United Electrical, Radio and Manchine Wkrs.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 284 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of
America (U.E.), and its Local 218 and Bryant
Grinder Corporation . Case 1-C B- 145 7
August 29, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On May 14, 1969, Trial Examiner Jerry B Stone,
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondents tiled exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, and a supporting statement,
and the Charging Party filed a brief in support of
the Trial Examiner's Decision and in response to
Respondents' exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondents, United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America (U E ),
and its Local 218, Springfield, Vermont, their
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B STONE, Trial Examiner This proceeding, under
Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on March 5
and 13, 1969, at Springfield, Vermont
The charge was filed on December 4, 1968 The
complaint in this matter was issued on January 6, 1969
The issues in this case concern whether Respondents
have restrained and coerced Bryant Grinder Corporation
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the
Act Thus the issue is whether Respondents have violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding The hearing in this matter was initially
set for January 29, 1969 On January 21, 1969, the
hearing was postponed to February 19, 1969 In the
meantime, it appears that on January 7, 1969, the
Governor of Vermont appointed a mediator, Albert Cree,
with reference to a labor dispute between the Charging
Party and the Respondents. On February 14, 1969, at the
request of Cree, the hearing was again postponed from
February 19, 1969, to March 5, 1969
On March 5, 1969, after the hearing had been opened,
appearances made, and formal exhibits received,
Respondents' counsel made motion for continuance of the
hearing Counsel related and argued to the effect that
Mediator Cree desired such continuance, that Cree from
January 7 to date had only been available for a limited
number of times and was now available for mediation of
the labor dispute. It further appeared that the Charging
Party had secured a State court injunction concerning the
conduct complained of in this proceeding and that there
was pending litigation concerning contempt questions in
the State proceeding as well as various other legal
questions thereto. Counsel argued in effect the relevance
of fifth amendment rights as to his witnesses because of
the several proceedings and the fact that he might not use
such witnesses in this proceeding for such reason Counsel
also argued the possibility that certain ULP charges by
the Respondents might be meritorious and might
ultimately be properly consolidated with the instant
proceeding Counsel urged a 3-week postponement The
Trial Examiner denied the motion for continuance on such
basis However, the Trial Examiner, after having the
parties ascertain Cree's exact availability, indicated that
he would continue the hearing in accomodation with the
related matter until March 7, 1969, would take evidence
on that date, and if necessary continue the case into the
next week The Trial Examiner, upon a plea of personal
convenience by Respondents' counsel, then modified his
intended ruling and granted a recess in the hearing until
March 13, 1969 It was made clear to all parties that the
Trial Examiner intended to convene the hearing on March
13, 1969, and that the hearing would start and continue
unto the finish from that point
On March 13, 1969, the hearing reconvened. The
General Counsel moved that the Trial Examiner approve
an informal unilateral type settlement agreement as
disposition of the case The Respondents' counsel
concurred and argued in support of said motion, and
Charging Party's counsel opposed said motion. The
Board's normal policy for settlement of cases at the stage
of litigation involved is to require a formal settlement '
The General Counsel's motion for approval of the
settlement agreement was denied.
Respondent's counsel again made motions for
continuance. In major effect Respondents' counsel
reiterated the same grounds for continuance as before It
appears that in the meantime a proceeding on contempt of
the State court injunction had commenced on March 12,
1969, that plaintiffs had concluded their case, that
Respondents had been represented by other counsel, and
that Respondents were to put their defense on at this time
in that proceeding. Respondents' counsel argued the
'A type which completely eliminates the possibility of litigation on the
issues involved
178 NLRB No. 49
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WKRS. 285
conflicting timing of the proceedings Respondents'
counsel was requested to advise as to when the State
proceeding would conclude. Respondents' counsel
indicated that he could not say, that in any event that he
might have to file a mandamus action, and that he would
not be in this proceeding on the next day because he was
going to be at a mediation session headed by Cree.
Respondents' counsel's motion was denied. Respondents'
counsel was advised that the hearing would proceed, and
that at the end of the General Counsel's case
consideration would be given to any witness problem that
might exist Respondents' counsel then stated that he was
withdrawing from this proceeding because he was going to
represent the Respondents in the State court case.
Respondents' counsel was told in effect that permission
would not be granted to him to withdraw from this
proceeding, that the hearing would continue
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondents' counsel
Donner and Representative Harley thereupon left the
hearing and remained absent during the rest of the
hearing. The hearing continued to its conclusion. Brief
filing date was set for April 2, 1969, and the General
Counsel was requested to so advise Respondents' counsel
On March 25, 1969, Respondents' counsel requested and
secured an extension of time until April 14, 1969, for the
filing of briefs Later the General Counsel and Charging
Party requested and received an additional extension of
time to file briefs. Briefs were filed by the General
Counsel and the Charging Party and have been
considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of witnesses, I hereby make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT'
I THE BUSINESS Of THE EMPLOYER
Bryant Grinder Corporation is and has been at all
times material herein a corporation duly organized under
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Vermont.
'Although Respondents were not granted permission to withdraw from
the proceedings , they did physically do so Respondents ' counsel did obtain
an extension of time for the filing of briefs but did not file a brief The
facts as to Respondents ' argument for a continuance of the hearing are in
the record and referred to herein The rulings as made at the hearing were
of such a nature that had Respondents complied therewith , the hearing
would have proceeded as any other similar hearing I note with respect to
somewhat similar contentions that court and Board cases support the
rulings made at the hearing See United States v Marcia Lyon and Anton
Lysczvk. 397 F 2d 505, cert denied 393 U S 846 See also Allen H Kraft,
d/b/a Resionaire Bedding Company , 164 NLRB No 102 , and cases cited
therein In addition it may be noted that the Charging Party in its brief
has cited many cases having similar holdings I do not find it necessary, in
view of the foregoing, to cite such cases
'The General Counsel's complaint in this matter was issued on January
6, 1969 Respondent United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of
America ( U E ), filed an answer thereto on February 13, 1969 Respondent
Local 218 did not file an answer to said complaint Pursuant to National
Labor . Relations Board ' s Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended,
Section 102 20, 1 hereby deem the allegations of the complaint to be
admitted to be true and so found with respect to Respondent Local 218
The facts set forth herein with respect to the issues pertaining to
Respondent United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America
(U E ) are based upon a composite of the pleadings and admissions
therein, and the credited testimony of Lester, Ellis, Clough, Clark, Cohen,
Lynch, Shulleberg , Strong, and Davis Further , even if Respondent Local
218 were deemed to have answered in the same manner as Respondent
UE, the facts herein clearly support a finding of violative conduct as
alleged
Said corporation is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of machine tools, internal grinders, and
related products at its plant in Springfield, Vermont. Said
corporation annually purchases and receives at its
Springfield plant materials valued in excess of $50,000
from points outside the State of Vermont, and annually
sells and ships from its Springfield plant products valued
in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of
Vermont. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded and
found that Bryant Grinder Corporation is and has been
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondents United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America (U.E.) and its Local 218 are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act. It is so concluded and found
III UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction'
Bryant Grinder Corporation is located at 257 Clinton
Street, Springfield, Vermont The Bryant plant property
extends approximately 650 feet alongside Clinton Street.
The property is fenced and has four gates for entry upon
Bryant property from Clinton Street Gates numbered 1,
2, and 4 are 24-feet wide and each has a swinginggate-
10-feet wide, and a sliding gate-14-feet wide. The issues
in this case concern activities at gates 1 and 2.
As of November 4, 1968, Bryant Grinder Corporation
employed 650 employees Approximately 350 of their
employees comprised a bargaining unit which since June
1968 has been represented by Local 218 of the United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
(U.E.).
On November 4, 1968, at the end of the second shift,
Local 218 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America (U.E.) called a strike among the
employees in the bargaining unit at Bryant Grinder
Corporation.
On November 4, 1968, at the end of the second shift
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (U E.) and its Local 218 established a picket line
at the gates of Bryant's Springfield plant.
B. Respondents' Responsibility
The facts regarding the conduct complained of as being
violative are set out in section C which follows in this
Decision. By virtue of the pleadings, Respondent United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
(U.E.) places in issue the question of its responsibility for
the acts complained of, as well as the question of proof of
illegal acts.
The facts5 clearly establish that a strike was called
among the employees of the bargaining unit represented
by Local 218 at Bryant Grinder Corporation and the
Respondents established a picket line at the Bryant
Grinder Corporation at the end of the second shift on
November 4, 1968 The facts also clearly establish that at
the commencement of the strike and picket line activity
that James M. Kane, Edward Solomon, Sabin Morris,
and Emmett Gavin were active in the direction of the
'The facts are based upon the pleadings , admitted and undenied , and the
credited testimony of Lester
'The facts are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
picket line activities The facts further reveal that James
M. Kane was Local 218's business agent, that Edward
Solomon was Local 218's president, that Sabin Morris
was Local 218's secretary,' and that Emmett Gavin was
the chief steward for Local 218.
The facts further reveal that on various occasions
individuals holding various positions with the Respondents
engaged in misconduct at the picket line and away from
the picket line, or were present when such conduct
occurred Thus, among these individuals, Peter Palmer
was identified as an International organizer, Michael
Anderson as a Local 218 negotiating committee member,
K Whittemore as a Local 218 steward, Mr Hueec as a
Local 218 steward, Fred Mellish as a Local 218
negotiating committee member, Leander Patria as a Local
218 steward, and a William Jackman as a picket.
The facts reveal, as set out in detail in section C, that
at the commencement of picketing, controlled and
directed by Kane, Solomon, Morris, and Gavin, on
November 5, 1968, there was mass picketing, 85 pickets in
number, that Manager Lester's car was beaten by fists,
was rocked (side to side), that picket signs were held in
front of Lester's windshield to block his view and to
hinder his entrance through the gate upon plant property,
and that such was done in the presence of picketing
employees. Thereafter, on other occasions similar
picketing conduct occurred. Considering the facts relating
to establishment and control of the picket line, the union
positions held by Kane, Solomon, Morris, and Gavin, I
conclude and find that Kane, Solomon, Morris, and Gavin
were agents at all times relevant herein for the
Respondents. Considering the pattern of conduct
established on November 5, 1968, by the foregoing agents
of the Respondents and the similarity thereto and allied
nature thereof of the conduct engaged in by Palmer,
Solomon, Kane, Anderson, Whittemore, Tillson, Hussey,
Mellish, Clark, Patria, and Jackman after November 5
and during the continuation of picketing activities, I
conclude and find that the foregoing and other unknown
pickets, on the occasions of their conduct set forth later
herein in section C, were agents for the Respondents at
the time of such conduct '
C. The "Incidents " of Violative Conduct
I Lester, manager of manufacturing for Bryant,
credibly testified to the effect that on the morning of
November 5, 1968, he tried to enter the plant premises by
driving his car through the entrance at gate I Lester
credibly testified to the effect that on this occasion there
Lester, Ellis, Clough, Clark, Cohen, Lynch, Shufleberg , Strong, and Davis,
and a fair inference therefrom , and upon facts established by the pleadings
` it is noted that in the pleadings Solomon was alleged to be Local 218's
vice president It is also noted that the transcribed record refers to Sabin
Morse as Local 218's secretary, that the complaint refers to a K
Whittemore and the transcribed record to Whittemore, and that the
complaint refers to a Mr Hussey and the transcribed record to a Hucce
in my opinion the doctrine of idem sonans applies For purpose of
convenience I shall use the names set forth in the pleadings With respect
to the name Hueec used in the transcript and contended by the Charging
Party to be with reference to "Hussey ," I do not think the doctrine of
idem sonans applies In any event , whether or not such reference was to
Hussey is immaterial The pleading refers to specific as well as unknown
agents Additionally, there is some reference in briefs to minor misspelling
of names of witnesses in the transcript It is clear that the references in the
complaint, brief, and transcript are to the same persons
'See International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union (Sunset
Line and Twine Company), 79 NLRB 1487
were approximately 85 pickets , that pickets carried signs
indicating that U.E Local 218 was on strike against the
Bryant Corporation , that the pickets were massed in front
of the entrance at gate 1, that pickets beat on his car with
their fists, that pickets rocked his car (from side to side or
front to rear), that pickets held signs in front of his
windshield blocking his view, and that pickets directed
loud and abusive language toward him. Lester credibly
identified officials of U.E. Local 218 as being present and
directing the picketing activities. He thus identified Local
Business Agent James M. Kane, Local President Edward
Solomon , Local Secretary Sabin Morris , and Local Chief
Steward Gavin as being present and directing such
activity
As previously indicated, I have found that Kane,
Solomon, Morris, and Gavin are agents of the
Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and I conclude
and find that the picketing conduct described above is
conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is also
clear that such conduct constitutes conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.' I so conclude and find.
2 David A Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect
that he worked for Bryant Grinder Corporation as a
photographer and advertising assistant , and that during
the strike commencing on November 5, 1968, he was
assigned the task of photographing picket line activities.
Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect that on the
morning of November 5, 1968, he saw a mass of pickets,
numbering around 40, at gate 2. Shufleberg further
credibly testified to the effect that on such occasion Chief
Steward Gavin told him that if there were any trouble
that he (Shufleberg) had better point the camera the other
way
As previously indicated, I have found that Gavin was
an agent for the Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude
and find that the picketing conduct described above is
conduct for which the Respondents are liable. It is clear
that such conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the
Act I so conclude and find.
3 Sam Cohen credibly testified to the effect that he
was a company chauffeur Cohen credibly testified that
after the strike commenced on November 4, 1968, when
he had occasions to enter the plant premises, he
encountered difficulties, that pickets blocked his way, and
that he could only move his car and progress "foot by
foot."
Cohen credibly testified to the effect that during the
first 2 weeks of the strike (commencing on November 4,
1968) International Union Organizer Peter Palmer had
been calling him names, that during the second week of
the strike on one occasion Palmer left the gate, pointed
his finger at Cohen, and stated, "We are going to get
you"
As previously indicated, I have found that Palmer,
other union officials, and pickets are agents for the
Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the
picketing conduct described above is conduct for which
the Respondents are liable. It is clear that the described
conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so
conclude and find
4 Lester credibly testified to the effect that on
November 21, 1968, at the end of the second shift, he was
driving a company station wagon Lester credibly testified
'See International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Locals S-426
and S-429, 166 NLRB 507, enfd 243 F 2d 745 (C A 5, 1957), concerning
conduct directed to nonemployees but in presence of employees (pickets,
etc ) as being coercive conduct
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WKRS. 287
to the effect that he was about to deliver an order to a
customer On this occasion as he approached the Bryant
Grinder Corporation plant gate for the purpose of leaving
the premises, he was encountered by pickets What
occurred is revealed by the following excerpts from
Lester's testimony
A At the end of the shift on that date I was driving
a company beach wagon with a very urgent shipment to
satisfy an important customer's demand to get a
machine back into production and I was driving
through gate two and I was stopped by a group of
pickets lead by Mr Anderson and Mr. Mellish.
Q Could you tell us what happened?
A. They stopped my car by massing in front of it
and looked through the windows to see what was inside.
When they saw I had a machine slide in the back of the
beach wagon they started to rock the car and Mr
Mellish tried to open the door on the driver's side and
when he saw it was locked he tried to break the window
with his fist and Mr Anderson was pounding on the
windshield and both men said they were going to get
me and they would break my neck and other similar
language
A I moved very slowly through the picket line by
putting one foot on the brake and the other on the
accelerator so that I could move at the slowest pace
possible to force my way through the pickets before
they could succeed in breaking a window and getting at
me and I managed to get through the pickets in this
manner and they then followed me to the trucking
terminal and --
Lester credibly testified to the effect that the pickets
numbered about 20, and that Putnam and Jewell were the
pickets who followed him in a car away from the plant
As previously indicated, I have found that the pickets
who engaged in conduct similar to the November 5, 1968,
conduct of Kane and other union officials are agents of
Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and find that the
picketing and car following conduct described above is
conduct for which the Respondents are liable It is clear
that the described conduct is violative of Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find
5 David A. Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect
that about 3 weeks after November 4, 1968, Chief
Steward Gavin spoke to him at gate 2, and Gavin told
Shufleberg that if he got any pictures with his camera he
had better get out of there fast
As previously indicated, I have found that Chief
Steward Gavin is an agent for the Respondents.
Accordingly, I conclude and find that the Respondents are
liable for the above-described conduct. It is clear that the
described conduct is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act I so conclude and find
6 Francis Lynch testified to the effect that he worked
as a painter at Bryant Grinder Corporation, that on
November 26, 1968, at 7 20 a.m., he was stopped at the
picket line by a Mr Hussey, that there were five or six
pickets, that Hussey questioned him about the machines
he (Lynch) had been working on, that Hussey became
angry at his reply, and that Hussey told him, "We will get
you, we know what's going on in there."
Lynch credibly testified to the effect that on the evening
of November 26, 1968, there were five or six pickets at
the gate when he attempted to leave the plant in his car.
Lynch credibly testified to the effect that the pickets
"pounded" on his car, that the pickets cracked his
"windshield," that after going up the street, he turned
around and drove by to see if he could identify the
pickets, that he did so and saw Hussey near the gate, that
the pickets threw cans or sticks at his car, and that he
later examined his car and in addition to the windshield
damage he observed dents on his car
As previously indicated, I have found that pickets who
engaged in conduct similar to the November 5, 1968,
conduct of Kane and other union officials to be agents of
the Respondents Accordingly, I conclude and find the
Respondents are liable for the above-described pickets'
conduct. Such described conduct is clearly violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find
7. David A. Shufleberg credibly testified to the effect
that on December 4, 1968, near a plant gate, a picket
named Ira Clark spoke to him, that Clark asked if
Shufleberg would be taking the camera and going home,
that he told Clark no that he was not and asked, "Why9",
and that Clark said that he (Shufleberg) would be missing
the best action of all Shufleberg asked in effect what
"action" Clark was speaking about. Clark replied in effect
that the best action would be when Shufleberg was leaving
the gate and going home
As previously indicated, I have found that pickets who
engaged in conduct similar to the conduct of Kane and
other union officials, on November 5, 1968, and
thereafter, are agents of the Respondents Accordingly, I
conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for the
above-described conduct of picket Clark Such described
conduct is clearly violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act I so conclude and find.
8 Sidney Strong credibly testified to the effect that he
was an employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, and that
on December 5, 1968, when he attempted to leave the
parking lot in his car through the gate, he encountered
trouble with the pickets. Strong credibly testified that his
car was following the car in front closely, that Union
Steward Whittemore stepped between the cars and angrily
pounded upon the hood of Strong's car, and that
Whittemore pounded with his fists the side windows of
Strong's car as he attempted to leave
As previously indicated, I have found that pickets who
engaged in conduct similar to the November 5, 1968, and
thereafter conduct of Kane and other union officials are
agents for the Respondents. Accordingly, I conclude and
find that the Respondents are liable for the conduct of
Whittemore described above. Such described conduct is
clearly coercive and violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the
Act. I so conclude and find.
9. Edmund V. Davis credibly testified that he was an
employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, that on
December 23, 1968, he encountered problems with pickets
when he attempted to pass through the gate on return to
work from the strike, that there were 30 to 40 pickets
present at gate 2, that one picket opened his (Davis') car
door and took a swing at him, that another picket, named
Balsario, opened the door on the passenger's side of the
car and jumped into the car, and that Balsario shook his
fist at him (Davis) and said "We are going to get you for
this "
Davis credibly testified to the effect that during this
incident pickets were pounding on his car and that ice and
snow were being thrown at his car by the pickets Davis
credibly testified to the effect that eventually he was able
to inch his car through the gate Davis credibly testified to
the effect that he saw Union Chief Steward Gavin on the
picket line on this occasion.
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As previously indicated , I have found that pickets who
engage in similar conduct to that engaged in on November
5 by or in the presence of Kane and other union officials,
or thereafter , are agents of the Respondents . Accordingly,
I conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for the
conduct of the pickets described above It is clear that
such conduct is coercive and violative of Section
8(b)(l)(A) of the Act It is so concluded and found
10. Clough credibly testified to the effect that he was an
employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, and that he
encountered trouble with pickets when he attempted to
return to work in his car through gate 1 on December 23,
1968. Clough credibly testified to the effect that there
were a large number of pickets and that they blocked the
gate in such a way that he could not enter, and that four
police officers were unable to clear the way for him to
enter the gate As a consequence Clough was unable to
report to work on that date . As Clough attempted to drive
through the gate, he encountered pickets as aforesaid
With the pickets was Local 218' s president , Edward
Solomon. Solomon told Clough to go home while he was
able to do so.
As previously indicated , I have found that Solomon and
the pickets , engaged in such activity as described herein,
were agents for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it
clear and conclude and find that the picketing conduct
described above is conduct for which the Respondents are
liable. It is also clear that such conduct constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so
conclude and find.
11. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that he was an
employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation, and that he
remained out during the strike from November 4 to
December 24, 1968. Ellis credibly testified to the effect
that he returned to work on December 24, 1968, and that
at the end of his work shift when he left the plant, he
encountered trouble with the pickets Ellis credibly
testified to the effect that as he drove his car out of the
gate, a number of pickets stopped the car and beat on his
car. He then drove out of the gate, stopped his car, and
found when he checked for damage that his fender had
been damaged and his license plate was bent . While Ellis
had been going through the gate, the pickets directed a lot
of "language" toward him When Ellis stopped his car to
check his damage , three or four of the pickets came up to
his car and resumed beating upon his car. As he was
getting back into his car from checking the damage, one
of the pickets pushed Ellis and Ellis received a cut on his
head from hitting the door frame . Ellis credibly testified
to the effect that one of the pickets present was a man he
knew as a Mr. Hueec.
As previously indicated, I have found that pickets
engaged in the pattern of conduct as described above were
agents for the Respondents . Accordingly , I find it clear
and conclude and find that the picketing conduct
described above is conduct for which the Respondents are
liable. It is also clear that such conduct constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. I so
conclude and find.
12. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that he
encountered trouble with pickets when he tried to return
to work on December 26, 1968. Ellis credibly testified to
the effect that on the morning of December 26, 1968,
while trying to enter plant premises through a gate, he
encountered Local 218's Business Agent Kane and
between 15 and 20 pickets. Kane stood immediately in
front of Ellis' car , blocking its way. Ellis had to move his
car slowly to avoid hitting Kane During this time pickets
were beating upon Ellis' car . Finally Kane stepped out of
the way of Ellis' car and threw some substance from a
coffee cup on the windshield of Ellis' car Ellis credibly
testified to the effect that it was hard to remove the
substance from the windshield.
As previously indicated , I have found that Kane and
the pickets engaged in such activity as described herein
were agents for the Respondents . Accordingly, I find it
clear and conclude and find that the picketing conduct
described above is conduct for which the Respondents are
liable. It is also clear that such conduct constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act I so
conclude and find
13. Clark credibly testified to the effect that he was an
employee of Bryant Grinder Corporation. Clark also
credibly testified to the effect that he encountered some
trouble with pickets on December 26, 1968, when he
returned to work after a leave of absence due to military
service. On this occasion there were 20 to 25 pickets
moving around in front of his car at the gate The pickets
were moved out of his way by police who were there, and
he was able to enter the plant premises through the gate.
As previously indicated , I have found that pickets
engaged in the pattern of conduct described were agents
for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and
conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for such
conduct It is also clear that such conduct constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. I so
conclude and find
14. Davis credibly testified to the effect that he
encountered difficulty with a man named Jackman, whom
he knew as a union picket, on the way to work on the
morning of December 26, 1968 On this occasion Davis
left his home around 6 30 a.m in his car and drove to the
home of a fellow employee named Grover Davis observed
that his car was followed by two other cars driven by
Bryant Grinder Corporation employees Jackman and
Summers. Davis knew that Jackman had engaged in
picketing activities on the union picket line at the Bryant
plant site . Davis drove into Grover's driveway. Jackman
drove up in his car and stopped at the driveway entrance,
in effect blocking the driveway. Grover' s home is located
between 2-1/2 and 3 miles from Bryant Grinder
Corporation premises. Grover called the police and when
the police arrived , Summers drove his car to a place near
Jackman ' s car. Summers and Jackman then engaged in
activity designed to appear as if Jackman were having
difficulty in starting his car The hoods of Jackman's and
Summers' cars were opened , cables connected, Jackman's
car was started and left the driveway Davis was then able
to drive from the driveway to go to work.
For reasons previously indicated, I have concluded and
found that pickets engaged in a pattern of conduct similar
to conduct engaged in by Kane and other agents were
agents of Respondents . The conduct described herein is
similar in nature to the harassment committed by such
agents on the picket line and is an extension of such
threats as made on the picket line Accordingly, I
conclude and find that Jackman and Summers on this
occasion were acting as agents for the Respondents.
Accordingly, the Respondents are liable for the described
conduct. Considering the totality of all the events, the
conduct constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act. It is so concluded and found.
15. Clough credibly testified to the effect that he rode
to work with employee Strong on December 30, 1968.
Clough credibly testified to the effect that he and Strong
encountered trouble with the pickets as a car in which he
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WKRS. 289
was riding tried to enter plant premises through the gate
On this occasion there were 30 to 40 pickets present and
the car was showered with blocks of ice and snow.
As previously indicated, I have found that pickets
engaged in the pattern of conduct described were agents
for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and
conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for such
conduct It is also clear that such conduct constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so
conclude and find
16 Clark credibly testified to the effect that he
encountered trouble with pickets when he attempted to
drive through a gate into the plant premises on the
morning of December 30, 1968. On this occasion the
police tried to move the pickets out of the way so that
Clark could drive through the gate. The pickets threw ice
chunks at Clark's car, banged upon and kicked the side of
Clark's car, and called Clark various names Later Clark
checked his car for damage and found that some of the
paint had been chipped off.
As previously indicated, I have found that pickets
engaged in the pattern of conduct described were agents
for the Respondents Accordingly, I find it clear and
conclude and find that the Respondents are liable for such
conduct It is also clear that such conduct constitutes
conduct violative of Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act I so
conclude and find
17 Clough credibly testified to the effect that he
encountered trouble with pickets when he attempted to
enter plant premises through gate I on the morning of
December 31, 1968 On this occasion there were 20 to 40
pickets in front of gate 1. As Clough approached gate I,
some of the pickets yelled, "Here comes another scab,
let's get him " Clough drove by gate I to the next gate,
saw 20 to 40 more pickets, left, and went to town Clough
returned to work by taxi and entered the gate in front of
the office without incident
For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude
and find that the pickets on this occasion were acting as
agents for the Respondents, and that the Respondents are
liable for the described conduct The described conduct
clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act. I so conclude and find
18. Ellis and Strong credibly testified to the effect that
they and two other employees were riding in a car
together when they encountered trouble with pickets on
the morning of December 31, 1968, at one of the plant
gates. On this occasion there were 25 to 30 pickets in the
gate area Union Steward Patria was with the pickets, and
Patria picked up a piece of ice and banged on one of the
car windows. Patria threw a piece of ice at the car window
which broke the window Ellis was cut and injured by the
breaking of the window glass On this occasion the
driver's side window and front window of the car were
broken There was also damage to the "hood of the roof
of the car.
For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude
and find that Patria and the other pickets on this occasion
were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the
Respondents are liable for the described conduct The
described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find.
19. Clark credibly testified to the effect that he
encountered trouble with the pickets when he attempted to
drive through a gate onto plant premises on the morning
of December 31, 1968. On this occasion there were 25 to
30 pickets in the gate area One of the pickets was Local
218's Chief Steward Gavin On this occasion pickets threw
ice chunks at Clark's car and banged upon and kicked the
car Pickets also swore at Clark and called him names.
Clark was able to get his car through the picket line and
onto plant premises. He later checked his car for damages
and found that his windshield was cracked, that the door
on the driver's side was chipped (paint) and banged, the
door on the passenger side was dented, and the lower
panel of the right rear fender had two holes punched in it.
For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude
and find that Gavin and the other pickets on this occasion
were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the
Respondents are liable for the described conduct. The
described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find
20 Clough credibly testified to the effect that he
encountered trouble with pickets at gate 2 on the morning
of January 2, 1969 On this occasion there were 20 to 40
pickets in the gate area One of the pickets was Local
218's Chief Steward Gavin On this occasion one of the
pickets kept blocking Clough's way by getting in front of
Clough's car The police, who were present, tried to open
a way for Clough's car to proceed through the gate.
Clough stopped to allow the police to clear the way.
About this time Clough saw Gavin peer into his car from
the passenger's side window. About this time one of the
pickets smashed the windshield of Clough's car on the
passenger side.
For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude
and find that Gavin and the other pickets on this occasion
were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the
Respondents are liable for the described conduct. The
described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act I so conclude and find
21 Davis credibly testified to the effect that he
encountered trouble with pickets when he drove his car,
accompanied by a Mr. Shaw, through the gate onto plant
premises on the morning of January 2, 1969 On this
occasion there were 30 to 40 pickets in the gate area.
Local 218's Business Agent Kane was one of the pickets.
Kane, on this occasion, stood on the left side of Davis' car
with his hand on the front fender. On this occasion a
picket threw a large chunk of ice which struck the
windshield of Davis' car and smashed it Pickets also
pounded on the windows and the body of the car Davis
checked his car later for damage and discovered scratches,
a smashed taillight, and a twisted license plate in addition
to the broken windshield.
For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude
and find that Kane and the other pickets on this occasion
were acting as agents for the Respondents, and that the
Respondents are liable for the described conduct. The
described conduct clearly constitutes conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so conclude and find
22. Ellis credibly testified to the effect that he
encounted trouble with pickets on the morning of January
2, 1969, as he entered a plant gate with his car On this
occasion there were 25 to 30 pickets in the gate area On
this occasion as he went through the picket line, a picket
broke the radio aerial off his car.
For the same reasons as indicated before, I conclude
and find that the pickets on this occasion were acting as
agents for the Respondents, and that Respondents are
liable for the described conduct The described conduct
clearly constitutes conduct violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A)
of the Act I so conclude and find.
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D Summary
The conduct described above and the facts deemed to
be admitted with respect to UE Local 218 overwhelmingly
reveal that the General Counsel has established his
complaint allegations, and it is therefore concluded and
found that (a) Respondents, by their agents, on various
dates in November and December 1968, and in January
1969, threatened to inflict and did inflict bodily injury to,
and damage to the property of, certain of Bryant's
employees and to Bryant's supervisors in the presence of
Bryant Grinder Corporation employees at Bryant Grinder
Corporation's Springfield, Vermont, plant, (b)
Respondents, by their agents, on various dates during the
months of November and December 1968, and in January
1969, blocked the ingress and egress of employees to
Bryant Grinder Corporation's Springfield, Vermont, plant,
and (c) Respondents, by their agents, on December 26,
1968, followed automobiles of Bryant Grinder
Corporation employees and did obstruct and block the
egress of said employees and hindered their freedom of
movement
The totality of the conduct as described above
completely persuades that the object of such conduct was
to prevent Bryant Grinder Corporation employees from
crossing the picket line established at the plant premises
and to compel such employees to observe said picket line
By such conduct as described above the Respondents
have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of
the Act
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Employer's
operations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices, it shall
be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed, the commision by the Respondents of similar
and other unfair labor practices may be anticipated It
shall therefore be recommended that the Respondents
cease and desist from restraining or coercing in any
manner employees in their rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Bryant Grinder Corporation is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
2 United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (U.E ), and its Local 218 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 The foregoing labor organizations have jointly and
severally violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act through
the commission of acts of restraint and coercion which
interfered with the exercise of rights of employees
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, it is
recommended that the Respondents, their officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Restraining or coercing the employees of Bryant
Grinder Corporation by engaging in mass picketing at
points of ingress to and egress from the plant premises of
Bryant Grinder Corporation, by such mass picketing or
otherwise barring or hindering ingress to or egress from
such plant premises, by injuring or threatening injury to
employees, supervisors, or other persons entering or
leaving said premises, by damaging or threatening to
damage automobiles or other property of employees,
supervisors, or other persons entering or leaving said
premises, by throwing rocks, ice, or other objects or
substances at persons or vehicles entering or leaving said
premises, or by following, harassing, or otherwise
threatening employees at the plant premises or away from
the plant premises in order to discourage their right to
cross a picket line
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at their offices and meeting halls copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 1, after being duly signed by their representatives,
shall be posted by the Respondents immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Sign, as aforesaid, and mail sufficient copies of the
said attached notice to the Regional Director for Region
I, for posting, the Charging Party (Bryant Grinder
Corporation) being willing, at places where notices to
employees or members, as the case may be, are
customarily posted Such copies of the notice shall be
furnished the Respondents by the said Regional Director
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.10
'In the event that 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 In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
1'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE W KRS 291
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MFMBLRS Of UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS of AMERICA (U E.), AND ITS
LOCAL 218 AND TO AIL EMPLOYEES OF BRYANT
GRINDER CORPORATION
Pursuant to the Recommended Order 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, we hereby notify you that
WE WII L NOT restrain and coerce the employees of
Bryant Grinder Corporation by engaging in mass
picketing at points of ingress to and egress from the
plant premises of Bryant Grinder Corporation, by such
mass picketing or otherwise barring or hindering ingress
to or egress from such plant premises, by injuring or
threatening injury to employees, supervisors, or other
persons entering or leaving said premises, by damaging
or threatening to damage automobiles or other property
of employees, supervisors, or other persons entering or
leaving said premises, by throwing rocks, ice, or other
objects or substances at persons or vehicles entering or
leaving said premises, or by following, harassing, or
otherwise threatening employees at the plant premises
or away from the plant premises in order to discourage
their right to cross a picket line.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act
Dated By
UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA
(U E), AND ITS LOCAL
218
(Labor Organization)
(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
If members have any question concerning this notice or
complaince with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 20th Floor,
John F Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge and New
Sudbury Streets, Boston, Massachusetts 02203, Telephone
617-223-3300