if the prin-
cipal actually empowered the agent to represent
him in the general area within which the agent
acted.' The Act itself provides in Section 2(13) that
the "question of whether the specific acts per-
formed were actually authorized or subsequently
ratified shall not be controlling," and the Board has
held that "authorization or ratification may be
manifested by conduct, sometimes even passive
acquiescence as well as by words."9
In the light of these principles it is clear that the
Respondent Union is responsible for the acts of the
strikers committed in the course of following trucks
and picketing at the premises of the Employer's
customers. Ambulatory or roving situs picketing is
an established technique in labor disputes and does
not offend the policies of the Act if conducted
within the "rules of the game." 10 Business
Representative Craighead testified that the Union
followed as many trucks as it could, and that the
trucks were picketed with as many pickets available
as they were making deliveries. Customers were
also asked by the strikers not to patronize Coca-
Cola. Picket signs were prepared by the Union and
furnished the pickets. Both Craighead and Vestal
visited merchants and asked them not to buy the
Employer's products, and the record shows that
Vestal transported many pickets in his car to the
premises of secondary employers and was close to
the pickets when cases of Coca-Cola were
destroyed at Vanderbilt University Hospital during
the strike. Indeed, I have found that he knew what
the strikers had done there. It appears, therefore,
that following trucks, picketing at the customers'
premises, and appeals to them were union ventures
and, legally and in fact, an extension of the Union's
primary picket line. It is well known that in
authorized strikes unions are normally responsible
for the acts of authorized pickets." Threats and the
employment of force on a picket line, even though
forbidden, are reasonably to be expected, and so
"within the scope of employment of pickets for
which the labor organization is responsible. "12
I find that the destruction of Coca-Cola, damage
to trucks, and harassment of nonstriking drivers by
roving pickets were also reasonably to be expected
and within the scope of employment of the pickets.
This would be so even if the Union had made some
effort to prevent it, but neither Craighead nor
Vestal made any investigation of the incidents, or
disciplined, reprimanded, or removed any striker
from the area because of his activities. On the con-
trary, I have found on the basis of that part of San-
ders' testimony which I have credited that
Craighead spoke to strikers about a milk strike
where milk had been dumped and took a generally
tolerant attitude about the activities of strikers, par-
ticularly away from the plant, and, in addition,
threatened and interfered with a driver who was
making a delivery. Vestal did less in instructing
strikers than Craighead did, as well as condoning
the destruction of property at Vanderbilt.13 His at-
titude about what strikers should and should not do
during a strike was illustrated by his participation in
the Vanderbilt incidents, including his amused ob-
servation of Colbert's car being rocked, and his at-
tempt to cut a tire on the Garrett truck in the
presence of a group of strikers.
I find and conclude that the Union is legally
responsible for the acts of strikers and pickets at
the following locations, as alleged in the complaint.
a. Giant Foods Store in 100 Oaks Shopping
Center in Nashville, on September 29.
b. Vanderbilt University Hospital in Nashville
on September 30.
c. The H. G. Hill Store at Thompson Lane and
Murfreesboro Road in Nashville, on October 1.
d. H. G. Hill Store at Due West Avenue and
Gallatin Road in Nashville, on September 30.
e. Dixie Bi-Rite Store at Glen Rose and Foster
Streets in Nashville, on September 30.
° International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union C 10 (Sun-
set Line and Twine Company ), 79 NLRB 1487
Sunset Line and Twine , supra, 1507, 1509, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local Union No 377, 159 NLRB 1313
"Perry Norvell Company, 80 NLRB 225, 243-244, Sunset Line and
Twine Company , supra, 1509
° Sunset Line and Twine, supra, 1508
10 See N L R B v Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(K-C Refrigeration Transport Co ), 284 F 2d 887 (C A 2), Local 379,
Building Material & Excavators, alw Teamsters ( Catalano Bros , Inc ), 175
NLRB 459, Perry Norvell Company, supra, 239
" Local 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , etc (Deacon Truck
Line, Inc ), 146 NLRB 498, 503
1t United Furniture Workers of America, CIO (Colonial Hardwood Floor-
ing Company , Inc ), 84 NLRB 563, 587-588
" Drivers, Salesmen , Warehousemen, etc Local 695, IBT (Tony Pellitteri
Trucking Service , Inc ), 174 NLRB 753
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 95
By such conduct, Respondent Union restrained
and coerced employees in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
For the same reasons I find that Respondent vio-
lated the Act when Bobby Read, a regular picket
who also engaged in roving picketing, participated
in removing cases of Coca-Cola from one of the
Employer's trucks in the presence of other em-
ployees at the plant on September 29.
Acts committed by authorized business agents of
the Union which restrain and coerce employees are
clear violations, of course, and I find that Gerald
Vestal's cutting at the tire of the Garretts' truck, on
the morning of September 29, in the presence of a
group of strikers, and his participation in the in-
cidents involving rocking and attempting to enter
Colbert's car at Vanderbilt University, on Sep-
tember 30, in the presence of strikers, were addi-
tional violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Craighead's remark to a McClendon Company
truckdriver, who insisted upon making a delivery
despite Craighead's request not to, that "they'd get
him later on the road" was obviously designed to
frighten the driver, and this statement and
Craighead's participation with the strikers in
blocking ingress to the plant were additional viola-
tions of the same section. For the same reasons,
Respondent violated the Act by Craighead's state-
ment to Route Salesmen Fann and Breshears on
October 4, as they entered the plant, to the effect
that they would be "lucky" if they got home safely
that night.
Bobby Read's statement to nonstriking Route
Salesmen Burnett and Williams as they left the
plant on October 6 that "we" are going after the
"women" or "girls" next is somewhat obscure, but
Read denied making it, and no explanation of what
the words meant, or could have meant, was offered.
Nevertheless, in the context of this heated strike,
and in the light of some of Read's and the Union's
other activities, the remark is not so cryptic that it
shakes my conviction that it was designed to instill
fear in the minds of the drivers about the safety of
their families. This was restraint and coercion in
violation of the Act.
Bobby Samuals and Samuel Smith, who were
regular pickets, followed employee Sanders from
the plant and threatened him with additional
reprisals after one of the two assaulted him. This
was not a "frolic and detour" on their own, for they
immediately returned to the picket line and, in any
case, the activity took place close enough to plant
to -make it part of the activity in which they were
regularly engaged. By such conduct, the Union vio-
lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
If, in the context of this case, the strikers had
thrown bottles at nonstrikers as they left the plant,
the violation would be obvious. It is no less clear
that when Read and Moore followed Stephens in
Read's Plymouth Road Runner from the immediate
area of the plant, where they had been picketing
and shouting at employees through a bull horn, and
threw a bottle at him, that they were merely con-
tinuing the harrassment they had been engaged in
at the plant and elsewhere. Read and Moore appear
frequently in this case in Read's Plymouth at and
around the plant harassing nonstrikers, as in this in-
stance, and as in Wilson's and Lyons' cases, as
desceibed next, as well as at the premises of other
employers, as found above. I see nothing to indicate
when Read and Moore followed Stephens and
someone hurled a bottle at him from Read's car
that these strikers were engaged in an independent
operation.
The Union's responsibility for the assault on
Lyons is even clearer. Here the testimony trails the
Plymouth, containing Read, Moore, and Cox, from
the plant, to the parking lot, and then in its pursuit
of the nonstrikers to the area where the assault
took place. I find that the Union, by its agents,
Moore, Read, and Cox, acting within the scope of
their employment, restrained and coerced em-
ployees in violation of the Act, by said agents con-
duct in regard to Stephens and Lyons.
2. Incidents or responsibility not established by a
preponderance of the evidence
Having found that Craighead did not tell
Raymond Sanders that he could not enter the plant
unless he signed a union card, I find no restraint
and coercion in the conversation as alleged in the
complaint.
Sanders and Wilson had a conversation with
Gary Smith during lunch at a cafe near the plant
during which Smith told Wilson that he could be
beaten up because he did not sign a card. The line
is fine, but this conversation, it seems to me, was a
matter solely between three rank-and-file em-
ployees and not authorized, ratified, or condoned
by the Union. Gary Smith picketed, but he does not
stand out like others whose activities I have found
bind the Union. I find that the Union did not violate
the Act by reason of his statements.
Because , as set out more fully above, I have
found certain infirmities in LaMay's testimony and
in the circumstances surrounding his account of
Miller's alleged threats to a McClendon
truckdriver, I find no violation in this incident as
the complaint alleged.
Striker Warner splashed, or threw, a cup of cof-
fee or cocoa at Colvert's car window as he left the
plant. Vestal, the Union's business representative,
did not see it, and I find the incident too insignifi-
cant in the circumstances to constitute separate
violations of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with the
Employer's operations described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , it will be recom-
mended that it cease and desit therefrom and take
certain affirmative action deemed necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
In Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab
Drivers Local Union No . 327 (Whale, Inc.), 178
NLRB 422, the Board took official notice of the
Respondent's "proclivity to engage in mass picket-
ing, picket line violence, and threats of violence" as
demonstrated in prior cases . N The Board con-
cluded in Whale , Inc., supra, that in view of the
conduct under consideration and in past cases, a
broad order against the Respondent and its agents
was warranted . Although Respondent Union
reduced the level of its attack somewhat in this
case , the conduct which it engaged in here is not
unlike its conduct in previous cases. I will recom-
mend to the Board, therefore , that it issue an order
of the type it issued in Whale, Inc.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party
have also asked that the Respondent Union be
required to publish the Board notice both in Nash-
ville Banner and the Nashville Tennessean because
the local newspapers gave continuing coverage of
the Union 's misconduct during the strike. The
Board has yet to issue a broad order against this
Respondent which has been backed up by a court
decree . The question of wider publication , it seems
to me , ought to be postponed until the effectiveness
of a broad order enforced by court decree is tested.
I will not recommend publication of the notice in
newspapers.15
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
" Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Helpers and Taxicab Drivers, Local Union 327
(Hartmann Luggage Company ), 173 NLRB 1420 In N L R B v Teamsters,
Local 327 ( Hartmann Luggage Company ), 419 F 2d 1282 (C A 6), the
court of appeals agreed that the Board could take judicial notice of its own
cases involving the same union and held that there was substantial evidence
"on the whole record to justify the Board's finding that the union had
demonstrated a proclivity to engage in violent conduct ," and that the
Board, therefore , might be justified in issuing a broad order not limited to
union activity at the particular employer involved The court remanded the
case to the Board , however , because it thought the order violated the provi-
sions of Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure In Hartmann
Luggage, the Board 's Order applied to employers within the union's "ju-
risdictional territory ," which was not defined, and this was not specific
enough , the court said In Whale , Inc , however , the Board dropped that
limitation The court also felt that the order was defective since it was not
limited in time and because it was "both too broad and too vague in rela-
tion to persons expected to obey it " It seems to me that a time limitation is
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Respondent is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct found to be viola-
tions of the Act set forth in section III, D, above,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in
the case, it is recommended that Respondent, its of-
ficers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from restraining or coercing
employees of Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nash-
ville, or any other employer in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, by
threatening to cause harm to employees or the
families of employees of said companies; by assault-
ing the employees of said companies; by blocking
ingress to the plant to the employees of said compa-
nies , or striking or rocking the cars of employees of
said companies; by cutting tires of employees of
said companies; by causing or threatening to cause
damage to the property of said companies, or in
any other manner restraining or coercing said em-
ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked
"Appendix"" to each of its members and post co-
pies thereof at its business office and meeting hall.
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 26, after being duly
signed by the Union's official representative shall,
immediately upon receipt thereof, be mailed to
each member, posted and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to its members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that such notice is not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
something too difficult to tailor in advance, but must be determined by the
Respondent 's future conduct As far as those against whom the order runs
is concerned, the Board in Whale, Inc , did not include "successors and as-
signs" in the order which were the words which the court found objectiona-
ble See, however, Regal Knitwear Company v N L R B, 324 U S 9
15 The Trial Examiner denied a similar request in Whale, Inc , supra -
16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS & TAXICAB DRIVERS LOCAL UNION 327 97
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of said notice
to the Regional Director for Region 26, for postings
by Coca-Cola Bottling Works of Nashville at all lo-
cations where notices to employees are customarily
posted, if said company is willing to do so.
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act not specifically found
herein.
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten to cause harm to em-
ployees or the families of employees of Coca-
Cola Bottling Works of Nashville, or any other
employer; or assault employees of said compa-
nies.
WE WILL NOT block ingress to the plant of
said company or any other employer, strike or
rock cars, or cut the tires of employees of said
company, or any other employer.
WE WILL NOT cause or threaten to cause
damage to the property of said company, or
any other employer.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain
or coerce employees of Coca-Cola Bottling
Works of Nashville, or the employees of any
other employer in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
HELPERS & TAXICAB
DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION
327, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167
North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103,
Telephone 901-534-3161.