UMW of America, Pocket Local 7083, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 247 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

UMW OF AMERICA, POCKET LOCAL 7083, ETC. 247
United Mine Workers of America, Pocket Local 7083; United
Mine Workers of America , Palmer Local 5881 ; United Mine
Workers of America, District 19; District 19 United Mine
Workers of America ; Local #7083 United Mine Workers of
America and Grundy Mining Company. Cases Nos. 10-CP-34,
10-CP-35, 10-CP-36, 10-CB-1354, and 10-CB-1355. December 4,
1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 30, 1963, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate
Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Fanning].
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 entire
record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, and exceptions
and 'brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.'
I The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph
therein , the following paragraph
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that Respondents , their respective officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
The CP cases above identified having been consolidated and a complaint having
been issued therein on March 15, 1963 (charges filed February 18, 1963 ), and the
CB cases above identified having been consolidated and a complaint having been
issued therein on January 25 , 1963 ( charges filed October 5 , 1962 ), all of the above
cases were consolidated on March 15 , 1963, the complaints , with amendments,
alleging as follows- That the three Respondents named have violated Section
8(b) (7) (C) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 73 Stat. 519, by
demanding since on or about September 10, 1962, that Grundy recognize and bargain
with them or any of them as the representatives of its employees and attempting to
compel the employees to accept or select them or any of them as their collective-
bargaining representatives , and by picketing or causing Grundy to be picketed since
on or about December 27, 1962, objects of the picketing being to force or require
145 NLRB No. 27.
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Grundy to recognize and bargain with the Respondents or any of them as the
employees' representatives and to force or require the employees to accept or select
the Respondents or any of them as their representatives, none of the Respondents
having been currently certified as the employees' representative and no valid election
petition having been filed within a reasonable time from the commencement of the
picketing; and that the two CB Respondents have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act since on or about September 12, 1962, by massing before Grundy's mine site
entrance and preventing its employees from reporting for work, and threatening them
and supervisors with assault and injury if they performed work for Grundy.
The answers, with amendments, beyond the admission that the Respondents have
not been currently certified, deny the allegations of violation and allege that the
Respondents have engaged in negotiations with Grundy since September 10, 1962, that
a valid petition "was filed ... [and] is now pending," and that Section (8) (b)
(7) (C) as applied herein is unconstitutional. (A defense that the dispute is economic
is covered by the denial of the allegation that an object is to compel recognition.)
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan at Palmer, Tennessee,
on April 10 and 11, and 25 through 29, 1963, inclusive. Pursuant to leave granted
to all parties, briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the Respondents,
the time to do so having been several times extended. The Respondents' proposed
findings of fact, submitted in their brief as recitals in support of their argument, are
adopted to the extent that they are consistent with the findings and conclusions herein.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT ( WITH REASONS THEREFOR)
1. THE COMPANY 'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It was stipulated and I find that Grundy , a Tennessee corporation with offices at
Tracy City, Tennessee , is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tennessee Consolidated Coal
Company, a Delaware corporation with offices also at Tracy City, Tennessee; that
during 1962 Grundy mined coal for and sold it to Consolidated exclusively , for which
the latter paid Grundy more than $300,000 ; that this coal was sold and delivered by
Consolidated , pursuant to a contract ( in which Grundy is named as a source ), to the
Tennessee Valley Authority ; that this coal was placed on railroad cars at Palmer,
Tennessee , and was shipped on a TVA bill of lading under a so-called section 22
rate; that under the agreement between TVA and Consolidated , the latter was paid
for the coal weighed on the cars upon arrival at its destination ; that all such coal was
shipped to TVA's Widows Creek steam plant , located at or near Bridgeport , Alabama;
that during 1962 Consolidated sold and shipped to points outside the State of Tennes-
see coal valued at more than $ 1,000,000, including the aforesaid shipments to the
Tennessee Valley Authority 's Widows Creek steam plant ; and that during 1962 Con-
solidated sold coal valued at more than $75,000 to Republic Steel Corporation in the
State of Alabama . Whether considered under indirect outflow or as involving TVA,
a governmental defense agency , these facts indicate that Grundy is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that jurisdiction is to be assumed over it;
and I so find.
It was admitted and I find that 7083, 5881 , and District 19 are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The alleged violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C)
It is not clear, from the allegations in the answers, not thereafter urged ar argued,
that Section 8(b) (7) (C) "as applied herein" is unconstitutional, what the Respon-
dents' reasoning is in this respect. Constitutionality of the Board's procedure has
been upheld.'
1. Alleged recognition
Under a management contract effective April 1, 1961, and which was terminated
on September 21, 1962, Allen & Garcia, a mine engineering consulting and operating
firm, operated various mines owned by Consolidated, among these the Coal Valley
mine. About July 1962 Allen & Garcia was placed in charge of development of
Gray's Creek #11 mine, a wholly mechanized mine to which Coal Valley equipment
"Of. Department & Specialty Store Employees Union, Local 1265, Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, AFL-CIO v. Gerald A Brown, Reg Dir., 284 F. 2d 619, 623, 629
(C.A. 9).
UMW OF AMERICA, POCKET LOCAL 7083, ETC. 249
was now transferred. In the latter part of July, Grundy commenced operation of
some eight small hand-loading mines in the Gray's Creek area. It was claimed that
there were not enough Palmer area men qualified to operate the equipment for #11,
and although this mine is in the Palmer area, Allen & Garcia brought in men primarily
from the force which had worked at Coal Valley. The result was that, instead of local
men, West Virginians were hired to work in # 11.
Allen & Garcia had entered into an agreement with District 19 and 5881,2 and
the conditions of employment or work rules under this contract were applied by
Allen & Garcia to its operations at #11. The latter firm then asked Consolidated to
relieve it of its management contract, and this was done on September 21, 1962. On
September 22 Consolidated transferred operation of #11 mine to Grundy. One
month earlier Allen & Garcia had given to the UMW a 60-day notice of termination
of their agreement.
To this point, whatever Consolidated's interest in the operations, it is clear that the
UMW agreement was with Allen & Garcia, which had given notice of termination.
Further, if Allen & Garcia recognized the UMW at #11, this was by extension of
their 1961 agreement; it did not impose obligations on either Consolidated or Grundy
except for the latter's assumption of the operation and its consequent obligation for
the remainder of the 60-day period for which Allen & Garcia was still committed.
Turnblazer, District 19's attorney and now its president, testified that Grundy as-
sumed the contract for the balance of the term; there is no suggestion that the 60-day
notice of termination had been withdrawn. This is not recognition which can serve
as a defense to the allegation that continued recognition after termination of the
Allen & Garcia contract was sought from Grundy. A self-serving statement in a
letter from Turnblazer to Consolidated and Grundy on October 10, 1962, to the
effect that Callis, president of both companies, had "stated that Grundy considered
itself bound by the Allen and Garcia-UMW agreement for the balance of its term"
does not indicate withdrawal of the termination notice. Nor is it so explicit as to
contradict the testimony, which I credit, that at a meeting of the parties on October 10,
its attorney declared that Grundy would and did recognize the Allen & Garcia
agreement for the remainder of the 60-day period, but that it would not further
recognize the UMW unless it were certified by the Board On October 23 or 24
Callis announced that the mines were now operating without a UMW contract.
If more be needed in this connection, Turnblazer in a letter dated February 21,
1963, referred to operation of the new Grundy mine "after expiration of the con-
tract"; and he testified that Grundy and District 19 agreed that the contract would
expire on October 24. The termination of the Allen & Garcia agreement and
Grundy's insistence on Board certification indicate clearly that there was no recog-
nition of the Respondents by Grundy on its own behalf, and neither recognition nor
negotiation with them as representative of the employees after the expiration of the
Allen & Garcia agreement in October.
With formation of the Sewanee Coal Operators Association, Grundy became a
"qualified member,",i.e., it joined on the express condition that the Association was
without authority to bargain on its behalf with any union which had not been certified
by the Board. While Beaumont, vice president and secretary of both Consolidated
and Grundy, attended four negotiation meetings between the Association and the
Union,3 he did so as a member of the Association bargaining team, not as a
representative of Grundy. No more than absence of a representative of one company
from a multiemployer bargaining team proves that that company is not being
bargained for, does inclusion of an officer of a company prove that it is being
bargained for: all of the facts, including authorization or apparent authorization, and
notice thereof, must be considered.
One might well wonder about the all too pat testimony that Beaumont not only
discussed wages at # 11 mine, but that he specifically added that he was negotiating for
Grundy, thereby providing support for that defense and meeting the allegation that
the Respondents sought recognition. Brown,4 a former president of 5881 who among
2 Significantly, counsel for the Respondents and District 19's attorney, Turnblazer, re-
ferred to this contract as entered into by "the United Mine Workers," without distinction
between District 19 and 5881.
3 Reference throughout this testimony was to the UMW and the Union, without distinc-
tion among the Respondents.
d Faced with his omission, when asked in an earlier proceeding what Beaumont said, of
reference to such a statement by Beaumont, Brown's explanation was that he had not
been asked that. But neither was he asked it in this proceeding, when he, like other
witnesses called by the Respondents, offered the alleged statement when asked whether
Beaumont had said anything else This was "the way (Brown) understood it" because the
majority of the negotiating committee that day consisted of Grundy men.
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
others gave such testimony, also stated however that what Beaumont said was that he
was negotiating for the companies which were represented by the Association. This
latter very clearly excluded Grundy. The reasonable inference, from the appearance
of Grundy people that they represented Grundy in the negotiations , is overcome by
these express denials. Without detailing all of the testimony on this point, although
it has been considered (including that by Howell, president of 7083, to the effect that
representation of Grundy was neither specifically declared nor denied, but was implied
from the context), it is clear and my credibility finding based on both the written
lists of the companies which the Association represented, as submitted to the UMW,
and from specific statements made, is that Grundy was not included in the bargaining
negotiations and that this was made clear to all concerned.
Nor does inclusion in the Association negotiations of reference to class A or wholly
mechanized mines, # 11 being the only such then in operation in the area, serve to
bring Grundy into the negotiations. It was explained that mines represented by the
Association might be made class A and thus be covered by that portion of the
negotiations and any agreement reached with the Association. In fact, it is not at
all clear that the reference to class D mines had any actual connection with existing
conditions either. Class A and D mines are included in UMW mine classifications.
No more, in the face of the express exclusion of Grundy noted supra, does a letter
from the Association to Turnblazer, which was distributed by Consolidated through-
out the area, and which referred to mines of all four classes, create or indicate
inclusion of Grundy among those who were negotiating with the Union. (To the
extent that it is claimed that reference to class A indicates Grundy's # I 1 mine, it
is equally necessary to cite which other wholly mechanized mines were referred to;
admittedly there were no others, yet the letter speaks of "Class A mines" in
the plural.) Whatever charges of bad faith the Association was making in that letter,
and its purpose to discredit the Union in the community while justifying its own po-
sition , this could not and did not constitute recognition by Grundy. While dated well
after the picketing had commenced, this letter if it indicated that the negotiations
in January covered Grundy, would likewise cover such inclusion throughout the
earlier negotiations since there -is no evidence of a change in this respect.
As for any claim that a contract form (it was replaced by another form, and no
employee ever worked under it) used by one of Grundy's foremen, incorrectly
referred to as having an option to lease, indicates "the understanding of others"
in the area that the small mines were not initially Grundy mines, the issue here
is not the general understanding but whether the Respondent Unions knew that
Grundy was not being represented in the negotiations. The unlawful picketing is
charged to the Unions, and the defense that they had already been recognized
and were negotiating refers to their object in the picketing. Nor would a statement
by Callis, which he did not recall but would not deny, if made, that the coal operators
had banded together and would bargain as an association indicate recognition of
the Respondents by Grundy, particularly in the face of the specific evidence to the
contrary.
With this analysis of items which the Respondents brought out to show that
Grundy recognized the Union, I recognize the possibility of a contrary impression
as testified to by Turnblazer. But in addition to the oral testimony and the lists
of companies which the Association represented, already noted, and which excluded
Grundy, we must consider a telegram from Grundy to District 19 on October 23,
which supports the testimony that the Association would negotiate for Grundy, but
only after Board certification. This telegram was in reply to one from District 19
the day before, proposing to Grundy an "immediate effort to negotiate a successor
contract" to that with Allen & Garcia. When on November 21, the UMW by
letter referred to imminent negotiations with the Association but suggested even
earlier negotiations with Grundy, the latter by letter dated December 4 yet again
pointed out that Board certification was a condition to bargaining by the Association
for Grundy, and suggested procedure looking to an election We shall see, infra,
in connection with the aspect of joint venture by the Respondents, that Turnblazer
on January 4 charged Grundy with having refused to bargain since the termination
of the Allen & Garcia contract This charge in itself makes inexplicable the defense
that Grundy and the Respondents have engaged in negotiations.
Despite that defense allegation, the evidence indicates that Grundy maintained
the Allen & Garcia agreement until its termination, and from the beginning and
consistently thereafter refused to negotiate with the Union unless the latter were first
certified by the Board. Thus there was no such recognition of the Respondents as
to defeat the allegation that an object of the picketing was to compel Grundy to
recognize them.
UMW OF AMERICA, POCKET LOCAL 7083, ETC. 251
2. Object
With the finding that Grundy had not recognized the Union, we reach the point
of determining the facts concerning the object or purpose of the picketing. According
to Doug Ross, who is a member of 5881 and a mine committeeman, Grundy for the
first time on November 29, 1962, failed to check off union dues out of wages which
were at that time paid for the first half of November. Told by Toney, Grundy's
clerk, that he was afraid of a suit if he withheld dues, Ross circulated a petition
for checkoffs, which was signed by all of the #11 employees and then given to
Toney. Again, the dues were not checked off on December 14 or on the 21st, the
men being paid earlier on the Friday before Christmas.
The mine committee, composed of Doug Ross, Fults, and Nunley then explained
to Foreman Bradley on December 26 that the men feared loss of certain union
benefits and would not work unless the dues were checked off. Bradley reported
that Callis was willing to check the dues off and would turn them over to the mine
committee or the financial secretary, presumably of Local 5881, which with the
mine committee was directly concerned with #11 mine; but not to District 19.
(That 7083 was similarly concerned and struck because of the refusal to check off
dues and lack of a contract is noted infra.) This did not meet the employees'
demands since the benefits which concerned them were provided by District 19.
The explanation offered by Sissom, one of the pickets in connection with the CB
aspect and earlier picketing, is of interest here:
Well I was out there trying to get my job back and they had refused cutting
dues off the men and I was out there on that because when I went back there
I wanted my dues to be cut so I could belong to the local union . I knew if I
waited for four months and my dues not being cut on me, why I would be
out of the union and I wanted to belong to the union.
While Sissom was speaking of the local union, it is clear that the demand now
made to Grundy in December was that the dues be checked off to District 19. The
employees, both pickets and strikers, did not distinguish 5 between the locals and
District 19 except to the extent that benefits were handled by one and provided by
the other. The mines over which the local unions had jurisdiction were in the same
general vicinity in Marion County, and all three organizations joined in a common
effort to represent the employees and to further their interests This community of
interest and effort was reflected in the employees' object in picketing for dues check-
off. Nor is this left to inference alone By letter dated January 4, 1963, Turnblazer
charged Grundy with doing "everything possible to incite a work stoppage," citing
inter alia the failure to make payments to the welfare fund, which the UMW main-
tains, and to check off dues to District 19; and Grundy was there further charged
with having refused to bargain with District 19 since the termination of the Allen
& Garcia contract.
While Doug Ross was firm in his testimony that no District 19 representative told
the employees to stop work and picket on December 27 because of the refusal to
check off the dues, he told Callis ". . . when we got orders from our District Office
we would talk . . There was no further meeting or talk and Ross continued
to picket from December 27 through January 9 and then again on January 11.
Various individuals thereafter picketed with a sign which described this as a "One
man picket line authorized by the Court." A host of other pickets was present
within a few feet on all or many of these days.
Whether any of the picketing was in part prompted by the claim that the jobs
belonged to local residents and were being given to outsiders, need not at this point
be evaluated; nor the Company's reply that it had attempted at considerable cost
but had been unable to train local men The fact is that picketing was motivated
in part at least by Grundy's refusal to check off dues and send them to District 19.
With respect to transmission of dues, distinction was made between the latter and
the local unions, as we have seen. Those men who were employed refused to work
and went on strike because they wanted their dues checked off and paid to District
19; and the latter would not accept dues from or on behalf of working members
unless such dues were checked off and transmitted by the Employer. (Benefit fund
payments are not of present concern to us.) This was the position taken by the
employees who struck and who were supported in their strike and picketing by the
Respondents.
5 While we are at the moment concerned with the object of the picketing, what is here
noted bears on the issue of joint involvement of the three Respondents, infra
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We need not decide whether Grundy's declared willingness to send checked off
dues to the local indicates willingness to recognize it. Clearly what was sought was
recognition of District 19, and this prompted and was the object of the picketing.
Grundy refused to recognize District 19 when such recognition was requested.
There was no request for recognition of any other respondent, and no recognition
of any of them. Reference in a Grundy letter of February 1, 1963, to the fact that
the Association had criticized the UMW's wage and welfare demands does not show
that Grundy had joined in recognizing the UMW or District 19 as collective-
bargaining agent.
Without reliance on the mass aspect of the picketing from September 12, 1962,
until February 22, 1963, and reserving the finding with respect thereto. I find that,
whatever other grievances or objects, an object of the picketing by the Respondents
on and after December 27 was to force or require Grundy to recognize District 19.
(Reference will be made infra, to Fults' statement in this connection.) The allega-
tion of compulsion on employees to accept the Respondents as their collective-
bargaining representatives has not been supported by the General Counsel and is not
cited in his brief as one of "the essential issues."
3. No timely petition
In a petition for certification as bargaining representative of Grundy's employees,
filed with the Board by District 19 on September 10, 1962, the UMW (without
reference to or distinction among any of these Respondents) was named as the
bargaining agent. This petition was amended on October 15, and withdrawn on
January 28, 1963, the Respondents explaining that there had been a misunderstanding
and that an appropriate unit had not been set forth A new petition was filed on
February 25, 1963. The Board has held,6 setting forth its reasons, that a petition
later withdrawn is not within the contemplation of Section 8(b) (7) (C).
Nor is it "unreasonable," as the Respondents argue in their brief, to hold that
withdrawal of the petition left them in violation of the Act. Aside from the obvious
anomaly were they permitted to withdraw a petition and at the same time to rely
on it, the very reason cited for the withdrawal indicates that the petition could not
be a defense even in the eyes of unbiased respondents: Picketing for recognition
presupposes existence of an appropriate unit and a demand for recognition with
respect to that unit. Here despite the claim for recognition (and the argument that
recognition had already been accorded), the petitioner was not itself convinced or
satisfied concerning the unit, and it withdrew the petition "in order to clarify the
highly complicated multi-employer unit question." There can be no real question
but that the second petition was not timely. As for counsel's argument that "there
was no reason for undue haste" since the representation question had been pending
for some time (this supports the finding, supra, that recognition had not been ac-
corded), the Act declares the contrary within the facts here
4. Responsibility
Although District 19 filed a petition for a unit which it did not deem appropriate,
the fact remains that it did make a representation claim and sought recognition All
of this is consistent with the finding that the object of the picketing which began on
December 27 was to compel recognition. Here again we see evidence of the joint
interest and effort of the UMW and a constituent organization. The unclarified
condition of the unit question may bear also on the defense that Grundy had
negotiated with and recognized the Respondents, and on the claims by telegram and
letter, noted supra, and at meetings with representatives of all of the Respondents,
that the latter claimed to have achieved recognition by Grundy.
With District 19 the recipient of the dues theretofore, its interest and connection
with checkoff up to this time are evident. Nor is such connection terminated
because the mine committee, which communicated with Grundy concerning continu-
ance of this very checkoff declared necessary in connection with District 19 benefits,
ostensibly acted on its own. The committee's acts and indeed those of its Local
Union 5881 were subject to control by District 19 as further confirmed by Doug Ross'
reference, supra, to further talks when the group received orders from District 19.
As we have and shall further see, all three organizations were jointly involved in
this entire situation. Indeed the Respondents in their brief, after referring to
6 Chicago Printing Pressmen's Union No 3, and Franklin Union No 4, International
Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Moore Laminating,
Inc.), 137 NLRB 729, cited in Local 542, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO (R S Noonan, Inc.), 142 NLRB 1132.
UMW OF AMERICA, POCKET LOCAL 7083, ETC. 253
District 19 and Local 5881, declare: "Local 7083 had essentially the same problem."
(Its officers' activities, all of them on or after December 27, are noted infra in con-
nection with the CB allegations .) Whatever advantages adhere to an "All for one and
one for all" relationship, such disadvantages as corollary joint liability must be
recognized. There was no demarcation between the threats involved in the mass
picketing and demonstrations, infra, and the violations which we are here considering,
any more than there is differentiation among the three Respondents in their answers
that a pending petition for representation involves the employees of Grundy. With
the inclusion of 5881 at this point, we can adopt what is later specifically noted
concerning the joint activities of District 19 and 7083. We shall see that in those
earlier activities, beginning in September, no more than here was there any specific
declaration or call for group action by the various labor organizations. But their
representatives met jointly and were present and at least did not attempt to stop
the conduct which concerns us and which continued into 1963. If now a new object
was added by the pickets, the association of the Respondents in the overt acts makes
them parties to the scheme or object particularly in view of the proof that such
object was theirs or specifically adopted by them.
I am not impressed by the testimony of Brown, former president, financial secretary,
and member of the mine committee of 5881, that after the Federal district court
order limiting picketing to one man , he "told (him)self" and picketed with a home-
made sign. As he put it, "Just about half of the Local Union of 5881 and 7083, too"
was involved in that district court proceeding . He testified that on January 23,
the only day that he picketed alone (he had joined in the earlier picketing), there were
30 to 40 other men some 40 to 50 feet from him; and that without prearrangement
to meet each morning, "whoever picked up the sign, he was the man" who picketed
that day. If ever incredible testimony warrants a finding "that the truth is the
opposite of his story," 7 such a finding is warranted by Brown's patently uncom-
fortable yet defiant testimony here and his explanation that the men gathered around
the fire about 6:30 on these bitterly could mornings "to talk over fishing and hunting if
it ever gets warm enough." More directly persuasive than Brown's testimony
concerning individual and spontaneous activity are his own prominence as a
former member of the policy committee and in negotiating a national contract, and
the presence at the picket line of officers as well as rank-and-file members of the
various Respondents.
Nor should we slight the testimony that Madewell, District 19's representative
assigned to the southern Tennessee area, in January solicited membership of Buddy
Layne and Green and asked them to honor the picket line, and that Raybern Tate
signed a union card in Madewell's home. This testimony further indicates District 19's
connection with and responsibility for the picketing. (I have not overlooked Made-
well's version.)
Beyond the evidence from which the connection of these various labor organizations
is inferred, we have also explicit proof of such connection. We recall that the em-
ployees at the # 11 mine who insisted in November and December that their dues be
checked off to District 19 were members of Local 5881. (We shall soon note that
members of 7083 had a similar interest.) The telegram of October 22 and the letter
of November 21 clearly indicate that District 19 was seeking to negotiate with Grundy:
in short, that District 19 spoke for 5881 . Further, the very form of the original
petition for election filed with the Board, which referred to Gray's Creek, the
employees there being members of 5881 and 7083 (later amended to cover #I I mine
only as an appropriate unit ), indicates that the various Respondents functioned jointly
and were in that manner represented by UMW.
The picketing was in the interest of and directed by the Respondent Unions, and
was engaged in by them as a joint venture, each being concerned with the interests
of the other or with the same interests . Each acquiesced in, condoned, and ratified
the acts of the pickets. The common aspect can also be seen in such testimony as
Turnblazer's that District 19 told employees to work after contracts expired. Here
again there was no apparent hesitancy by one Respondent to perform the functions of
the others. If the locals would normally tell their members whether to remain on
the job, such a function could be and was performed by District 19. More than
a joint venture, this approached an alter ego situation, one entity acting in lieu of
another. That this was so is confirmed in the testimony of both sides as they referred
to "union representatives" and "meetings between United Mine Workers" and the
Operators' Association. It is clear that in addition to District 19 representatives,
"officials of each local in the area" attended each of the four negotiation meetings
with the Association.
7 Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F. 2d 265, 269 (C.A. 2).
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While the presence of various representatives may not itself prove a joint object
and joint responsibility; and a single joint appearance with pickets may not prove
these either; the series of such events and the indiscriminate reference to the various
Respondents does prove that all of them were here engaged in a joint venture to
compel recognition of the UMW and District 19. (Separate references to evidence
which indicates joint responsibility are scattered through this and the next subsection
since the evidence was developed in several connections and is more closely related
to some aspects than to others.) If among the mass of pickets, particularly 7083
men as the Respondents' brief argues, there were some who had a similar grievance
against other operators, they gave every appearance of making common cause
with those who, as we have seen, were unlawfully picketing Grundy.
B. The alleged violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
Coming to the other aspect of the double-edged picketing, we find that it cut
sharply on the CB side as well as on the CP. Whatever the involvement of Local
5881, it is not charged herein with CB violation. (The General Counsel explained
that 20 contempt proceedings had been brought against 5881, based on prior proceed-
ings.) Although the testimony was laboriously received, a backward glance from the
eminence of its totality permits a clear and ready judgment and finding of the facts.
Enough of the testimony will be cited to indicate a basis for the findings made.
Grundy's general superintendent, Poore, testified credibly concerning various
picketing incidents, and his testimony was confirmed by other witnesses The mass
of testimony from both sides proves certain facts. At approximately 6:30 a.m. on
September 12, 1962 (this being the beginning of the workday), some 30 pickets
were gathered at the access road to the mines. Approximately 15 of these were
whittling on 2-foot sticks with 41/z- to 5-inch blade knives. Shrum, the president
of 5881, was among them and told Poore that the pickets would permit entry to the
# 11 mechanical mine but that they would not let anyone go in to work at the small
mines since those jobs belonged to the men in the Palmer area. Poore at this time
recognized, among those present and close by, District 19's Representatives Made-
well and Edwin Ross and various officers and committeemen of Local 5881.
(Madewell on September 17 similarly said that the jobs were for Palmer men )
Aside from the whipcracking of a heavy V-belt by Sissom, a member of 5881 and
one of the pickets, this deployment of some 15 whittlers with knives and sticks
among 30 pickets was no heroic action, however heroic and beloved the whittler in
earlier days as Mark Sullivan tells us 8 Whittling loses the gently caressing aspects
of local custom when engaged in by such a number of pickets gathered at the road
leading to the place of work. (Of the testimony concerning whittling pickets, it
should suffice to note mention of approximately 150 whittlers at this locale 3 weeks
later.) Whether the blades were 31/z or 5 inches long, and the sticks 1 foot or 3,
the menacing potential was all too evident. I find here a tendency to interfere with
concerted activities and the right to refrain from such activities.
When Poore arrived at the access road on the morning of October 3 (he testified
that there were no interruptions in the picketing from September 12 to February 22,
although it was limited to the small mines from October 12 until the Christmas
vacation, #I 1 being operated, and that the picketing had continued to the time of
the hearing), there were about 150 pickets and the road was blocked by Shrum's
car across it. About 20 men, including some half dozen foremen, were there in
workclothes intending or ready to go to work Addressing Fulls, vice president of
5881, Poore "asked to get in," but Fults replied that "nobody was going to get to
the mines." After more discussion and a vain attempt by Poore to approach the
mines by another route which could not be traversed, Shrum's car was pushed aside
by the pickets at his direction that two be passed through, and the pickets moved
and permitted Poore and one of his foremen to drive to the mines None of the
rank-and-file employees got to the mines. At this time, Madewell, District 19's area
representative, was 15 to 20 feet from the principals directly involved. Madewell
personally refused to let another employee go down that day to work as watchman.
His authority and responsibility may further be seen in the testimony by a foreman
that several times, when he was barred from approaching the mines, he asked for
Madewell, who usually let him pass
That afternoon about 100 pickets at the access road opened up and permitted
Poore to drive through, taking keys to the night watchman. In this group Poore
recognized Shrum and Fults, and 5881 Committeemen Magourik and Doug Ross.
On his return, Poore was stopped by about 20 pickets across the road, their arms
8 "Our Times," vol. 3, p 297
UMW OF AMERICA, POCKET LOCAL 7083, ETC. 255
interlocked, Shrum standing about 15 feet away on the road and holding a 3-foot
stick. After a brief conversation, Poore was allowed to pass.
With respect to that morning's events, Madewell was seen about 150 feet off
before he was placed some 15 to 20 feet away. In addition to what has already been
noted concerning Shrum and Fults and the general aspect of a joint venture here,
it is not essential to a finding of District 19 that it be shown that Madewell heard
the various remarks on October 3. Responsibility attaches to the acts and words
of rank-and-file pickets even if these be without direct authorization. If it be argued
that this extends liability for the acts of a conglomerate mass, the answer is that the
organizations which called or joined in the strike and supported it are responsible
for that mass
The absence of clear demarcation between the CP and the CB aspects is pointed
up by the fact that when Poore arrived at the access road on the morning of Decem-
ber 27 and was blocked by some 200 pickets in the road, Fults, who had been active
among the pickets since September, told him that the men were striking because the
Company had refused to collect their dues. On this day Shrum directed that they
let Poore go through, declaring that the others would be stopped "if we have to
kill them." Among those present was Nunley, who had replaced Magourik as a
committeeman for 5881. (There is reliable testimony that Nunley had on October
3 limited access to the mines, and that Madewell supported this.)
That same morning, Borne, vice president of 71083, was identified as present when
several employees were prevented by pickets from going to work, Fults telling them
that they could go no further, and Magourik swearing and threatening. Also on the
picket line, on December 31, Clifford Tate, the treasurer of 7083, allegedly told
truckdrivers to honor the picket line or they would not get any more hauls. Tate
held his hand in his pocket on the butt of a pistol
Parmley, 7083's financial secretary and identified as among the pickets and when
violence was attempted on January 2, was among a large group of pickets on
February 22 at the Pocket Road, before one reaches the access road to the Gray's
Creek mines. The highway patrol opened a way through the pickets for Poore and
two others with him. On their emergence about an hour later, the three were stopped
by approximately 250 men who came running from a union building nearby and a
gasoline station. Armed with rifles, the three got out of their automobiles and
slowly backed away pointing the guns at the mob of pickets who advanced toward
them with shouts, Parmley urging the pickets to "get" the three. Danger was averted
with the arrival again of the highway patrol, who took the rifles from the three and
charged them with felonious assault. The pickets then opened the end gates of the
trucks, spilling the coal. The criminal proceeding, we were informed, was pending
at the time of the hearing. Whatever its outcome, the mass picketing, threatening
aspect, and interference by the pickets are clear. Such incidents are so flagrant as
to warrant a finding that they would come to the attention and tend to prevent a
return to work of employees in the picketing group and those who had not joined
with them.9
According to Parmley, he was told about the incident at the union hall nearby and
"went around" to where the trucks had been stopped While he testified that 7083
had not authorized him to picket, no more than its other officers did he attempt to
prevent or limit the picketing. The general status of these and other representatives
of the various Respondents and their positions of apparent leadership and respon-
sibility are also indicated by the fact that they were on the union team which nego-
tiated with the Coal Operators Association That this was a joint representation
was not questioned.
Madewell had his own version concerning various incidents. He referred to
Sissom as "a one man picket line" when the picketing commenced in September.
When Sissom's activity was called to his attention, on September 4 (this was a week
before the picketing alleged in the complaint), Madewell informed his superiors at
District 19, and was told to do everything to get the picket line off and the mine
back to work. (Whether the first portion, withdrawal of the picket line, depended
on getting the mine back to work was not made clear at this point in his testimony.)
With his colleague, Edwin Ross, and Shrum of 5881, Madewell went to Sissom's
home, where the latter agreed not to picket the next morning, the three promising to do
what they could to assure his rights.
Concerning the picketing with which we are more immediately concerned and
which began on September 12, Madewell, whose jurisdiction includes 5881 and
7083, testified to his similar report to and instructions from District 19, and his
6 Local 140, United Furniture Workers of America, CIO, et al (Brooklyn Sprang Corpo-
ration and Lorraine Fibre Mill, Inc.), 113 NLRB 815, 822.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
efforts on the picket line at various times to get the men back to work. From
Madewell 's account , it would appear that on the occasions when he was seen among
the mass of pickets, he was there only to speak to them and to get them back to
work, a task which he was unable to accomplish "for quite a bit ." If his presence
gave the impression of support for the pickets, he said nothing to the contrary to
Grundy supervisors or any employees who wanted to go to work. (We have noted,
supra, several instances of his support .) I do not credit Madewell's testimony that
on September 17 he told Foreman Flynn that there had been a misunderstanding
and that he was trying to get the men back to work. I credit Flynn's testimony that
Madewell said that he was in sympathy with the pickets and that the work was
stopped until the matter was straightened out. Since 5881 is not a respondent
in the instant CB proceeding , we need not determine whether, aside from the
activities and presence of Shrum and Fults, its president and vice president , respec-
tively, it is liable for the acts of its committeemen,'° Magourik , Doug Ross, and
Nunley and Sissom, a rank-and-file member . The two officers certainly were joined
by and acted with and in the presence of responsible representatives of District 19 and
7083. We recall that Madewell and Edwin Ross of District 19 were present on
September 12 while Sissom cracked the broken V-belt. These two district representa-
tives were not only strangely ineffective if they told the men to go to work and not to
interfere with others , but they were present on several occasions when interference
occurred and at such times took no effective steps to prevent it . (With respect
to the picketing after December 26, their supervisor , Turnblazer , testified that he
told the men to obey all court orders but did not tell them to return to work or
not to picket.)
Nor can 7083 avoid the effect of its officers' activities . While some of these
activities are directly spelled out , I find that Borne, by his silence and failure to object
although among the group , at least condoned Fulls' and Magourik's conduct on the
picket line on December 27. While this would not constitute Fults and Magourik
agents for all of whose acts 7083 would be liable, the endorsement indicated by
Borne's presence is found to be such that it could be carried forth, in the eyes of both
picketing and nonpicketing employees , to all of Fults ' and Magourik 's acts on the
picket line.
In addition , Howell, 7083 's president , testified that he picketed at various times.
Concerning December 27 , he declared that the Pocket mines employees refused to
work because their dues had not been checked off and they "had no contract"
with Grundy 's attorney , to whom they were referred . He testified that he was
picketing for his own individual rights in the Pocket , not the Gray 's Creek mines;
he was below the access road to Gray's Creek , where the other pickets parked their
cars; sometimes he and others sat in the car, and at other times they would build
and stand over a fire on land which abutted on the south side of the access road,
where the Gray's Creek pickets were . (We recall Brown 's story about the men
gathering around the fire. ) Whatever Howell 's alleged purpose in picketing,
it was the same as that of the other employees , whether of the Pocket or Gray's
Creek mines, who wanted dues checked off to District 19. Picketing as they did in
the area for the same purpose and at the same time, their activity was unified
even if it was first prompted by the refusal of different operators to check off dues to
District 19. With all of the reliable testimony which indicates that members of both
locals and representatives of all of the respondents were at various times on and
immediately next to the access road, I do not credit Parmley's testimony that they
were separate and that 5881 men (after he had testified that they were on the access
road) were "over on (adjoining ) property."
The UMW 's concern over and responsibilty for employees ' acts, as expressed by
Turnblazer in November , when he urged that they remain at work, and in his
telegrams on February 22, 1963, to the presidents of various locals, were no less
whether negotiations were pending or when they fell through . These were joint
situations and acts whose purpose reflected mutual and joint interests ; and the
evidence received in connection with the CP allegations adds to the proof considered
at this point . Officers of the several Respondents participated at various times in this
common cause . The Unions cannot be heard to say that their representatives went
beyond actual authorization . If picketing was not authorized, there has been no
disavowal by action against the officers who themselves participated or against the
rank-and -file members.
10 With respect to liability based on the presence of grievance committeemen , an addi-
tional basis for the CP findings, see United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, and
Lodge No. 377 2, etc (Vulcan - Csncinnati, Inc), 137 NLRB 95, 97.
UMW OF AMERICA, POCKET LOCAL 7083, ETC. 257
On the issue of the responsibility for the acts of union officers, both sides have cited
Sunset Line and Twine." That case recognizes the general proposition of liability for
the acts of those responsible for an organization 's guidance and for acts in furtherance
of their general purposes. It was there also inferred that a vice president was
authorized to assist in the conduct of a strike. As in Sunset Line and Twine, where the
respondents in a joint answer indicated their common interest, District 19 and 7083
here in identical answers set forth that since September 1962 they engaged in negotia-
tions with Grundy and that the same allegedly valid petition for representation has
been filed; and we recall as has been noted, supra, that the negotiations were in fact
carried on by the UMW, without differentiation among District 19, 7083, and 5881.
That District 19 "identified itself" with the locals here can be seen in the frequent
presence of Madewell on the picket line, which paralled that of the union's regional
director in Sunset Line and Twine. The interests and desires of the Respondents as
expressly declared and the acts of the pickets are here sufficiently intertwined to
show joint responsibility. In addition to the fact that the picketing was conducted
with the imprimatur of District 19, which paid strike benefits, the conduct noted
occurred in the presence of agents of District 19 and Local 7083 (and 5881), and was
not repudiated by them; each is thus responsible.12
Further, not only were responsible officials of the various Respondents present,
but if on a given occasion one of these organizations was not directly represented,
the leadership responsibility variously established carries over to such other occa-
sion which was part of the same general pattern and course of conduct; it con-
formed to the established pattern.13 The finding of common interest and respon-
sibility is additionally supported by the testimony that upon receipt of the CB
charges against District 19 and 7083 (understandably confused with and referred to
by Turnblazer as 5881) on October 6, officers of the three organizations met and
the local representatives were "prevailed upon" to request their members to go back
to work. If District 19 never authorized the men to strike or picket, there is no
evidence that it attempted to discipline the locals, their officers or members, al-
though it did recognize an obligation to do so as Turnblazer declared in his letter
of January 4 that District 19 did not condone unlawful activity and would "do all
in [its] power to see that [Grundy's] employees remain peaceful and not engage
in unlawful activity."
Other occasions than those herein cited, when supervisors or rank-and-file em-
ployees were threatened and prevented from going down to the mines by pickets in
the presence of representatives of District 19 and 7083 and certainly as part of the
picketing conducted and ratified by these organizations, need not be detailed; there
were such occasions, as the record indicates, and I so find, discrediting the denials
of interference. Without now engaging in a "fragment by fragment" analysis of
other instances and the versions of various witnesses (all of the instances and
versions have been considered), I find that on September 12 and numerous times
thereafter there were picketing and mass support thereof to the extent of as many as
500 to 600 men on the road to the mines , with threats to employees and supervisors,
who were thus prevented from going to work; that Grundy tried to operate these
mines as late as February 22, but that the small mines were last operated on Feb-
ruary 20, and none has been operated since February 22; that responsible agents of
District 19 and Local 7083 supported the pickets; and that those organizations
engaged in and are liable for such conduct.14
The reference here and elsewhere to mass picketing is not intended to reflect on
any question of compliance on the Federal court order which limited the picket line
to one man . Borne, vice president of 7083, testified that he picketed 35 or 40 times,
and that most of the time be sat in his car or stood around the fire. Whatever the
bearing on the court order, the minatory aspect and the admitted picketing are clear.
We have already noted Brown's effort to show that the labor organizations were
not responsible for the picketing and that the men were not in fact picketing or
" International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, C LO. (Sunset Line and
Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487
13 United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, and Lodge No 2772, etc (Vulcan-
Cincinnati, Inc) supra, citing Local 5881, United Mine Workers of America (Grundy
Mining Company), 130 NLRB 1181.
131nternational Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, etc, Local 5-426, et at. (TV. T
Smith Lumber Company), 116 NLRB 507, 509.
14Local 28, International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, AFL-CIO; et at
(Ingram Barge Company), 136 NLRB 1175, 1189.
734-070-64-vol. 145-18
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threatening, in his testimony concerning their gathering to discuss hunting and fishing
in the spring. As significant as what was testified to was what was left unsaid, as
when Fults testified to explain why he and others were in the area, "Well, we was
trying to get our jobs back."
III. TEIE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section II, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Grundy described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in and are engaged in certain
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondents, by picketing and causing Grundy to be
picketed, an object thereof being to force or require Grundy to recognize and bargain
with District 19 as the representative of Grundy's employees although District 19
was not then certified as the representative of said employees, and although no valid
petition under Section 9(c) of the Act had been filed within a reasonable period of
time from the commencement of the picketing, violated Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the
Act. I shall therefore recommend that they cease and desist therefrom.
It has been further found that the Respondents District 19 and Local 7083, by
mass picketing and preventing employees from going to work, and by threatening
employees if they performed work for Grundy, violated Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the
Act. I shall therefore recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and from
any like or related conduct.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. District 19, Local 7083, and Local 5881 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By picketing and causing Grundy to be picketed without a petition under
Section 9(c) being effectively filed within a reasonable period of time, Respondents
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the
Act
3. By mass picketing and preventing employees from going to work, and by
threatening employees if they performed work for Grundy, thereby restraining and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the act,
the Respondents District 19 and Local 7083 engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that:
A. The Respondents District 19 and Local 7083 (also known as Pocket Local
7083), their officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, Grundy Mining Company, where an
object thereof is forcing or requiring it to recognize or bargain with the Respondents
as the representatives of its employees in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (C) of the
Act.
(b) Engaging in mass picketing, preventing employees from going to work, or
threatening them if they perform work for Grundy, in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
UMW OF AMERICA , POCKET LOCAL 7083, ETC. 259
(a) Post in conspicuous places in their respective business offices, meeting balls,
and places where notices to their members are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notices marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B." 15 Copies of said notices, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall , after being duly
signed by official representatives of the respective Respondents , be posted by these
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region signed copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A," for posting by Local 5881 and Grundy.
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondents , as indicated, be forthwith returned
to said Regional Director for such posting.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , in writing , within 20 days
from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.16
B. The Respondent Palmer Local 5881 , its officers , representatives , agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from picketing , or causing to be picketed , Grundy Mining
Company, where an object thereof is forcing or requiring it to recognize or
bargain with the Respondents as the representatives of its employees in violation
of Section 8 (b) (7) (C ) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, meeting halls, and places
where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notices
marked "Appendix A" and "Appendix B." 17 Copies of said notices , to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , shall , after being duly signed by
official representatives of the respective Respondents , be posted by this Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region signed copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B," for posting by District 19, Local 7083, and
Grundy Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent , as indicated, be
forthwith returned to said Regional Director for such posting.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , in writing , within 20 days
from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.18
"If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "A Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice If the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "A Decree of
the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "A Decision and
Order."
"If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith
17 See footnote 15, supra
18 See footnote 16, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, you are hereby notified that:
WE WILL NOT picket , or cause to be picketed , Grundy Mining Company, where
an object thereof is to force or require it to recognize or bargain with us or
any other labor organization as the representatives of its employees in violation
of Section 8(b) (7) (C ) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT engage in mass picketing, prevent employees from going to
work , or threaten them if they perform work for Grundy Mining Company.
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
DISTRICT 19 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
LOCAL #7083 UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta 23, Georgia, Telephone
No. Trinity 6-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES , MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, you are hereby notified that:
WE WILL NOT picket, or cause to be picketed , Grundy Mining Company, where
an object thereof is to force or require it to recognize or bargain with us or any
other labor organization as the representatives of its employees in violation of
Section 8(b) (7) (C ) of the Act.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA , PALMER LOCAL 5881,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 528
Peachtree -Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., Atlanta 23, Georgia , Telephone
No. Trinity 6-3311 , Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. and Local 412, Utility Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-
1742. December 4, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
On March 28, 1951, the Board issued a Certification of Representa-
tives in the above-entitled proceeding, in which CIO-Local Industrial
Union, Public Service Employees Local 1368, was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative for the employees of the Wis-
i The caption is hereby amended to reflect the current name of the Petitioner . See foot-
note 5, below. International Paper Company, Long-Bell Division, Confiner Branch,
143 NLRB 1192.
145 NLRB No. 29.