United Automobile, Aircraft, Etc., Local No. 1198

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1349 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC., LOCAL NO. 1198 1349'
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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, 745 Fifth
Avenue , New York, New York, Telephone No. 751-5500 , if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Work -
ers of America , AFL-CIO , and its Local Union No . 1198 and
American Metal Products Company (Tennessee Division)..
Case No. 26-CB-180. May 5, 194
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 12, 1964, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
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 Brown].
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 Ex-
aminer's Decision, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the en-
tire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
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 the Respondents, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,.
AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 1198, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall :
1. Cease and desist from : restraining or coercing employees of
American Metal Products Company (Tennessee Division) in the ex-
1 The Respondents have excepted to the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner.
It Is the Board 's established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolu-
tions with respect to credibility ' unless, as is not the case here , the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard
Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
146 NLRB No. 150.
_1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-ercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act by obstructing
free access of employees, supervisors, or others to the Company's prop-
erty, by damaging or impeding the passage of motor vehicles, or in any
-other way interfering with full and unimpeded access between the
-public way and company property, or by damaging property or in-
juring persons located in or on company property.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found to be neces-
sary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in conspicuous places in the union hall in Union City, Ten-
nessee, including all places where notices to members are customarily
-posted, copies of the attached notice to the Trial Examiner's Decision
:marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region shall, after being duly
-signed by official representatives of the Respondent Unions, be posted
by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained
by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable
-steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Directoi for the Twenty-sixth Region
-.signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by American Metal
-Products Company (Tennessee Division), if it be willing, in places
where notices to its employees -are customarily posted. Copies of said
-notice to be furnished by the said Regional Director shall, after being
-duly signed by Respondents as above indicated, be forthwith returned
to the Regional Director for his transmittal to the Employer in ac-
,cordance with the above.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
'been taken to comply herewith.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , hereinafter referred to as the "Act." The underlying charge was filed
February 15 , 1962, by the above-indicated Charging Party , hereinafter sometimes
referred to as the "Company ," with due service on the above -indicated Respondents;
The complaint was issued March 6 , 1962 , by the Regional Director for the Board's
Twenty-sixth Region , acting for the General Counsel of the Board.
The complaint alleged and the duly filed answer of Respondents denied the com-
mission of unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act by
various instances of alleged misconduct in the course of a strike against the Company
in the period commencing in November 1961 and ending in January 1962.
The hearing was held before Trial Examiner William J . Brown on April 24, 1962,
and, after recess for enforcement of subpenas , resumed October 29, 1963, and ended
October 31, 1963. At the hearing all parties appeared by counsel as above noted
and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel 's case the Respondents moved to dismiss
the complaint ; the motion was granted with respect to Section 7(f), relating to
alleged coercion directed against a prospective employee , and denied as to the re-
mainder of the complaint . Renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence it is dis-
posed of in accordance with the findings and conclusions herein.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC., LOCAL NO. 1198 1351
Subsequent to the close of the hearing briefs were received from all parties and
have been fully considered. Upon the basis of the entire record herein I and on the
basis of my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
I find , in accordance with the pleadings and evidence herein , that the Company is a
Michigan corporation and is engaged at its plant in Union City, Tennessee, and at
other plants in the manufacture and sale of automotive parts. During the 12-month!
period preceding issuance of the complaint herein , the Company shipped from the
Union City plant finished products having a value in excess of $50 ,000 and destined'
to points outside the State of Tennessee . The Company is engaged in commerce
within the purview of the Act and the policies of the Act would be effectuated by the
exercise of jurisdiction in this proceeding.
II. THE RESPONDENTS AS LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The pleadings and the evidence establish , and I find, that United Automobile,.
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the "International " and its Local Union No. 1198, herein-
after sometimes referred to as the "Local ," are labor organizations within the purview-
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction to the issues
As a result of consent-election proceedings under the Act, the International was,
certified in 1952 as the collective-bargaining representative of the Company's produc-
tion and maintenance employees. The Local was established sometime prior to the'
end of 1955. In that year C. E. Strickland became an international representative in
the employ of the International. He was assigned to assist, under the general direc-
tion of E. T. Michael, regional director of the International's Division Eight, the
Local and several other local affiliates of the International in their organizational and
bargaining objectives. Under date of July 24, 1961, the International and the Local
transmitted to the Company a single notice of intent to terminate the existing agree-
ment and a request for meetings to discuss terms and conditions of a new agreement.
The notice was signed by Strickland for the International and by Leroy Bradley,
president of the Local. It also bore the signed approval of Regional Director
Michael.
Collective-bargaining meetings commenced on or about August 23, 1961. On
October 9, 1961, the Company submitted its proposals which included a 3-year term
without wage stepups or an escalator clause, elimination of seniority as a factor in,
promotions, and reduction in the number of the Unions' bargaining committee. The
company proposals also included the hiring of female help on' a separate seniority
list at rates below the male rate and a clause providing for the hiring of colored'
workers. At that time there were no female or colored employees in the unit.
Strickland attended all save one of the collective-bargaining meetings and was the
principal spokesman for the Unions (except for one meeting at which the Unions'-
attorney, Goerlich, took over this role). On November 13, 1961, the International's.
president authorized strike action against the Company, the authorization to be used'
at the discretion of Michael. On November 14 the strike commenced and was 100'
percent effective until sometime in January 1962 when it was formally abandoned
by written communication delivered to the Company's Plant Manager Luther and
signed by Strickland and Bradley.
The issues herein relate to events occurring in the neighborhood of the plant gate
during the course of the strike and the responsibility of the Unions for any untoward
consequences thereof.
I General Counsel 's Motion To Correct Record in certain specified particulars, copies of
which were served on the other parties on January 3, 1964 , Is hereby granted, and the
transcript is ordered amended accordingly . The record includes duplicate copies of
General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 1 to 4 consisting of formal pleadings and aerial photo-
graphs of the vicinity of the company property ; these duplicates were supplied by the
General Counsel upon notice to all parties.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sturdivant, vice president of the Local, was chairman of the picket line program
having been appointed to that post by the executive board of the Local. He did
not himself do picket duty but had overall responsibility to see to it that the full
complement of pickets were performing their patrol duty at all assigned times. The
pickets regularly assigned to duty patrolled 1 hour at a time, i.e., 1 hour on and
1 hour off throughout the plant's 8-hour shift. Pickets wore aprons bearing the
indicia of the Unions' protest. At all times that picketing was conducted there were
six pickets assigned to the main gate and four assigned to the truck gate. Thus, at
the time of changing pickets, there would be 20 pickets in the gate area. There were
frequent occasions when large numbers of strikers, though not formally on the picket
schedule, congregated in the area of the plant gate.
The Company's plant is located on Reelfoot Avenue in the southern reaches of
Union City. The main gate gives access to a driveway which curves gently away
from Reelfoot in a generally southern direction to the employees' parking lot abutting
the east end of the plant building about 150 to 250 feet back from Reelfoot Avenue.
There is a guardhouse inside the gate and on the edge of this driveway which during
the course of the strike was moved from a point near where the driveway blends into
the parking area adjacent to the building some considerable distance north along the
driveway to a point nearer to Reelfoot Avenue and in fact just a short distance south
of the avenue inside the plant enclosure.2
Running into Reelfoot from the north is Urey Street. The union hall is located
on Urey Street about 150 feet back from the northern edge of Reelfoot Avenue.
Between the union hall and Reelfoot Avenue there is a Cities Service gas station and
an adjoining parking lot which fronts on Urey and Reelfoot. The Union made
arrangements for its members to park their cars on the parking lot during the period
in question.
The Local established several committees for the coordination of activities during
the strike. Of the 22 local union members who are listed on General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 17 as serving as chairmen or members of those committees only 1, Ray
Ashley, chairman of the Recreation Committee, appears to have figured personally
in the events hereinafter detailed.
B. Positions of the parties
The General Counsel's complaint alleges several instances of conduct on the part
of strikers amounting to restraint and coercion of employees. The instances litigated
include the following: (I) a November 20, 1961, incident involving the stopping of
a car transporting the company nurse, Mrs. Gertrude Grooms, to work; (2) a No-
vember 21, 1961, incident wherein the car of company engineer-trainee, Bobby Lyell,
was prevented from entering the plant; 3 (3) a January 3, 1962, incident in which
the automobile of Parry Cartwright, general foreman, was overturned by strikers in
the area of the plant gate as it sought to enter; (4) an incident occurring on January
8, 1962, when the truck of William Nailing, a lumber contractor, was struck by
rocks as it entered at the plant gate; and (5) several instances of force directed to
motor vehicles on.the morning of January 17, 1962, as they sought to enter the
plant gate, the vehicles being hereinafter referred to as the Volkswagen (operated
by a person whose -identity is not revealed in the record), the Southern Fabricating
truck, an otherwise unidentified red pickup truck, and the automobile of a company
official, Barter.
The General Counsel contends that the incidents alleged in the complaint and
portrayed by his witnesses are established by credible testimony and that Respond-
ents' witnesses accounts either do not effectively rebut evidence in support of the
complaint or are inherently incredible. In the case of the Cartwright car over-
turning, General Counsel points to Respondents' failure to call to the stand any of
2The moving of the guardhouse to a point nearer to the plant gate apparently was
completed on January 8, 1962.
3 Lyell's direct examination developed that on a Tuesday "About two or three weeks after
the strike started," the plant gate was blocked by 20 or 30 people some of whom had
picket signs, one of whom "I didn't know who he was or who he represented" told him
that the "union people or the people there at the gate" would not let office personnel
enter . On Respondents' motion this testimony was stricken. Subsequently the General
Counsel established by the credible testimony of Plant Manager Luther that the Lyell
incident occurred on November 21. I find concerning the Lyell incident, that the evidence
indicates that Lyell was induced to desist from attempting to enter by some unidentified
person, apparently not connected with the Unions, who informed Lyell of what he felt
the Unions Intended. I adhere to my ruling striking Lyell 's testimony.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC., LOCAL NO. 1198 1353
the strikers doing picket duty at the time of the incident. As to the responsibility
of the Respondent Unions for the acts and incidents on or about the picket line,
the General Counsel points to the joint involvement of the International and the'
Local in the bargaining and in the calling and supervision of the strike, to the pay-
ment of benefits to strikers on the basis of participation in the strike, and to the ac-
tivity of Strickland who, regularly reporting to Michael on developments, advised.
and consulted with the Local and its committees and with the strikers as to their
conduct.
The Charging Party's position essentially parallels that of the General Counsel with
additional emphasis placed on certain factors tending to involve the International in
any liability attached to picket line misconduct. Thus the Charging Party's brief
emphasizes, in addition to Strickland's active involvement in the bargaining and con-
duct of the strike, the provisions of the International 's constitution which, among
other items, authorize the International to terminate authorized strike action when
such course is deemed unwise and to cut off assistance for disobedience of a termina-
tion order. The Charging Party also emphasized that the substantial strike benefits,
paid by the International, amounting to some $297,000,, establishes, since no striker
was refused or terminated as to benefits for refusal to participate in the strike, the
International 's ratification of the strikers conduct in toto.
Respondents, for their part, contend that the credible evidence fails to indicate
anything other than the normal excitement of strikers engaged in pursuit of their
right to strike in protest against their Employer's proposed reductions in their em-
ployment benefits . Respondent deny responsibility for any instances of minor mis-
conduct as may have occurred on the picket lines or about the plant gate.
C. Occurrences about the plant gate
1. The Grooms incident of November 20: Gertrude Grooms, a registered indus-
trial nurse employed by the Company, was on her vacation when the strike com-
menced. On the morning of Monday, November 20, she was driven to work by her
husband. As their car turned into the main gate the car was surrounded on three
sides by a group of 25 or 30 men (none of whom she recalled as wearing aprons)
so that it was impossible to proceed . Thereupon , James Bass, chairman of the
Local's bargaining committee, approached her husband's side of their car and asked
if Mrs. Grooms could walk in to her work. According to Mrs. Grooms, she replied
that she guessed she could whereupon.her husband interjected that she could not.
At that point, according to her account, Bass turned and walked away. She then
asked one of the boys in the area to call Strickland and when he approached the car,
after asking her if she could ride in with a foreman, informed her that the car could
not go in. Subsequently, Plant Manager Luther arrived and drove her into the plant
without further difficulty. During the period while she was stopped in the driveway.
there was a crowd of some 150 to 200 men across' on the north side of Reelfoot
Avenue and about the parking lot adjoining the Cities Service station. According to
Mrs. Grooms, both Bass and Strickland were quite courteous and polite but were
equally persistent.
Bass' account of the events of the morning is to the effect that he was in the
parking lot used by union members when he noticed the Grooms car stopped in the
plant driveway. He crossed Reelfoot Avenue and asked Mrs. Grooms if she was go-
ing to drive in or walk in. She made no reply whereupon Bass proceeded west to-
ward the truck entrance and, meeting Strickland en route, informed him that the
Grooms car was blocking entrance to the plant at the main gate and he was going to
straighten it out. He then, according to his testimony, returned to the Grooms car
and asked if they were going to go on or back out but received no answer. After
some time Plant Manager Luther drove up and Bass suggested to Mrs. Grooms that
she ride in with him, which she did.
Strickland's account of the incident is that he was walking east from his motel, the
Biltmore, located about 200 yards west of the plant gate and on the opposite (north)
side of Reelfoot Avenue , when he encountered Bass and almost immediately there-
after heard Mrs. Grooms scream out for him. She then asked Strickland as he
neared the car why she could not go in. Strickland told her that she could as far as
he was concerned ; he denied seeing any persons blocking her car from entering the
plant.
Mrs. Grooms impressed me as credible. I find that her account of the events of
the morning of November 20 concerning her entry to the plant is believable and I
accept her testimony. Her testimony establishes that she was effectively blocked by
strikers and persons acting in concert with them from entering the plant.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Carhvright car overturning and other incidents of January 3: Perry Cart-
wright, a general foreman for the Company, drove to work during the strike and,
prior to the morning of January 3, 1962, had been permitted to enter without difficulty
from the pickets on patrol duty at the plant gate. The Company and the Respond-
ents had been engaged in negotiation sessions in Memphis during the preceding day,
January 2, and ,the Unions were given to understand that the Company proposed re-
opening the plant at an early date. This information was communicated to one of
the picket captains back in Union City by telephone call from Local President Bradley
in Memphis. Since the parties were not near agreement in their proposals and
counterproposals for a new agreement, this information conveyed to the picket cap-
tain the message that the Company proposed reopening with female and colored em-
ployees in place of the strikers. Accordingly, when on the next morning an unusually
large crowd congregated in the area of the plant, it could logically be attributed to
this development in the negotiations.
On the morning in question Cartwright, accompanied by Traffic Manager James
Smith, approached the plant gate only to find it blocked .by a group of 50 to 60 men
who prevented his entrance. Although Cartwright did not notice any aprons, he
recognized strikers Doughten, Andrews, Clarence and Cecil Stacks, and Ray Dan
Ashley. Smith testified that some in the group wore picket aprons. Ashley was a
picket captain throughout the period of the strike.
Discretion appearing .the better part of valor, Cartwright backed off into Reelfoot
Avenue and continued further west some 175 yards to a Ford Motor parking lot
where he stood until he noted the Company's station wagon entering the gate he had
just left. Cartwright returned and sought to enter the plant, his car being followed
by that of Tommy Brown, shipping and receiving foreman, who had experienced dif-
ficulties at the gate and had also backed off and proceeded to the Ford Motor lot. As
they reentered the plant gate Cartwright's car was seized and overturned. Cart-
wright and Smith crawled out, uninjured, and drove away with Tommy Brown.
The evidence indicates that police were in the area and in fact were apparently in
the process of seeking the help of union officials in dispersing the unusually large
crowd which was milling about and shouting their protests against the apparent threat
of reopening with colored and female help. Bradley and Strickland assisted in right-
ing the Cartwright car.
Strikers James Doughten, Gaylon Williams, Clarence and Cecil Stacks, and Picket
Captain Ray Dan Ashley were, following a trial upon their plea of not guilty, con-
victed of the offense of overturning the car. Union officials made their own inquiry
as to the identity of those responsible for the incident but received no admissions
of guilt. Tommy Brown testified that he observed the five who were subsequently
convicted as among the crowd engaged in overturning the Cartwright car on that
morning and Smith testified that he recognized Doughten in the group. In addition,
Bryon Ashe, manufacturing superintendent for the Company, testified that after he
and Luther had entered in the station wagon referred to above and had proceeded
some 200 feet into the driveway they observed the overturning of the Cartwright car
and heard Ashley standing near it and shouting to Ashe-"Ashe, what do you think
of that?"
Although Ashley, Cecil Stacks, and Williams denied involvement in the overturn-
ing of the car I credit the testimony of Cartwright, Smith, and Ashe and particularly
that of Tommy Brown who, apparently a thorn in the side of the union supporters,
impressed me as determinedly truthful. I find that union pickets initially barred
the Cartwright car and subsequently aided and abetted the overturning of it.
Reference has been made above to difficulties experienced by Foreman Tommy
Brown prior to his meeting up with Cartwright and Smith at the Ford Motor lot on
the morning of January 3. According to Brown's account of events there was a
large crowd shouting and cursing as he first approached the gate. After he made his
turn and approached upon the driveway, striker James Doughten tore the aerial from
his car and hit the windshield with it several times whereupon Brown backed out
and drove to the Ford Motor lot. Brown testified in the subsequent criminal prosecu-
tion involving the overturning of the Cartwright car and according to his testimony
was subsequently threatened by four of the defendants. The testimony as to these
threats was rejected by the Trial Examiner in afar as it was urged as an indication
of the involvement of the four in the Cartwright car overturning but was allowed to
stand as evidence bearing on the allegations of paragraph 7(d) of the complaint
which alleges that on or about January 17 and 18 Doughten and Ashley, agents of
Respondents , threatened Brown because he refused to honor the picket line. The
evidence, however, preponderates in favor of the view that the threats against Brown
on or about those dates were based on his testimony against the defendants in the
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC., LOCAL NO. 1198 1355
criminal prosecution arising out of the Cartwright car episode of January 3 and ap-
parently not directed against Brown on the basis of his own attitude toward cross-
ing the picket line.
3. The Nailing Lumber incident of January 8, 1962: William Nailing, a Union
City lumber contractor, received a contract from the Company to move the guard-
house some distance from a point well in the driveway to a point nearer to Reelfoot
Avenue: The work of loosening the guardhouse from its foundations had been per-
formed sometime prior to January 8, 1962, and on that day Nalling's men proceeded
to the company premises to complete the work. When they reported to Nailing by
telephone that they were meeting difficulty in getting into the plant property, he left
his home and accompanied his crew on a second attempt to enter. As they neared
the gate a group of 40 to 50 men were milling about on the north edge of Reelfoot
Avenue and one of this group, whose name he later learned was Ashley, threw a
stone at the Nailing truck. This was followed by a number of stones. thrown by
others in the group.
At this time the picket line was maneuvering in such a way as to block the truck's
entrance through the gate. While the truck was thus imprisoned, one of the members
of the group blocking the truck's way, Roy Watson, came near the side of the truck
whereupon Nailing, according to his testimony, ordered the driver to stop completely
until the police chief, in the offing directed them to move. Watson, according to
Nailing, banged on the truck's extended rear view mirror, knocked it against the side,
of the.cab,.and;in the same:motion threw himself under the truck screaming that he
had been killed: Chief King had Watson removed and the truck proceeded in.
As they performed their work in removing the guardhouse the crowd in the plant
gate area cursed them and threw missiles of various types at Nailing's men as they
did their work. There is no indication of injury to Nailing or any of his men but,
according to Nailing, a steel ball bearing was propelled through the guardhouse
window at a terrific speed. No charges were placed against Nailing in connection
with the Watson incident.
Watson's account is that he was in the course of changing on to picket duty when
the Nailing truck was moving through the picket line. According to him the mirror
was wired with baling wire which hung down and caught his coat precipitating him
against the mirror and the side of the cab. According to Watson the truck never
stopped and if someone, had not rescued him he would have been run over.
Ashley..denied Nailing's testimony and testified that on the morning of January 8
he was in the vicinity of the plant only a few minutes, that he observed Nailing's men
doing their work on the guardhouse, and that all was peaceful.
Nailing impressed me as thoroughly credible; Watson and Ashley on the other
hand did not so impress me. I believe Nailing's account of the occurrences about the
plant gate area on the morning of January 8 and find that Nailing and his men and
equipment were treated as he testified.
4. The incidents of January 17: On the morning of January 17, 1962, plant guard
Reuben Kimball was on duty at his post in the guardhouse which by that time had
been moved to its new position nearer to Reelfoot Avenue. According to Kimball
he observed three instances where vehicles attempting to enter the plant property
were forcibly prevented from entrance.
This first incident related by Kimball involved a green Volkswagen passenger
vehicle which turned into the company gate sometime before 11 a.m. He testified that
a group including aproned pickets lifted the Volkswagen, turned it around and
pushed it across Reelfoot Avenue and north along Urey Street toward the union hall.
Kimball identified General Counsel's Exhibit No. 19 as a picture he took at the time
pursuant to orders to photograph any incidents of possible aid to the Company in the
dispute with the Union. It shows aproned pickets surrounding the Volkswagen.
The second incident of the morning of January 17 involved a truck of Southern
Fabricating (generally referred to as "Fab") Company which, according to Kimball,
was surrounded by a group at the plant gate. The group included Picket Captain
Ashley, according to Kimball, and the events included Ashley's attempt to induce
the driver to descend from his cab and a striker's removal of booming tongs from
the truck. These tongs were soon replaced by a policeman who was present ap-
parently throughout all the events of this morning. After the tongs were restored
to the truck the truck backed off and departed. As it left one of the strikers on the
north side of Reelfoot Avenue threw a brick which, according to Kimball, bounced
off the truck's cab. The Southern Fab truck and the crowd about it were also photo-
graphed by Kimball and he identified Ashley as one of those in the photograph.
About noontime on the 17th of January, Kimball observed a pickup truck stopped
from entering by a group at the plant gate some of whom were wearing picket aprons.
Kimball heard glass rattle at the time- and as the pickup truck left he observed
windows broken.
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ashley denies Kimball's identification of him in the picture of the Southern Fab
truck and testified he was not even in the area at the time.
I believe that Kimball's account accurately reflects the events of that morning and
I find in accordance with Kimball's testimony that Ashley and the pickets performed
the instances of restraint Kimball testified he observed.
Kimball also testified that, on or about January 17, 1962, 'he observed the Com-
pany's Personnel Director Barter, now deceased , stopped at the plant gate as he
sought to enter by aproned pickets who stood in front of his car and did not move
aside until Local President Bradley yelled from the vicinity of the union hall to
picketers to let Barter enter. I credit Kimball's testimony and find that the pickets,
including Ashley, stopped Barter's car and blocked its entrance to the plant until
instructions were received from Bradley to permit him to enter.
D. The responsibility of the labor organizations
The unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(b)(1) (A) of the Act are those
engaged in by a labor organization or its agents. And by virtue of Section 2(13)
of the Act actual authorization or subsequent ratification by one person of specific
acts of another person is not controlling on the question of whether the former is
accountable for the acts of the latter . In other words , one or both of the labor
organizations here charged may be held accountable for such acts as constituted
restraint and coercion of employees notwithstanding that the labor organization may
not have specifically directed the doing of the-particular acts or adopted them after
their commission.
The labor organizations were engaged in the conduct of a lawful strike and had the
statutory and constitutional right to cause the Company's premises to be picketed.
Individual employees, however, had at all times the right under the Act. to withdraw
from participation in the concerted activity involved in the strike. The evidence
indicates that, with the sole exception of the stopping of the Grooms car on Novem-
ber 20, there had been relatively little difficulty about access to the plant on the part
of supervisory and office personnel. After the company announcement in the course
of the bargaining session in Memphis on January 2 of its intention to reopen the plant,
the nature and temper of the conduct about the plant gate changed and there ensued
the series of restraints on January 3, 8, and 17 detailed above.
In appraising the issue of union responsibility for the acts on the picket line it
must be borne in mind that the strike here was that of both the International and
the Local. On the International level it had the specific approval and authority of
the International president . It was moreover conducted under the general direction
of the International 's Regional Director Michael and was under the immediate direc-
tion of International Representative Strickland and Local Vice President Sturdivant.
Strike benefits were paid to the strikers in the total of $297,210 as appears from the
official union publication "Solidarity" and the evidence indicates that it was a con-
dition of receipt of benefits that recipients participate in the strike by picketing or
performing other appropriate activities designated by the Local Union.
The Local Union's Vice President Sturdivant was chairman of the picket line and
appointed the captains , one of whom was Ray Dan Ashley who appears to have
played an active role as related above . Sturdivant advised and consulted with
Strickland on a daily basis. Strickland for his part was in Union City either partici-
pating in collective bargaining or advising and assisting the Local and the strikers in
their conduct of the strike a large number of days and appears to have been in
Union City on each of the days in which the items litigated herein occurred. When
in Union City he stayed at the Biltmore Motel which is located quite close to the
company plant and to the union ball . The evidence leaves little if any doubt but
that Strickland was the guiding genius behind the strikers ' movements and that the
conduct of the pickets and strikers was in accordance with his instructions.
The evidence detailed above reveals the active involvement of Ray Dan Ashley
in a number of the incidents of restraint and coercion about the plant gate . Ashley
was a picket captain and as such had regularly assigned tours of duty; the evidence
plainly reveals, however , that he was in the vicinity of the plant gate on occasions
when he was not on picket captain duty . He also was the chairman of the Recreation
Committee and as such authorized to draw on International Union funds for travel
expenses in connection with the conduct of the strike . There is no indication that
Ashley or any other participant in the acts of misconduct I find occurred were
disciplined or had their expense allowance or strike benefits eliminated or curtailed.
The officers of the Local and Strickland do appear to, have counseled the avoidance
of violence but they do not appear to have taken the one step in their power that
might have stopped or cut down on violence-the suspension of benefits.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, ETC., LOCAL NO. 1198 1357
In this connection an additional indication of International involvement is found
in the fact that Jasper Massri, representing the Community Services Department of
the International, which administers the strike benefits program, was in the Union
City area intermittently throughout the strike period. I also attach significance to.
the evidence indicating that a bondsman was available for purpose of release of
strikers charged with law violation and the clear indication that the financial arrange-
ments in this regard were effected by the International or its representatives.
As noted above I found the General Counsel's witness, Gertrude Grooms, to be
reliable and I credit her account of Strickland's activities in connection with the stop-
page of her car on November 20. This was the earliest alleged incident of miscon-
duct involved in this case and Strickland's role, which in effect indicated approval of
the conduct of those who blocked her free access, indicates to me the responsibility
of the International for the stoppage of her car on that day and also for the subse-
quent incidents progressively greater in their coercive character. See in this regard:
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America et al. (Bethlehem
Steel Company), 130 NLRB 412, at 424, footnote 8, and International Woodworkers
of America AFL-CIO (Region 5) (Pioneer Lumber Corporation), 140 NLRB 602.
In summary, the evidence herein clearly preponderates in favor of finding that the
Local and International Unions were accountable for the several instances of restraint
and coercion occurring during the course of the strike. These instances entailed
restraint and coercion of company employees in their rights under the Act to refrain
from participating in the concerted activity involved in the strike.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent labor organizations set forth in section III, above,.
and there found to constitute unfair labor practices defined in Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employer set forth 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 commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings herein that the Respondent labor organizations have engaged
in unfair labor practices defined in the Act it will be recommended that they be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which ap-
pears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Metal Products Company (Tennessee Division) is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondents herein are labor organizations as defined in Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees of American Metal Company (Tennessee
Division) in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents
have engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8 (b) (I) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION No. 1198, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
AND TO EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY (TENNESSEE
DIVISION)
Pursuant to the Decision of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , you are hereby notified that:
WE WILL NOT in any way obstruct free access to the company property on the
part of employees , supervisory or clerical employees , or other persons.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT damage , block, or turn away vehicles seeking to enter the com-
pany plant nor will we throw stones or other objects upon or against them or
persons riding in or on them nor against persons or vehicles inside the plant
gate.
WE WILL NOT in any way restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL UNION No. 1198,
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 , 746 Fed-
eral Office Building, 167 North Main Street , Memphis, Tennessee , Telephone No.
534-3161 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers
Union of America , Local 341, AFL-CIO and Donald W. Holton.
Case No. 19-CB-894. May 5, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 16, 1963, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and recommending
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the Trial
Examiner's attached Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief,
and the Respondent filed a brief in reply thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
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 Ex-
aminer's Decision and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
i Without adopting the Trial Examiner 's lengthy exposition of the law applicable to this
case, we agree with his findings that there was a factual failure of proof In support of
the alleged violations of the Act.
146 NLRB No. 159.